Senate
29 November 1951

20th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 20th Parliament
  3. 1951

The President (Senator the Hon. ^Edward Mattner) took the chair at J.1 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2983

QUESTION

BRO ADC AST ING

Senator MORROW:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General

Ascertain whether the musicians who per-form in the imported radio programme known as “Geraldo and his Music”, which is broadcast weekly by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, receive for the broadcast a fee equal to the award rate which would be paid to Australian musicians if they were given the opportunity to broadcast similar music? Will the Minister also ascertain just how much the Australian Broadcasting Commission pays for the programme to which I have referred? Will he try to find out whether responsible officers of the Australian Broadcasting Commission Informed officials of a certain entertainment trade union that the only reason that the Australian Broadcasting Commission uses imported radio programmes is that they are very much cheaper than live “ programmes by Australian artists? If this be true, will the Government immediately ensure that sufficient funds are allocated to the Australian Broadcasting Commission to enable it to foster professional local talent, and to ensure that listeners will be able to hear Australian artists on Australian radio programmes ?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– I shall obtain from the Postmaster-General the infornation for which the honorable senator las asked.

page 2983

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT LOANS AND FINANCE

Senator GUY:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister representing the Treasurer say whether or not the recent Commonwealth loan was a success ?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I am sorry to say that I can give no information in addition to that contained in a recent press statement issued by the Treasurer. That statement is as follows : -

It is now clear that the Fourteenth Security Loan will be fully subscribed.

A week or more must elapse before the final figures can be announced, as subscriptions and conversions from outlying centres will still be coming in during that time. Thu figures available at the close of business to-day, however, indicate that the loan has been a success.

Final details will bc released for publication as soon as they are available.

I desire to thank those who assisted in this successful loan operation. It is particularly gratifying to find that a number of the big financial institutions, and particularly the life assurance societies, have regarded the loan as a first-class investment.

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– When the final figures are available, will the Minister tell honorable senators how many quotas throughout the States were not filled ?

Senator SPOONER:

– No doubt the Treasurer will do what is usually done in these circumstances. If it has been the practice in the past to publish details of the extent to which loan quotas have been filled, no doubt he will do so on this occasion. It is particularly gratifying to the Government that the loan has been a success. One could reasonably expect the Opposition to share that sentiment. I take a very dim view of the fact - and I have said so on other occasions - that questions asked by certain Opposition senators indicate their desire that an Australian loan should be a failure rather than a success.

Senator Ashley:

– I rise to order. I take exception to the Minister’s statement that the Opposition desires that an Australian loan should be a failure rather than a success. I sought information about the number of loan quotas that were unfilled in order to ascertain whether the people had supported the loan, as the Government had claimed.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! What is the point of order? - Senator Ashley. - I am endeavouring to explain, Mr. President, the purpose of my question. When you hear my explanation you will agree, I am sure, that I am in order. Earlier this week I asked a similar question about the loan because I had been informed that quotas allotted to States, cities and towns had been more than 50 per cent, undersubscribed and that the insurance companies and other financial institutions had to make up the balance. If that statement is correct, the loan, instead of having been subscribed by the people, and thus assisting to curb inflation, has made little contribution towards the solution of the problem of inflation.

The PRESIDENT:

– I may be under a misapprehension, but I understood that Senator Ashley rose to order because he had taken exception to certain remarks that had been made by the Minister inreply to his question. It is not permissible for an honorable senator, having received a reply to a question, to proceed to discuss that reply. If Senator Ashley has taken exception to remarks made by the Minister he will be in order in proceeding, but he will not be permitted’ to debate the answer given by the Minister to his question.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I was merely seeking to explain my point of order, Mr. President. I now ask if the recent Commonwealth loan was the success claimed by the Minister representing the Treasurer, will he say why a blanket of silence has been thrown over the operations of those associated with the raising of the loan, so that they have been prevented from supplying the press a.nd members of the Parliament with information ?

Senator SPOONER:

– Senator Ashley has taken umbrage because I criticized him for wishing that the loan had failed.

Senator Ashley:

– I rise to a point of order. I never wished the loan to fail, and I object to the Minister’s statement. I made a greater contribution to the loan than the Minister did, and I challenge him to prove otherwise.

The PRESIDENT:

– I- ask honorable senators to remain calm. I know that we have had a trying time, and there is still much work ahead of us. It may be that some things have been said that were misunderstood, but I am sure that honorable senators will agree with me that, during these last hours of the sessional period, we should not be too thin-skinned. I appeal to honorable senators to concentrate on the business before the Senate.

Senator Ashley:

– I press for a withdrawal of the statement that I wished the loan to fail. It is offensive to me. I repeat that I made a greater contribution to the loan than did the Minister for National Development, who represents the Treasurer.

Senator SPOONER:

– I do not doubt that Senator Ashley made a greater contribution to the loan than I did. We hear a great deal about members of the Labour party representing the interests of the working class, but it is probable that if the financial resources of members of the Opposition were measured against those of honorable senators on this side of the chamber the scales would be weighted heavily in favour of the Labour party.

The PRESIDENT:

– Senator Ashley has claimed that the words used by tho Minister for National Development were offensive to him, and I ask that they be withdrawn.

Senator SPOONER:

– In deference to your ruling, I withdraw the words. Senator Ashley asked why a blanket of silence had been drawn over proceedings associated with the raising of the loan. What has been done on . this occasion is not different from what was done on previous, occasions. The loan closed only 48 hours ago, and the Treasurer made a formal statement through the press that the loan had been a success. The detailed information asked for by Senator Ashley canriot possibly be available so soon after the closing of theloan. I have no doubt that it will be supplied to honorable senators as soon as it is available. There will be no departure from the ordinary procedure that statements relating to matters of such high moment are released only by the Treasurer. I suggest, with respect, that Senator Ashley should, in future, refrain from commencing his questions with the implication that the loan has not been a success. He began his question with the words, “ If the recent loan was a success”, thus casting doubt on the accuracy of the Treasurer’s statement. 3 again say that the honorable senator’s attitude reflects no credit upon him.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
through Senator Annabelle Rankin

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Has an amount of £50,000,000 recently been transferred from Australian London funds toa British Government funding loan of one year’s duration?
  2. If so, (a) is th is a new or unusual practice; (b) what isthe purpose of such transfer?
Senator SPOONER:

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers : -

  1. The Commonwealth Bank recently subscribed to £50.000,000 sterling of the new British Government one-year funding loan against the surrender of British Government three-months treasury -bills. 2. (a) No. (6) For some years the Commonwealth Bank has held a small part of its London funds in short-term British Government securities of one or two years’ duration.

page 2985

QUESTION

TINPLATE

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 14th November, Senator Pearson asked a question concerning the method of allocating tinplate. The Minister for Supply has furnished the following answer: -

Tinplate imported into Australia from the United Kingdom and the United States of America is distributed to users in accordance with a plan, the basis of which was approved in July, 1948, by the Minister for Supply and Development of the Government of that time. This plan was prepared after considerable study by the department acting in conjunction with an advisory committee of the industry.

The investigation to which Senator Pearson refers was made in January, 1949, at the request of the then secretary of the department, Sir John Jensen, who had received complaints from a certain firm that the plan did not afford them equitable treatment. The report of this investigation is a confidential departmental document inasmuch as it contains information obtained by the department, in confidence, of the tinplate usages of various Australian manufacturers. Consequently, it wouldbe a breach of faith on the part of the department ‘to disclose the contents of this report to firms in the can-making industry. However, I can assure the honorable senator that the present distribution plan has, on numerous occasions, been the subject of very close examination by competent people. One such examination was made in conjunction with a high executive of the Associated Chambers of Manufactures, which recommended that the plan should be retained as it was basically sound and would meet current conditions subject to certain adjustments. Action was taken to make the adjustments as suggested by this committee.

On other occasions when the plan has been examined the conclusion has always been reached that any alteration of the basic plan would cause considerably more confusion and hardship than it would remove.

It should be recognized that tinplate is in short supply throughout the world and even the United States of America, which produces over three-quarters of the total world production, is rationing supplies to American users. It is therefore impossible to satisfy all users’ requirements, and the best that can be done is to distribute the available supplies to all firms throughout the Commonwealth with the greatest possible equity.

page 2985

QUESTION

GOAL

Senator RYAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Shipping and Transport give any information relative to the supply of coal and its transport to South Australia in view of the closing down of coal-mining during the Christmas holiday period and South Australia’s quota arrangements during the miners’ holiday period? Have arrangements been made for sufficient supplies of coal to enable South Australia to supply essential power and maintain services over the Christmas holiday period ?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The scene in relation to coal has changed somewhat. With the exception of gas coal, there is plenty of coal available. The problem is to get it transported to South Australia. Recently discussions have taken place between the Prime Minister and the Premier of South Australia, Mr. Playford, and indications are that it may be possible to get ample coal for the Christmas holiday period to South Australia. One of the problems involved is to get the ships to carry the coal. The second is whether South Australia is prepared to take regular shipments of coal from the western districts of New South Wales which, will cost more than coal from the Newcastle district. That matter is at present being discussed with the South Australian Government. Ample coal is available to meet immediate requirements although, of course, Australia is still suffering from an overall coal shortage as is evidenced by the fact that coal is still being imported.

page 2986

BUSH FLEES

Senator VINCENT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Every year bush fires in this country cause live-stock, crop and property losses amounting to many millions of pounds. Whilst I realize that the responsibility for fire-fighting lies with the State governments, I should like to know whether the Minister for Civil Aviation will co-operate with the State authorities in experiments to determine whether bush fires can be extinguished by foam discharged from aeroplanes, or by some other modern means.

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

– I shall be pleased to discuss that matter with the Minister for Civil Aviation, and to ascertain whether any experiments on the lines mentioned by the honorable senator have already been made. The suggestion is worthy of detailed consideration.

page 2986

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– In view of the economic hardship that is imposed on professional musicians by the 25 per cent, sales tax on musical instruments, which, in effect, are the tools of trade of those artists, will the Minister representing the Treasurer seek favorable consideration for the issuing of a certificate to restore the previous rate of 8^ per cent, on musical instruments and parts thereof?

Senator SPOONER:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I cannot hold out any hope that the Treasurer will agree to the honorable senator’s proposal. It is true that musical instruments are tools of trade in the sense referred to by the honorable senator, but so are many other items on which the sales tax is levied. I cannot imagine that the Government would be prepared so soon to alter the sales tax legislation which was passed by the Senate only yesterday.

page 2986

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation say whether, in implementing the welcome decision against the establishment of an airline monopoly, private or public, the Government will consider the reconstitution of Trans-Australia Airlines in the form of an operating company so that in future it may not be inhibited by adverse government policy,, or embarrassed by overenthusiasticgovernment sponsorship, and so that there will be complete equality between private and publicly owned airline operators in respect of the payment of landing charges and particularly income tax?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– I shall bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Minister for Civil Aviation and obtain a reply.

page 2986

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC” POLICY

Senator COURTICE:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen a statement in this morning’s press that is attributed to the Director of the Federated Taxpayers’ Research Bureau to the effect that the budget was an economic blunder because it would discourage rather than encourage production, which is Australia’s greatest need?’ Will the Minister comment on that statement?

Senator SPOONER:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I am sorry tosay that I have not seen the statement to which the honorable senator has referred. However, I shall have little hesitation in commenting upon it. The encouraging fact is that the budget is not proving to have been an economic blunder. Its provisions are yielding a degree of success far greater than the Government had expected. There has been a general tightening up of the economy of this country and a reduction of the demand for goods that are in short supply. Furthermore, there has been quite an appreciable increase of production of those goods. Although it is inadvisable for one to be dogmatic about a matter of such national importance and to try to forecast the future, the indications are that good progress is being made. One such indication was contained in the reply to a previous question, which revealed that despite the fall of share values on the stock exchanges of this .country, the recent Commonwealth loan flotation was a great success.

page 2987

QUESTION

INFLATION

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I wish to direct a question to the Minister for Trade and Customs. It refers to a matter about which Senator Nash asked the Minister a question recently, but received an unsatisfactory answer. Will the Minister inform the Senate whether he has yet conferred with the Prime Minister about the disastrous inflationary tendency in this country? I have before me a letter from the Nedlands Road Board, which contains an important resolution. I understand that a copy of the letter was forwarded to the Prime Minister. The resolution reads as follows : -

This meeting of ratepayers of the Nedlands Road Board urges the Federal Government to appoint a Royal Commission to take full evidence and to inquire as to the cause of inflation in Australia and to report as to the best means to be adopted to put value back into the currency.

That is what this Government has failed to do.

The P,RESIDENT.- Order ! Do I take it that the words,*” That is what this Government has failed to do “, are part of the resolution which the honorable senator read?

Senator FRASER:

– No. I was merely stating a.fact.

The PEE SIDENT . - I gave the honorable senator permission to read the resolution.

Senator FRASER:

– I have now read the resolution. I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether he has consulted the Prime Minister concerning the question which Senator Nash asked earlier this week. If the Government is not prepared to appoint a royal commission, I suggest that it should appoint a judicial authority to inquire into the methods that should be adopted to halt inflation and to advise the Government of those methods.

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

– I have not consulted with the Prime Minister on the matter so futilely raised by the honorable senator and also by Senator Nash on a previous occasion. As I pointed out then, no good purpose whatever would be served by the appointment of a royal commission to investigate this matter. If the honorable senators were doing their duty as representatives of Western Australia, I suggest that they would tell the people the causes of inflation. If the honorable senators do not know what those causes are, they will never know, even after a report by a royal commission. I shall inform them of a few of the causes of inflation. One is the high costs which we in Australia are obliged to pay for our imports; another is the high costs of production in some local industries. However, I have no doubt that the greatest cause of inflation was the eight years of Labour misrule.

Senator SHEEHAN:
VICTORIA

– My question is prompted by the facetious reply by the Minister for Trade and Customs to the question asked by Senator Fraser. Is the Minister for Trade and Customs aware that at the recent federal conference of municipal associations held in Adelaide resolutions were carried indicating that it was proposed to seek some recognition by the Commonwealth of the position in which so many municipalities find themselves to-day for various reasons? Is he also aware that the president of the Municipal Association of Victoria, who said that the Commonwealth Government would hear more about the matter, is a member of the Legislative Council of Victoria, and a member of the Victorian Liberal party? I trust that the Minister will not regard the representations, when they are received, as facetious, but as matters of great importance to the municipalities.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I have not seen the resolutions referred to by the honorable senator, but I assure him that the Government is fully conscious of the serious financial straits in which many local bodies find themselves. However, that fact bears no relation to the idle question asked by Senator Fraser.

page 2988

QUESTION

DR. H. V. EVATT, M.P

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior to a published statement to the effect that the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) is about to abandon the Barton electorate for a safer Labour refuge. Will the Minister communicate this information to the redoubtable Mrs. Nancy Wake, in order that advantage will not be taken of her absence overseas to push through a byelection before she is able to return and wipe out the narrow margin of 243 votes by which she was defeated at the last general election?

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I rise to a point of order. I contend that the question asked by Senator Scott does not comply with the Standing Orders because it does not concern a matter of public moment or importance. It is merely a cowardly attack. I ask you to rule on the matter, Mr. President.

The PRESIDENT:

– Under Standing Order 98 I rule that the question is not in order.

page 2988

QUESTION

DEFENCE PREPARATIONS ACT

Senator ARMSTRONG:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Trade and Customs say how many regulations have so far been issued under the Defence Preparations Act?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The question should more properly have been directed to the Attorney-General, but I understand that only one regulation has so far been issued.

page 2988

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items - Annual Report.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I lay on the table reports of the Tariff Board on the following subjects: -

Formaldehyde.

Strychnine and Strychnine Salts.

Universal Milling Machines.

Expanded Ebonite Insulation Sheet.

I also lay on the table the following paper : -

Tariff Board Act - Tariff Board - Annual Report for year 1950-51.

Severally ordered to be printed.

page 2988

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Senator PIESSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

In connexion with any alterations to the electoral laws of the Commonwealth which may be contemplated by the Government, will, the Minister (a) give consideration to the making of a postal vote a secret vote by the inclusion of a second envelope for the ballotpaper; and (6) make it possible for an elector within reasonable distance of a polling booth, who is suddenly taken ill on the day of an election, to be able to record his or her vote?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– The Minister for the Interior has furnished the following answers : -

  1. It is not considered necessary or advisable that a second envelope be furnished to applicants for postal votes for the return to the’ returning office of marked ballot-papers. It is considered the existing provisions of the law adequately safeguard the secrecy of the ballot in relation to postal voting. It is provided that the certificate envelopes containing marked ballot-papers shall be opened in the presence of such scrutineers as choose to attend and the officer performing this operation is required to do so without examining the declaration of any voter or permitting any other person to do so. It is further provided that the ballot-papers withdrawn from the certificate envelopes, without being unfolded or inspected, shall be deposited in a locked and sealed ballot-box for further scrutiny. If a second envelope were required to be supplied the over-all election expenditure would be substantially increased and it is probable that in many cases ballot-papers would be returned in the outer envelope without being enclosed in the postal vote certificate envelope which would result in the rejection of the vote.

    1. It wouldbe difficult to modify the existing postal voting provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act to provide for voting by persons taken suddenly ill on polling day without materially increasing the danger of irregular practices in connexion with postal voting. However, the matter will receive consideration when alterations to the act are contemplated.

page 2988

QUESTION

TRACTORS

Senator FRASER:

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

What number of tractors has been imported into Australia during the past twelve months: what are the countries of origin; what amount in dollars and sterling was involved; and what were the types of tractors imported?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The following statistics showing Australian imports of tractors for the year ended the 30th

June, 1951, are furnished in answer to the honorable senator’s question: -

page 2989

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator MORROW:

asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

  1. Is it it fact that an ex -soldier of two world wars who had served eight years in the Commonwealth Public Service was dismissed from theRepatriation Department in Tasmania under the Government’s retrenchment plan, and that a new Australian who has only completed one year’s service has been retained in employment?
  2. If so - (a) will the Minister explain how this new Australian was given preference in being retained in employment, thereby ignoring the provisions of preference to returned soldiers under the Re-establishment and Employment Act; (b) will he have investigations made with a view to the reemployment of this Australian-born returned soldier?
Senator COOPER:
CP

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

  1. Yes. 2. (a) The male employees of my department are almost 100 per cent. ex-servicemen and it was inevitable, therefore, that any retrenchments from the department would affect the employment of ex-servicemen. In giving effect to the Government’s decision full cognizance was taken of the principles of preference in the Re-establishment and ‘Employment Act, but, in a staff as fully employed as that of the Repatriation Department it was essential that those retained be the best available. The new Australian referred to saw active service on the side of the Allies during the recent war and during the period of his employment in my department he has shown outstanding ability as a clerk; in view of the reduction in staff it was considered his services could not reasonably be dispensed with. ( b ) The “ Australian-born exserviceman “ was employed in a number of different positions, but his capabilities in all were very restricted. Dismissals were recommended after full and careful consideration of all factors and this employee was listed for retrenchment as he was far less efficient than any of the employees who were retained.

page 2989

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL 1951

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

. -I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The bill is, on the face of it, somewhat complex but the matters with which it deals can be put into a fairly short compass. The States are primarily responsible for education in general and for the universities in particular, but for some years the Commonwealth has found, very properly, that it has been necessary for it to have relations with the States in respect of two matters affecting universities. First, of course, it has made provision for grants for the purpose’ of assisting research. Secondly, since the war, under the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme, is has paid substantial sums to the States for the universities. Those amounts were paid, not as a part of a general scheme for the assistance of university education as such, but as a part of a repatriation programme that was instituted very properly by the preceding Government and has been carried out for a period of years. Under the programme, payments to the universities have decreased because the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme will not go on forever and the numbers of those who are affected by it are diminishing.

Figures may be of some interest in this connexion. In 1950 the Government paid approximately £450,000 to the universities under the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme. In 1951, under the same scheme, it would pay about £300,000. Therefore, as honorable senators can see, this form of financial assistance would ultimately come to an end. In those circumstances, the present Government has had before it the great problem of university finances. Each university in Australia is in a large measure’ a State university because it has had to depend to an increasing degree upon grants from the appropriate State parliament. This Government came to the conclusion that, in order to arrive at an effective policy for the granting of financial aid to universities, it should institute an inquiry in order to discover the true financial position of the universities. With recommendations from a committee before it, the Government would be in a position to determine what grant, if any, should be made by the Commonwealth and whether the money should be made available, subject to appropriate conditions, to the State governments or direct to the universities.

Therefore, in March, 1950, the Government appointed a committee to report on the finances of the universities. The committee consisted of Professor Mills, the Director of the Commonwealth Office of Education as chairman, Professor Sir Douglas Copland, and Mr. H. J. Goodes, of the Treasury. The terms of reference given to the committee were as follows : -

  1. To examine and report upon the finances of the universities having regard to their facilities for teaching and research, including staff, buildings and equipment.
  2. To examine and report upon the requirements of universities in relation to the work at present undertaken and to the need for their future development.
  3. To make recommendations as to whether any, and if so what, action should be taken by the Commonwealth to assist universities.

Subsequently, another question, minor in a quantitative sense, arose. As it related to the residential colleges of the universities the committee was asked to pay attention to the position of residential colleges as a part of its consideration of the universities’ problem generally.

A very complete preliminary report which contained a fairly good conspectus of the universities’ financial position wa9 received later in 1950. That was not the final report however. Following the receipt of the report the Australian Government gave consideration to it, formulated propositions and sent those propositions to the six State Premiers. The propositions related to the universities themselves, and also to the new university of Technology in New South Wales. Naturally, as honorable members will understand, it took some time to have those proposals considered by the States, but ultimately the proposals were agreed to. In anticipation of approval by this Parliament, we have been, in fact, paying sums to the States in respect of the universities so that, in a sense, this bill will ratify what has been done and will make provision for the future.

The problem of the universities is, of course, one of immense importance. All honorable members will agree that the encouragement of higher education in Australia is a matter of first-rate national importance. The universities, like other educational institutions, have felt the pressure of the times over a term of years. University costs have risen very steeply since 1939. I venture to offer as my own opinion that for many years the salaries that were paid by universities to men of distinction occupying various chairs and lectureships were grossly inadequate and entirely unreasonable when one considers the very high and rare qualities that we expect from men who occupy such posts. Enrolments in universities have in many instances doubled, if not quadrupled, since before the war. It has been an interesting feature of Australian life that since the war the number of young men and women eager to avail themselves of university training has increased beyond all expectation. Naturally, that fact has put a great strain on the capital resources and of the universities’ teaching facilities because, as honorable members are well aware, although it is not generally realized by the public, the fees paid in respect of students at universities are a mere fraction of the overall costs of providing the facilities that a university ought to provide.

At the same time, the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme subsidies have, of necessity, declined sharply so that the universities have found themselves with serious deficits. We have not thought it part of our duty, and I do not think that anybody in trie Senate would suppose that it is a part of our duty, to provide the whole of the additional financial resources that are needed. The universities are not to be converted into Commonwealth universities. It is of great importance that they should retain their individuality and local character and quality. Therefore, we have conditioned this new departure. It is almost a revolutionary departure for the Commonwealth, which has neither power nor responsibility in the educational field, to come in and say that, irrespective of repatriation or something that comes within its powers, it will make grants to the States to assist the universities.

The Government proposes to make grants which fall into certain categories. In the first place the bill provides for a grant, which is the basic grant, for the universities and the residential colleges. Honorable members will be able to follow this proposition more clearly if I direct their attention to the schedule. In the first column of the schedule they will find the names of the universities and colleges affected. In the next column they will see figures which total £351,500. That figure represents the amount of the grant for the second half of 1950. That, in effect, will validate the action already taken. Payments under the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme for research, and other payments which were due by the Commonwealth in that period, would have been about £100,000 less than that figure. We increased it for the second half of the calendar year 1950. The third column contains figures which total £803,000, which is the basic grant from the Commonwealth to the States for the universities and residential colleges for each of the three calendar years 1951, 1952 and 1953. I am speaking in calendar years because the universities work in calendar years.

Certain conditions to which I shall refer in a moment, apply in relation to the basic grant. We then provide for a second level grant which honorable members will see in the fifth column of the schedule; it totals £300,000. These second level grants are to be paid on conditions similar to those on which the sum of £S03,000 is to be paid. The only point that I wish to make at the moment is that, assuming that the payments from the States and the other revenues of the universities between them satisfy the overall condition, there is provision here for a grant of up to £1,103,000 a year for each of the three years 1951, 1952 and 1953.

I shall state the Government’s proposals in somewhat more detail. The Commonwealth will make an initial basic grant of £803,000 a year for each of the calendar years to which I have referred. The allocation of the total amount among the various universities has been calculated according to the number of full-time students, with an adjustment to make allowance for smaller universities. For example, it was well established by the committee and I think the point is not in dispute, that in the smaller universities, such as the University of Tasmania, the cost per student is greater than it is in a large university. Therefore some allowance has been made for that fact in allocating the total sum. The basic grants are available only for expenditure on current activities and are not available for capital expenditure. The Commonwealth does not profess to be dealing in this bill with the capital expenditure problem of the universities but is seeking to bring their revenue position into a healthy condition. Honorable members will see that capital expenditure is defined in the bill in what I consider to be a sensible way; that is, by omitting from current expenditure only expenditure on new buildings and expenditures of over £500 on either existing buildings or replacements of other items. Items of under £500 will not be considered as capital items for this purpose. Before the grant is payable in relation to a university, that university must receive in fees and State grants either three times the Commonwealth basic grant or the notional amount of State grants plus fees which the university would have required to balance its budget for 1950, whichever is the greater.

That may seem a little clouded but the reason for it was that, when this matter was originally discussed on the report and the Commonwealth proposals were before the States, we considerd it necessary to provide that if we made a payment the budget of the university should at least be brought into balance. Therefore the States should provide such an amount, with the fees collected by the university, as would balance the university’s budget.

Then, in order to provide a sound working formula for the future, the Commonwealth agreed to pay £1 for each £3 that was received by the university by way of State grants and fees. That means that the Commonwealth will provide a quarter of the total sum. Of the total basic grant of £803,000, £25,000 is to be applied to the residential colleges. In addition to that basic grant the Commonwealth will pay £1 for every £3 by which the amount of State grants plus fees received by a university exceeds the qualifying amount for the basic grant. That means that if the universities, by means of State grants plus fees collected, put up £2,335,000 that would entitle them to £803,000 or one-third of that amount from the Commonwealth. For every £3 over and above the amount that the State grants plus fees produces, the Commonwealth Government will provide another £1 with a maximum or ceiling on that item, the second level grant, of £300,000. So, in the result, the Commonwealth will advance £303,000 plus £300,000 in each of the three years, on the basis that the State grants plus university fees, &c”., produce £2,335,000 plus £900,000. It will be seen that the Commonwealth will provide £1 for every £3 from all those other sources up to the maximum amount of £1,103,000 from the Commonwealth.

The second level grants also are available only for expenditure on current activities subject to the same definition of capital expenditure. For the last six months of the year 1950, in addition to the three years for which we are making provision, the Commonwealth is paying separate grants totalling £351,500, the amount that I referred to earlier in my remarks. That amount also is apportioned among the universities on the same basis as the basic grant. Altogether, a very substantial provision is being made in a field for which the Commonwealth has not in the past accepted any measure of financial responsibility except in respect of the performance of some Commonwealth function, such as repatriation. No such condition attaches to these grants. This means that for the future, even if all Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme obligations cease the Commonwealth will assist the universities through the medium of State grants by probably more than £1,000,000 in each of the three years in question.

The Government has no desire to interfere in the internal management of the universities or to attach conditions to the granting of these moneys which would interfere with the traditional liberty of the universities to determine their courses of instruction or the character of the research that they wish to undertake. The Government, in this legislation, has acknowledged the principle of academic freedom but it realizes that, because of the changing balance of financial power and authority from time to time, unless the Commonwealth is prepared to assist these great seats of learning they will inevitably fall on such hard times and be subject to such heavy pressure that they will have to restrict their activities. The bill may appear to be rather complex in its drafting, but such complexity is unavoidable because of the fact that the measure deals partly with a period that has passed, partly with a period which is current, and partly with a period which is still to come. Consequently, it was essential that a distinction should be made between the basic grant and the conditions which will attach to it, and the second level grant and the conditions which will attach to it in the future.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition supports this measure. To anybody who has studied university finances, it has been apparent for a long time that, as the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme tailed off, the universities would be in grave financial difficulties. It was a matter of concern to the Chifley Government that something should be done to help the universities. This Government is following the proper course by making grants not directly to the universities but to the States. I express my own approval of the provisions of the bill which, as the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) has said, prevent the Australian Government from interfering in the internal management and academic freedom of those institutions. It is essential that the universities shall be allowed to develop according to their principles and traditions. Learning cannot flourish nor can progress be made in an atmosphere of coercion. The Government proposes to make a substantial contribution, representing one quarter of the total amount required to balance the budgets of the universities, but much more may be needed, and I urge the Government to maintain a flexible mind in this connexion. The universities generally are in need of help for capital development. In many of them, faculties are functioning in buildings and with equipment which are either temporary or inadequate. The Government should not lose sight of the need to provide some assistance in that direction. Perhaps the States may be in a better position to provide from loan money capital expenditure on the universities. There is a slight concession to capital expenditure from this fund. The Opposition does not propose to delay the passage of the bill. We give it our support because it is in line with the action of the Labour Government when, in addition to assisting the universities, it made available a grant of £1,000,000 a year for scholarships for boys and girls. That fund is administered by the Office of Education which was set up by the Chifley Government. Although education is not primarily within the province of the Commonwealth, it is competent for the Commonwealth to make grants to the States on conditions such as those prescribed in this measure. I have much pleasure in supporting the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2993

DEFENCE BILL (No. 2) 1951

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN (QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs) 12.11]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to implement a number of amendments to the Defence Act, the majority of which are of a drafting or minor nature. Some are consequential upon the National Service Act 1951, and others relate to administrative requirements of the armed services. Clause 8 contains provisions relating to native forces in territories administered by the Commonwealth. As the Navy and the Army are raising volunteer native forces in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, it is necessary to make special provision for the regulation and control of such forces. Sub-clause (1.) provides that any native force raised in a trustee territory shall not be required to render service except as permitted by the Charter of the United Nations. Sub-clause (2.) authorizes the making of regulations for the control and discipline of a native force.

Clause 11 exempts certain diplomatic and United Nations officials from liability to serve in time of war under the provisions of Part IV. of the Defence Act. The exemption of the United Nations officials is in accordance with certain international conventions to which Australia has subscribed. Parallel exemptions are to be found in the National Service Act in respect of liability for training under the provisions of that act. Clause 12 repeals sections 62 and 62a, comprising Part V. of the Defence Act, relating to compulsory service in junior and senior cadet corps. Compulsory training of cadets was suspended in 1929, and training has since been carried out on a voluntary basis. Clause 12 gives legislative effect to this principle and provides for the establishment on a voluntary basis of the Australian Cadet Corps to comprise persons under the age of eighteen years.

Clause 16 relates to the supply of intoxicating liquor at military canteens, camps, depots, &c. Section 123a of the act relates only to compulsory training under the old Part XII. of the act, which has now been repealed following the passing of the National Service Act. The clause repeals section 123a of the act, and provides that a person shall not sell or supply intoxicating liquor at any military canteen, camp, depot, &c, to a person under the age of 21 years who is rendering service as required by the National Service Act, nor shall such a person be in possession of intoxicating liquor, except by direction of a duly qualified medical practitioner. The clause further provides that in other cases liquor shall not be sold or supplied to, or be in possession of, a person in any military canteen, camp, depot, &c, except in accordance with such conditions as the Military Board determines and subject to the approval of the Minister.

Clause 18 provides for the insertion of new section 123f in the act, to provide that a person shall not be permitted to serve in the defence forces, first, if he has been convicted of a crime which, in the opinion of the Naval Board, the Military Board, or the Air Board, is such as to render him unsuitable for service in the defence forces, or secondly, if the service of that person in the defence forces might, in the opinion of the appropriate service board, be prejudicial to the security of the Commonwealth. The Government considers that there should be adequate safeguards of the character and reliability of members of the services.

Clause 19 contains a regulation-making power in respect, inter alia, of the following matters: -

  1. The declaration as a prohibited area of a place used or intended to be used for a purpose of defence ; the prohibition of persons from entering, being in, or remaining in a prohibited area without permission ; and the removal of any such person from the area.

It is considered necessary that there should be a clear power in the act to make regulations providing for essential security of areas or places is which defence activities are proceeding,

  1. The prohibition of the use, except as prescribed, of a word, group of letters, object, or device which is descriptive or indicative of a part of the forces or a service or body of persons associated with the defence of the Commonwealth.

This will enable permanent regulations to be made in respect of such matters. Protection is at present afforded by war-time regulations that have been continued by the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Bill.

I commend the measure to honorable senators.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition has no objection to the passage of this measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

– I draw the attention of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) to the fact that once more regulation-making power has been included in a bill. This practice has been evident in a number of measures that have been passed by the Senate during the current sessional period. The spate of regulations now flowing from the Government is as large as it was during the war years. I consider that this matter demands the urgent attention of the Government. The bill empowers the issue of regulations to prohibit persons from entering or remaining in certain areas without permission. I consider that prohibition should have been included in the bill. During and immediately after the last war many areas were shut off from the public for no apparent reason. The controlling authorities had no regard whatever for the convenience of the civilian population. I wish merely to record my protest that power is again been given for the issue of such regulations arbitrarily.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I think it is accepted by most honorable senators that, if practicable, provisions should be inserted in legislation rather than merely power to issue regulations. However, it would be quite impracticable to compile a schedule to the bill. Furthermore, it may become necessary to declare or free an area overnight. This is a matter properly to be covered by regulation. I agree with Senator Arnold that a very strict eye should be kept on this subject.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2995

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE BILL 1951

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

.- I move-

That thebill be now read a second time.

The funds needed for the discharge of the functions of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board are provided by a charge imposed on employers of waterside labour under the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act 1947-1949. The proceeds of the charge are credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and, in accordance with the provisions of the Stevedoring Industry Act 1949, equivalent amounts are paid to the board.

In 1947, the charge was fixed at 4½d. per man-hour of employment of waterside workers, but collections at this rate resulted in an excessive accumulation of funds. In October, 1949, the rate was reduced to 2½d. per man-hour, which was designed to produce an annual deficit in the board’s financial accounts and so reduce the accumulated funds over the ensuing years. The board’s expenditure relates chiefly to attendance money, the operation of waterside cafeterias, the transport of waterside workers, administrative expenses, and the provision of amenities on the waterfront. The board’s funds have been reduced more rapidly than was expected in 1949, as the result of substantially increased costs.

This bill is designed to increase the charge to 4d. per man-hour of employment on and from the 4th December. That charge, although still lower than the original rate, is expected to provide sufficient revenue for the board to meet its expenditure on the current scale and to retain a comparatively small reserve of working capital for contingencies. The total revenue from the stevedoring industry charge for the financial year 1950- 51 was £420,000. It is estimated that the collections for the financial year 1951- 52, at the present rate of 2½d. per man-hour of employment, will yield £435,000. If the rate is increased to 4d. per man-hour on and from the 4th December, it is estimated that a further £130,000 will be gained during the balance of the financial year, or a total yield of £565,000 for this year. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition supports this measure which, of course, is an extension of the policy of the Australian Labour party to make such a charge and to provide amenities and concessions on the waterfront. The industry has been decasualized.

As a result of the action taken in 1947 to increase the charge to 4½d. a great accumulation of funds occurred. More money was received than was needed. The Labour government of the day then reduced the charge, very properly, to 2½d. This Government now proposes to increase it to 4d. in order to augment the fund and to meet current commitments. It is necessary to vary the charge from time to time, and it is obviously necessary to do so this year.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wright) adjourned.

page 2996

RE-ESTABLISHMENT AND EMPLOYMENT BILL 1951

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 28th November (vide page 2863), on motion by Senator Cooper -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

, - At the outset, I wish to record a strong protest at the late introduction of this bill. It is a voluminous measure and a vastly important one. It came to the Senate only yesterday, and it seems that the present sessional period will conclude in the almost immediate future. However, I express to the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) my thanks for his co-operation in making available an advance copy of the bill and also his notes. I thank him, too, for his courtesy in making available the services of one of his officers, Mr. Hook. That officer rendered real service to senior members of the Opposition in determining their attitude to this bill, and I am most grateful to him.

The main purpose of the measure is to extend to ex-servicemen of the Korea and Malaya forces the benefits of the Re-establishment and Employment Act.With that purpose the Opposition is in complete accord. In addition, the bill is designed to rectify certain anomalies that have been shown, by experience, to exist in the principal act. It will effect some necessary changes in consequence of the mere passage of time. I am personally pleased to sec that the bill will repeal the regulation-making power which enabled the principal act to be altered by regulation. That was an emergency power which it was necessary for the government of the day to have in order to cope with the influx of hundreds of thousands of ex-service personnel and to translate them to civilian life. I have never approved of the principle that an act of parliament should be alterable by means of regulations. I am happy that the Government proposes to repeal that provi sion now that the flood of returning, ex-servicemen from the 1939-45 war has subsided and their translation to civil employment has been accomplished. The regulation-making power will in future be on the ordinary level.

Subject to what my colleagues may care to say now or during the committee stage, the Opposition offers no objection to the measure. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber cordially support its broad principle and will facilitate its passage. I repeat, however, that by reason of the fact that the Senate sat until 3 o’clock this morning there has been very little, if any, opportunity for most honorable senators to make a detailed study of the bill. I suggest that in future when the Minister introduces legislation of such magnitude and importance honorable senators should be given more opportunity to consider its details.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– in reply -I appreciate the co-operation of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). This bill has been introduced for the purpose of extending to exservicemen of the Korea and Malaya forces the benefits enjoyed by ex-servicemen of the 1939-45 war. I suggest that its details might be discussed at the committee stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– I appreciate very much the action of the Government in providing a bill of rights, as it were, for the men returning from Korea and Malaya. I invite the attention of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) to the fact that many of those ex-servicemen will not be aware of the nature of the excellent benefits which the Government proposes to provide for them. My experience has been that returning servicemen, are so eager to get out of the services and’ resume their civil occupations that they do not bother to acquaint themselves fully with the nature of the benefits to which they are entitled. I ask the Minister to instruct officers of his department to hand to each returning serviceman printed particulars of all the benefits to which he is entitled. It often happens that men become ineligible for benefits because they do not apply for them within the stipulated time. A booklet should be prepared on the subject, and copies of it placed in the hands of all returning servicemen.

Senator ERASER (Western Australia) 1 12.31 1 . - When servicemen returned from World War II., the then Minister for the Army addressed them on the ship before they disembarked, and told them of the repatriation benefits to which they were entitled. During the period that I acted for him I adopted the same practice. I suggest that a similar practice should be followed now. I have no objection to presenting them with a booklet also, so long as it is not political, but if a Minister took the trouble to meet them they would realize that the Government appreciated their services.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– The suggestions made by Senator Laught and Senator Fraser have a good deal of merit in them, particularly that made by Senator Fraser. I agree that a visit to returning servicemen by a Minister of the Crown would impress them with the fact that the Government was interested in them and their affairs. Officers of the Repatriation Department meet returning servicemen now, and supply them with full particulars of the benefits to which they are entitled under the Repatriation Act. Returning servicemen of World War II. were issued with an excellent booklet called Return to Civilian Life, and preparations have been made for the issue of a similar booklet to ex-servicemen of the Korean campaign showing repatriation benefits brought up to date. Copies will be distributed to ex-servicemen’s organizations, and to members of the Parliament. A smaller booklet is being printed setting out the benefits obtainable under the re-establishment scheme.

Rill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Hill read a third time.

page 2997

WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL 1951

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 28th November (vide page 2905), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second tame.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– The Opposition does not intend to oppose this bill, but it reserves the right to criticize certain phases of the war service homes scheme. In certain matters, the War Service Homes Division seems to be dilatory. Most of the officers employed are competent, but some features of the division’s activities are not satisfactory. I have heard charges of incompetence and procrastination. 1 do not believe that there really is incompetence, but there has certainly been procrastination. When a contract is signed for the erection of a war service home, provision is made for close inspection of the work. I do not complain of that, because I know that some contractors need to be closely supervised. Difficulty has been experienced in getting builders to take war service homes contracts, partly because of the inspection system. It is not so much that they object to inspection as such, but that an inspection having been arranged, the inspector is sometimes a fortnight late in arriving. This delays the issue of a progress payment certificate, and the builder has to stand out of his money for an unnecessarily long time. The delays may, of course, be due to a shortage of technical men in the inspection branch. However, if delays could be avoided, builders would be more ready to accept war service homes contracts.

Some ex-servicemen have grown tired of waiting for war service homes to be built for them, and have bought homes already erected. Hitherto, the division has taken over existing mortgages on such property, but this bill provides that it shall no longer do so. I know that the excuse is that ex-servicemen have been paying too much for houses, but that difficulty could be overcome by stipulating that the division may take up a mortgage only to an amount that represents the true value of the house.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) in his second-reading speech stated that existing dwellings may be brought within the scope of the war service homes scheme by the discharge of mortgages. In such instances the applicant must submit particulars of the mortgage and, subject to a clear title, satisfactory construction and reasonable security, the mortgage may be discharged. At a later stage of his speech the Minister said -

Unfortunately, over recent years, the existproperty activities covering purchase of homes and discharge of mortgages have increased out of proportion to new building, and an effort to restore the .building programme is being made in amendments provided for in the bill.

I trust that the system of acquiring existing dwellings by the discharge of mortgages will be retained, particularly having regard to existing shortages of building labour and materials. Proper safeguards should be provided to ensure that exservicemen are not taken advantage of by real estate “ sharks “. Many exservicemen who have waited for very long periods for war service homes to ‘be constructed for them have been forced to purchase existing dwellings.

No provision has been made in the bill for the granting of an additional advance to ex-servicemen who have family responsibilities. In all cases the maximum loan granted is £2,750, whether the applicant is a single man or a married man with family responsibilities. The Opposition in the House of Representatives endeavoured to insert an amendment in the bill to provide that ex-servicemen with more than four dependants may be granted an advance equal to £2,750 plus an additional amount of £200 for each dependant in excess of four. The amendment was rejected by the Government. I ask the Minister to give further consideration to the desirability of making such an amendment in the bill. If additional advances were made in that way a great benefit would be conferred upon many exservicemen with large families who are now living under sub-standard housing conditions. At a time when the Government is spending millions of pounds on immigra tion it should not hesitate to extend such a slight benefit to those who served their country in its greatest need.

The bill provides that where the purchase money does not exceed £2,000 a deposit of 5 per cent, shall be paid by the applicant, and that where the purchase money exceeds £2,000 the deposit shall be equal to 5 per cent, of the first £2,000 and 10 per cent, of the amount by which the purchase money exceeds £2,000. In these days of steeply increased costs it is difficult to understand why such an unjust discrimination should be made. No greater risk is involved in the grant of the larger advance than in the grant of the smaller advance. The discrimination does not apply in cases where an ex-serviceman buys an existing dwelling. If he buys a five-roomed house for £3,500, the true value of which’ is only £2,750 or £3,000, he receives only the maximum advance of £2,750 and pays the difference between the departmental value of the dwelling and its purchase price. Even at this late hour I appeal to the Minister to wipe out this unfair discrimination.

I realize that the purpose of the bill is to stimulate the building of new homes rather than to extend the purchase of existing dwellings. Having regard to the shortage of building materials and of craft labour, which is greater in some States than in others, and the difficulties encountered by the “War Services Homes Division in inducing contractors to tender for war service homes, the Government should give close consideration to the points that I have made. If it subsequently finds that the proposals in this bill do not work out satisfactorily in practice I trust that it will further consider my suggestions which have been made solely with the object of assisting ex-servicemen to obtain war service homes as quickly as possible.

Senator HENDRICKSON:
Victoria

– This is a very important bill. The Minister, in his second-reading speech, said that since the inauguration of the scheme in March, 1919, 75,500 war service homes have been provided at a total cost of £86,874,000. In other words, the average expenditure on each home has been £1,150. The Minister continued -

Up to the 30th June, 1940, a total of 37,385 war service homes was provided. Very few were provided during the war years, but no fewer than 37,920 were provided in the period from the 1st July, 1945, to tin 30th lune, 1951.

Will the Minister inform the Senate of the number of homes built in the period from 1945 to 1949; I am sure that it will be found that the greatest number of war service homes were built during that period. The Minister also said -

Despite the inescapable hut enormously increased commitments for defence requirements and other high priority expenditure, the Government has decided to provide £27.000,000. exceeding the record for 1950-51, to meet war service homes expenditure during 1951-52.

If expenditure has increased by approximately only £2,000,000, having regard to the increased cost of building labour and materials, it seems likely that in the ensuing twelve months the number of war service homes constructed will not be as great as it has been in the past. Indeed, this legislation will result in the curtailment of the building of war service homes. If the Government had intended to proceed with the construction of new dwellings on the scale that has operated in the past it should have provided for war service homes purposes this year not £27,000,000 but approximately £60,000,000. Contractors are very dubious about tendering for the construction of war service homes for reasons other than those stated by Senator O’Flaherty. Amongst other things, they object to the restrictions imposed in the specifications and the rigid system of inspection imposed by the War Service Homes Division and many of them devote their resources to more profitable building jobs. The officers of the division have done and are still doing everything possible to ensure that ex-servicemen shall obtain comfortable and well-built dwellings. I sorrowfully predict that by this time next year the Government will have to admit to its discredit that the number of war service homes built during the preceding twelve months had fallen far below its expectations.

The Minister also referred to the discharge of mortgages. He said -

The applicant submits particulars of the mortgage and subject to a clear title, satisfactory construction and reasonable security, mortgages have been discharged.

The Minister did not tell the chamber or the people that in the future that clause is to be deleted from the “War Service Homes Act. Therefore, the statement is misleading. If a soldier is successful in getting somebody to finance him in building a home with a view to having the commission take up the mortgage, he will not be able to do so in the future because of the deletion of that provision. If the Government really desired to carry out a programme of war service homes construction, it could embark on the scheme on a large scale so that all exservicemen who wanted homes would get them. I know a man who built a home and was told last year that if the cost did not exceed the amount of the mortgage, the division would take it over. At that time provision was made for an applicant to be relieved of the mortgage when the home was completed. This month the exserviceman made his application. He was told that the Government was contemplating new legislation and that therefore it was likely that the mortgage would not be discharged. Fortunately, because of the promise that was made last year, I believe that the man will be assisted. The Minister also said -

Applications are being, received at the rate of 2,000 per month and in an endeavour to meet the demand, every effort is being made to give priority to the building of individual and group homes by increasing the maximum loan to £2,750 for this purpose.

In Victoria it would be almost impossible to get a reasonable stable or a garage built for that amount. Soldiers who want homes find that they have to pay from £5,000 to £6,000 for an ordinary dwelling of four or five rooms in any good suburb of Melbourne. When the Government announced that it would increase the amount of a loan to £2,750 it did not take into account the increasing cost of living. The maximum loan should be not £2,750 but £4,750. Most of the servicemen who went to World War II. were young men who had never had a job. AH they have is money that they received as soldiers and anything that they have been able to gave. How can they possibly buy homes with only those funds available to them as a deposit? They will be left to the exploitation of people outside the war service homes organization. The largest sum at their disposal would be not more than £500 or £600 and it is impossible to get a home in Melbourne for a deposit of any such amount.

I do not make this accusation against the Government willingly, but the figures produced by the Minister indicate that the Government is not desirous of providing homes for ex-servicemen. Contractors are not prepared to accept contracts from the “Works and Housing Department for war service homes because the supervision is too strict and there is less opportunity for exploitation. The provision for the discharge of mortgages is to be eliminated from the bill. The increase in the loan to £2,750 will not help soldiers to buy homes unless they can deposit about £2,000. For those reasons T believe that the Minister would be wise to withdraw this measure and to consult persons who have some knowledge of what is required. I have not much faith in the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia, but that organization is supposed to represent the returned soldiers, and I suggest that the Government or the Minister should confer with it to ascertain if the measure will be to the advantage or the disadvantage of ex-servicemen. Some of the persons associated with the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia are experts. They could advise the Government whether it should draft another bill to permit exservicemen to enjoy privileges similar to those that were made available by the Government after the first world war, when a soldier could buy a home at a reasonable price on satisfactory terms and house his wife and family in proper circumstances. The Government has been wrongly advised by somebody. It would be wise to defer the bill to enable an inquiry to be held. After the Government has received the advice of organizations and persons who are in sympathy with the needs of ex-servicemen, it could bring back in the next session of the Parliament a .bill that would really give soldiers an opportunity to obtain homes.

I believe that the prospect of exservicemen getting homes will diminish as time passes. The Minister’s reference to the high priority that is to be given to war expenditure and the recent statements of Lieutenant-General Sir Horace Robertson indicate that the country is heading for another world war. If the Government intends to ask the sons of returned servicemen to take part in another war, it should show that the nation has some gratitude to them, and that when they return they will not be sent back to places like Dudley Flats, near Melbourne. If the Government is sincere, it could obtain plenty of workers and ample supplies of building material overseas. The only avenue for the Government to build homes for soldiers is through the “War Service Homes Division. If the Government, organized materials and man-power it could provide ex-servicemen with the decent homes that they were promised in 1949. I hope that the Government will withdraw the bill and refer it to some body with a knowledge of the housing needs of returned servicemen.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South “Wales · LP

– in reply - The honorable senator has stated that he could say much more than he has said upon the bill. I do not doubt that statement, having regard to previous experience, particularly when honorable senators on the opposite side of the chamber were in the majority. I suggest that what he has stated would have been more to. the point had it been accurate. The honorable senator made a series of extraordinary misstatements, not only about the general administration of the War Service Homes Division but also in relation to the actual contents of the bill. He said that he could not understand what was contemplated in the measure. He also said that contractors were not prepared to build homes for the War Service Homes Division. Senator O’Flaherty said something similar, although he did not go quite so far. The fact is that the provision of war service homes at present exceeds 16,000 a year and is greater than it has ever been in the history of the War Service Homes Division. The list of contractors who are working on war service homes is most satisfactory. In other words, the budget is having its effect. Contractors are coming forward in increasing numbers to get this work at comparatively keener prices than those that were obtainable previously in the building industry.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Can the Minister supply the Senate with the names of the contractors and the increase of their numbers?

Senator SPOONER:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I shall act in accordance with the usual departmental procedure, and ‘not otherwise. The honorable senator asked for figures showing how many war service homes were built between 1945 and 1949. In the four years from July, 1945, until .Time, l!)49, 4,383 homes were built.

Senator Hendrickson:

– How many contracts were let?

Senator SPOONER:

– I cannot give the honorable senator that information. In the following two years the total number of homes built was 7,193. At the “!0th June, 1951, there were 6,301 homes under construction. It is not fair to compare the last two years with the immediate post-war years, but more than 4,000 homes were built during the year ended June 1951. That result is most satisfactory.

Senator Hendrickson expressed the fear that the discharge of mortgages was to be discontinued. He painted a dismal picture of an exserviceman who had built a home on money borrowed in anticipation of a war service home loan, having his application for such a loan refused. That is not the position. The War Service Homes Division will still make advances on mortgage for new homes, but advances for the purchase of existing homes will be discontinued. In other words, an exserviceman who has been occupying his present home for a number of years, and seeks a war service home loan in order to purchase it because its terms are more favorable than those of his existing mortgage, will not now be eligible for assistance. Advances will still be available for the purchase of new homes.

Senator Hendrickson:

– The bill does not say so. We have studied it carefully.

Senator SPOONER:

– Well, that is the position. The suggestion has been made that the Government should consult with the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia on war service homes matters. Having had a brief experience of administering war service homes, I can inform the Senate that there is no question of the Government not consulting the league; the league is on the Government’s doorstep all the time. The building of war service homes is, of course, important to the league, and the invariable procedure is for the director of the War Service Homes Division to attend the annual congresses of the league, to give delegates an outline of the year’s work, and to hear complaints and criticism. It is noteworthy that, at the last congress, a resolution was passed expressing appreciation of the administration of war service homes.

I come now to that hardy perennial, the complaint that builders are unwilling to build houses for the War Service Homes Division and that this reluctance hampers the activities of the division. The departmental reply to that is that criticism in such general terms is unfair and that specific cases should be cited. That is a reasonable attitude to adopt. In recent years, the division has consistently said to the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia, “ Do not criticize in general terms. Let us have details “. In most instances complaints have not been substantiated.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– We realize that details of complaints have to be pinpointed.

Senator SPOONER:

– Usually, when an attempt is made to pin-point a complaint, the merits lie more with the War Service Homes Division than with the complainant. That was my experience while I was administering war service homes. I received many letters complaining about this matter, but when I called for the files, I found more often than not, that the ex-serviceman was at fault and not the division. The fact that some builders are reluctant to build war service homes is perhaps indicative of a healthy state of affairs. The margin of profit allowable is not great, and a high standard of workmanship is demanded, and I have no doubt that much of the criticism of the division is in respect of builders who are unwilling to comply with those conditions.

Senator O’Flaherty said that the deposit required on a war service home should be reduced. At present a deposit of 10 per cent is required, and the maximum loan is £2,000. In other words, if an ex-serviceman wants to build a home which is to. cost £2,000, he has to provide £200. Under this legislation, the maximum loan will be £2,750 and a person who seeks such a loan will be required to pay a deposit of 5 per cent on the first £2,000 and 10 per cent on the remainder. In other words the deposit required will be £175.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator HENDRICKSON (Victoria) £3.6]. - I thought I had made it clear to the Senate that I was not attempting to lay any blame on the Department of Works and Housing or upon the Repatriation Department, which previously administered war service homes. What I said was that some builders would not build war service homes because of the strict supervision exercised over building costs and workmanship. The department will not allow a builder to exploit his client. For that reason it is sometimes difficult for an ex-serviceman to find a builder who will erect a war service home. If the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) wants specific instances of this, I can provide them. As an ex-serviceman, and one who has frequently made representations to the war service homes authorities on behalf of exservicemen, I say quite frankly that I have never known the department to be wrong, or to be harsh in its treatment of any applicant for a war service home. I pay that tribute to officers of the department.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– The explanation given by the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) of the provisions of this legislation relating to the deposit required on war service homes does not answer the point that I was endeavouring to make. Why should there be any differentiation between the percentage deposits required on a loan of £2,000 and that required on a loan exceeding that sum? I see no reason why the deposit should not be a flat 5 per cent. It is true that the risk taken by the War Service Homes Division increases as the loan increases, but surely sentiment should play some part in dealing with exscervicemen.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– The alteration has been made in the interests of ex-servicemen. Had the flat rate of 10 per cent been retained, an ex-serviceman who wished to borrow £2,750, would have been required to find £275 as a deposit. It was felt that that was too much to expect. However, the principles of equity had to be observed, and it was considered that the borrower should be required to provide a reasonable deposit. What is a reasonable deposit?

Senator O’Flaherty:

– Five per cent.

Senator SPOONER:

– That is the honorable senator’s estimate. The War Service Homes Division decided that the deposit should be on a sliding scale, rising from 5per cent on the first £2,000 to 10 per cent on any portion of a loan that exceeded that figure.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

.- The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) has not replied to my suggestion that consideration should be given to increasing the maximum loan by £200 for each dependant of an ex-serviceman exceeding four. Will consideration be given to that proposal ?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– That problem has many phases and cannot be solved easily. If, with good intentions, the Government were to increase the maximum loan available to family men with large responsibilities, it would have to increase the amount of repayment instalments. Ultimately the stage would be reached where the amount of instalments would be beyond the financial capacity of the ex-servicemen. The Commonwealth and States Housing Agreement contains a provision in connexion with such cases. The fixation of the deposit helps the ex-servicemen in connexion with the original transaction, and we must bear in mind its implication in relation to repayment instalments.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 3003

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL (No. 3) 1951

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 21st November (vide page 2350), on motion by Senator Spicer -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– As the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) pointed out in his secondreading speech, the bill deals with the following matters : - The jurisdiction of the conciliation commissioners to renew awards containing provisions respecting annual leave and sick leave; representation of the parties in proceedings before the Commonwealth Arbitration Court and conciliation commissioners ; and the filing of membership records with the Industrial Registrar. When the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) was before this chamber in July the Opposition pointed out that it would be incapable of practical application because of the provision that records of membership should be filed quarterly with the Industrial Registrar. I did not expect, however, that so soon afterwards an amending bill would be introduced. I am very pleased that the Government has seen fit to change its approach to this subject. It is clear that the Government has taken notice of the representations that were made by the Australian Council of Trades Unions and other industrial organizations. Probably, however, the deciding factor was that employers found that the cost of compliance with that requirement was too costly for it to be of any practical value.

This measure will modify the original requirements in relation to the keeping and filing of records. It is well known that trade unions already lodge annual returns of membership. It was obvious from the outset that the trade unions would need to employ additional stall in order to be able to furnish quarterly returns. The Minister has stated that the Government decided to modify that requirement because, to offset the extra cost involved, the trade unions would have to increase their membership fees. That is precisely what the Opposition pointed out when the previous measure was before this chamber.

Conciliation and arbitration is one of the most important economic and social functions in our community. The conciliatory aspect, particularly, tends to maintain peace and stability in industry. The Australian Labour party has always supported the principle of arbitration, because it enables the parties to a dispute to make submissions to persons who are capable of determining the issues. Although a decision may not be entirely satisfactory to the parties, Labour believes that it should stand until, on a further application to a recognized tribunal, the matter causing disquiet is removed. In his annual report to the Attorney-General of the 5th November, the Chief Conciliation Commissioner, Mr. G. A. Mooney, stated -

As to the extent to which the main object of the Act, viz. : “ to promote goodwill in industry and to encourage the continued amicable operation of orders and awards made in settlement of industrial disputes” has been achieved I can only refer to and repeat the view expressed by me in my last annual report, viz. : “ Conciliation Commissioners are functioning in a period of economic conditions hitherto unprecedented (at least within living memory) in the history of Australia - a period of full employment which, desirable as it is, raises problems not heretofore encountered - a period where jobs are more plentiful than mcn and women to fill them, and where the aggressive power of the unions is greater than ever before. In those circumstances, 1 unhesitatingly claim that the work performed by the commissioners has well served the objects of the act which they were appointed to further “.

That statement epitomizes the value of conciliation and arbitration in this country, and indicates the effective work that has been accomplished in the industrial sphere.

I shall now refer to loose statements that have been made by people about the effects of the 40-hour week, in the belief that they were doing something in the best interests of this country. Instead, they have done incalculable harm from the point of view of the maintenance of industrial peace. As I have pointed out previously in this chamber, the decision to introduce the 40-hour week in industry was’ taken by the full bench of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, which is the recognized industrial tribunal. The following article was published in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 21st November: -

CANBERRA, Tuesday. - The Liberal Party should get busy and influence everybody against, the 40-hour week. Senator Agnes Robertson, of Western Australia, said at the sixth annual conference in Canberra to-day of the Federal Council of the party. Senator Robertson, speaking of the decline in rural production, said, “You must get back to the original sin - introduction of the 40-hour week. We forgot that Australia is a pioneering country and that we could not afford a 40-hour week. As the Americans would say: ‘Our chickens are coming home to roost.’ Economists predict that before 1901, at the present rate of decline in production, Australia will he facing a food famine. Despite this, Australia has undertaken .to help feed South-East Asia under the Colombo Plan. Therefore, on a broad approach to the defence question, food production becomes very (important indeed.”

I should like to know whether the statement made by the honorable senator expresses the views of the Liberal party and also those of this Government. If one thing more than another tends to bring about industrial unrest it is the making of inane and ridiculous statements such as that made by Senator Robertson. It would be much better if amateurs kept away from arbitration matters and left them to people who are better able to understand the circum-stances involved.

Contrasting with the statement made by .Senator Robertson is one made by Mr. G. J. Jenkin, the president of the. Victorian Employers Federation. In the Sydney Doily Telegraph,, also of the 21st November, he is reported to have stated -

I believe it is inopportune and premature to attack the 40-hours week. Our efforts should be directed towards making the 40-hours week a success.

That is the opinion of a man who knows what he is talking about. He deals with industrial matters and represents employers in those matters. When he made that statement he was addressing the annual meeting of the Victorian Employers Federation. He made his appeal on the eve of a conference on working hours which Chief Judge Kelly of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration had called for the following day.

All honorable senators are aware that some militant trade unionists consider that a 36-hour week should operate instead of a 40-hour week. Yet there are people who are constantly saying that the whole economy of the country has been upset because of the introduction of the 40-hour week. An appropriate tribunal determines working hours, and all parties concerned may approach that tribunal for its decision. The suggestion that the 40-hour week is the cause of all our economic ills is sheer nonsense, and the sooner certain people recognize that fact, the better. I remember the days when a man was obliged to work as many hours as his employer cared to make him work. He had no protection. I also remember the time when there was a 48-hour week. The number of hours has been progressively reduced as a result of arbitration proceedings, and what the future holds, nobody knows. I consider that as long as the determination of working hours is in the hands of a statutory tribunal the interests of all parties will be considered.

Clause 3 of this bill provides that conciliation commissioners may include in an order or award provisions for existing annual or other periodical leave with pay, or sick leave with pay. In the principal act the powers of conciliation commissioners in this respect were limited. I think that it would be foolish if conciliation commissioners were not entitled to make provision in an award or order for annual and sick leave with pay, and I cannot understand why the principal act prevented them from doing so. The only effect of such a prohibition would be to delay the delivery of an order or award. If an application for alteration of annual, periodical or sick leave provisions is necessary, I consider that the application should be made to the Commonwealth

Court of Conciliation and Arbitration and not to a conciliation commissioner.

Clause 6 of the bill provides that after section 91 of the principal act a new section 91a shall be inserted. Proposed new section 91a seeks to liberalize the provisions of the principal act which relate to registers of members of organizations and the conduct of ballots. At the time when the principal act was before the Senate, the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) stated that similar provisions are contained in the industrial legislation of the various States. I am not aware of the legislation which applies in every State in relation to this matter, but I know that in “Western Australia the arbitration legislation provides that lists of members shall be presented to the Registrar once a year.

As honorable members are no doubt aware, section 12, sub-section (2.) of the principal act provides that an organization shall, within three months after the date upon which it becomes registered, file with the Registrar a copy of the register of its members as at the quarter day next preceding the day on which the copy is filed. Sub-section (3.) of that section provides that an organization which has filed with the Registrar a copy of the register of its members shall also file with the Registrar a statement giving particulars of alterations made in the register of members. Failure to comply with the terms of this sub-section carries a penalty of £10 for each week of default. Subsection (5.) provides that an organization shall, at all times during which a person is a member of the organization, keep a duplicate or butt of the latest union ticket issued to him, showing his name and usual place of residence. Failure to comply with the terms of that sub-section carries a penalty of £20. I am very pleased that the Government has now seen the light and has decided not to require strict compliance with those provisions.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Honorable senators have been invited to attend at the House of Representatives during the presentation of a mace by a delegation from the House of Commons.Suitable seating arrangements for honorable senators have been made.

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Opposition is opposed to the proposal to amend that section of the act relating to representation of parties before conciliation tribunals and the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. In this connexion the principal act provides - 43G. - (1.) In any proceedings before the Court or a Conciliation Commissioner -

  1. an organization may be represented toy a member or officer of that organization ; and

  2. a party (not being an organization may be represented by -

    1. an employee of that party; or
    2. a member or officer of an organization of which that party is a member. (2.) No party shall, in any proceedings before the Court, be represented by counsel, solicitor or paid agent, except by leave of the Court and with consent of all the parties. In any proceedings before a Conciliation Commissioner, no party shall be represented by counsel, solicitor or paid agent. (3.) This section shall not apply to judicial proceedings before the Court.

I can see no reason why that provision should be repealed. The significant point is that it is to be left entirely to the discretion of the court or of the conciliation commissioner to determine whether a party shall be represented by counsel. Apparently, the Government has accepted the recommendation of Chief Conciliation Commission Mooney, and of the Chief Judge of the Arbitration Court, but has not sought the opinion of organized labour. The Government’s proposal is a dangerous one. The most effective representation before an industrial tribunal is by the secretary or paid agent of a union, or of an employers’ organization. Such persons have a full knowledge of the industry, and are able to give thetribunal the benefit of their knowledge. The emphasis should be on conciliation. No lawyer could possibly have the same knowledge of an industry as has the secretary or agent of a trade union or of an employers’ organization. The employment of counsel would merely involve industrial organizations in greater cost, because some one familiar with the industry would have to sit beside the lawyer to instruct him. I admit that there is a legitimate field for counsel in cases involving the interpretation of awards. The act in its present form meets the requirements of all parties. We can have too much legalism in arbitration, resulting in heavy costs and little satisfaction. I do not believe that it. should be left entirely to the discretion of a judge of the court or a conciliation commissioner to decide whether parties should or should not be represented by counsel.

Senator WEIGHT (Tasmania) [4.51 J. - The purpose of this bill is to amend the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, a piece of legislation which, in present circumstances, is tremendously important to Australia. Indeed, I attribute to the operation of that act an importance second only to the financial proposals of the Government. The Commonwealth Parliament has a special function to perform in respect of arbitration, and a bill dealing with the subject should not be allowed to pass without comment.

Senator Nash referred to the decision of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court on the 40-hour week, and asked whether certain criticism recently published in connexion with it represented the opinion of the Liberal party. I am not authorized to speak on behalf of that party, but I should be failing in my duty to the electors who sent me here if 1 did not express my own opinion on a matter so important to the industrial peace of the country. As recently as last week, Chief Judge Kelly, speaking with great. deliberation and earnestness, made a statement on the subject of the 40-hour week, and I quote the following report of that statement: -

In the statement Judge Kelly said the first and foremost factors in a review of standard hours was the country’s economy - the industrial economy and capacity of industry under a certain standard of hours - to fulfil community needs.

Tt «iis obvious, the judge added, that the 40-hour week was not being worked in the true sense.

It was quite clear to those with a knowledge of industry in Australia that the 40-hour standard was being reduced.

This occurred because of the failure of employers to rationalize and discipline the control of their factories and establishments, and because employees did not put forward their best efforts. “ But surely the time has come, perhaps late, when some co-operative approach should Liu made to the problem of production, both primary and secondary, in this country,” he said.

So far it was judicial for the Chief Judge to go, and I add for myself that 1, as a keen student of the arbitration system, and with some practical knowledge of its workings, have always stoutly defended the principle of a 40-hour week. I hope that there will be an end to the antipathy between political parties on this subject. Any one who knows the fatigue associated with manual and industrial labour must favour a standard working week of 40 hours, and must try to do what he can to make it effective and successful. I am not one of those who criticize the decision of the Commonwealth court in granting the 40-hour week as a matter of principle. I hope that I can persuade the Opposition to abandon its misguided policy of trying to create class dissension with the idea of making the workers believe that members of the Labour party are the only defenders in this Parliament of the conditions which the workers enjoy. That is certainly not true. I had hoped that members of the Labour party in Australia would capture something of the spirit which guides the Labour movement in Great Britain, and which in that country engenders in leaders of the party a greater sense of responsibility. I had hoped that leaders of the Australian Labour party would try to make the 40-hour week completely successful and effective.

We have been engaged, every man according to his lights, upon a careful study of methods for the correction of Australia’s unbalanced economy. When it suits them, members of the Opposition have argued shrewdly that certain sections of the community have suffered unduly because of present economic trends. Every one who recalls the steep increases of prices for goods and services during the last four or five years must realize the disadvantages under which some worthy sections of the community labour. Because of the danger that our economic system does not give justice to various sections of the community - in particular I have in mind salary-earners and persons in receipt of fixed incomes - we should re-examine the machinery that is now in operation in the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. I have sought to point out on other occasions - and repetition does not daunt me if I believe it to he necessary to emphasize a point of view in tho public interest - that the powers of this Parliament to deal with industrial matters are very limited. They are expressed in the Constitution simply as powers to legislate for arbitration andconciliation for the settlement of industrial disputes “ extending beyond the limits of any one State “. Having constituted a conciliation and arbitration tribunal, we, as a Parliament, can do little to provide the planks for the floor upon which arbitration machinery shall be established. That tribunal has devised machinery for the fixation of the basicwage and for the adjustment of that wage to cover the fluctuating purchasing value of money. For a decade the basic wage has been based upon what has been called, very briefly, the capacity of industry to pay, as distinct from the individual needs of the wage-earner from the point of view of increased living costs as was formerly the case. In judgments delivered in 1941, 1944, 1946, and, I think, in 1949, reference was made, in various places in the court’s explanations of reasons, to the fact that the adoption of that basis does not wholly displace the propriety of the application of the “ C “ series index for the purpose of maintaining a proper relationship between the basic wage, as fixed by the court, and the then cost of living. “We all know that until 1937 the Commonwealth Statistician was entrusted with the task of collecting factual evidence upon which the “ C “ series index figure was computed, but that, in that year, the court established its own machinery, for that purpose. At the appropriate time I trust that the Attorney-General will explain in some detail the methods used by the court to ascertain the quarterly cost of living figures according to the “ C “ series formula. All too little is known about that subject. Possibly, within the interstices of the machinery itself, there are opportunities for errors and mistakes in estimating current costs and in deciding what articles should be included in the regimen. I look forward to a little factual enlightenment upon that subject. I, in my simplicity, suggest that it is timely for us to examine the appropriateness of the adjustments made in the basic wage during the decade in which the predominant factor has become the capacity of industry to pay. Such an examination would open up a very fruitful field for research, not on theoretical, but on purely practical lines. It cannot be denied that the adoption of that basis for the calculation of basic wage adjustments has resulted in quarterly adjustments that have accelerated the rise in costs and have injected a new dose of inflationary medicine into our economy. The basic wage system was designed for the purpose, not of increasing prices but of adjusting wages to prices. We have truly started a game of “ Ring-a-ring-a-rosy “ and “ Here we go round the mulberry bush “. The system should be re-examined for the purpose of ascertaining whether it meets existing circumstances. The Chief Conciliation Commissioner, in a report dated the 5th November, described it in these terms -

Conciliation commissioners ure functioning in a period of economic conditions hitlierto unprecedented (at least within living memory) in the history of Australia- a period of full employment which, desirable as it is. raises problems not heretofore encountered - a period where jobs are more plentiful than men and women to fill them . . .

This problem is worthy of our collective attention.

I pass now to some of the provisions in the principal act and in this amending bill. It is regrettable that a bill that deals with a matter of such importance should be merely a “ patchwork “ measure. It is regrettable, too, that honorable senators received the annual report of the Chief Judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, which was issued on the 24th October, only on the morning of the day upon which they were asked to debate this amending bill. I do not know who was responsible for the delay in the distribution of the report. I simply express my regret that I did not have an opportunity to consider that very thought-provoking report more fully before I was called upon to debate this bill.

It will be observed that one of the provisions of the measure amends section 13 of the principal act, which contains a provision that was described by Chief

Judge Kelly, in his report, as “jurisdictional dichotomy “. That provision was inserted in the legislation by the Chifley Government. Section 13 established two branches of arbitration jurisdiction, one under the control of the conciliation commissioners, and the other under the control of the judges of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. The two parts of the arbitration field are divided exclusively so that the judges, and the judges alone, have a certain field of jurisdiction in which the conciliation commissioners are warned under section 13 not to trespass. Chief J udge Kelly has referred in his report to “ the importance of keeping the functions of the court and of the conciliation commissioners distinct “. When we devised the Constitution a distinction’,vas made between interstate and intra-state trade. So-, too, is there a distinction between industrial matters. Under the Constitution the Commonwealth Parliament is empowered to legislate only for the settlement of disputes of an interstate character. Those who have read the report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution will recall that the most sagacious counsel who gave evidence before the commission, and, indeed, the royal commission itself, held that it was impracticable to apply a division, which had no physical existence, as between interstate and intra-state trade. In this bill a similar attempt has been made to create what the Chief Judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court has described as “ an impossible division of interstate industrial disputes”, by relegating one portion of the field of jurisdiction to the conciliation commissioners and by preserving the remainder for the judges. The Chief Judge has also referred to various aspects of the “ artificiality” of that division. In another poi-tion of the report he said -

Another instance of the impossibility of keeping the functions of the court and conciliation commissioner distinct and in separate compartments may be cited.

He then referred to practical difficulties that he, as Chief Judge of the court, had experienced in the discharge of his duties. I believe that the difficulties that would be encountered were referred to in debates that took place in this Senate when the division was first made. Chief

Judge Kelly also said that experience of the working of the act since 1947 warranted further examination of the legislative system established by the 1947 amendment. Even at this late hour of the sessional period, it is timely for me to direct attention to the need for a very careful consideration of this matter. Chief Judge Kelly made a thoughtprovoking remark when he said -

The amendments of 1047, called in graphic terms streamlining amendments, have not in themselves accelerated the despatch of Arbitration Court business.

He said that circumstances had been operating since 1947 which had enabled the court to keep up to date with business and he reported to the Parliament that at the time that this report was written, there were no judgments still reserved in the court. It will be seen that the judges themselves were up to date. He went on to say -

The division of this jurisdiction with regard to industrial disputes, requiring them, to be divided into two parts, one for the court and the other for the commissioners, contributed greatly to the delay.

These are matters which honorable senators would do well to ponder. I am sure that it is unnecessary on my part to draw the attention of Ministers to that matter, but we back-benchers owe it to ourselves to contribute what we can to the consideration of these matters and perhaps to participate in any final conclusions that may lead to improvements. I accept clause 3 of this bill, which is a patchwork of section 13, only as a temporary expedient in the hope that it is merely an instalment of a complete piece of work that will be achieved in re-defining this set-up early in the New Year.

The third matter to which I wish te refer is one on which, peculiarly enough, Senator Nash thought himself entitled to express an opinion, namely legal representation before the court. I know that it is not for me to urge that legal representation is of value in all circumstances. In fact, I am one who would ardently deny that as a general proposition; but, at the same time, I believe that even an arbitration court can be expected to proceed better in the daylight than in the dark. I believe that it would not be a reflection upon the court’s capacity to have the assistance of those who have spent their lifetime in a study of the law which they are administering as practitioners before it. I pass by the Opposition’s objection to this particular provision very briefly, because none other than the Chief Conciliation Commissioner, Mr. G. A. Mooney, has urged that it should be possible for the conciliation commissioners to have the assistance of counsel appearing before them for the parties on whose disputes they have to arbitrate if the parties wish to employ them. As the Attorney-General said by way of interjection -

The present legislation provides that in any proceeding before a Conciliation Commissioner, no party shall be represented by counsel, solicitor or paid agent.

The conciliation commissioners are not generally lawyers. The Chief Conciliation Commissioner has said that it would be a great advantage to them if, by their leave, lawyers were permitted under the legislation to appear before them and present the facts and the law with regard to the cases that they are hearing. So if a man with all the experience of Chief Conciliation Commissioner Mooney can urge an amendment to that effect without any of the prejudice that might be attributed to a professional man, it ill becomes an ordinary trade union advocate to oppose that improvement.

In concluding my discussion of this bill, it is not necessary for me to do more than refer to one particular result of the present legislation to which Chief Judge Kelly referred. He pointed out that the conciliation commissioners were given power merely to refer a question of law to the court. But the Commonwealth Arbitration Court itself is not the final tribunal to adjudicate upon its functions and the Chief Judge added that by reason of the peculiar set-up left by the Labour Government’s amending legislation, an award may go through the complete processes of the court, be in existence for two years, and then be challenged in th* High Court for want of jurisdiction and so be invalidated. He pleads for a rein trod uction of section 21aaa by which the court and the commissioners could refer that question right at the threshold of their discussion to the High Court for final determination. It seems to me that that is a matter which is not unworthy of the Senate’s attention.

Finally, as I still hold a somewhat dispirited allegiance to the idea that this Senate will prove itself sensitive to the existence of State rights as well as to the federal Constitution, and being mindful of the fact that one of the responsibilities of the Parliament is the establishment of a federal court of arbitration, I refer to what the Chief Judge says as to the accommodation available to the court in Melbourne and Sydney. Those are the main centres where the work of the court is done. The Chief Judge describes the accommodation there as most unsuitable and insufficient. Honorable senators would do well to devote attention primarily to matters that are properly within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, such as the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, rather than to the Commonwealth Office of Education and the Department of Labour and National Service.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) agreed to-

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in tho affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I had hoped to have some explanation of clause 4 in relation to representation of parties before a conciliation commissioner. That clause would make it possible to provide for legal assistance to be granted at the request of the conciliation commissioners. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber are opposed to that clause for many reasons. It has been suggested by honorable senators opposite that the appearance of legal men before the tribunal would assist the court in reaching its decisions. Over a long period, certain arbitration machinery has been in existence under which it was not necessary for legal authorities to appear. One would have thought that the Minister in charge of the bill would give the Senate some very cogent reason why this clause should be inserted.

Senator Spicer:

– Did not the honorable senator read my second-reading speech ?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Yes, I read it closely, and all that the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) said was that the Chief Conciliation Commissioner suggested that such a provision would be very handy.

Senator Spicer:

– I said that it would be useful for the conciliation commissioners.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I know of no reason why a conciliation commissioner should desire a legal representative. If a matter is before a judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, it would be necessary to have a legal representative because the interpretation of laws would be involved.

Senator Spicer:

– That also arises before the conciliation commissioners.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Very rarely. Senator Wright gave honorable senators a dissertation on the whole question of arbitration, and complained about the dual jurisdiction of the court and the conciliation commissioners. The commissioners were appointed for the express purpose of enabling the arbitration machinery to function as smoothly as possible. As the Attorney-General is aware, legal representation of employers or employees is not permitted at wages board hearings in Victoria; yet those boards make decisions that are binding on all parties concerned, and it was upon the wages board system that the plan for conciliation commissioners in the federal sphere was based. Wo should not allow our conciliation system to be destroyed by the intrusion of lawyers whose only aim will be to justify their fat fees by seeking loopholes in the law, and arguing over legal technicalities. Obviously if legal representation is sought by one party to- a bearing, it will be sought also by the other party or parties. Interminable legal arguments will result about the crossing of “ fs “ and the dotting of “ i’s “. This legislation will render worthless the attempt that was made by the Chifley Government to streamline our arbitration system. I am strongly opposed to the intrusion of lawyers into conciliation proceedings.

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am convinced that the decision to empower conciliation commissioners to authorize legal representation of parties to a dispute is based upon a statement that was made by the Chief Conciliation Commissioner, Mr. Mooney. The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) quoted Mr. Mooney as having said -

A majority of the Commissioners considered that this prohibition deprived them of the aid of skilled and experienced representatives of both employers and employees.

Legal representation will involve parties to disputes in unnecessarily high costs. As Senator Sheehan has pointed out, conciliation commissioners were appointed to settle disputes quickly. Industrial problems are best dealt with by representatives of employers and employees who are thoroughly familiar with industry. If a conciliation commissioner wants a legal opinion on a particular matter, there is nothing to prevent him from seeking such an opinion and I am sure that no objection would be raised by the employees or the employers concerned. The intrusion of lawyers will make the settlement of disputes more difficult and more expensive. Negotiations will inevitably be protracted. I say that with all respect to the legal profession. Industrial law is entirely different from criminal law or any other kind of law. Precedents have no great significance. This clause, therefore, is quite unnecessary. The trade unions have not requested it. Furthermore, it will deprive litigants of their right to determine whether or not they want legal representation. I oppose the clause strenuously.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

. –I am pleased that the Government has now recognized the futility of endeavouring to compel trade unions and other industrial organizations to keep detailed membership records. When legislation providing for the keeping of such records was before the Senate we on this side of the chamber, who have had considerable experience of the industrial movement, pointed out that the requirements of the amendment could not possibly be complied with. Ignoring our protests, however, the Government refused to alter the legislation. Now, it has come back to the Parliament with a proposal which, in effect, represents acceptance of the Opposition’s viewpoint. 1 am confident that before long the Government will find that other provisions of the act to which Labour has taken exception are equally unworkable and will have to be altered. Last year, the Opposition warned the Government that the amending bill then before the Parliament was panic legislation and that it would not achieve the purpose for which it was intended. The validity of that criticism has already been clearly demonstrated, and I hope that, in future, the Government will not persist in its attitude that might is right and that because it has a majority in both Houses of the Parliament it is entitled to enforce undesirable legislation upon the people of this country. I am. confident that we shall have other opportunities in the near future to discuss the whole ramifications of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

. -I wish to voice my protest against the appearance of lawyers in proceedings before conciliation commissioners. There arc two kinds of language. First, there is the language of the literalminded who call a spade a spade. Then there is the language of members of the legal fraternity who would probably refer to a spade as a manually operated agricultural instrument. Because lawyers inevitably take advantage of every ambiguity and every technicality in the law, the real issues become obscured. Beyond doubt, the appearance of lawyers in the arbitration court has unduly prolonged proceedings and delayed the making of awards. But for the organized strength of the trade union movement, some hearings would have been even more protracted than they were. For instance, the 40hour week case could have been shortened by 75 per cent., but it went on and on, until every one began to regard the proposed 40hour week as a Kathleen Mavourneen promise. Behind many of the industrial troubles involving water side workers, seamen, and miners, lies the resentment of. those men at the delay in having their grievances rectified. Whilst I do not suggest that all the lawyers indulge in shadow sparring or chasing shadows, undoubtedly many members of the profession do adopt such tactics to prolong proceedings and so justify higher costs.

Sitting suspended from 5.44 to 9.45 p.m.

Senator CAMERON:

– I have pointed out the difference between the language that is used by a layman, and by a legal luminary. As Senator Sheehan has already mentioned, legal representation before wages boards is not permitted, with the result that hearings of applications by those boards are completed expeditiously. The agony is not prolonged for any appreciable length of time. ‘ However, as legal representation is permitted in connexion with applications before the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, hearings by the court are frequently prolonged. Legal representatives are quite capable of approaching these matters in a common sense manner. If they were to do so, applications to the court would be determined within a relatively short space of time. However, as I have already said, the tendency is for them to prolong the agony, which causes resentment by the workers, who, in consequence, frequently resort to direct action, which is outside the jurisdiction of the court. The effect of this measure will be to permit legal representation in connexion with all applications, and members of the legal fraternity will decide whether applications will be. discussed in a commonsense and expeditious manner or in a prolonged way. If they decide to prolong the agony, strikes and strife will follow, for which the Government will be more blameworthy than the workers. On many occasions in the past, when it was obvious to me that proceedings were being unduly prolonged, I have advised the workers to take other action. If members of the legal profession were prepared to adopt a more tolerant and commonsense attitude in connexion with applications, it, would be better for all concerned.

Motion (by Senator Spicer) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Reid.)

AYES: 29

NOES: 14

Majority . . 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Beading.

Motion (by Senator Spicer) put -

That the hill be now read a third time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 16

Majority . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3012

HOSPITAL BENEFITS BILL 1951

Second Beading.

Debate resumed from the 21st November (vide page 2356), on motion by Senator Cooper -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– The bill before the Senate is primarily an enabling measure. It sets up no machinery and one must glean its purpose, in practical effect, from what took place at a conference last January between the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) and the Ministers for Health of the various States, and also from press reports of the Government’s intentions. The exact intentions of the Government have not been made clear in the secondreading speech of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper). There can be no appreciation of what the Government is attempting in this measure and what is being discarded unless one reviews briefly the history of the matter.

Following the recommendation of the Social Security Committee, when Senator Fraser was Minister for Health, in 1945 the Commonwealth Parliament passed a bill which authorized the making of agreements between the Commonwealth and the States. I emphasize the word “ States “ because the agreements were not made with hospitals, nor did the Commonwealth purport to deal with hospitals. There can be no assessment of the value of this measure or of its implications until that point is fully understood. The original approach was to adopt as the base year the years 1942-43 and 1943-44. and on the average of those years, to determine the amounts which public hospitals in Australia had collected from patients in public wards to cover not, only accommodation, but also treatment and the cost of medicines. It was found that the figures were as follows: - New South Wales collected 4s. 5d. a day; Victoria, 3s. 3d.; Queensland, 4s. 10d.; South Australia, 4s.1d. ; Western Australia, 5s. 9d. and Tasmania, 4s. The proposal that the Commonwealth made to the States,’ and which they ultimately accepted in 1946, was, in effect, “We are prepared to pay you more than you have been able to collect from the public of Australia for medical treatment in public wards, and the provision of medicine and accommodation. Whereas yon have collected amounts ranging from 3s. 3d. to 5s. 9d. a day, we are prepared to pay to you 6s. a day in respect of each bed patient. The difference between the amounts that you have been in the habit of collecting and the sum of 6s. is to be paid into a trust account and expended on capital hospital projects “. That system continued in operation for some time. Because costs in the various States were rising, representations were made in 1947, two years after the inauguration of the scheme, as a result of which the States were allowed to take the full amount of 6s. for maintenance. They were not obliged to put aside any sums for reserves.

In 1948, the figure of 6s. was increased to Ss. a day for each bed patient in public wards in public hospitals throughout Australia. Only one condition was imposed by the Commonwealth upon the States in relation to hospital administration. Those payments, which began at 6s. a day and amounted in 1948 at 8s. a day, were conditional upon the States ensuring that no means test should apply in respect of patients in public wards in public hospitals. That, and that alone, was the only condition imposed by the Commonwealth. Having made thai, point clear, honorable senators will appreciate the inaccuracy of the very first statement made by the Minister in his second-reading speech. No doubt his words were inspired by the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page). They were as follows : -

This hill restores to State governments, which, under the Federal Constitution, have the primary responsibility for health, control of public hospital administration and policy.

It is a gross misstatement to say that the hospital benefits scheme of the Commonwealth took away from the hospitals or from the States control of public hospital administration and policy. All States accepted the agreement. All of them agreed that no means test should be applicable to patients who sought admission to public wards of public hospitals.

Senator Guy:

– All of the States protested, too !

Senator McKENNA:

– Nevertheless, they all accepted the agreement. The day will never dawn when the representatives of State governments will be prepared to accept with a good grace anything that is offered by the Australian Government. Like Oliver Twist, the States always want more.

Senator McCallum:

– The honorable senator is perfectly correct.

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– It would be bad tactics on the part of a State to express satisfaction with any offer made by the Commonwealth, because the very fact that satisfaction had been expressed would be used against that State at the next conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers. It is not the practice of State governments to express joy except on receipt of a benefit from this Government. The reverse reaction must always be expected.

That has been the history of the hospital benefits scheme. I have only one more point to add on this aspect of the subject. It is that the States were further helped by provision under the scheme that if the State public hospitals were obliged to pay for medical attention in public wards, the Commonwealth would reimburse the hospitals, through the States, to the amount expended in that direction. A later arrangement provided that payment should be made in respect of in-patients in nonpublic wards and also in respect of outpatients to cover costs of medicines provided to those two classes of patients.

In 1945 the position had been reached where any citizen of this country was entitled to admission to a public ward. He was not put through an inquisition concerning his means. The only condition that applied concerned his need for attention in that hospital. His plight was the key which opened the door of a public hospital. He paid nothing for maintenance, accommodation and medicines. The States and the hospitals were more than adequately recompensed by the Commonwealth for the fact that they had abandoned Hip menus test.

The first effective provision of this bill, and the only operative one at the moment, is that the Hospital Benefits Acts of 1945, 1947 and 1948 are repealed. A saying clause provides that, notwithstanding the repeal of those acts, financial assistance will continue to be given to the States throughout the unexpired term of their several agreements. That immediately throws overboard the obligation of the States not to impose a means test. That alone immediately liberates the States from their undertaking not to impose a means test.

Senator McCallum:

– But it -does not compel them to do so.

Senator McKENNA:

– I did not say that it did. I said that it liberates them. I agree that there is no compulsion upon them to impose a means test. At the present moment, and until this bill becomes operative, there is compulsion upon them to refrain from imposing a means test as long as they are parties to the agreement with the Commonwealth. The saving clause in this bill merely ensures that financial assistance shall continue. The agreements will expire very soon, some next year and some early the following year, so that those agreements and the basis upon which they rest will have gone within about a year.

The remainder of the bill is merely of an enabling character to authorize the Commonwealth to enter into agreement with the States for the provision of hospital benefits in public hospitals, to provide hospital benefits for persons who are not covered under that heading, and to provide for the payment of such benefits to persons who are residents of Australia but who are in hospitals abroad. Then comes a very interesting provision, the main effect of which is that over and above that initial payment of hospital benefits, if a patient in a public hospital i3 insured - -and I underline the word “ if “ - instead of collecting his friendly society or insurance company payments and retaining them, those payments will be made to the hospital. The Commonwealth will then pay an additional 4s. a day to the States. The Minister for Health has claimed again and again that there has been no interference by the

Commonwealth in hospital administration. I have already demonstrated that that is incorrect. Pressures of all kinds will be exerted under the new system. If a patient in a public ward is insured, and if the proceeds under the insurance policy are paid to the hospital, the Commonwealth will pay the State an extra 4s. a day in respect of that patient. Therefore, the States will realize that if they wish to receive 12s. a day instead of 8s. in respect of patients in public wards they must see that people insure themselves’. Pressure will be put on people in that way to do something which they would not otherwise do, and from the doing of which they will get no benefit if no means test applies. What would be the purpose of people taking out insurance policies merely in order that the State may collect 12s. instead of 8s. a clay from the Commonwealth?

Another pressure will be exerted in the direction of disrupting existing relations between friendly societies and their members. At present, when a member of a friendly society falls ill, he goes into hospital where, without any quizzing or any means test, he receives the best treatment and the best medicines. Under the Government’s proposed scheme he will be subjected to a means test, and will be asked to pay hospital fees. If he is not insured he will have to pay something extra to the hospital. If he is insured, the proceeds of the policy will be paid to the hospital. This is the most reactionary and retrograde step that the Government has yet taken. In 1949, the Government announced that in 1952 it would place before the people of Australia a contributory scheme under which the means test would be abolished. Now the Government is reverting to a system under which the means test is to be applied to patients in public hospitals. I wonder whether Government supporters really appreciate that point. This proposal is opposed to progressive thought, and the Government’s own expressed policy. Are honorable senators opposite supporting this policy blindly, as I believe they are doing or do they really understand its implications?

Senator MCCALLUM:

– Wc know what we are doing.

Senator McKENNA:

– I doubt it, and I say so with emphasis. When the Minister for Health introduced this measure in the House of Representatives, he said -

On the one hand mankind would be very poor indeed if it were entirely selfish in its -outlook and habits while on the other, goodwill and eli in- itv furnish the oil that makes it possible for the world to go around. Voluntary associations provide the best machinery for the generation of goodwill and of the community spirit.

If the Government wishes to incorporate charity into our social services it cannot expect the support of the Labour party. The Minister for Health actually pointed out that while a patient was in hospital he was saved the expense of eating at home. What a paltry argument that is, having regard to the fact that the patient suffers the loss of his earning capacity. If he has insured against sickness, he will need the money to compensate him for loss of earnings, but the Government proposes to strip him of his insurance money. I believe that the Government lias been mislead by the Minister for Health, whose thinking has been dominated by ideas of a contributory system of social services. It will be”’ to the eternal disgrace of the Government if it allow.= this measure to come into operation.

That my assessment of the Government’s intentions is not mistaken is borne out by my examination of the proposed regulation in respect of private hospitals which will provide that if a patient in a private hospital is insured, and the proceeds of the policy are paid to the hospital, an additional 4s. will be paid to the State on his behalf. This bill will bring more odium on the Government than even its budget did. Australia had progressed to the point where the means test had been abolished in respect of patients in public wards. Now the Government proposes to force us back to the conditions that existed years ago. The Minister for Health said that in the United States of America a measure of self-help was practised, but he admitted that it extended to only 10 per cent, or 35 per cent, of the population in some of the States. I imagine a situation in which 90 per cent, or 85 per cent, of the population have no provision made for them by the State, and are left to charity when they fall sick.

Senator McCALLUM:

– Charity is a great virtue.

Senator McKENNA:

– I agree, but in Australia the people have already paid, through their social services contribution, for the hospital benefit, and they are entitled to receive what they have paid for. This year, the Government will pay into the National Welfare Fund £48,000,000 more than will be needed to meet social services commitments. The people have already paid to have the means test abolished for patients in public wards, yet the Government is now asking them to submit to a means test, and so that they will not be hit so hard they are to insure themselves. However, when they become patients, the insurance money is not to go into their own pockets, but must be paid to the hospital. Is any Government supporter prepared to contravert the propositions that I have advanced? If so, let him speak, because I now have an opportunity to answer him.

Senator McCallum:

– One argument against the present system is that, although payments are unequal, the treatment is equal in all public wards.

Senator McKENNA:

– The Com[mon. wealth pays 8s. a day in respect of all occupied hospital beds.

Senator McCallum:

– But payments by the taxpayers are not equal.

Senator McKENNA:

– Surely it is not expected that a person on an income of £105 a year should pay as much in taxation as the person with an income of £5,000 a year? At present, the treatment accorded to patients in the public wards of public hospitals is the same all over Australia. It is already certain that some of the States will reject the new scheme should this bill become law. Then the treatment accorded to patients in various parts of Australia will no longer be equal. There will be a means test in some States, but not in others. Patients will be insured in some States, while those in other States will not be insured. If honorable senators opposite applaud that prospect I cannot understand their thinking. I trust that the Government will postpone further consideration of the bill so that honorable senators may have more opportunity to consider its implications. If the Government fears that by the continuation of the present system the hospital auxiliary movement may suffer injury 1 point to the experience of theRoyal Hobart Hospital, where a magnificent auxiliary service is co-operating with the hospital authorities in the administration of the institution, and in providing funds for particular items of equipment.

Debate interrupted.

page 3016

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 3016

HOSPITAL BENEFITS BILL 1961

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator McKENNA:

– There is everything to be said for the development of auxiliaries associated with public hospitals. It is desirable that the best and most efficient elements in the community should rally round their local hospital, take pride in it, further its works, stimulate its standards and generally make it an essential functioning part of the community. Sick people should not be dependent upon the charity contemplated by the Minister for Health. I thought that our social conscience had progressed to the stage at which all political parties would discard the thought of charity. The Social Security Committee, which was representative of all parties in this Parliament, and which included in its membership the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), who is in charge of this bill, established many new and important principles in relation to hospital benefits. All of those principles are to be discarded simply because the Minister for Health desires to establish the contributory hospital insurance scheme which he has been trying to establish for decades. To demonstrate how far the right honorable gentleman is in error, Ishall quote another passage from his speech. Speaking about the hospital agreements under the 1946, 1947 and 1948 legislation, he said -

Those agreements imposed conditions, in the matter of charges, on State hospital policies, which, taking Australia as a whole, have caused a loss in hospital revenue estimated at £6,000,000 a year.

The agreements imposed one condition, and one condition only, not on the hospitals but on the State governments, that they should not impose a means test. I defy any honorable senator opposite to cite an instance of the slightest interference by the Commonwealth with hospital administration or policy. Agreements of this kind are made, not with the hospitals, but with the States, and it is left to the States to enact laws to provide for or abolish the means test. The States and the people will resent this re-introduction of a means test.

I propose now to refer to a leading article that was published in the Hobart Mercury on the18th January after the Minister for Health had announced his hospital insurance plan to the State Ministers for Health. That organ does not support Labour or Labour’s policy.. Indeed, it usually supports policies that are opposed by Labour. I quote from that journal so that honorable senators opposite may realize how far behind current thought the Minister for Health has been trailing. The article reads -

In Tasmania public hospitals treatment is free; this is Government policy. Consequently, there is no point in the head of a family insuring against the prospective cost of public hospital treatment.

That is the very point that I have been making. The article continues -

Such insurance would become useful only if there were a means test so that patients had to pay according to their capacity.

That is clearly the argument that I have addressed to the Senate to-night. The article proceeds -

Sir Earle proposes to pay a subsidy of 12s. daily for insured patients, but only 8s. a day for uninsured. To get the benefit of the extra subsidy the Tasmanian Government would have to abandon itspolicy of free treatment. Whether Sir Earle’s plan is sound or not, it amounts to coercion by the familiar federal method of drawing the purse strings tighter.

That is precisely what the Government is doing. I remind honorable senators that those statements were published in a newspaper that supports this Government day in and day out. The writer of the article developed the very argument that I have addressed at some length to honorable senators tonight. The purpose of this scheme is to force patients to insure so that the States will benefit by an additional 4s. for each hospital patient. I urge Government supporters to give serious thought to this proposal before they record their votes in favour of it.

Having regard to the lateness of the hour and to all the speeches we have listened to to-night, there is little more that I wish to say. I invite honorable senators opposite to point to any flaw in the argument that I have just addressed to them on behalf of the Opposition. Is any Government supporter prepared to stand in his place and say that he supports a proposal that directly leads back to the means test and which will result in making the people pay. not once, not twice, but three times?

Senator McMULLIN:
Few South Wales

– I am certain that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has not been actively associated with hospital administration, or he would not have spoken as he has spoken tonight. A great deal has been said about the means test purely for political purposes. If the Leader of the Opposition had been closely associated with hospital work he would know only too well what has happened as the result of the Commonwealth’s intervention in hospital matters. The people who will be protected under this bill are those who are in poor circumstances and must depend on public hospitals for the treatment of their complaints. I have had many years of experience in hospital administration. In my humble way I have done my best to assist sick and suffering people who have not been able to care for themselves. A great deal of the talk that has been indulged in about the moans test is completely meaningless. The application of a means test merely ensures that the poorest section of the community will be given free treatment in public wards to which they are justly entitled. The great principle behind this legislation is that of self- help. I cannot pay too high a tribute to the Government of New South Wales and to the Hospitals Commission of that State for the work that they have done in providing for the sick and suffering. In 1945 their work was rudely interrupted by the Chifley Government’s hospital benefits scheme. When that scheme was brought into operation we said “ Good-bye “ to voluntary contributory hospital benefits schemes. There was nothing finer in the community than the work done by the hospitals of New South Wales and by all those who were associated with them. The great principle of self-help must be preserved. The term “ institution “ conjures up in the minds of many people something akin to a reformatory. We should look upon our hospitals as places in which our people can obtain treatment for their ailments without any suggestion that they are the recipients of charity. In the past, public spirited citizens have done excellent work in initiating and conducting hospital benefits schemes, friendly societies and the like. They were encouraged in that work by the kindly interest and active support of the people in their own localities. When the Chifley Government introduced its hospital benefits scheme the control of hospitals was taken out of the hands of the State governments. The hospital benefits scheme has cost the taxpayers of Australia £6,000,000 per annum. The sympathy and kindness exhibited by those who took an active part in the administration and working of the voluntary schemes cannot be calculated in terms of money. I am sympathetic with the sick and needy poor. I realize that there is little that is more depressing than the cold, austere wards of public hospitals; but when the patients in the public wards feel that the people are sympathetically disposed towards them and are interested in their welfare, the austerity and coldness of their surroundings is frequently forgotten.

The purpose of this bill is merely to restore to State governments the right to run their own hospitals. No authority is more competent to conduct a hospital than is a State government. If the control of hospitals is allowed to remain in the hands of State governments the spirit of co-operation which was so strong in earlier years will become even stronger and those interested in the welfare of sick and suffering people will be spurred on to greater efforts. Hospital auxiliaries have done splendid work in providing much-needed hospital equipment and apparatus. Public spirited citizens in all communities have invariably responded to appeals for such a worthy cause. All that fine spirit in the community disappeared with the introduction of the Chifley Government hospital benefits scheme which divorced public sympathy and public feeling from hospital administration.

Under the plan of this bill, there will be no compulsion on any person to insure. In order to encourage the people to insure the Government has said that it will subsidize insured patients. The amounts that will be paid in respect of insured patients will be used by hospitals to improve the equipment that is necessary for the treatment of the sick. I am not impressed by the talk of honorable senators opposite about the means test because I do not believe that they are serious. They do not understand the problem. If they did they would agree that the poor people of any community must have the first call on the public wards. “Wealthy people have been elbowing away from the public wards those who have not been able to pay for treatment. That is a tragedy. The poor people must be protected in their time of sickness. They should be able to go into a public hospital assured of the best treatment. Hospital treatment should be on a proper basis with private and intermediate wards for those who can afford to pay. I’, have inquired carefully into the work that is done by private hospitals in New South Wales. If honorable .senators visited the great hospitals at North Shore in Sydney, Waratah and Newcastle, they would see for themselves that those institutions have been punished by the extraordinary legislation that was introduced by the Chifley GovernmentNobody associated with hospitals wanted it.

Senator Aylett:

– There is a lot of graft and corruption in the hospitals of New South Wales.

Senator McMULLIN:

– No, there is not. The organization of the hospitals is on u high level. Nothing is worse than a situation in which people who are sick seek admission to a hospital but are unable to find a vacant bed. My sympathies are with those who are not in a position to pay for better hospital accommodation. The Government has responsibility for those people. If recent policy towards hospitals is continued, every opportunity to develop ancillaries which improve hospital treatment will be lost. Such provision can be made only with the help of the community and the support of wealthy people. The drying up of community interest in hospitals has been one of the tragedies of this age. Many persons have «aid that they are paying high taxation and that therefore they should not have to continue to work for hospitals. It is the duty of the Opposition to encourage people to take an interest in hospital work. I visualize district hospitals throughout the country where sick people can get the best treatment close to their homes. I warn the Opposition that if its policy ever removes from the hospital system the kindly support of the community a serious disservice will have been done to the hospitals. I urge the honorable senators opposite to forget the political play in which they are involved in relation to the means test and support the movement to give those who are not able to pay for hospital treatment the attention that they deserve.

Senator FRASER:
Western Australia

– I was the Minister in the

Curtin and Chifley Governments who was responsible for bringing down the original hospital benefits legislation and I was surprised to hear Senator McMullin commend the proposal that is now before the Senate. The policy of the Labour Government under the late Mr. Curtin and the late Mr. Chifley was to avoid forcing sick men and women from parading their poverty in a public hospital. That is what this measure will do. The Labour Government provided that any man or woman would have the opportunity to obtain a bed in a public hospital. That was my intention when I brought down the legislation.

Senator McMullin:

– But it was the wrong policy.

Senator FRASER:

– It was not the wrong policy. The time is long past when any Government should force men and women to parade their poverty in a hospital and give the details of their circumstances. “When I addressed a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers on this subject a few years ago the only opponent of our policy was the late Sir Albert Dunstan but the Premier of South Australia, Mr. Playford, agreed with it. The bill that is before the Senate is a retrograde measure. I have ample evidence of a similar development in the United Kingdom. I suggest that Australia should look to Sweden and Norway and other countries which have legislated to protect the people. Should honorable senators agree that because a man or woman is in good health and is receiving a good salary ne or she should not have to contribute towards the unfortunate people who are in ill health? “When I brought down the original hospital benefits legislation I believed that I was doing something for the people. That was and still is the Labour party’s policy. The Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) is playing into the hands of the people against whom I fought. The only policy that this or any other government should implement is that the stronger shall help the weaker. “When the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) was sitting on the Opposition side in this chamber he disagreed with the application of the means test to returned soldiers. He lias not done that in the legislation he has introduced as Minister for Repatriation.

Senator Wedgwood:

– The Labour Government applied a means test to outpatients in public hospitals.

Senator FRASER:

– ‘It did not. “When I placed Labour’s hospitalization proposal before a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers, the only dissentient was the then Premier of Victoria, Sir Albert Dunstan.

Senator Wedgwood:

– And Mr. McGirr.

Senator FRASER:

– No.

Senator Wedgwood:

– Does the honorable senator agree that, under the Labour Government’s scheme, a means test lias been applied to out-patients in public hospitals.

Senator FRASER:

– I do not. At the conference to which I have referred, Sir Albert Dunstan said to me, “ Do you mean that if .Sir Mark Foy were to drive to a public hospital in his Buick and ask for a bed in a public ward, he would not have to pay for it? “ I said, “ Yes, there is no means test “. Labour is opposed to the means test. Honorable senators opposite only profess to be opposed to it. They do not attempt to move for its abolition. I should not like to see the sick of this country being compelled to parade their poverty when seeking admission to public hospitals.

Senator Cooper:

– The honorable senator is side-stepping the question thai. Senator “Wedgwood has asked.

Senator FRASER:

– “When the Minister sat in opposition in this chamber he asserted that if the anti-Labour parties were elected to office, they would abolish the means test on the sickness and unemployment benefit. That is on record in Hansard. It is unfortunate that th, Minister should have interjected because I can tell him many things that he ha= not done since his appointment as Minister for Repatriation. For instance, when he was in opposition, he sought the abolition of the means test on exservicemen who applied for the sickness and unemployment benefit, but he has not done anything about that since he became Minister for Repatriation.

Senator Wedgwood:

– Does the honorable senator believe that honorary consultants should give their services free of charge to wealthy people at public hospitals ?

Senator FRASER:

– This measure is a direct contradiction of Labour’s policy. The Labour Government at least took the first step towards the total abolition of the means test, by paying to the States 6s., and later 8s., a day in respect of every occupied bed in public wards of public hospitals. Now that payment is to be abolished, and thus Labour’s valuable work will be destroyed. I am surprised that Senator “Wedgwood, who has just interjected, should be supporting this measure. Does she believe that patients at the Royal Melbourne Hospital should be compelled to disclose their earnings, because that is what this bill seeks to achieve? If that is her view, she has no right to sit in this Parliament. Honorable senators opposite promised the electors of this country that the means test would be abolished, butnow they are supporting legislation which reintroduces a means test that was abolished by the Labour Government.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) put-

That the question be now put.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 29

NOES: 15

Majority 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 30

NOES: 16

Majority 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Repeal and saving).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Subclause (1.) reads -

The Hospital Benefits Act 1945, the Hospital Benefits Act 1947 and the Hospital Benefits. Act1948 are repealed.

In the course of my earlier remarks I directed attention to the fact that the Hospital Benefits Act 1945 provided that, apart from making a contribution of6s. a day for each occupied bed, the Commonwealth would pay substantial amounts to the States to reimburse them for their expenditure on medical attention provided for sick persons in public wards of hospitals. Section 6 of that act reads - (1.) There shallbe payable, for each financial year, to such of the States as the Minister determines (being States which have executed agreements with the Commonwealth under this Act), by way of financial assistance, a sum not exceeding in the aggregatefive hundred thousand pounds. (2.) The amount to be paid to any such. State for any financial year shall be such amount (if any) as the Minister determines. (3.) An amount payable to a State under this section for any financial year shall be paid upon condition that an amount not less than the firstmentioned amount is used by that State, in that financial year, in such milliner and subject to such conditions us the Minister approves, in or towards the payment “I salaries to medical practitioners, and to professional persons nf such other classes as the Minister approves, attending qualified persons in public wards in public hospitals.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– Those provisions ure to be replaced.

Senator McKENNA:

– Every Tas.manian senator should be gravely concerned because the Government proposes to repeal the existing provisions. Each year since 1945 the Commonwealth has paid many thousands of pounds to Tasmania to cover expenditure by that State on salaries of medical officers and other professional personnel at the Launceston Hospital and the Royal Hobart Hospital. The effect of the repeal of the 1945 legislation will be that Tasmania will he deprived of reimbursement of such expenditure in the future. If that results in the non-payment of the medical officers and other professional personnel who attend to patients in public wards of hospitals in Tasmania, the Tasmanian senators will have to accept the responsibility.

Senator Wright:

– -Does the Leader of the Opposition include himself?

Senator MCKENNA:

– I assure Senator Wright that I shall not vote in favour of the clause. Far more is involved than disturbing the present arrangement for the payment by the Commonwealth of 8s. a day for each occupied bed in public wards of hospitals in the States. I remind Queensland senators that the Commonwealth has paid many thousands of pounds to the Queensland Government also to reimburse it for a mounts that it has expended on the salaries of medical practitioners and other professional personnel in that State.

Senator Wright:

– This is the usual nationalization bait in relation to medical services.

Senator McKENNA:

– It may be that payments have not been made to other States. I do not know whether or not that is so. I should be glad if the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) would inform me how many States have received reimbursement in this connexion. Will the Minister also inform me of the quantum of the amounts that have been paid to the States ?

Senator COURTICE:
Although the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna · Queensland; [11.25].

has clearly stated the view of the Opposition about the proposed repeal of the Hospital Benefits Act 1945, I wish to refer to several statements that have been made by Senator McMullin. The honorable senator asserted that honorable senators on this side of the chamber know nothing about hospitalization, and that when they have learnt more about the subject they will appreciate the wisdom that this Government has displayed by bringing down the bill. I cannot allow the honorable senator to get away with that. I regret that the Government is seeking the repeal of the 1945 legislation. When the history of this country is written the fact will be recognized that that legislation was the first attempt to be made by the Australian Government to place on a satisfactory basis the care of sick people in this country. Senator McMullin implied that by that legislation the Commonwealth had deprived the States of certain authority and certain powers. That was not so. The former Labour Government co-operated with the States in every possible way.

Senator McMullin also implied that Labour had depended unduly on the generosity of the citizens of this country to provide for the care of sick people. I have had a lot of experience of hospitalization. I was a member of a hospital board for many years, and chairman of a very big district hospital board foi- more than five years. I know the tremendous difficulties that have confronted hospitals which in the past have depended on the charity of the citizens for finance. The Chifley Government’s 1945 legislation did much to put the care of the sick in Queensland on a businesslike basis. That legislation provided a valuable benefit to people who needed assistance. The Chifley Government recognized that it was the responsibility of the Commonwealth to ensure that sick people were provided with medical and nursing attention to restore them to good health, so that they might return to industry as soon as possible. Prior to the introduction of the 1945 legislation the Queensland Government had attempted to place hospital finances in that State on a proper basis. However, in those days it was practically impossible in Queensland to provide hospital accommodation for sick people. Not only did our 1945 legislation assist in that direction, but it also enabled the Queensland Government to obtain medical equipment for the treatment of patients in hospitals. The days when we depended upon charity for the care of the sick have gone. Senator McMullin. referred to the conditions which existed 25 years ago. In those days, nurses were obliged to work sixteen or eighteen hours a day. Because of many factors, sick people were then prevented from obtaining proper medical attention.

It is a physical impossibility for privately conducted hospitals to obtain the technical equipment which is necessary in modern institutions. The care of the sick is a national matter. Senator McMullin’s contention that the. people do not pay for the medical attention that they receive is nonsense. Honorable senators have recently discussed tho budget proposals and arn well aware that every family man pays a large sum of money each year in indirect taxes. In the older countries of the world benevolent individuals make large donations to hospitals, but in Australia that does not happen to the same degree. Our hospitals have a continual struggle to provide a reasonable standard of medical treatment for patients.

I consider that the introduction of this bill is a retrograde step. A person who is able to pay for medical treatment may enter an intermediate or private ward of a hospital. If a poor person needs medical attention he should be entitled to obtain it in a public ward free of charge. In most States of the Commonwealth to-day, especially in Queensland, when a worker is discharged from hospital he is not confronted with a. pile of bills for the treatment which ho has received. Like education, the care of the sick should be free. In the interests of the nation, the people should be healthy. If we are to have healthy industries the people who work in those industries must also be healthy. Medicine and also X-ray and other medical equipment should be provided free of charge. When the Queensland Government took control of hospitals in that State a revolutionary change occurred in hospital conditions and also in the treatment provided. Not only the patients but ako the staffs of those institutions benefited.

The medical profession of Australia was responsible for the failure of the scheme proposed by the Chifley Government. Honorable senators will remember that the profession practically went on strike .when the then Minister for Social Services, Senator McKenna, endeavoured to bring the scheme to fruition. I consider that proper medical attention should be provided for the Australian people, whether they are able to pay for it or not.

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

– I agree with Senator Courtice that the health of the people is a national matter. Since I do not understand fully the import of clause 3 which, proposes to repeal the Hospital Benefits Acts of 1945, 1947 and 1948, I should like the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) to explain what is entailed in such repeal measures and what legislation will be substituted, for them. When I was younger, I saw the misery that the poorer people were obliged to endure because in those days there were no hospital benefits.

Sitting suspended from 11.88 to 12.25 a.m. (Friday).

Friday, SO November, 1951.

Senator KENDALL:

– Had I been allowed to continue my remarks before the suspension of the sitting I could have finished all I wanted to say in a minute or two. I do not blame the Chairman for the discourtesy that he showed me. I blame the system which compels us to discuss this important subject in so brief a time, when days were wasted on discussing bills that do not matter. I should like to know from the Government what is to take the place of the Hospital Benefits Act which it is proposed to repeal. I agree with Senator Courtice that the health of the people is of paramount importance, and that is why we should have more time in which to discuss this measure.

Charity has been mentioned by some honorable senators to-night. Charity is something which I abhor when it is applied in this way. It is degrading in the extreme that people should have to beg for help when they fall sick because, for one reason or another, they cannot help themselves. An effective medical scheme should be operated by the Commonwealth and the States working in co-operation. I have been told by doctors that the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) has produced a workable scheme, but I do not know what it is. It would be helpful if the Department of Health were to bring out a booklet setting out in simple terms what has been done during the last eighteen months or two years in the way of framing a national health scheme. Frankly, I do not understand what has been done. Electors ask me from time to time what the scheme is, and I feel foolish when I cannot tell them. I ask the Minister to discuss the printing of such a booklet with his colleague.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– As the representative of a State which leads Australia in health matters, I must oppose the Government’s proposal to repeal the existing hospital benefits regulation, and to put in its place something that will not be nearly so effective. It has been said that unless something is done the financial position of hospitals will deteriorate. The future of public hospitals in Tasmania is assured. I do not know what is the position in New South “Wales, but judging by some of the speeches made here to-night it would seem that corruption and graft is being practised in that State. Tasmania was the first State to provide free medical treatment, and but for the opposition of a hostile Legislative Council the system of free medical treatment would have been extended all over Tasmania.

A contributory national medical scheme was introduced in the 1930’s, and it almost split the government of the day. Now we are being asked to accept a scheme similar to that which was abandoned then. It has been alleged that the rich can get into the hospitals, but that the poor are being pushed .out. That could not happen in Tasmania, and I am astonished to learn that it has happened in any State. In Tasmania, if any privileges are granted, the. poor people get them, and the poor receive in the hospitals treatment which is just as good as that available to the wealthy. The Government is asking us to abandon the best health scheme we have ever had, and to go back twenty years. The hospitals in Tasmania have all the most up-to-date appliances, and if a patient needs the services of a specialist from the mainland, the State either brings the specialist over to Tasmania, or the patient is sent to Melbourne at the Government’s expense.

Senator Vincent:

– I rise to a point of order. I suggest that Senator Aylett is out of order in discussing the Hospitals Benefits Act while we are in committee.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Tate:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Senator Aylett is discussing an act which this clause proposes to repeal. Therefore, he is in order.

Senator AYLETT:

– The Labour party is opposed to the imposition of a means test where it has already been abolished. We believe that the means test should be clone away with altogether. Indeed, honorable senators opposite have advocated the same policy, and in recent legislation dealing with pensions a move was made in that direction. Now, however, we are being asked to retrace our steps, and to go back to the conditions of twenty years ago. Senators from Tasmania would not do justice to the State they represent if, even at this late hour, they did not register an emphatic protest against this legislation.

Senator MORROW:
Tasmania

– I do not apologize for having risen in the early hours of the morningto speak on this measure. Too many people fight to get a seat in this Parliament and, having arrived in Canberra, fight to get away again.

Senator Aylett:

– I am not fighting to get away from Canberra; I am merely trying to do my job.

Senator MORROW:

– We have a perfect right to debate this bill, irrespective of what the hour may be. If it is necessary for us to meet again next week in order to give our uncompleted business the attention it deserves, we should do so. I oppose the bill because I regard it, to use the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), as “a reactionary step “. In Tasmania, a medical and hospital scheme is already in operation. It has been described as one of the best in this country. If this legislation is passed it will spoil that scheme. If the legislation that was passed in 1945, 1947 and 1948 is repealed, we shall revert to the practice adopted in earlier years and affix to the bed of each poor patient a card bearing the notation “ Pauper “. Poor patients who objected to that designation were asked to agree to pay, after they had been discharged from hospital, a portion of the cost of maintaining them. In many instances when they received the bill they got such a shock that they soon found themselves in hospital again. The Labour Government removed those hardships from the poor in the community, and gave them a certain amount of assistance. Why should we revert to the evil practices of the past? Should we not always strive to go forward? Tasmanian “senators who allow a bill of this description to pass without protest are letting their electors down. During the general election campaign in 1.949, the non-Labour parties issued pamphlets which contained promises that, if they were elected to office, they would abolish the means test. It is incumbent upon honorable senators opposite to protest against this proposal to re-institute the means test. If they do not do so it is obvious that their promises mean nothing to them. I register my emphatic protest against this bill.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I, like previous speakers, shall be brief. I merely wish to place on record in concise terms my attitude towards this measure. History will snigger at the smallness and the blindness of this Government in repealing the great measures that were introduced by the Chifley Government to provide succour to the needy sick in the time of their greatest need. I describe this measure as retrograde, illogical, ill considered, mercenary, anti-social, opportunist, and dishonest. Notwithstanding the laughter of honorable senators opposite, history will so regard it.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– lt is true that clause 3 repeals the 194S legislation; but clause 5 permits the Government to make agreements with the State governments for the extension of hospital benefits to patients in public hospitals. In respect of States other than New South Wales the existing agreements do not terminate until August, 1952. The agreement with the New South Wales Government will terminate in February, 1.953. Thus, we have eight months in which to make the necessary arrangements with the hospitals. There will be no immediate cessation of existing hospital benefits.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) asked about the payment of doctors under the hospital benefits scheme. Tasmania is the only State in which doctors are now being paid under the scheme. They were originally paid a total of £17,000 per annum ; the payment now amounts to £19,000 per annum. Payment of that amount will be continued until the expiration of the existing agreement. ! cannot conceive of any circumstances in which the Government will not be able within the next eight months to make suitable arrangements for the provision of medical services.

Senator Kendall:

asked about the general provisions of the scheme. The scheme that was introduced in 1948 by the Chifley Government was fully endorsed by the Labour party. The present Government does not favour that scheme and accordingly it will be terminated. We propose to initiate a scheme which will operate on lines somewhat different from that of the Chifley Government. The payment of 8s. a day for each occupied bed in public hospitals made pursuant to the provisions of the 1948 legislation will be continued. That payment will continue to the end of the agreement and, no doubt, it will not end there. This Government believes that there is some call for a contributory or self-help scheme. That is not new in Australia, especially in the larger States. A Hospital Contribution Fund has been in operation in New South Wales since 1933 and it is expanding. This measure is intended to encourage such schemes. A man will bo able to insure himself and his wife and family by the payment of 6d. a week, for which an extra 6s. a day will be paid as a hospital benefit. The Government will pay 4s. a day extra to an insured person, making a total payment of 18s. a day with the 6s. that I have mentioned and the Ss. that is being paid now. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that this proposal would do away with the present system under which the patient was paid a sum for insurance. That is true, but there is nothing to stop a patient from being insured in a friendly society or in a similar organization as well as under the hospital contribution fund. The only amount that will be paid to the hospital will be the sum from insurance under that fund. The patient will have a certain amount for himself as the benefit under the social services scheme will be continued. The Government believes that the insurance scheme has the advantage of self-help. It has proved successful in the United States of America and the Government believes that it will increase the benefits that were given to the people of this country through the Labour Government’s scheme. At present there is a means test on outpatients at hospitals. Senator Fraser will deny that, but I have checked it with the department and that statement is correct.

Senator Fraser:

– It was not in the original bill, and you are altering it.

Senator COOPER:

– That is so. The amount that will be paid to the hospital can be used in any way the hospital authorities desire. There is no tag to the money that will be paid to the hospitals. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the building of new hospitals. That work has been financed in the past from loan funds and in some States by lotteries. Senator Kendall mentioned that these benefits might be explained in detail in a booklet or a printed form. I shall bring that suggestion to the notice of the Minister for Health and I believe that he will be willing to have such printed matter prepared and distributed widely. The budget includes £15,000,000 for various welfare benefits. The Government believes that this type of hospital benefit will be of great value to the people of Australia.

Senator FRASER:
Western Australia

– When I brought in the original legislation as Minister for Health there was no means test. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) was a member of the Social Security Committee, and when he was on the Opposition side of the chamber he did not believe in the means test. He opposed it for servicemen. To-night the Minister is side-stepping the issue. The proposals contained in this measure take the heart out of benefits that were given to the country by the Labour Government. The Government is doing irreparable harm. In 1943, the Curtin Government brought down, legislation to give substantial security to the people,, but this Government is now destroying in peace-time what the Labour Government was able to do in time of war.

Senator Kendall:

– I rise to order. I have heard the same remarks from the honorable senator at least ten times. Under Standing Order 421 this is tedious repetition, and I ask that the honorable senator be no longer heard.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Tate:

– I ask Senator Fraser to avoid further repetition.

Senator FRASER:

– I shall obey that instruction. The legislation which this bill will amend formed the basis of social security in this country. I pay a tribute to my colleague the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) who carried on the administration of the Department of Health and the Department of Social Services after I relinquished office, and took steps to ensure that Labour’s policy would be given effect. I am sure that the Minister for Repatriation is not entirely satisfied with this measure; but. being a member of the Government, he is not at liberty to say so. I am astonished at the hypocrisy of Government supporters who are trying to destroy Labour’s work in the social services field. Australia’s standard of social security is not yet equal to that of some other countries such as Sweden and Norway which have given a lead in the field of social services. When people are obliged to enter hospitals in this country they look for treatment and not for sympathy. The Labour Government’s aim was to provide them with the best possible treatment.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) agreed to-

That the question be now put.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Agreements for the provision of hospital benefits to patients in public hospitals.)

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– I understood the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) to say some time ago that he could not visualize any government ceasing to pay benefits amounting to approximately £25,000 a year to Tasmania. May I take that as an undertaking that the payments will be continued ?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I cannot give any such undertaking. The matter is one for negotiation between the Commonwealth and the States. Presumably, such negotiations will take place in the next eight months.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (Provision of additional benefits in respect of hospitals outside Australia.)

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I can assure the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) that Tasmania will not have anything to do with a contributory scheme. The Tasmanian Government believes in free hospitalization, without a means test. I should like to know whether in the event of Tasmania refusing to participate in a contributory scheme, that State will lose the extra 4s. a day that is to be paid to the other States.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I cannot say at this stage what arrangements have been made. The present scheme will continue until the agreement expires in August of next year. In the meantime, negotiations between Commonwealth and State authorities will take place.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 12 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment ; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Cooper) pro posed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Clause 6 states-

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reid).- Order ! I warn the honorable senator that on the motion for the third reading he may not deal with any matter that was dealt with at the committee stage. He may only endeavour to show why the bill should not be read a third time.

Senator FRASER:

– I accept your ruling, Mr. Acting Deputy President.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3026

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE BILL 1951

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 27th November (vide page 2719), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– This bill will place on a realistic and practical level the allowances payable to members of that very important instrument of the Parliament, the Public Works Committee. Many distinguished members of this chamber have served on the Public Works Committee the functions of which have an important place in our parliamentary system. The bill will alter the state of affairs in which members of the committee are at a financial disadvantage in conscientiously endeavouring to carry out their responsibilities and duties. The committee has done valuable work since its establishment in 1913. It has saved the Australian Government many millions of pounds. It has maintained a check on departmental extravagance and laxity, and has been a safeguard against dishonesty and corruption in the carrying out of large public works. Truly the committee has been the eyes and ears of the Parliament. Whilst it is difficult to assess in pounds, shillings and pence the actual savings that have resulted from the committee’s activities, much of its value lies in its ability to obtain evidence which, on occasions, has enabled improvements to be made in departmental plans. [ regret that the bill does not contain a provision which would enable the Executive Council to refer works to the committee while the Parliament is in recess. At present only the Parliament itself can refer works to the committee and I hope that an amendment on the lines that I have suggested will be made by the Government. The Opposition supports the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

New clause 1a.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

(“1.16 a.m.]. - I move -

That, after clause 1, the following new clause the inserted: - “ 1a. Section fifteen of the Commonwealth Public Works Committee Act 1913-1947is amended by inserting after sub-section (6.) the following sub-section: - (6a.) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the GovernorGeneral may, at any time when the Parliament is not in session or the House of Representatives is adjourned for a period exceeding one month or for an indefinite period, refer to the Committee, for inquiry and report to the House of Representatives, a proposed work the estimated cost of which exceeds Twentyfive thousand pounds, and, upon receipt of the report, the House of Representatives shall deal with the matter as provided in the last preceding sub-section.

A provision in the original legislation that a public work could be referred to the Joint Committee of Public Works while the Parliament was in recess was omitted when the legislation was redrafted. In the light of experience, the Government deems it to be desirable to restore that provision.

New clause agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 3027

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE BILL 1951

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 28th November (vide page 2859), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– In his secondreading speech, the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) stated -

The Government has reached the conclusion that the reconstitution of the committee is a very wise proposition.

That may or may not be the case, but at the moment the Opposition does not share that view. We believe that the proposed committee will have to prove itself. The Opposition is concerned about the aspect of representation. The English practice is, by law, to give representation to the political parties according to their numerical strength in the Parliament, but there is an unbroken convention in the English Parliament that a member of the Opposition is always appointed chairman of such a committee. I emphasize that point of view. There is a very obvious reason for that provision. We shall await with interest details of the allocation of representation. With due modesty, I suggest that it should be equal. We do not oppose the passage of the measure.

Senator TATE:
New South Wales

– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has not contested the necessity to reconstitute the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. Although the Committee of Public Accounts Act 1932 provided that the committee could be reconstituted by resolution of both Houses of the Parliament, the Government considered it. advisable to bring forward a new measure. I am sure that we all welcome that decision, because it is essential that reports by the AuditorGeneral should be closely scrutinized. That officer, unlike an auditor of a business, reports in accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act, which gives him very wide and serious responsibilities. An auditor of a business is required merely to certify that the figures contained in the final accounts for a period are in accordance with the books. The Auditor General also makes comments and recommendations based on information that he has gleaned from the accounts of the various departments.

The proposed committee will examine matters brought forward by the Auditor General and furnish detailed reports to the Parliament. In addition, it will have power to initiate certain matters, so that the Parliament will be able to consider them prior to receipt of the Auditor General’s report. I commend the Government for including a provision to enable the committee to make recommendations to each House of the Parliament.

The provision in relation to subcommittees indicates that the Government realizes that the committee will carry out sectional work of considerable merit in the public interest. As honorable senators are aware, the Government felt impelled recently to bring down a budget of an unusual character in order to provide for defence and to arrest the present inflationary trend. The committee will be able to keep a watchful eye on expenditure under the budget proposals, to ensure that expenditure shall not run wild. It will also submit recommendations on how economies may be effected. I commend the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– Will the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) inform me whether the Government has given any consideration to the chairmanship of the new committee?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– So far, the Government has done no more than to approve of the legislation in principle. It has taken no decision in the matter other than to reconstitute the committee.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 3028

TRANSFERRED OFFICERS’ ALLOWANCES BILL 1951

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That thebill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to grant allowances to former State officers who transferred to the Commonwealth at federation. Their pension rights, which are preserved to them by section81 of the Constitution, entitle them to retire on the pension which would be permitted by the law of the State, if their service with the Commonwealth were a continuation of their service with the State. The majority of the officers concerned were transferred to the Commonwealth from the Western Australian State service, and their pension rights flowed from the Western Australian Superannuation Act 1871. These pensions are on a more liberal basis than those payable under the Commonwealth Superannuation Act, and are payable without contribution by the officers. Late in 1947 the Western Australian Parliament passed legislation to increase by 25 per cent, the pensions payable under the Western Australian Act of 1871, to its own retired officers, but provided that the pensions, together with the increase should not exceed £360 per annum. Officers whose pensions exceeded £360 per annum did not participate in the increase.

Although the Commonwealth was not under any legal obligation to increase the pensions payable to the former State officers, nevertheless the Government considered that there were moral grounds for similar action by the Commonwealth. Accordingly the Parliament passed the Transferred Officers’ Allowances Act 1948, so that former State officers would be in the same position as they would have been in had they remained in the State service. The Western Australian Parliament has now passed further legislation to increase the pensions payable under the 1871 act to its own retired officers, and the Commonwealth considers that former State officers transferred to the Commonwealth should be granted allowances on the same lines. The increases proposed are as follows: - (a) Pensions not exceeding £260 per annum to be increased by 25 per cent., the maximum increase being £52 per annum; (&) Pensions exceeding £260 per annum and not exceeding £650 per annum to be increased by £52 per annum; (c) Pensions exceeding £650 per annum and not exceeding £702 per annum to be increased by such an amount as will raise the pensions to £702 per annum.

I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition has no objection to the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3029

SUPERANNUATION BILL (No. 2) 1951

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development; · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this short bill is to increase the pensions payable under section 57 or section 58 of the Commonwealth Superannuation Act to former State officers transferred to the Commonwealth on federation. Their pension or gratuity rights which originated under State law, are preserved to them by section 84 of the Commonwealth Constitution, and entitle them to retire on the pension or gratuity which would be permitted by the law of the .State, if their service with the Commonwealth were a’ continuation of their service with the State.

State pension rights do not carry widows and children’s benefits. For that reason, when the Commonwealth Superannuation Act came into existence in 1922, provision was made therein for former State officers to be given the opportunity to exchange their State rights for new rights under section 57 of the Commonwealth act, which included widows and children’s benefits, the new rights being the actuarial equivalent of the State rights. Pensions payable under section 57 of the Commonwealth act are therefore similar to pensions payable under section 84 of the Commonwealth Constitution.

The majority of the officers concerned were transferred to the Commonwealth Service from the Western Australian State service, and their pension rights flowed from the Western Australian Superannuation Act of 1871. These pensions are payable without contribution by the officers, and although reduced by a certain amount to provide for widows and children’s pensions, are still more favorable than those to which contributors to the Commonwealth scheme are entitled. .Section 57 pensioners did not participate in the increases granted in recent years to pensioners who were contributors to the Commonwealth scheme.

Late in 1947, the Western Australian Parliament passed legislation to increase by 25 per cent, the pensions payable, under the Western Australian Act of 1871, to retired officers provided that the pensions, together with the increase, did not exceed £360 per annum. Officers whose pensions exceeded £360 per annum did not participate. Although the Commonwealth was not under any legal obligation to increase the pensions payable to former State officers transferred to the Commonwealth, the Government considered that there were moral grounds for similar action by the Commonwealth. Accordingly, the Commonwealth Parliament passed the Superannuation Act of 1948 which granted certain increases of pensions so that former State officers would be placed in the same position as they would have been had they remained in the State service.

The Western Australian Parliament has now passed further legislation to increase the pensions payable under the 1S71 act to retired officers of the State public service, and the Australian Government considers that former State officers transferred to the Commonwealth should be granted increases on the same line3, with one-half of the amounts in the case of widows.

The increases are as follows: - (a) Pensions not exceeding £260 per annum - an increase of 25 per cent., the maximum increase being £52 per annum ; (b) Pensions exceeding £260 per annum and not exceeding £650 per annum - an increase of £52 per annum; (c) Pensions exceeding £650 per annum and not exceeding £702 per annum - an increase of such an amount as will raise the pensions to £702 per annum.

I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition offers no objection to .the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3030

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE BILL 3951

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 2D 96).

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I am opposed to the bill. The reasons are all too obvious.

Senator SEWARD:
Western Australia

– I regard this as a most extraordinary bill. I can only come to the conclusion that a tired Minister allowed some of his advisers to draft it and that those advisers have never read the report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board. I spoke about this matter recently. The position is really too serious for a bill of this. nature to be passed.

I draw the attention of honorable senators to the Stevedoring Industry

Charge Act of 1947, which provided that a charge should be made in respect of the employment of waterside workers after the commencement of the act. The original charge was 4½d. for every manhour of employment. That charge was subsequently altered to 2½d. an hour. This bill proposes to increase it to 4d. The purpose of the charge is to cover the cost of attendance money, the operation of waterside cafeterias, transport of waterside workers and administrative expenses. Since the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board has been in operation many amenities have been established on the wharfs, and I am unable to see why it is now necessary to raise additional money. To pursue the matter a little further than I did when I spoke in the Senate recently, I wish to refer honorable senators to some figures concerning the engagement of labour on wharfs.

One of the troubles on most wharfs, especially those in Sydney, is that waterside workers finish their work on a ship before their time is up. They cut out their work after two or two and a half hours and then knock off, but they are paid for the full time of four hours. As I pointed out a few days ago, that practice accounted for the loss of 39,000 manhours in March and 51,000 man-hours in April, a total of 90,000 man-hours in two months in Sydney alone. Honorable senators will be able to appreciate what the total loss of man-hours in all the ports of Australia must be.

I am astounded that the Opposition is prepared to permit the passage of a bill such as this. Since I have been in this chamber I have heard many complaints from honorable senators opposite concerning inflation. I suggest that though this matter involves a relatively small amount of money, it is one of the causes of inflation.

Senator Armstrong:

– It is one of the results of inflation !

Senator SEWARD:

– The honorable senator should not talk nonsense. The increased charge will mean that employers will be obliged to find an additional £135,000. That sum will be passed on and, I suggest, will bc added to the price of goods landed. Therefore, it will be a cause of inflation, and for that reason I should expect the Opposition to oppose the passage of the bill.

In Adelaide, where waterside workers go from ship to ship, as opposed to the practice in Sydney, they average 39.2 hours of work a week. In Sydney they average 33.4 hours a week, so that waterside workers in Sydney work 5.8 fewer hours a week than do those in Adelaide. In its report, the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board states that for a number of reasons, it has not been able to eradicate the colossal wastage of labour in Sydney. The first of those reasons is that little interest is shown in the problem by employers, and the second is that the union believes that it has a good bargaining point and will not co-operate. I maintain that it is extraordinary that the Government should introduce legislation to increase the charge in the face of the devastating report of the board.

The report of the board states that a Sydney shipowner has shown that by the simple device of installing a conveyor system from shed to ship which is able to operate in all weathers, it is possible to load and disc barge packages weighing up to 1 cwt. The report also discloses that in the April to June quarter alone Sydney waterside workers were paid wages for 403,307 man-hours for which no work was performed simply because it was raining.

Senator Armstrong:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that that was the fault of the waterside workers?

Senator SEWARD:

– No. As I explained the other night, there are faults on both sides. If that wastage of man-hours could be prevented, I suggest that there would be no necessity to increase the industry charge. The proportion of nonproductive working time in Sydney is 28.6 per cent., and in Melbourne 26.9 per cent. The report refers to the fact that in 19419-50 inefficient supervision, preparatory work, time lost because of rain, and interruption of work at the six capital ports and at Newcastle, Townsville and Cairns meant that one hour in every four of employment was entirely unproductive. The total loss of manhours in those nine ports was 7,800,000, ov 24.7 per cent, of the gross man-hours. Yet the Government proposes to increase the charge to provide extra money for amenities and matters of that kind. I consider that this bill is not warranted. It is estimated that the efficiency of labour employed in unloading and loading cargoes in the various ports is as follows: -

Because I believe that something should be done to improve efficiency, I oppose the bill.

Senator MORROW:
Tasmania

– I cannot allow the remarks of Senator Seward to go unchallenged because he implied that the waterside workers were not pulling their weight. The first report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board makes it clear why there is a slow turn-round of ships. I read from the report as follows : -

Congestion of cargo on wharfs and in sheds is of particular hindrance to the uninterrupted passage of cargo between ship and wharf. On this aspect, some of the port authorities have, on several occasions in recent years, found it necessary to increase the storage charge on goods left on wharfs beyond a defined period; the experience of these authorities has been that a section of importers treat wharf stores as adjuncts to their warehouses. Indeed some importers have no warehouse but sell from the wharf store.

The honorable senator .referred to the alleged inefficiency of labour at the port of Hobart. It is obvious why cargo is not handled at that port as quickly as it should be. Whenever the waterside workers at any port have had satisfactory working conditions, they have acquitted themselves very well, as the following newspaper report indicates: -

Watersiders broke a record in unloading 12,000 tons of cars and chassis from a ship in Sydney. They unloaded 900 cars and 2,300 chassis from the freighter Derrymore in nine days. Normal discharge rate for a cargo this size in Sydney since the war has been 14 to 21 days. Derrymore sailed for San Francisco on Monday. The Port representative of the Stevedoring Industry Board, (Mr.

d. B. McKay) said yesterday: “Discharge of Derrymore’** cargo shows that good work can still be done on the waterfront.” Mr. McKay said *Derrymore had obtained a clear berth, and watersiders had been able to handle her cargo promptly. “ A ship rarely got a clear working area for discharge,” he said. “ In ordinary circumstances unloading of 12,000 tons would have taken a fortnight to three weeks.”.

The following report, which I quote from the Launceston .Examiner of the 16th October, deals with the same topic -

A shortage of labour, combined with a shortage of cargo space on the wharf, is holding up the loading of two ships now he:Ll:ed at King’s Wharf, Launceston. They are the Elmore and Lorinna, which have both been in Launceston since Monday. Two other ships in port are the Wanaka and Koranul, which have taken all the labour available. The only labour made available for the Lorinna, lias been to unload perishable goods, but it is hoped to get some men to work her to-day. The Stevedoring Industry Board representative (Mr. E. J. Burley) said yesterday that the Elmore had been unable to get to her proper berth and was tied up at the timber wharf. Even if more men had been available, it was doubtful whether they would have been of any use because of the shortage of shed space for storing cargo.

On the subject of loading wool, I quote the following from the board’s report: -

It is possible to pin-point the major causes behind the delaying effects. In Sydney there are about 7 wool dumps supplying the wharves for a total of approximately 50 wool presses in all. But generally only one-half of these presses are in operation at the one timeThis restriction is caused by labour difficulties; that is, shortages of either operators for the presses, men to brand the bales or clerks to allot wool to the ships. Frequently, a shortage of labour in one of the three categories prevents the full use of labour in the other two. Superimposed on this position are the peculiar systems of contract between broker and buyer which are the cause of further interruptions to the flow of wool to the wharves. On occasions wool has been stacked, but not allowed to be loaded because money to pay for it has not been deposited in the Bank. It has happened that wool has actually been loaded to a vessel and then unloaded because of a hitch between broker’ and buyer; such an occasion is exceptional but nevertheless it illustrates the extremes to which these clumsy procedures may go. Because of the unsatisfactory position on some wool ships, the Board has on occasion, taken labour from wool jobs and allocated it to better use elsewhere.

A far too large proportion of the productivity of labour is lost through this cause. It is a matter which inevitably comes to the forefront in any discussion relating to wool, and as such requires constructive planning to remedy the fault. In that way more effective use could be made of the labour for a more expeditious despatch of wool ships. Because at the present time much is ‘being said about the lengthy periods spent by ships in ports compared with pre-war days, it is worthy of note that it is not uncommon for vessel? deliberately to prolong their stay in port waiting to take advantage of wool consignments.

Senator Spooner:

– I rise to a point of order. This bill does not relate to general conditions on the waterfront. It provides for the raising of money to enable a government authority to do certain things on the waterfront. The Senate may not amend the bill, which is concerned with the raising of money for a specific purpose. The matters mentioned by Senator Morrow are dealt with in other legislation. The honorable senator would have been entitled to discuss those matters on the motion for the first reading of the bill, but not on the motion for the second reading.

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– There could be little discussion on a bill which impose? rates of taxation if discussion were confined to the quantum of the rates. Honorable senators could do no more than argue whether the rate should be 4d. or 5d. or 6d. I suggest that it would be wrong to divorce discussion of the raising of money from the purposes from which the money is to be raised. If the point of order were upheld it would reduce the debate to very small proportions, and make a farce of it.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reid).- I uphold the point of order raised by Senator Spooner. Senator Morrow must confine his remarks to the actual terms of the bill.

Senator MORROW:

– The matters which I mentioned have a bearing on the bill. It is necessary to raise money in order to pay attendance money to the waterside workers, and to provide amenities such as cafeterias. If the fund were depleted it would be no longer possible to pay attendance money or to provide the amenities. However, it would not be necessary to raise so much money if ships could be turned around more quickly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3033

NATIONAL DEBT SINKING FUN]: (SPECIAL PAYMENT) BILL 1951

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Beading.

Senator SPOONER (New South Wales - Minister for National Development) 2.1 a.m.]. - I move -

That the hill be now read a second time.

The Treasurer (Sir Arthur fadden) in his budget speech stated that, after meeting expenditure from Consolidated Revenue, there would be an estimated budget surplus of £114,500,000 in the financial year 1951-52. He then indicated the Government’s intention that that surplus should be paid into the National Debt Sinking fund. The purpose of this bill is to provide for the appropriation of the surplus from Consolidated Revenue to the National Debt Sinking Fund, and to give effect to the Government’s intentions as indicated in the budget speech.

The bill provides that the National Debt Commission will apply these special receipts in the re-purchase and redemption of debt. It also provides that until such time as the receipts are applied in that manner the commission may invest these moneys in the purchase of Commonwealth securities on the market or in subscriptions to new loans. That will enable, the Government to give such direct or indirect assistance to the Loan Council’s borrowing programmes as may be necessary to fulfil the Commonwealth’s undertaking to the council. Honorable senators will recall that in the budget speech it was explained that the Government had agreed to accept responsibility for ensuring that the States gained access to loan funds for their works and housing programmes during 1951-52 up to the amount of the approved programme of £225,000,000. The bill does not in any way alter the provisions of the National Debt Sinking Fund Act 1923-1950 insofar as they relate to the normal receipts of the sinking fund and the purposes for which they are applied. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Although the importance of this bill is such as to justify extensive debate, I propose to make only four or five exceedingly brief comments on it. The Opposition has already recorded its objection to the raising of a surplus of £1.1.4,500,000. It expects that the realized surplus will considerably exceed the Government’s estimate. If the surplus is to be effective as an anti-inflationary measure, it should be set aside and not expended. Surplus money taken from the community and expended forthwith cannot be claimed to make any contribution to anti-inflationary forces. Apart from the purchase and redemption of debt this money may be used for two purposes. It may be used by the National Debt Commission to purchase securities held by the community or it may be invested in new loans. The Opposition opposes the proposal that it be used for the purchase of securities. If any portion of money taken from the community in taxation to create a surplus is put into circulation again, the whole purpose of the surplus is negatived. The Opposition offers no objection to the use of the money for subscription to new loans. We realize that it may be necessary for the Government to have recourse to its own funds to honour its underwriting obligations to raise £225,000,000 this year for developmental projects for the States. The Opposition does not object to the raising of that amount and its payment to the States to enable them to proceed with their developmental programmes without interruption.

Senator Wright:

– That is a changed attitude.

Senator McKENNA:

– Not so far as the Opposition is concerned.

Senator Wright:

– That proposal was very strongly objected to by the Opposition in the House of Representatives.

Senator McKENNA:

– I am not aware of what has taken place in the House of Representatives. The Opposition in this chamber does not object to it. We realize that it may be necessary for the Commonwealth to have recourse to its own funds to enable the States to proceed with their developmental programmes.

I trust that lit will not be necessary for the Commonwealth to do so, and that the drawing off from the community of surplus spending power for the time being will have an anti-inflationary effect. The fact that the money may be used for that purpose, however, fills me with alarm because I understand that the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), if ho was correctly reported, said that the surplus would be expended only over his dead body. Having regard to the second-reading speech delivered by the Minister his demise is approaching apace. If. the honorable senator really fears for his- safety, has he any message for posterity before the dire event comes about ?

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

:. WHEAT’ BOUNTY BILL 1951.

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

I am sorry that honorable senators have not been given more time to consider this bill though I was able to hand a copy of it to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. Following the conference between the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) and representatives of the States, it was agreed that wheatgrowers’ should receive 16s. Id. a bushel for that portion of their wheat that is sold for stockfeed to the poultry, dairying and pig-producing industries, the quantity to be limited to 26,000,000 bushels, which was the quantity supplied for that purpose last year. It was decided that from the: 1st December primary producers engaged in the .poultry, dairying and pig industries should pay for their stockfeed requirements a price equivalent to 2s. a bushel above the home-consumption price determined by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. We have been informed that the price has been fixed by the bureau at 10s. a bushel. The difference between that price plus 2s., and 16s., namely, 4s. Id., is to be met by the Government by way of bounty. This amendment of the existing wheat stabilization scheme was agreed to by the representatives of the seven governments. I understand that complementary legislation has already been passed by the State Parliaments. It is necessary that this bill be passed without delay so that the new arrangement may operate from the 1st December.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– I regret that honorable senators have not been given sufficient time to consider this bill. Honorable senators cannot very well oppose the payment of a bounty. If such assistance were not given, the cost of the products of the poultry, dairying and pig industries would be greatly increased. If the cost of production as determined by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics is 10s. a bushel, it seems strange that it is necessary to add another 2s. a bushel for stockfeed purchases. I am in accord with the Government’s proposal to pay a bounty of 2s. a bushel rather than have additional costs passed on to the consumers. It is difficult to understand why the Commonwealth and the States agreed that 2s. above the home-consumption price should be paid, for it is a departure from an established practice. At the same time since an agreement has been reached, J am in accord with that amount being paid as a subsidy.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– I believe that further consideration should be given to the proposal for the payment of freight to Tasmania and Queensland. In the initial stages of the agreement, the freight was a subsidy paid by the Commonwealth Government. Later, it became the responsibility of the Tasmanian Government to recoup that amount from funds that were paid either in the form of a gran t-

Senator Piesse:

– Where does the bill mention freight ‘payments?

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– The reference is in the circulated Minister’s speech. It reads -

The proposals made by the State Ministers of Agriculture included the provision of wheat for Tasmania, and for Queensland during a period of shortage of wheat, at the price which applies to the principal port in each of the other States. It will, therefore, be the responsibility of the Australian Wheat Board to provide the wheat and to meet payment of the freight of the wheat on the consignment concerned.

L object to the cost of the freight being passed on to the Australian Wheat Board when it is really the duty of the State concerned to pay that freight. In the case of Tasmania, it may be recouped, as it was previously, by an extra grant to that State.

Senator Wright:

– It was never allowed by the Commonwealth Grants . Commission.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– It is the duty of the States to pay the freight and they should not throw it hack on to the Australian Wheat Board. If the Government can pay a bounty on wheat to another section of primary producers, it can pay a bounty to the States concerned for freight. When, about 1944, wheat was sent from Western Australia and South Australia to New South Wales, a subsidy was paid for the delivery of that wheat.

Senator GUY:
TASMANIA · LP

– Where did that money come from ?

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– It was paid by the Commonwealth Government by way of subsidy. I think that it should still be paid in that form. It is called a bounty in the bill but the principle is the same. If the people in Tasmania are isolated, the Commonwealth Government should pay the bounty or refund the money to the State instead of making the Australian Wheat Board pay the money, thus reducing the amount that the farmer gets for his wheat. When it is spread over the whole wheat industry it does not amount to very much, but the wheatfarmers are entitled to it, and they should get it.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– f am interested in the subject raised by Senator O’Flaherty, but for a different reason. Every Tasmanian senator, regardless of party, joined in a deputation to ask that the freight should be paid by the Australian Wheat Board. That applies to Queensland as well. I understand that at the recent conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers the increase in the price to wheat-growers was arranged to provide funds so that this amount could be paid.

Senator McLeay:

– The States found later that they could not do it.

Senator McKENNA:

– I regret to hear that, because I think that that would be the fairest way to do it. I am not being critical of the Minister for giving such a sketchy introduction to this matter because he had circulated to honorable senators in writing a rather lengthy speech that he would have delivered if time had permitted. I notice that his circulated speech contains the following reference to the payment of freight: -

The necessary provision to enable the Australian Wheat Board to meet the freight on wheat delivered to the principal port in Queensland and also in Tasmania will be embodied in the State legislation. This action by the board will then be a condition precedent to the maintenance of the higher prices for feed wheat.

There was a further reference later in the speech -

There will lie a provision in each State’s legislation that the State may suspend the approval for the increased stock feed price. Should that happen, the stockfeed price would fall by 2s. a bushel to the lower guaranteed price as a result of the action taken by the State. The Commonwealth bill provides that the bounty would not be payable while a suspension was in force.

I am very concerned to know if there is any machinery or any step that the Commonwealth can take, which could be embodied in this legislation, that would make it clearly obligatory on the Australian Wheat Board to meet the cost of freight charges to Tasmania and Queensland.

Senator McLeay:

– The Government’s legal advisers have stated that if provision is in the State act, it is obligatory on the board to pay it.

Senator McKENNA:

– That may be right, but I confess that I have not had time to study the bill or to read the second-reading speech carefully. I am haDDY Co bear the Minister’s statement, but that does not satisfy my mind that the position of Tasmania and Queensland will be safeguarded. I am not querying the information put to the Government by the Parliamentary Draftsman. I merely would like full information about the machinery by which the protection of this payment to Tasmania and Queensland is to be assured. I would like a firm assurance from the Government. In my mind the Minister has not established the nexus as to the degree of protection that is given to Tasmania and Queensland. 3 ask the Minister to give some formal assurance that that position has been protected.

Senator REID:
New South Wales

– I wish to make some comment on the measure from the point of view of the wheat fund. Honorable senators will recall that the Australian Government made a proposal to tha States with reference to the payment for wheat for pig, poultry and stockfeed. That proposal was opposed by all State: except South Australia. Another conference was held, and the Ministers who attended it again refused to entertain thu proposal that was put forward by the Commonwealth. The States then put forward to the Commonwealth the proposition which is embodied in the bill. They said that they were prepared to enter into an agreement to pay to the producers of wheat 16s. Id. a bushel for wheat for stockfeed. The home-consumption price for wheat for human consumption was to remain the same for 26,000,000 bushels. The States laid down a condition that this proposal was contingent upon the freight to Tasmania and to Queensland being paid by the Australian Wheat Board. I believe that it is wrong to charge the freight to Tasmania and to Queensland against wheat-farmers. The Government is giving something with one hand and taking it away with the other. If the farmers refuse to pay the freight, both the State governments and the Commonwealth Government will be placed in an awkward position. That situation has already arisen. When the Chifley Government was in office the Australian Wheat Board refused to pay freight on wheat shipped to Tasmania, and ultimately the Commonwealth was forced to nay the freight. I should not like it to be thought that I am opposed to the granting of freight concessions to Tasmania, but I believe that the situation could best be met by a special Commonwealth grant to that State. The situation in Queensland is temporary, and is due mainly to drought and bush fires. I. believe that special arrangements to meet the position could be made. When the subsidy proposal was under consideration, the State Ministers insisted that freight charges should be met by the Commonwealth. The States must, of course, pass legislation to give effect to the increased “rice and also to the collection of freights. That cannot be done by the Australian Government. In my opinion the Australian Government has been manoeuvred into an awkward situation in connexion with the payment of freight charges. The States have said, in effect. “If you are not prepared to accept the price of 16s. Id. a bushel on the conditions that we lay down, the wheat-farmers will get nothing. They will have to sell the whole of the 26.000,000 bushels of wheat for stockfeed at the home-consumption price “. The Commonwealth has had the pistol held at its head, and it has decided to accept the proposal, although it knows that it is being imposed upon by thi? States.

Senator WRIGHT (Tasmania) [2.33 a.m. . - Recently I endeavoured to ascertain reliable information regarding the components of a grain of wheat. I found that a grain of wheat contains many things other than the kernel, the husk and the whisker. Those who represent the mainland wheat-growers can overlook the kernel and the husk, and concentrate on the whisker. They are seeking to reorganize a stabilization plan which committed wheat-growers to supply wheat at the home-consumption price. The measure introduces into the wheat industry a principle which the sugar industry has accepted for many years. I refer to the delivery of the product to capital cities at a uniform price. The liability involved in the payment of the freight charges on wheat shipped to Tasmania will l>p very small. I should like to bp assured that this legislation will safeguard Tasmania’s right to the payment of the freight charges on wheat shipped to that State. The Irish nature of some honorable senators who have been expressing their views on this measure may start a movement to have the mainland east off from its anchorage, Tasmania. I should like to see that anchorage remain secure.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– in, reply - I am informed that there is a provision in the State legislation which will make it compulsory for the Australian Wheat Board to pay the freight on wheat shipped to Tasmania and Queensland. The liability in respect of Tasmania will be approximately £250,000, and, if 4,000,000 bushels of wheat are shipped to Queensland this year, the liability in respect of that State will be about £800,000. The position in Queensland has been brought about by fire and drought, and, in normal times, the liability might disappear altogether. The States will fix the price of wheat for stockfeed at 2s. a bushel above the home-consumption price only on condition that freight charges shall be paid on wheat shipped to Tasmania and Queensland. The Commonwealth legislation provides that the bounty of 4s. a bushel shall be paid only if the States comply with certain other conditions.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee :

The bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I should like to know why the bill does not provide, as a. condition precedent to the payment of the bounty, that the Australian Wheat Board, the recipient of the bounty, shall accept the obligation to pay the freight charges. Clause 6 provides -

There shall not be taken into account for the purposes of the last preceding section wheat sold by the Board at a time at which there is in force in any State a proclamation issued under a law of that State suspending the operation of a provision of that law relating to the price at which the Board may sell wheat as feed for poultry, pigs or dairy cattle.

I do not profess to have penetrated the mysteries of legal interpretation as they are woven in Canberra, but that provision defies my intelligence at this stage of the morning, as I am sure it will even at noon day.

Senator REID:
New South Wales

– The whisker of the wheat to which Senator Wright has referred has been rather expensive for Australian wheat-farmers. It has cost wheat-growers £120,000,000 in the last four or five years, because they have been forced to sell wheat for all “purposes at the homeconsumption price, although the 26,000,000 bushels sold for stockfeed, could have been sold overseas for as much as £1 a bushel. We do not want to be hard on any of the States, but why should the wheat-farmer have to bear this loss any longer? I resent the suggestion that the recipient of the bounty should be prepared to pay the freight charges. It is not a bounty to the wheat-farmer at all but a just price. I do not wish to handicap any of the States, but I contend that the wheat-farmer should not be called upon to make the sacrifice. That is the concern of Australian governments. I appreciate Tasmania’s production difficulty but, as I have said, the disabilities of that State could better be met by a special grant.

Senator O’BYRNE (Tasmania) [2.42 a.m. J. - I should like to know whether any arrangement has been made to amend the legislation under which the Australian Wheat Board operates to make the payment of freight charges on wheat shipped to Tasmania compulsory instead of optional. I understand that, at present, the board has discretion in that matter. For this bill to become effective it will be necessary to make the payment of freight charges by the board obligatory.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I am informed that the six State Parliaments have amended or are amending their legislation to make it compulsory for the Australian Wheat Board bo pay the freight charges, provided the price of 12s. a bushel is fixed by the States. I am informed that, under clause 6, the Commonwealth can refuse to pay the bounty unless the States meet that obligation. I think T can assure honorable senators therefore that the board will be legally compelled to meet the freight charges.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 3038

RE-ESTABLISHMENT AND EMPLOYMENT BILL 1951

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with an amendment.

In committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ amendment) :

Clause 13-

Part XI. of the Principal Act is repealed and the following Parts are inserted in its stead: - “Part XI. - Provisions relating to Members of the Forces (Korea and Malaya Operations ) .

Division 1. - General. “ 138. - (1.) Subject to this Part, the opera tion of the provisions of Part I. … of this Act extends to, and in relation to, members of the Forces within the meaning of this Part.

House of Representatives’ amendment -

After sub-section (.3.) of proposed new section 138, add the following sub-section: - “’ (4.) For the purposes of the last preceding sub-section, a member of the Forces who, on the expiration of his original enlistment or subsequent re-engagement, re-engages to serve for a further period, shall, if the aggregate of the period of original enlistment and the period or periods of re-engagement exceeds three years, be deemed to have enlisted for a period exceeding three years.’.”.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I think that there will be general agreement on the desirability of incorporating the amendment. I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 3038

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL (No. 2) 1951

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Senator SPICER (Victoria - Attorney -

General) [2.52 a.m.]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The National Service Act 1951 was assented to on the 19th March, and the scheme went into operation shortly after that date. Registrations took place in May and October, and 58,000 young men have registered under the act for national service training. Of these young men, 10,700 commenced their service in the Navy, the Army and the Air Force in July and August. Those serving in the Army have already completed their first period of 98 days training. A further 11,500 youths will commence their training in the second intakes for the three services. which will commence in December for the Air Force, in January for the Army, and in February for the Navy. Most of the remainder, unless they are exempt under the act, or medically unfit for service, will commence their training in 1952. Some students and apprentices may have to wait until the end of 1952 in order to commence their service at a time that will fit in with their scholastic work or technical training.

I should like to mention particularly the co-operation of the universities and State education authorities in connexion with the arrangements that have been made to enable a large number of the students liable for service under theact to perform their service without delay, and with due regard to the importance of their studies and careers.

From its inception the scheme has been a great success. It reflects credit on all responsible. The public reaction to, and support of the scheme have been very encouraging, and show clearly that the people appreciate the need for a scheme of national service training for the future defence of this country. The people of this country recognize the benefits that a wellplanned and capably administered system of training can bestow on the young men called up for service. The Minister for the Army (Mr. Francis), the Minister for the Navy and Minister for Air (Mr. McMahon) and the chiefs of the three services have all paid tribute to the keenness and efficiency that has been displayed by the young men during their training, and many members of Parliament, relatives and friends of the trainees have had the opportunity to observe their enthusiasm at first hand.

Although the legislative framework provided in the act has stood up successfully to the test, the bill is necessary in order to make provision to overcome a number of problems that have arisen. One problem in relation to the constitution of medical boards needs urgent attention, so that the practical operation of the act can be extended over wider areas.

I shall now deal with the major provisions of the measure. Apart from a number of minor and technical amendments of details, which require no explanation, the bill provides for the following three principal matters : The manner of constitution of medical boards; the circumstances in which trainees may be discharged from the Citizen Forces before they have completed 176 days’ training; and the procedure in relation to persons who fail to fulfil the requirements of call-up notices, or who fail to render the service required under the act.

Section 20 of the act provides -

A Medical Board shall consist of not less than two medical practitioners selected as the Minister directs.

In accordance with that provision, the Department of Labour and National Service has arranged for medical examinations to be carried out by boards constituted by two or more civilian doctors. Many members of the medical profession are providing generous assistance. They are giving up their time in the evenings to serve on boards. About 30,000 medical examinations have- been arranged in this way, and so far slightly more than 80 per cent, of the young men examined have been found to be fit for service. Although, on the whole, the system has worked very well, one serious practical difficulty has arisen. In the more remote and sparsely populated areas it is practically impossible to constitute medical boards with two doctors, except at places a very long way from the places where the, young men who are to be examined are living. In some areas they would have to spend a week or more travelling to and from the nearest medical examination centre al which a board of two doctors could be arranged. It is not known precisely what proportion of the young men registered for service are living in areas where it is not practicable to constitute medical boards of two doctors, but I should say that about 10 per cent, of them would bc in that category.

Honorable senators will agree, I think, that it is important that medical boards should be constituted by two doctors. However, it would be unreasonable to expect either the doctors or the registrants to undergo inconvenience and loss of working time in order to have all medical examinations carried out by ‘ board of two doctors. It is therefore proposed by clause 5 to permit a single medical practitioner to function as a board in the circumstances mentioned in the clause. There will be no change in the type or standard of medical examinations. J assure honorable senators that it is the Government’s intention that this provision will be applied only when the inconvenience and the demands on the young men to be examined would be unreasonable if the present system of medical boards of two medical practitioners were to operate. There will still be a small proportion of young men living in the mos remote parts of the continent who will find it extremely difficult to attend for medical examination, even by a single doctor, and also to undergo some portion of their subsequent training. The Government is examining the position of these young men in relation to their liability for service under the act.

Section 33 of the National Service Act imposes an obligation on a person called up for service to serve 176 days in the citizen naval, military or air forces, but does not regulate the circumstances in which he may be discharged before serving for 176 days. There will certainly be instances, especially when the 176 days is spread over several years, in which a trainee sustains an injury or develops a condition which makes him permanently unfit for service and there is no other course open than to discharge him from the Citizen Forces. Similarly, the act makes no provision for the discharge of a man who commits a serious offence while serving and who, after being punished in accordance with, service law, is still liable under section 33 of the act to complete 176 days’ service. It is obviously desirable, in the interests of the services and the other trainees, that the services should have power to discharge from the Citizen Forces, and from association with normal national service trainees, young men who have shown by their conduct that they are unsuitable for service. Clause 8 therefore provides for an amendment of section 35 of the act. to confer on the Naval Board, the Military Board or the Air Board, as the case requires, power to discharge from the Citizen Forces, a person who is classed as permanently medically unfit for service, or unsuitable for further service.

Clause 10 refers to persons who do not obey call-up notices. Of the first call-up of 11,000 youths, only 21 failed without good reason to report for service. I think it will be agreed that that was a very good response, but we need to be equipped to deal with defaulters.

It is considered that a monetary penalty alone would not be a sufficient sanction for this type of conduct, as it would enable those persons who could afford to do so, to buy their way out of their obligations. On the other hand, I do not think that civil imprisonment would be appropriate. We have approached the matter from the stand-point that those who arc called up must render their service. There is no reason why they should not do so. Provision in relation to conscientious objection and exceptional hardship have been properly provided for elsewhere in the act. However, it is desirable that they should be encouraged to undertake their training willingly, in a. spirit of cooperation, and that no greater degree of compulsion than necessary should be applied. There is reason to believe, that a considerable proportion of the defaulters will co-operate if it is brought home to them that they cannot escape their service obligations. In some instances, parental influence rather than defiance on the youth’s part has led to his failure to obey the call-up. Separate action can be taken against a parent under the section of the act that makes this kind of conduct by a parent an offence. In this type of case, and generally where the circumstances indicate that the offender is not determined

Senator , Spicer to escape his obligation, it is proposed that the court should have power to release him upon his entering into an undertaking, supported by a bond, to obey a second notice calling him up for the next camp. He will, of course, be fined to punish his disobedience, but his appearance at the next call-up will end the matter. If he does not do so, his bond will be forfeited. He will be arrested, brought before the court, and committed into service custody as if he had not been given the bond.

I come now to the method whereby an offender who is not released upon a. bond will be dealt with. The proposed penalty in such a case will be a fine of £50 and. in addition, committal to the custody of a prescribed member of the service concerned. This means that the offender will be taken under escort to a Navy. Army or Air Force establishment, as the case may be. He will not, in the first instance, commence training as a national service trainee, but will be employed on service duties of a less congenial kind than those of an ordinary national serviceman. Here again, however, the objective of the services will be to give the offender a chance to change his mind, and if, after some time in the service he shows a desire to do national service training, and convinces the service authorities that he will train willingly if permitted to do so, he may be transferred to a national service training unit. The whole of the time that he spends on service duty will count towards the 176 days for which he is liable under the act. If the offender does not evince a willingness to join in the national service scheme, he will be required to spend the whole of a continuous period of 176 days on service duties appropriate to his case. If he refuses duty, or makes trouble otherwise, he may be confined in a place of detention, there to complete the whole or part of his 176 days. Thus, a person who is committed to the custody of the forces will be, as it were, on probation. What will happen to him will be largely a matter for himself. There can be no objection, in principle, to this proposal. The alternative would be normal civil imprisonment, with no opportunity given to the individual to change his attitude to the national service scheme.

Clause 10 also covers the case of an individual who, having entered upon his training in the normal course, subsequently refuses to complete it. There may be,for example, the man who does his OS days’ initial training in the army, but refuses to attend a subsequent fourteendays camp. While, as a member of the Citizen Forces, he would doubtless he subject to the laws applicable to members of those forces, it is deemed necessaryto make special provision of the same kind as I have just described. Accordingly, clause 10 deals with that type of case as well, but the liability to service will be only for the remainder of the period of national service training unfulfilled.

It will be seen that the Government’s aimis to ensure that all persons who are called up shall do their service. Compulsion will be employed to the minimum extent necessary to bring this about, but, in the last resort, the recalcitrant trainee may find himself in detention. If he does, it will be his own fault. To give effect to these principles, clause 10 will recast section 51 of the act. The cases of the 21 youths that I have mentioned have been investigated, and they are at present under consideration. Where good and substantial reasons have been advanced, it may be that court action will not be taken. Obviously, however, those reasons would have to be most compelling before they could be accepted as justifying a failure to comply with the call-up. Action against offenders will be taken as soon as the proposed amendment becomes law.

As I have already said, the remaining provisions are merely consequential or technical in character. They raise no substantial policy issues. I commend the hill to the Senate.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition has no objection to this measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3041

THE PARLIAMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– I wish to inform honorable senators that an offer of two carved chairs of Italian walnut was recently made to the Commonwealth Parliament by a donor who desires to remain anonymous. The Australian emblem is carved on the chairs, which were made in Venice 30 years ago. In accepting the chairs, which were offered as a jubilee gift, Mr. Speaker and I stated that we were sure that the kind action of the donor would be greatly appreciated by members of both Houses of the Parliament. Mr. Speaker and I have agreed that the chairs shall remain in the President’s room, where they may be seen by all honorable senators. I am sure that when honorable senators see them, they will agree with me that they are a very fitting gift to the Parliament.

Sitting suspended from 3.3 to4.10 a.m.

page 3041

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE BILL 1951

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

page 3041

COAL INDUSTRY BILL 1951

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Senator SPICER (Victoria - Attorney-

General) [4.17]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill deals with the machinery for the settlement of disputes in the black coalmining industry. At the moment, there are two different sets of tribunals with jurisdictions in the field, and the general pattern is most complex. At the risk of oversimplification, I say to those who are not intimately acquainted with the subject-matter of the bill that it seeks to do two things. First, it selects one of the existing sets of tribunals to handle all disputes in the industry. Secondly, it removes doubts about the effectiveness of existing awards of the present tribunals.

I summarize the circumstances that gave rise to the bill. First, the present industrial machinery for the settlement of disputes in the coal-mining industry is, as I have mentioned, rather complicated. The Coal Industry Acts of 1946 passed by the Common-wealth and New South Wales Parliaments give to the Coal Industry Tribunal which was set up by those acts, jurisdiction over all the interstate disputes and intra-state disputes in New South Wales that affect the miners’ federation. The National Security (Coal Mining Industry Employment) Regulations provide for a system of reference boards, central and local, with jurisdiction over all disputes in Australia affecting the craft unions. The regulations also apply outside New South Wales to intrastate disputes affecting the miners’ federation.

Secondly, for reasons which need not be discussed here, after the appointment of Mr. F. H. Gallagher as Coal Industry Tribunal, he was also appointed chairman of the Central Reference Board constituted under the regulations. Mr. Gallagher, on his side, appointed the chairman of the local reference boards in New South Wales to be local coal authorities under the Coal Industry Act. The reference boards provided under the regulations, I point out here, comprise a chairman and an equal number of members, representative of employers and employees, and in the absence of unanimity, the view of the chairman prevails. These various appointments, therefore, enabled in fact, if not in law, some considerable simplification of the industrial machinery.

Thirdly, the National Security Regulations could have but a limited life. The character of the industrial machinery for the coal-mining industry has been under the review of successive Australian governments and there have been many discussions with the owners, the unions and the New South Wales Government. The recent challenge in the High Court to the regulations made a final decision a matter of urgency. The outcome was that the Government decided that the plan which appeared most practicable was for the Commonwealth to vest in the Coal Industry Tribunal, jurisdiction in respect of industrial disputes of an interstate character which affect the- craft unions, and for the State of New South Wales to vest in the tribunal jurisdiction in respect of disputes within New South Wales which affect these unions. This is what the present measure proposes to do, and the result of its enactment, in short, will be to give the Coal Industry Tribunal jurisdiction in relation to all interstate disputes, and in all intra-New South Wales disputes in the black coalmining industry which affect all the mining unions. The tribunal will also have in relation to the shale-mining industry the same jurisdiction as the regulations gave to the reference boards. The proposals contained in the bill do not, of course, satisfy every one, but they represent the greatest common measure of agreement obtainable in the detailed discussions with the owners, the unions and the New South Wales Government.

Fourthly, the presentation of the bill at this late stage of the sessional period has been due to delays in securing the concurrence of the New South Wales Government. This was received only a few hours ago, notwithstanding that the New South Wales Government has known of the issues involved for a long time, and has had the bill since the 12th November. This concurrence was necessary, because amendments of the coal industry acts were involved, and the agreement between the New South Wales and the Australian governments, which is recited in the preamble to these acts, provides for the concurrence of the other government in any proposal by one government to amend the legislation.

I now proceed to a short explanation of the provisions of the bill, the content? of which can be dealt with under four general headings. In the first instance, we are seeking to preserve the current determinations made under the National Security (Coal Mining Industry Employment) Regulations. This is deal with in clause 4. Stated shortly, that clause provides that all determinations of the existing reference boards will remain in force until varied by competent authority. This means, generally speaking, the Coal Industry Tribunal as to interstate matters, and matters affecting

New South Wales alone, and the State industrial tribunals as to purely State industrial disputes. Intrastate dispute? in States other than New South Wales bich affect the coal-rnining industry will he subject to State legislation. Western Australia, in fact, has legislated in anticipation of this happening. The clause also applies the enforcement provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to these existing determinations.

The second series of provisions of the bill give effect to the Government’s plan which, as I have said, it has discussed in detail with the New South Wales Government, the owners and the unions. The relevant clauses are Nos. 5, 7, 8, 11 and 14. Very briefly, these proposed provisions extend the jurisdiction of the Coal Industry Tribunal in the manner that I have already described. They provide for the preservation of certain inter-union rights in accordance with agreements arrived at among all concerned. They provide that the local coal authorities in New South Wales, when dealing with local craft union disputes, shall be constituted on the pattern of the local reference boards of the Coal Mining Industry Employment Regulations, and they provide for review of decisions on local coal authorities in a somewhat wider range of circumstances than is the case at the moment.

Under the Coal Industry Act as it now stands, local coal authorities in New South Wales deal only with Federation matters, and are constituted by single individuals. There are three such authorities in- New South Wales ; ono f or the northern ‘district, one for the west and one for the south. The decision of these authorities i3 reviewable by the Coal Industry Tribunal only where the authority has exceeded its jurisdiction, or where the Joint Coal Board believes that something done by the authority is likely to lead to industrial unrest in localities other than that in respect of which its decision has been given. The result of the amendments proposed to be made by the bill will be that the single individual local coal authority will be retained for federation matters in New South Wales. When local craft union matters are being dealt with, there will be added to the individual who holds the office of local coal authority, and who will act as chairman, two or three other members representative of employers and employees - an equal number on both sides. Thus, the structure of the existing local reference boards will be retained. The bill, of course, makes no provision for bodies subordinate to the Coal Industry Tribunal outside New South. Wales.’ The reason is that the tribunal, in the exercise of its interstate jurisdiction, can appoint such reference boards or other subordinate bodies as it thinks desirable for the purpose of handling local matters within the range of the tribunal’s competence. Section 34 of the Coal Industry Act, and section 57 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, when read together, authorize this.

The bill also provides that there shall be an appeal from decisions of local coal authorities to the tribunal by leave. Such leave may only be granted if the tribunal is of opinion that reasons exist why, in the public interests, the decision should be reviewed, including the likelihood of the decision leading to industrial unrest.

Clause 10 is an important provision. Considerable legal doubts were raised by my predecessor in office in an argument which he developed before the Full Arbitration Court in a case earlier thi1 year as to whether most, if not all, of tinawards and orders made by the Coal Industry Tribunal since 1947 are valid. Clause 10 removes these doubts by makin” fully effective awards made by the tribunal; it removes the deficiencies thai sprang, no doubt unintentionally, from the amendments made to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in 1947 ; and it will remove any feeling of uncertainty in th, industry as to whether the tribunal is equipped to give a binding decision. At the same time, the provisions place in the hands of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court the same power of enforcement in respect of awards of the Coal Industry Tribunal as it possesses in relation to its own awards and those of the conciliation commissioners. The court has not these powers at the present time. In the view of the Government, there is no reason why the awards of the tribunal should not be enforced in precisely the same way as are awards of conciliation commissioners and of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court.

The remaining provisions of the bill can be very broadly described as being either consequential or technical. With one exception, they really need no explanation. The only matter to which I need refer particularly is that dealt with in clause 28. There is at present nothing in the legislation which protects the Coal Industry Tribunal from abusive attacks, or even the most barefaced and improper attempts to intimidate it, or otherwise influence its decisions. The provisions of clause 18 accord with the provisions of section 111 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which protect conciliation commissioners against this sort of thing.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– [ wish to place on record my emphatic protest against being called on at very short notice to discuss a measure of such importance as this. The Government introduced the bill in the House of Representatives for the first time to-day, and we are now asked to discuss it without having had any opportunity to study its details, or even to examine the secondreading speech of the Minister. In the circumstances, I cannot pretend to do justice to the measure. I have a lively interest in the Coal Industry Tribunal, as I had something to do with its appointment. It has functioned successfully for a considerable time. The Opposition appreciates the difficulties which confront the Government when awards made under National Security Regulations are under attack in thi: High Court. One cannot expect them to stand in the present circumstances. The vesting of power in the Coal Industry Tribunal to deal with craft unions while preserving existing awards was accepted by all those in the industry.

I refer now to one point which was the subject of criticism in this chamber when the original legislation was under discussion and when the court was authorized to treat as a contempt of itself certain breaches’ of awards. The provision which empowers the court to function in relation to decisions of the

Coal Industry Tribunal as though they were decisions of the court itself, brings these punitive provisions into play in the coal-mining industry for the first time. We resent the application of those provisions as strongly as we protested against them when the Conciliation and Arbitration Act was being amended. At this hour, I do not propose to discuss the measure further, and subject to criticism on that point, we have little ‘.o offer in the way of criticism of it.

Senator SEWARD:
Western Australia

– This bill has been suddenly brought before us, and we are being given no time to consider it, or to examine its implication. Being so far away from Western Australia, I have no chance to discuss with my colleagues in that State the possible effect of the bill on the coalmining industry of Western Australia. 1 should like the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) to indicate whether it will interfere in any way with the board of reference, and the local board established in Western Australia. If it does, it will be a serious matter for Western Australia, which does not want to be tied up in any way with the industrial mess that exists in the eastern States. If the bill interferes in any way with the existing boards in Western Australia, .! emphatically protest against it.

Senator MORROW:
Tasmania

– I, too, enter my emphatic protest against the introduction of this bill al. such short notice. So far, I have had sufficient opportunity only to scan the bill, but it appears to contain many provisions which are < particularly dangerous to the coal industry. It will do nothing to promote harmony in that industry. Under the provisions of this bill, the Coal Industry Tribunal will be empowered to take punitive action against trade unionists who protest against their working conditions. I enter my most emphatic protest against its introduction at this stage of the sessional period.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– in reply - The board of reference in Western Australia, to which Senator Seward referred, is, I should say, operating on an insecure legal basis at present.

Senator Seward:

– It is operating under a national security regulation.

Senator SPICER:

– That is so. This bill does nothing to destroy the board of reference. It accepts the position that in all probability, the board has no legal foundation at present. A “Western Australian act has been brought into operation which will establish a tribunal to replace the board of reference. Accordingly, this bill will not in any way upset the position which operates in that State, save to the degree that it accepts the impracticability of continuing local boards of reference that have been established under the national security regulations.

In reply to the observations made by Senator Morrow, I point out that this bill is largely founded upon a bill which was drafted for our predecessors in office for the purpose of dealing with this very matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3045

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL SENATORS

Motion (by SenatorO’Sullivan) - by leave - agreed to -

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

page 3045

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by SenatorO’ Sullivan) agreed to -

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

page 3045

QUESTION

LIGHTHOUSE KEEPERS AND SHIPS

Senator AYLETT:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice -

  1. . What was the cost of repairs to the lighthouse steamer Research Bay?
  2. Is it a fact that Research Bay is now ready for service but is held up by a shortage of crew?
  3. If so, will the Minister immediately commission another ship to take the necessary supplies to the lighthouse keepers on the Tasmanian coast in order that delivery may be effected before Christmas?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

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

  1. The name of the lighthouse steamer concerned is Cape York. It was damaged at Recherche Bay. The cost of repair of damage is not yet known as the opportunity was taken of doing much refitting not connected with the damage while the ship was laid up.
  2. It is expected the ship will be manned and ready to sail on the date originally fixed, namely, the 5th December.
  3. This will ensure delivery of stores before Christmas. If for any reason the vessel cannot sail on the date fixed, alternative arrangements willbe made for delivery of stores.

page 3045

QUESTION

GOLD

Senator SEWARD:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact, as reported in the press, that under the concessions to allow Australian gold to he sold at premium prices, and only for dollars, the United States of America is the only country that can purchase the gold?
  2. Is it a fact that the United States of America is strenuously opposed to paying premium prices for gold?
  3. Is it a fact that there is a good market for premium gold in India where it can be traded for jute and other commodities required by Australia, but that the condition that the gold must be sold for dollars closes the Indian market to Australia?
  4. Is it a condition for the saleof premium gold by South Africa and Canada that it can only be sold for dollars?
  5. If the condition that the sale of premium gold for dollars will have a restricting influence on Australian gold sales, will the Treasurer remove that condition: if not, why not?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers : -

  1. No.
  2. The United States Government will buy gold only at the official price of 35 dollars per fine ounce.
  3. The Government will not approve the export of gold to countries where import licensing provisions are applicable unless the exporter can produce evidence that an import licence has been granted by the Government of the importing country. Itis understood that since March,1947, the Indian Government has not granted licences for the importation of gold.
  4. .Reports of an announcement made by the Canadian Finance Minister indicate that the Canadian Government- is requiring that United States dollars be received for premium gold exports by Canadian producers. The South African Government has stipulated that gold exporters must recover “ hard currencies “ at least to the extent of the official price of 35 dollars per fine ounce.
  5. It would be contrary to the national interest to permit Australia’s current gold production to be exported against payment in inconvertible currencies.

page 3046

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator COLE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Government has decided to retain Trans-Australia Airlines as a governmental airline?
  2. If, so, will the Minister grant exemption to Trans-Australia Airlines from the payment of landing charges, with a view to preventing any increase in fares and freight charges?
  3. ls it a fact that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is competing unfairly with Trans-Australia Airlines by its non-payment of landing charges?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has furnished the following information : -

The statement on civil aviation policy made by the Prime Minister on the 21st November, intimated that the Government had decided to attempt to secure the retention of the major airlines in competitive service to the Australian community and had authorized a Cabinet sub-committee to work out ways and means of securing fair competition taking into account various factors including air route charges.

Senator O’BYRNE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that several^ large shipping companies hold a controlling interest in Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, in conjunction with William Holyman and Sons Proprietary Limited?
  2. Is it a fact that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has incurred a loss over the last three years of operation ?
  3. Is it a fact that the shipping companies concerned are anxious to withdraw their capital from Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited form a public company and allow the public to purchase shares in a nonpaying concern?
  4. Is it a fact that the new company could inly pay its way by having a monopoly over air travel in Australia and by fixing its own rates and fares?
  5. If so, is it the intention of the Government to merge Trans-Australia Airlines with Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited into one company which would buy the fleet of aircraft at present operated by Trans-Australia Airlines, and so give the shipping companies concerned the chance to cut their losses and sell their equity in Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited to the general public?
Senator McLEAY:

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has furnished the following replies : -

  1. Details of the shareholding of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited are available in the office of the Victorian RegistrarGeneral where they can be searched.
  2. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is a private company and its accounts are not published. Any information in relation to the company’s financial position in the hands of the Government is confidential and T regret that it cannot be supplied. 3 and 4. As indicated in the answer above to question 2, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is a private company. I have no information of any such proposal or of- the economic prospects of such a company.
  3. A statement of the Government’s civil aviation policy was made by the Prime Minister on Wednesday, the 21st November.

page 3046

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator WEDGWOOD:

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

  1. Is it a fact that 1,000,000 Italians have applied for admission to Australia under the Government’s migration scheme?
  2. Is it a fact that between the years 1945 and 1050 the number of Italian immigrants numbered 26,081 out of a total of 401,41.8 persons, of whom 222,109 were British, and that the remaining 239,309 represented approximately 32 national groupings and twenty nations?
  3. If the scheme is to operate for Ave years, does it mean that the intake of Italian migrants annually may be an average of 200.000, a figure much in excess of the entire migration programme for 1951?
  4. Will the Minister give an assurance that every endeavour will be made to obtain the greatest possible number of British migrantsand that proper regard will be given to the selection of immigrants from other countries in numbers proportionate to the capacity of Australia to absorb and assimilate them ?
Senator SPICER:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration has furnished the following answers : -

  1. No. Under the Australia/Italy Assisted Passage Migration Agreement, the prospective migrant initially submits his application to his local Italian Labour Office and recent advice from the Italian authorities was to the effect that’ the number of such applications recorded as at the 5th November, was 27,500.
  2. The figures quoted by the honorable senator are correct, except that the number of nationalities listed is 26 and, in addition, there is a small proportion of “ Stateless “ persons. Italian migrants during the post-war years have comprised approximately 5.7 per cent, of the total permanent migrant intake. In the three years immediately preceding the war, that is, the period 1937-39, Italian migration comprised 12.8 per cent, of the total permanent migrant intake.
  3. The intake of assisted Italian migrants annually under the agreement has not been fixed and, under the agreement, the Commonwealth has retained the right to regulate the number of migrants we accept according to our needs and the proven suitability of the migrants we get. The suggestion that there will be an annual intake of 200,000 assisted Italian migrants is patently absurd. The only commitment into which the Commonwealth has entered is in submitting a requisition listing the occupational categories for migrants not exceeding 15,000 in number to be selected during the first period of operation of the agreement. I have stated on numerous occasions, and I emphasize again,, that the Commonwealth Government in developing its migration policy bus always attached and will continue to attach the greatest importance to the maintenance of the British character of our national life, and the encouragement of British migration is our main objective. Indeed, of all the countries encouraging migration from the United Kingdom the Commonwealth has been the most successful, and in 1950, a record year, we were able to attract as assisted migrants nearly three times as many British migrants as were obtained by Canada, who was our closest rival. The honorable senator will appreciate the necessity, in view of the limitation placed by availability of suitable shipping on the maximum intake of British migrants and the termination of the displaced persons’ mass settlement scheme, for the Commonwealth to look elsewhere than in the United Kingdom alone for migrants to supply the necessary labour force so urgently needed for our defence and developmental programmes, in both the primary and secondary phases of our essential industries. In this regard, our selection criteria are generally recognized as being of the highest standard which will ensure that Only those migrants who may readily bc assimilated into the Australian community will be selected. Their absorption into the community will, moreover, have been established by our requisitions which go forward to the Chief Migration Officers in the overseas countries concerned. These requisitions are based on known labour shortages in essential industries in Australia and specify the number of migrants to be selected during given periods and their occupational categories.

page 3047

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator DEVLIN:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

  1. When is it intended to refund to woolgrowers the balance of payment of last year’s wool tax?
  2. If delay occurs in repayment will the Government consider paying interest in conformity with the Taxation Department’s policy of charging interest on overdue payments tithe department?
  3. In view of the forthcoming loan in which wool-growers will be expected to contribute to the loan at 3) per cent., will the Government expedite repayment and so give them the opportunity to contribute to the loan?
Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has furnished the following reply: -

  1. I am not clear whether the honorable senator, in referring to last year’s wool’ tax, had in mind the wool sales deduction or the levy of 7i per cent, collected last season in anticipation of the wool-growing industry approving the proposed plan of reserve price? for wool.

If he was referring to the wool sales deduction, the position is that these deductions will be applied in part payment of income tax liabilities of wool-growers in this financial year.

If, on the other hand, the honorable senator was referring to the levy, the position is that arrangements have been made for the levy to be refunded to the growers about the end of this month. The Wool (Reserve Prices) Fund Act, under which the refunding of the levy is authorized, provides that interest earned on the levy moneys should be used in meeting the expenses of refunding the moneys and that any balance of interest should be applied, in such manner as the Minister determines, for the benefit of the wool industry.

Whilst it will not be practicable to make the refunds prior to the closing of the fourteenth security loan, the honorable senator will be aware that provision is made for persons desiring to invest in Commonwealth securities when a loan is not open to lodge their subscription with any bank as an advance subscription to the next loan. Interest is paid on these advance subscriptions from the date on which moneys are lodged with such bank.

page 3047

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

  1. What quantities of wheat were receive( by the Australian Wheat Board in each of th, last five years?
  2. What quantities of wheat were exported in each of the last five years (a) in bulk, and (6) in bags?
  3. What quantities of wheat were exported as flour in each of the last five years?
  4. What quantities of wheat were used in Australia in each of the last five years for (a) human consumption, (b) stock feed for pigs and poultry, (c) sheep, and(d) manufacturing purposes?
  5. On what basis is wheat obtained by millers for export as flour?
  6. What acreages were sown to wheat in each of the seasons 1946-47, 1947-48, 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52?
  7. To what countries has most of Australia’s export wheat been sold as (a.) bulk wheat, (b) bagged wheat, and (c) flour?
  8. Since the commencement of the International Wheat Agreement, what quantity of wheat has Australia sold as “ free wheat “, and what was the price range of such sales?
  9. How much wheat is anticipated will still be in each State of Australia, and available for export, when the 1951-52 crop deliveries to the Australian Wheat Board commence?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture states that the Australian Wheat Board has supplied the following information : -

Human consumption represents wheat used by the millers in the production of flour, whilst “ manufacturing “ covers wheat sold for breakfast foods, malting, &c. There has been no record of the quantities sold for sheep, although it has been the board’s policy that stockfeed wheat shall be released only for feeding pigs and poultry.

  1. If for the Pacific islands, the Australian Wheat Board sells the millers’ wheat at the export price applicable, i.e., at 16s.1d. under the International Wheat Agreement or the current price on the “ free “ market, and the miller sells flour to his customer at a price based on that wheat price. To all other destinations, the board is the seller of flour and for purposes of administrative convenience, the millers purchase wheat from the board at the price which applies from time to time on the local market and the board buys the flour back from the millers at a price based on that wheat price. The board’s sale of the flour for export is at a price based on the export wheat price.
  1. The major buyers of wheat have been United Kingdom, Egypt, India and New Zealand, whilst the main buyers of flour have been United Kingdom, Egypt, India, Ceylon, Malaya and Indonesia.
  2. Since the International Wheat Agreement came into operation, approximately 80,000,000 bushels have been sold as “ free “ wheat at prices ranging from18s.6d. to 20s. a bushel.
  3. The board’s shipping programme has been based on the clearance of all wheat which can be moved from country to sea-board and thus is in a position for export. Stocks are virtually exhausted in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia, whilst in Victoria, the carryover will comprise only bagged wheat whichwill be required for the local trade. There will be a carry-over in South Australia as it has not been practicable to move, during the last twelve months, the total quantity of wheat received at country centres. However, as aforementioned, the board’s shipping programme provides for the clearance of all wheat actually available at the various ports.
Senator McLEAY:

– On the 14th November, Senator Aylett asked whether the Government would consider subsidizing Tasmanian purchasers of wheat to the extent of the freight involved. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has furnished the following reply: -

As the result of a conference on the 19th November, at which the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture and State Ministers for Agri culture discussed the problem of stockfeed, an agreement has been reached between the Ministers as to feed wheat prices, and the freight on wheat for Tasmania.

Full details will be given when a bill to approve the action to be taken by the Commonwealth is presented before this session ends.

page 3049

QUESTION

RICE

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– On the 31st October, Senator Scott asked a question regarding an acute shortage of rice in Western Australia since the beginning of World War II. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has furnished the following reply: -

Australia during the present season will export approximately 25,000 tons of rice, this being the exportable surplus after providing fully for local needs. It is known that there has been a shortage of rice in Western Australia, but millers have advised that a reason for this is inability to secure shipping space in view of the demand for freightto Western Australia. The millers have agreed that each State will be supplied with its proper proportion of the Australian allocation. The allocation for local supplies for the rice season is 21,000 tons, and this quantity makes full allowance for the pre-war consumption per head for our increased population.

page 3049

QUESTION

APPLES AND PEARS

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– On the 21st November, Senator Wright asked a question, regarding the marketing of next season’s Tasmanian apple crop. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has furnished the following reply: -

The Government has not received any request on behalf of the Tasmanian fruit industry for a Commonwealth guarantee in respect of apples shipped overseas in the 1052 export season. The Minister will be pleased to inform honorable senators from Tasmania if such a request should be received and to discuss the matter with them if they so wish.

page 3049

QUESTION

POTATOES

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– On the 21st November, Senator Ashley asked a question regarding any action proposed to be taken by the Government in connexion with the Federal Potato Advisory Committee’s recommendations for overcoming the shortage of potatoes in Australia. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has informed me that the follow ing resolution was carried by the Federal Potato Advisory Committee: -

It is the unanimous opinion of this committee that increased production is essential and that steps necessary to achieve this include:

Guaranteed payable floor price to growers ;

Provision for adequate manual labour and mechanical equipment.

It is considered that State Marketing Boards are a suitable medium for the improvement of conditions of marketing.

The questions involved are matters concerning agricultural policy, which will be referred to the next meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council. The Government will co-operate with the States in any way practicable, in efforts to increase production and to ensure adequate supplies of potatoes.

page 3049

FERTILIZERS

SenatorCOOPER- On the 21st November, Senator Seward asked the following questions : -

What tonnage of pyrites was used in the manufacture of superphosphate during the years 1949, 1950 and 1951?

What tonnage of sulphur will be im ported into Australia during theyear ending the 30th June, 1952?

The Minister for Defence Production has supplied the following answer : -

The reply to the first question is as shown in the table below which gives the pyrites used in the manufacture of sulphuric acid in the various States during theyears ending the 30th June, 1949, 1950 and 1951. It also shows the estimated quantity of pyrites which it is expected will be used during 1951-52:-

No pyrites is used in South Australia and Tasmania for the manufacture of sulphuric acid.

page 3050

ADJOURNMENT

page 3050

VALEDICTORY

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Although the hour is late, it is still opportune to wish you, Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, a very happy Christmas, and to convey to you our appreciation of the courtesy, efficiency and dignity with which you have carried out your duties during a very arduous year. It has been a great pleasure and privilege for us to serve in this chamber under your presidency. With certain reservations, I am sure that my friends on the other side of the chamber will agree with the sentiments that I have expressed. During this arduous period, we are extremely indebted to our most capable and loyal Clerk of the Senate, Mr. Edwards, to the Clerk Assistant, Mr. Loof, to the Second Clerk Assistant, Mr. Emerton, to the Usher of the Black Rod, Mr. Odgers, and to the Ministerial Secretary, Mr. Legg. Though at times we may have bored the members of the Hansard staff, we appreciate the splendid service that they have rendered to us probably more than they appreciate the way in which we have sometimes afflicted them. We have felt an obligation to the press, and with the reservation that they themselves are the best judges of us, we thank them for the manner in which they have assisted the Parliament to function, and have presented, fairly and accurately, its proceedings to the public. They are part of our democratic institutions and we are conscious of it. I hope that they will always be conscious of it. There are many others whose names are too numerous to mention, but without, whose loyal assistance and reliable service this Parliament would be quite incapable of functioning. I hope, Mr. President, that you will convey to them personally our appreciation of their loyal and constant service.

We shall all carry away with us some lasting impressions of the function which most of us had the privilege of attending last night. We had borne upon us the fact that we are an evolutionary and not. a revolutionary people. It is not our function or our practice to destroy and then rebuild. We are the fortunate heirs to a very long heritage, and we trust that the generations that are to follow will see something worthwhile in what we leave behind us.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I wish to link myself with the sentiments that have been expressed by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan). We take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. President, on the way in which you have settled down to the responsibilities of office and upon the very light hand with which you have held the reins. We wish you well in th* continuance of your office in the new year. To the Minister for Trade and Customs and his supporters, I wish, to say that we have had a very interesting and eventful year in which the fortunes of war have changed considerably. We had an embarrassment of numbers at the beginning of the year and together we have survived an election, a referendum and the conflicts that have occurred in this chamber. I say to the members of the Government that we have enjoyed our conflicts with them whether we have had a majority or a minority. We have struck hard blows in both circumstances, sometimes by conviction, sometimes by the pressure of duty and obligation. It is inevitable that these things will continue. But I think that it is good for the parliamentary system that we should have our conflicts. Despite them, with all sincerity I convey to the Minister for Trade and Customs and the members of the Government good wishes for Christmas and the New Year from all members of the Opposition. I join heartily with the Leader of the Government in expressing to the Clerk of the Senate, Mr. Edwards, a very warm appreciation of his services and his great kindness to us. I convey those sentiments also to members of his staff from whom honorable senators have had the utmost courtesy and assistance. I include as well the Senate attendants who are with us day and night and from whom we have had great courtesy. I extend good wishes also to those who administer to our physical wants in the parliamentary refreshment rooms. I join with the Leader of the Government in conveying to members of the press gallery very hearty good wishes for the festive season. Whether their newspapers refrain from doing all the things that we would like them to do we realize that the defects that we find from time to time are not attributable to them as individuals. We enjoy our association with them as individuals and look forward to renewing it in the new year.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– I wish to be associated with all the good wishes that have been expressed, and to add a personal note of appreciation to honorable senators for the consideration that they gave me in my recent illness by allowing me long leave. I also have a complaint. 1 urge the Government to consider the foolish.ness of sitting all night as the Senate has done on the last two nights. Most honorable senators enjoy the cross-fire of debate, but the exhaustion that is caused by late sittings “must have its effect. The Government is killing its Ministers, not to mention its rank-and-file supporters. All-night sittings impose’ a tremendous strain. The Government might well consider in future whether it would be better to sit for an extra week, rather than for two whole nights. I am particularly concerned at the possibility of such practices shortening the life of those who have the responsibility of government.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– in reply - The remarks of Senator O’Flaherty will find a warm response in the hearts of many honorable senators, but, unfortunately, we are not entirely masters of our destiny. All-night sittings have happened before but we hope that they will not become a habit. The main reason why I am rising now is to exercise a privilege which for many years I was denied when, with my colleagues, Senator Cooper and Senator Annabelle Rankin, I did not have the right of reply because we were i small minority. I express the unanimous wish of myself and my colleagues for a happy festive season to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) - and those honorable senators who sit behind him. I hope that he will remain in his present position for a long time. We like him there, and although now and then warm words are exchanged across the chamber all of us appreciate that we on this side have a certain role and that the Opposition has a different role. The Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives has said that the Opposition has a very special and very responsible part to play in the preservation and carrying out of our parliamentary system. Indeed, the Opposition is dignified with the title of “ His Majesty’s Opposition”. I express my personal appreciation of the courtesy and consideration that I have received from the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, from all members of the Opposition. At the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition I now say that 1 hope that the proper authorities will convey to two of our colleagues, Senator Tangney and Senator George Rankin, who are now ill, our cordial wishes, our deep regret at their present indisposition and our earnest desire that they will soon be restored to complete health. Those remarks also apply to our colleague Senator Finlay. We hope that they all will soon be restored to a fit and fighting state, and will be with us again when next we meet.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon Edward Mattner:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I am very gratified that the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan), the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) and other honorable senators have paid a well-earned tribute to a friend of us all, Mr. Edwards, the Clerk of the Senate, and also to Mr Loof, Mr. Emerton, Mr. Odgers, Mr. Legg and all those whom I may perhaps call the unseen members of the staff, but who do so much for us and contribute to the smooth running of the Senate. I am particularly happy to pay s tribute to our telephonists and typists. To the Government Whip (Senator Annabelle Rankin) and to the Opposition Whip (Senator Critchley), both of whom have given me very great assistance. I pay the warmest tribute. I would be almost inhuman if I did not appreciate sincerely what has been said about my occupation of the chair. I thank honorable senators for courtesy an1! consideration.

You certainly must be my friends because you have overlooked all my many faults and concentrated on the few good qualities that I may have. My term of office here has been a difficult but a happy one, and I hope that it will be my good fortune while I occupy this chair to still hold your respect. To honorable senators here, and to those who are not here through illness, I extend the warmest wishes for a very happy Christmas and a bright New Year, believing that the best is yet to come.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3052

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Australian Wool Board - Fifteenth Annual Report, for year 1950-51.

Commonwealth Bank Act - Classification of positions with names and salaries of officers in the service of the Bank as at 30th June, 1951.

International Monetary Agreements Act -

Annual Report by the Treasurer regarding the operations of the Actand of the operations, insofar as they relate to Australia, of the International Monetary Fund Agreement and the. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development Agreement, for year 1950-51.

Conciliation and Arbitration Act -

Annual Report (Fourth) by the Chief Judge for year ended 30th September, 1951.

Annual Report by theChief Conciliation Commissioner for year ended 30th September, 1951.

Lands Acquisition Act -Land acquired for Immigration purposes - Kurri Kurri, New South Wales.

Nauru-Ordinances - 1951 -

No. 2 - Nauru Local Government Council.

No. 3 - Public Service.

No. 4 - Provident Fund.

Public Service Act - Appointments - Department -

Defence - W. H. King.

Repatriation- D. K. M. Toye, W. J. R. Wyness.

Shipping and Transport - P. E.G. Wood- Ingram.

Public Service Arbitration Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator, Sal. - 1951 -

No.111 - Amalgamated Postal Workers’ Union of Australia.

No. 112 - Professional Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service.

No. 113 - Professional Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service: and Association of Officers of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.

No. 114 - Commonwealth Storemenand Packers’ Union.

No. 115 - Association of Architect. Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia.

No. 116 - Professional Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service.

Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government (Administration) Act-

Ordinance- 1951 - No. 11- Liquor.

Senate adjourned at 4.45 a.m. (Friday) to a date and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 29 November 1951, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1951/19511129_senate_20_215/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant