Senate
21 October 1953

20th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 20th Parliament
  3. 1953

The President (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 703

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills re ported : -

Commonwealth Observatory Trust Fund Bill 1953.

Forestry and Timber Bureau Bill 1953.

page 703

TOBACCO

SenatorCOURTICE. - I ask the Min ister for Trade and Customs whether the Government has taken any action with a view to overcoming the marketing difficulties that confront tobacco-growers in Queensland ?

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

– It would take some time to give full details of the steps that my colleague, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, and I have taken in consultation with growers and manufacturers to put the Australian tobaccogrowing industry upon a firmer and more satisfactory basis from the viewpoint of the growers. The honorable senator will probably be aware that the Government has doubled the content of Australian tobacco required to be blended with imported tobacco in order to qualify the imported tobacco for the concessional rate of duty. Other matters are still under consideration by the growers in consultation with the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture and myself, and I trust that further action will be taken in the interests of the industry in the not very distant future.

page 703

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH YEAR-BOOK

Senator SEWARD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the tables published in the Commonwealth Year-Book -are three years old when the book is published?
  2. If so, and as this renders the volume useless for the purpose of revealing up-to-date progress in the matters dealt with, will the Treasurer take steps to have the tables brought up to the end of the financial year preceding the publication of each volume ?

SenatorSPOONER.- The Treasurer has furnished the following answers : -

  1. It is a fact that a considerable number of the tables published in the latest Commonwealth Year-Book relate to periods ended two or three years precedent to the date of publication, but in many cases later figures are inserted in the appendix to the Year-Book, following the customary practice. Still later figures are contained in the monthly and quarterly publications of the Commonwealth Statistician and the more important statistical tables are published with great promptitude in roneo form. The Statistician would be glad to put the name of any honorable senator on the mailing list for these publications upon request.
  2. It has never been practicable to insert in the text of a CommonwealthYear-Book tables relating to the end of the financial year preceding the publication of the volume. More than a year is required to collect, compile, analyse and print very many of the tables, even under the most favorable circumstances. Recently, however, the Statisticianarranged for the separate issue of the more important parts of the Year-Book, and these will be available before the Year-Book volume itself is published.

page 703

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that tenders have been called for the sale of thirteen vessels of the Papua and New Guinea Government Shipping Service?
  2. If so - (a) Is the projected sale of the thirteen ships mentioned part of a plan for the sale of the Commonwealth shipping fleet; and (6) Were assurances given by the Minister for Shipping and Transport, and repeated by the Prime Minister during the recent Senate election campaign, that the Commonwealth shipping fleet would not be sold ?
  3. What was the price received by the Government for seven ships of the Papua and New Guinea Government Shipping Service that were sold by private treaty to Steamships Trading Company Limited, in November last year?
  4. Who are the controller and directors of the Steamships Trading Company Limited?
Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I point out that the honorable senator’s question is somewhat confused. This matter does not concern the Commonwealth line of ships, it relates to a few small vessels of about 300 tons burthen that are used in New Guinea. The following answers are now supplied: -

  1. Yes. 2.(a) and (b) These small coastal vessels of up to 300 tons are not part of the Commonwealth shipping fleet. The service was established to assist the rehabilitation of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea following war devastation. The vessels are operated quite independently of the Commonwealth Shipping Line. Efforts to sell the vessels have been made since mid- 1950, when the Government decided that the time had arrived to revert to . the pre-war practice of private enterprise conducting the Territory’s internal shipping services. Any sale is conditional on the maintenance of services.
  2. It is not considered appropriate to disclose the price at a time when tenders are being called for the remaining vessels. The price was, however, above the value of the vessels as assessed by an independent valuer.
  3. Chairman and Managing Director: Mr. E. V. Crisp. General Manager: Mr. J. N. Mitchell. Directors: Messrs. L. Tracey. L. A. Willis. G.N. Cadden andR. J. Paul.

page 704

QUESTION

ALUMINIUM

How many men have been dismissed from the aluminium works at Bell Bay over the last three months?

What was the total work force employed as at 31st March, 1953, and at 30th September, 1953?

Is it a fact that any dismissals at Bell Bay have been caused by the inability of the Tasmanian Labour Government to provide the necessary power to coincide with the scheduled starting of the aluminium plant in 1954?

If so, what is the estimated time of completion of the aluminium plant under the revised delayed schedule, and when will the necessary power be available?

SenatorCooper. - The Minister for Supply has furnished the following answers : -

Seventy-three.

Total work force -

  1. Up to date no alteration has been made to the number of men employed, in respect to unofficial reports of possible delay in supply of power. The decrease in employment over six months is chiefly due to the transition from civil construction to mechanical and electrical work. Employment will continue to vary in keeping with the nature of work involved progressively in the construction programme.
  2. Until official advice is received from the Tasmanian Government and the Hydro-electric Commission of Tasmania that delivery of power will be delayed, and to what extent, no estimate can be given as to any variation in the date of completion of the aluminium works.

page 704

DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Report of Public Accounts Committee

Senator PALTRIDGE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the report of the Public Accounts Committee on the following subject: -

Tenth report - Department of National Development: Further report.

page 704

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1953

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 purpose of this bill is to validate, until the 5th December, 1953, the collections of customs duties made under Customs Tariff Proposals No.8, which were introduced into the Parliament on the 9th September, 1953, to give effect to the budgetary proposals. The necessity to introduce this validation measure has arisen through the impending prorogation of the Parliament, and the fact that in the limited time available it has not been possible to bring down the customary bill for the enactment of the proposals. Honorable senators will appreciate that this is purely a machinery measure, and the opportunity for a full debate on the proposed tariff amendments will be afforded to the Senate as early as practicable.

Debate (on motion by Senator Courtice) adjourned.

page 704

EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Secondreading.

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is inthe same category as the Customs Tariff Validation Bill. It is necessary because of the impending prorogation of the Parliament. It is a machinery measure which seeks to validate, until the5th December, 1953, the collections of excise duties made under Excise Tariff Proposals No. 5, which were introduced into the Parliament on the 9th September, 1953. As I stated when speaking on the Customs Tariff Validation Bill, a full opportunity to debate the proposed amendments will be presented as soon as practicable.

Debate (on motion by Senator Courtice) adjourned.

page 705

LOAN (WAR . SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT) BILL 1953

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 the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to provide for the raising of loan moneys amounting to £7,000,000 for war service land settlement in the States of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. The money will be advanced under approved condition to those States to be used for the acquisition, development and improvement of land for sub-division and allotment to classified ex-servicemen and for providing those ex-servicemen with working capital and finance for the purchase of structural improvements, stock, plant and equipment. The bill also includes a minor amendment of the States Grants (War Service Land Settlement) Act 1952, which has been recommended by the Commonwealth legal authorities. This amendment, which will substitute the words “a State or States” for “the

States “ is being made to remove any doubt as to the authority under the act for grants to be made to any State.

Loan acts of 1950, 1951, and 1952 authorized the raising and spending of £15,625,000 on war service land settlement. Expenditure to the 30th June, ‘ 1953, amounted to £14,666,000, leaving a balance of £959,000 available towards expenditure in this financial year. Gross expenditure during the financial year 1952-53 amounted to £7,136,000, of which £5,684,000 was financed from new loan raisings. The balance of £1,452,000 came from repayments received during the year of amounts advanced in previous years. The proposed appropriation is required to meet estimated expenditure this financial year on war service land settlement of £7,000,000 which it is estimated will be supplemented by £1,591,000 from repayments during the year of advances made previously under the war service land settlement scheme. Financial assistance to all States for non-capital expenditure, for example, living allowances for settlers, interest and rent concessions, writing- down of the cost of holdings, &c, estimated at £1,580,000 for the present financial year, will be met by the Commonwealth from Consolidated Revenue.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cole) adjourned.

page 705

APPROPRIATION BILL 1953-54

In committee: Consideration resumed from the 16th October (vide page 661).

Department of National Development.

Proposed vote, £906,000.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– When the debate on the Appropriation Bill was adjourned, I was speaking of the extraordinary action of the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) inattacking the fourth report oftheJointCommittee of Public Accounts during the debate on the Estimates. The committee had expressed scathing criticism of the administration of the Department of National Development, and on pages 6 and 7 it referred to certain functions of the department. The department was said to be working under statutory authority. The committee in its report then stated -

The Department claimed that this Order was its charter of operations, but when it did things not defined in the Order, it said it was acting under Ministerial or Cabinet direction.

The Minister has made a vigorous attack upon the Public Accounts Committee for having included in its report comment based upon information that it had gleaned from sworn evidence and documents placed before it. The Minister implied that the administrative officers of his department had to be defended against the report of the committee. He said that the committee’s criticism was unwarranted. I believe that the Min- ister’s defence was more unwarranted. The Public Accounts Committee was charged with the duty of making a report upon the evidence placed before it. Instead of trying to correct any deficiency in the conduct of his department, the Minister sought to refute the charge of maladministration. The report goes on to make criticisms, few of which are directed at the activities in which the department engages under statute. The most severe criticisms are directed to the approval by the Minister, and/or the Government, of expenditures that cannot be justified in the light of the facts that are so far available to this chamber. The report states -

Nevertheless, acting under its own interpretation of the Order, and with Ministerial or Cabinet authority, the Department was able to go to the Public Service Board and obtain additional employees to carry out its scheduled functions and then to submit estimates based upon them to the Treasury for necessary funds. In the result, over the space of three years its expenditure has grown from £771,042 in 1950-51 to an estimated fi, 256,000 in 1352-53. These figures do not include capital works and services.

I say, therefore, that the Minister and the Government must take their share of responsibility, because according to the committee, they have allowed this position to develop. Personally, I do not feel disposed at this stage to be critical of the department or its administration, because I consider that much more information about the matter should be at our disposal before we shall be able to level the just amount of criticism. Consequently, it is incumbent on the Minister and. the Government to place before this chamber, at a time when the Government is asking for our approval of such a large amount as £1,180,000, some justification for its huge expenditures on plant which has been left lying idle. The Government should explain why a firm which was prepared to buy unused government plant in order to drill for oil in Western Australia was refused the opportunity to purchase it, and was finally forced to go outside Australia to buy plant for itself. Yet the plant which the Government refused to sell is still lying idle as it was at the time that the firm offered to buy it. The Senate should receive some assurance that that plant, which was purchased at huge cost to the taxpayer, will not meet the same fate as other expensive plant purchased by the Government for national development has met. Much of such plant was left in the original crates in which it was delivered, and then sold, through the disposals organization, to private enterprise, including firms and organizations with which members of the Government have a close association.

The Government must give a clear indication of whether it intends to proceed with national development, or will continue with its present policy of laissez-faire, letting national development look after itself. The Government has already made it obvious by its actions and its failure to use expensive plant, that it is not greatly concerned with national development.

There are other examples of expensive items having been purchased overseas and not put to use. Prefabricated houses of inferior quality have been bought overseas at high prices and left to deteriorate in the open, while people are clamouring for accommodation. Coal mining machinery and other heavy equipment have been sold by the Government at a fraction of the cost at which it was bought with revenue provided by the taxpayers.

I consider that the Public Accounts Committee has done an excellent job in preparing this report, which the Senate should analyse closely. When the full reports of the committee are made available to the Senate, it is incumbent on the Government to permit an unrestricted debate on them, so as to clear the atmosphere which, to say the least, is murky at the moment. The Government should indicate whether its expenditure of huge amounts on plant purchased overseas will finally be justified by a vigorous policy of national development to help the people of Australia, and has not been incurred for the benefit of combines outside Australia.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Western Australia

– Senator Cooke has referred to the criticism by the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) of the report of the Public Accounts Committee. During the weekend, despite the fact that the committee had advance commitments to interview the officers of another government department, it used the limited time available to examine the comments of the Minister. It has answered some of those comments in a report which was submitted to the Senate on behalf of the committee this morning. Because the Public Accounts Committee is a single entity and can only express itself in the form of a report, I propose to read the report which was submitted to the Senate this morning. The report reads as follows : -

  1. In view of the debate in the Senate upon the Fourth Report dealing with the Department of National Development, the Committee deems it necessary to inform the Parliament of the principles it has established and under which it operates as well as the procedure adopted to ensure that the fullest consideration is given to its reports.
  2. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts is established under the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951 as a parliamentary committee.

Paragraph 3of the report before the Senate sets out the duties of the committee. Paragraph 4 states that the manner in which the decisions of the committee are to be taken is described in section 7 of the Public Accounts Committee Act. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the report deal with the appointment of office-bearers and power to take evidence. The report then continues as follows : -

  1. The Committee acts as a single entity, and not merely as a collection of individuals. Its Reports are the collective production of the members. When the Committee’s views havebeen approved, they are embodied in Reports which will be presented to the Parliament by the person authorized by the Committee so to do.
  2. The Committee emphasizes the necessity for the Parliament to respect its distinct nature. The alternative is to regard the Committee as a group of ten individuals acting without any common loyalty or any common responsibility. Such an attitude would obviously defeat the purpose of the Parliament in creating a joint committee of both Houses and of all political parties.
  3. This is the explanation of the determination of the Committee not to answer criticism in the course of a debate and it must be emphasized that this attitude was not taken on the eve of the debate now proceeding.
  4. If reference is made to the First Report of the Committee presented to the Parliament in March, 1953, and to the Appendix dated 19th February attached to the Fourth Report, it will be seen that this position has been implicit in all its discussions on procedure.
  5. The Fourth Report, however, raised the question afresh. It was the first report on a department and covered matters of a different kind from those discussed in the First, Second and Third Reports. The Committee met on 29th September, 1953, and it was decided to hold to the initial policy of the Committee. That decision was recorded in the minutes of the 14th October, 1953, and it was the quoting of this date had led to suggestions that the Committee was anxious to stifle the freedom of its members.
  6. As set outabove, , the Committee can only deal with the Parliament through the medium of the written report. Any expression of opinion by individual Committee members cannot be the views of the Committee.

page 707

PROCEDURE AFTER PRESENTATION OF REPORT

page 708

QUESTION

COMMENTS DURING SENATE DEBATE

  1. In this Report, because of the little time available, the Committee is confining its reply to some of the criticisms made by the Minister of National Development.

    1. Staffing.

The Minister stated that the table dealing with staffing (paragraph11) was inaccurate. That table showed the number of persons employed at the time the Committee was making its investigations early in the year, and the latest information obtained from the Public Service Board was as at 30th April, . 1953.

  1. Unfortunately by error the date appearing in the last column of the table in paragraph 11 purports to show the staff at 30th June, 1953, instead of as at 30th April, 1953.
  2. The employment staff sheet as at 30th April, 1953, is attached (Appendix No. 1). The total is 021 which is the figure supplied to the Committee, namely, 618, together with an additional 3 part-time female employees not in the information given to the Committee referred to in paragraph 20.
  3. The Committee now attaches the return ofstaff employed as at 30th June, 1953 (Appendix No. 2) and it will be seen that the number employed at that date was648 and not 575 as quoted by the Minister.
  4. The figures quoted in paragraph 23 were supplied by the Department of National Development to the Public ServiceBoard on Form P.S.B. 39 (Appendix No. 2).

  5. The Committee . points out in reference to staff reductions that, in paragraph 47 of the Fourth Report, it states that in 1951 the staff of the Division of Industrial Development was . 313 which the Government directed should be reduced to 200. The Committee further mentions the staff at the end of 1951 as 196 and at 30th June, 1952 as 191. The principal reduction did not result from a voluntary effort by the Department but from Government direction. Paragraphs 45 and 46 are, in the opinion of the Committee, justification for its statements.

    1. Oil Drilling Plant.
  6. The Minister also said that the Report upon the oil drilling plant (paragraphs 33-44) showed inaccuracy.

  7. It will be sufficient to refer to the history of the Committee’s investigation and to the number of statements presented by the Department to rebut the allegations of inaccuracy,

    1. The Department supplied to the Committee a general statement covering its activities which the Secretary p resented at the public meeting held on 19th February, 1953 (Exhibit N.D.2). This Statement included a short account of the oil drilling plant (Appendix No. 3).
    2. The Secretary of the Department was, at a meeting on the 19th May, 1953, questioned by the Committee about the oil drilling plant (see extract from Transcript ofEvidence in Appendix No. 4).
    3. The transcript of the evidence taken during that interrogation was sent, as usual, to the secretary of the Department of National Development for checking.
    4. A statement on the oil drilling plant was prepared by the committee on the evidence obtained to that date and sent to the department for checking.
    5. The secretary of the department replied that his evidence had been “misunderstood” (see letter dated 12th June, 1953, a copy of which is attached as Appendix No. 5) and submitted a further statement.
    6. Because the committee was anxious to clarify its mind, it asked Dr. Raggatt to make, the department’s files available for the committee’s inspection.
    7. Instead of the files, the department merely supplied copies of some of the papers dealing with the modernizing of the oil drilling plant.
    8. viii ) The committee therefore renewed its request to be supplied with the relevant files.
    9. At the same time, it asked the Treasury to give to the committee its record of the various applications for funds madeby the Department of National Development,
    10. The Treasury statement is included in the Committee’s Fourth Report (paragraph 41), but the files supplied by the department were still incomplete and did not disclose all the figures needed by the committee.
    11. The committee invited Dr.Raggatt to give further evidence at a meeting on 9th July, 1953.
    12. At that public hearing, Dr. Raggatt asked to bo allowed to substitute his new statement for that originally supplied.
    13. At this hearing he agreed to send the committee a further explanation of the position and this was duly received, dated 30th July, 1953.
    14. After the committee’s report on the department was presented to the Parliament, Dr.Raggatt wrote to the committee criticizing the sections dealing with enquiries for the oil drilling plant [see extract from letter dated 2nd October, 1953, set out in Appendix No. 6).
    15. On 12th October, 1953, Dr. Raggatt again wrote to the committee agreeing that the committee’s inferences were admissible (see Appendix No. 7).
  8. In referring to the purchase of the deep well oil plant, the Minister said: “I am informed that the very paper which contained that information, and my decision, was submitted as evidence to the Public Accounts Committee. It is not a very pleasant situation when a responsible department is accused by a parliamentary committee of misleading its Minister, although the committee had before it facts which show that no such tiling occured “. The paper submitted to the committee did not contain the statement of costs mentioned by the Minister on the basis suggested by the committee.It was because the committee wanted such a statement of the estimated cost of the deep well oil plant, that it finally asked the Treasury for that information and it is published in paragraph 43 of the Fourth Report.
  9. In this matter, the committee has been influenced by two different factors.
  10. In the first place, the evidence presented from time to time by the Secretary, and which is covered by paragraph 27, created in the minds of the committee an atmosphere of vacillation by the department.
  11. And in the second place, while the statement referred to by the Minister does seek to set out the various steps and includes reference to decisions by the Ministers from time to time, it does not indicate clearly that the procedure suggested in paragraph 44 of the Fourth Report was in fact adhered to.
  12. It is felt that, throughout the discussions with the department on this matter and having regard to the use of terms “modernizing” and “ purchase of new plant “, the position has not been completely clear and free from misunderstandings and misinterpretations.
  13. The committee was aware that Dr. Raggatt was dealing with matters some of which had happened before his appointment as Permanent Head of the reconstructed Department of National Development, but, nevertheless, it was disturbed at the difficulty experienced in getting a clear and conclusive statement of the position.

  14. Based on the evidence submitted to it, the committee is of the opinion that its comments in the Report relating to this matter were justified.

    1. Cost of the Department.
  15. The Minister claimed that the committee had misinterpreted the nature of the expenditure of the department.
  16. The committee examined the accounts of the department and, in paragraphs 3, 4, 15, 16 and 17 of the Report, shows the expenditure and the background against which that expenditure should be considered.
The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

. -I rise formally to give Senator Paltridge an opportunity, if it is the wish of the Senate, to continue his remarks.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Western Australia

– I thank the Senate for its courtesy. The report of the Public Accounts Committee continues -

  1. The money spent by the various sections of the Department was considered and the sectional activities including “ exploring, surveying and testing the nature, quality and extent of such natural resources as coal, oil or uranium “ were referred to in the Report at paragraph 16. The expenditure of the Department as shown in paragraph 3 of the Report increased from £771,042 in 1950-51 to an estimated £1,256,000 in 1952-53. There is no discrepancy between these figures and those of the Minister, and there was no misinterpretation.
  2. The figures of actual expenditure quoted by the Minister for 1952-53 of £1,197,196 wen! not then available to the Committee. The Committee now points out that the Budget Papers for 1953-54 at page 75 show the actual expenditure for 1952-53 was £1,208,078 and not £1,197,190 as stated by the Minister. These figures do not include sums voted for Capital Works and services for the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority, the Joint Coal Board and other activities.
  3. The Department did not in the first place submitfull details of expenditure but compiled them at the request of the Committee. The Committee was therefore well aware of the costs of the Department’s activities and, indeed, quoted the increase in the costs of coal exploration in paragraph 26 of its Report.

  4. The Committee draws attention to its comment in paragraph 10 that the amount of our public revenue that should be set aside for “development” isa question upon which there is little likelihood of agreement.

    1. Departmental Publications.
  5. The Minister also criticized the conclusion of the Committee in paragraph 68 of its Report which states that the quarterly review entitled “ National Development “ “ is a very elaborate and costly production”.
  6. This comment is obviously not related merely to the cost of printing but also to the type of production, the salary component of the departmental officers engaged in its preparation, other departmental expenses, including general overhead costs.
  7. This publication is produced on quality art paper with articles extensively illustrated.
  8. Evidence presented to the Committee shows that no costing system is in operation and therefore the precise total cost is not ascertainable. It is also evident that no attempt has been made to give a reasonable estimate of the full cost of the publication. The evidence, however, does disclose that a geologist and a geophysicist are employed on technical editing of this publication and on general press releases.
  9. This indicates a substantial salary component and, with even reasonably conservative estimates for other items of expenditure, thu Committee is of the opinion, after taking all factors into consideration, that “ National Development” is a very elaborate and costly publication.
Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– I propose to discuss some sections of the report of the Public Accounts Committee. The functions of the Department of National Development are set out on page 6 of the fourth report of the Public Accounts Committee, where extracts are given from the Administrative Arrangements Order authorized by His Excellency the Governor-General and presented on the 2nd July, 1951. Matters such as the “survey of immediate shortages in basic commodities, and planning of improvements by increased production “ are referred to, but I wish to deal specifically with the functions described as “ Planning the development of national resources generally, and in particular, the development of primary and manufacturing industries and the stimulation of housing and building construction “, “ Administration of CommonwealthState Housing Agreements “, and “ Production, importation and distribution of coal”. On each occasion when coal has been mentioned in this chamber, the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) has asserted that although the Labour Government was not able to obtain coal, the Menzies Government has been able to do so. Of course, he never refers to the expenses incurred in obtaining such coal, nor does he mention the quantity of coal that is at present at grass. I suggest that the increased price of coal in this country has been the greatest single factor in the spread of inflation.

Honorable senators may be aware that the coal owners approached the Joint Coal Board for an increased price for coal. The board, which is an instrumentality established by the Commonwealth and State Governments, produces coal and doubtless its technical staff is aware of the cost of production and what a reasonable profit should be. The board determined that such a profit should be 7£ per cent., or a minimum of ls. a ton. The coal owners were not satisfied with that determination and approached the Minister for National Development, who was sympathetic, as was his Government. Of course, the Minister and the Government should be sympathetic to the coal owners, because it is they who provide a large proportion of the financial requirements of the Government parties at election time. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Minister for National Development should have approached the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and the Cabinet. As a result of his representations, the following letter was sent to Mr. E. E. Warren, the chairman of the New South Wales Combined Colliery Proprietors Association, 58 Margaret-street, .Sydney: -

Dear Mr. WARREN

I refer to the discussions which I had with you last week when I intimated that it was the wish of the Prime Minister that the Joint Coal Board should appoint a Committee to investigate the price fixation policy of the Board and to make recommendations to the Board as to whether the existing policy provides sufficient incentive to the Colliery Proprietors to increase the output of coal from their mines and, if not, what modifications of existing policy should be made. As I intimated to you, it is the Prime Minister’s wish that the committee should consist of Mr. Walter D. Scott as Chairman, a nominee of your association and Mr. B. H. Nolan, the chief accountant of the Joint Coal Board. I enclose a copy of a letter which I have to-day written to Mr. Scott which will indicate that immediately you advise me of the name of your Association’s nominee I shall inform Mr. Scott, so that the committe can get to work. I thank you for your co-operation in this matter.

The Government had been in office for less than twelve months when an authority that had been appointed by both the Commonwealth and New South Wales was over-ridden on the price of coal. The beneficial effect to the coal owners of this country of the increase of the price of coal is shown by a balance-sheet issued by Caledonian Collieries Limited. That company was registered in New South Wales in 1913. Its head office is in George-street, Sydney. Its directorate consists of Mr. Austin Howard-Smith, the chairman; Sir William Leonard Raws; Colonel Alfred Spain; and Mr. John Dyneley Fell. In the year that ended in December, 1952, the first year during which the price increase given to the coal owners of this country was in operation, Caledonian Collieries Limited was able to discharge from its net earnings, which rose by over 160 per cent., four years arrears of preference dividends. That is not an isolated case. The enormous advantage of the increase to the colliery proprietors of this country will be realized when I point out that the profit made by one small coal mine in New South Wales rose from £1,124 in 1951 to £59,003 in 1952, the year after the increase was granted.

This outrageous action of the Government is consistent with the activities of the Department of National Development throughout its career. An authority had been appointed to deal with the production of coal in this country. The authority had all the technical skill and experience required for that purpose. It know the conditions and costs of production at various collieries. Yet this Government superimposed on that authority a committee consisting of the accountant of the Combined Colliery Proprietors Association, a nominee of the Government and a nominee of the Joint Coal Board, also an accountant. Is it any wonder that that committee issued a majority report favorable to the colliery proprietors? The accountant of the Joint Coal Board submitted a minority report. He was opposed to the outrageous action of the Government in increasing the price of coal from a reasonable level to one that asured the profits I have enumerated.

I asked a question in this chamber regarding the value of plant and machinery imported into this country for the production of coal. The Minister for National Development informed me on the 30th September, 1953, that it was in the vicinity of £7,000,000 or £8,000,000, and that of the equipment I had ordered £1,000,000 worth and he had ordered £2,000,000 worth. I told the Minister that I thought he was guessing. A report of the Joint Coal Board which shows the value of plant and machinery imported shows for the period ended the 30th June, 1948, the opening balance was £229,409, and that in 1949 the opening balance was £389,687. Purchases to the value of £1,303,671 were made in 1949, £3,496,621 in 1950 and £2,085,639 in 1951. In 1952 - and I remind the Minister, lest his memory fails him, that this was the year in which the Government was going to have a great splash and produce 5,000,000 tons of coal by the open cut method - £4,385,250 worth of machinery and plant was purchased. In 1953, machinery and plant to the value of £1,271,931 was purchased. That makes a total value of £12,764,113. One would expect that when honorable senators ask a question of the Minister they would get a correct answer.

The country should know what has been done with this expenditure. The unfortunate aspect of it is that a lot of this plant has never been opened and is still in crates like the plant bought by the Department of National Development. I think the Government is prone to keep imported goods tied up in crates. Oil boring plant costing approximately £320,000 is still in crates, but there is some satisfaction in knowing that occasionally it is opened up, greased and oiled. There is also plant at Mascot where aerodrome development is taking place. Submarine engines to the value of £50,000 are still in crates, but it is oiled and greased occasionally. Joint Coal Board plant to the value of hundreds of thousands of pounds is still in crates, but I do not know whether that is ever oiled or greased. The acting Minister for Works (Sir Philip McBride) admitted that a large number of -prefabricated cottages are still in crates. In answer to a question the acting Minister said on the 27th March, 1953, that more than 500 prefabricated cottages were in crates as at the 1st February, 1953. He further stated, in answer to a question, that the average landed cost of C.A.I Riley Newsum prefabricated cottage was £1,741.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.

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

– I believe that most honorable senators will sympathize with me in my endeavour, at such short notice, to answer a document of the size that has been tabled this morning. It will not be possible for me at this juncture, nor, I believe, during the remainder of this debate, to deal with the report of the Public Accounts Committee in detail. Naturally, I shall require greater opportunity to study the details of that report. Nevertheless, I believe that I should run th rough some of the points made by the committee as I view them on my first reading of the report. Honorable senators will recall that I made it clear that I entered the debate because I did not think that the Public Accounts Committee in its criticism had treated my department fairly. That is still my attitude. At the same time, I do not desire to make of this matter a personal issue in any way whatsoever. I may have a good opinion of myself, but I admit that I am no better than the average Minister and that in my department, as in other departments, certain matters may call forinquiry. However, to the degree that I subscribe to the views that my departmental officers have submitted to me, I have a. responsibility to put the case as it is seen by them. I repeat that the establishment of the Public Accounts Committee has been a very good thing. I shall help it in any way I possibly can, and I shall take the action that I deem to be appropriate in respect of the matters to which my attention has been directed.

At this juncture I propose to refer to some of the main headings in the report. I refer, first, to the comments that the committee has made on page 4 of its tenth report in respect of staffing in my department. I point out that the figures that have now been submitted have been prepared on a basis different from that on which the committee put forward the figures contained in its fourth report. I understand that the figures that the committee now cites include casual employees in the Department of National Development, whereas the numbers of such em- ployees were not included in respect of earlier years and are not included in figures that are published by the Public Service Board.I submit that the com mittee, in its latest report, in the paragraph dealing with staffing, admits that it made an error in its earlier report, because it now presents another set of figures on a different basis. The purpose of the new set of figures is to prove that ray original criticism was incorrect. I am advised by my departmental officers that the figures which I cited last Friday are the department’s official figures and that they agree with those published by the Public Service Board. Any comparision of unlike things is most apt to lead to confusion.

Senator Armstrong:

– What has the Minister to say about the staff figure of 575 ?

Senator SPOONER:

– I am dealing purely with the facts of this matter. The committee has reported that the number of staff was 618. As I said in this chamber last Friday, the correct figure is 575. My department has advised me that, its official record of the relevant figures agrees with the record of the Public Service Board, and that that record shows that the figure stated by the Public Accounts Committee includes casual employees which were not included in similar figures for the previous year.

Senator Benn:

– Does . the Minister consider that this matter is important?

Senator SPOONER:

– I believe that there is some importance in it. However, I do not consider that we should worry about small details when dealing with a big department such as the one at present under discussion. As I have said throughout my speech this morning, all that I desire is that the position of my department should be set out quite fairly. In paragraph 42 of its report the Public Accounts Committee has stated that the Government ordered a reduction of the staff of the department, and that any reduction did not result from a voluntary effort. That is correct and I have not said anything to the contrary.I want to avoid using adjectives aboutthis report, because I desire to approach the matter in as impartial a spirit as possible. All that I have said is that the statement, of the Public Accounts Committee is not fair, and I still believe that that is the position. The committee might have examined this section of my department and said, quite reasonably, that there had been a change of management in 1949. I know that the committee is a non-party organization, but it might have set that fact before the Senate in its report, and stated that since that change of management had occurred the staff in this section of the department had been consistently reduced. Moreover, the committee might have pointed out that not all reductions of stait’ have been made because of Government direction, and it might have indicated that the department itself has made a definite attempt to deal with the staff position, an’l that such an attempt has been successful. But. the committee has not said that. It has said that in 1951 the Public Service Board conducted an inquiry at the instance of the Treasury. I say .quite definitely, and with great respect to the Public Accounts Committee that the inquiry was not conducted at the instance of the Treasury at all, it was initiated by the then secretary of the department who considered that this part of the department’s activities should be reviewed. He went to the Public Service Board and inaugurated this examination. I have been told that the Public Service Board, after making the inquiry, thought that the staff should be at a -certain level. When the Public Service Board did that, the Treasury thought that the level of staff was too high. Then there was a series of discussions, which resulted, finally, in agreement between the three departments. I have been told - and I believe it to be true - that all of this is further evidence that the department has been well controlled, that the department itself inaugurated this procedure, and that the department has carried it through.

I come now to the long statement by tha Public Accounts Committee, with annexures, about the oil-drilling plant. Again I am sure that honorable senators will agree that it is difficult for me to deal with this matter off-hand, but I do not think that this sort of thing should lie allowed to rest. I consider that I should answer, off-hand, to the best of my capacity. Irrespective of the contents of the papers, and the report, I confess that the aspect that concerns me most is the statement that I have made. I said that a certain paper was before the Public Accounts Committee. I made that statement in the belief that it was true. I had been told that that paper was before the committee. I consider it to be a vital paper, because it shows that the procedure that the committee recommends should be adopted, was, in fact, adopted when th* matter was placed before me. I understood, specifically, that that paper was before the Committee. I have been told this morning that it was in the file that was made available to the committee - we have yet to look through the papers to be sure - and that if the committee did not see it, the fault was not entirely on the department. This is a slight reservation on what I said earlier. Many papers on this transaction were roneoed and given in a specific way to the committee. I thought that this paper was included; however it is a distinction without a difference, because the paper was in the files that were before the committee. If the staff of the committee did not find it in the files, with respect, the committee should not have made such a caustic criticism. This new oil-drilling plant was purchased at a very substantial cost, for a specific purpose, and the cost was stated from time to time in the papers. This matter was explained fully to me. As it was such a big transaction, I called for the previous papers, from which ] saw that my predecessor had looked at it and said that he wanted to discuss it in detail with the department. Then, apparently after considerable discussion, he marked the papers to the effect that he approved. So there cannot he any thought but that all the facts were known to my predecessor, who approved of the transaction and said, “ I presume arrangements will be made to obtain the dollars that are required for this equipment”.

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA

– What was the specific purpose for which the plant was required ?

Senator SPOONER:

– It is a quite long and interesting story. I shall briefly relate it to the committee. [Extension of time granted.] As I under stand the position, it was part and parcel of plant required to encourage drilling for oil in the north of Western Australia.

The plant was purchased because at that time no private operators were interested in the venture. After the plant had been purchased a big oil company decided to drill for oil. That company commenced operations a few weeks ago. There is in this building a tape-recording of the opening ceremony when the plant was first put into operation. I have not had time to listen to it, but I have been told that,’ at the ceremony, Mr. Walkley, the leading personality in the company, paid most fulsome compliments to the department for the foundational work which it carried out in connexion with the oil-drilling programme r. Western Australia. I tried in two ways to induce private enterprise to join in the venture. The intention was that private enterprise should undertake the actual drilling operations. I cannot go through all the details at this stage. I repeat my statement of Friday last, that the Public Accounts Committee did not do justice to my department when it criticized it for not having properly presented the case to the three Ministers who were involved. I cannot answer for the impression which the permanent head of my department created in the minds of the members of the committee. I am quite clear in my opinion of him or t should not have taken up the cudgels on his behalf.

In relation to the cost of the department the committee went off on a tangent. I clearly recall that on Friday last I said that the committee, in stating the expenditure of the department for three years, had used two sets of figures that were computed on one basis, and a third set of figures that had been computed on another basis. I shall furnish the third set of figures computed on the same basis as the other two for the sake of comparison. Although I have not looked at the report of my speech on the matter, I am quite certain that I said that the committee did not have the actual details of expenditure for the third year because at the time it made its report they had’ not been completed. I did no more than state the figures for the third year on the same basis as those of the two preceding years for the purpose of establishing the point, which I regard as vital, that if the expenditure of the department be taken over three years and allowance be made for the coal-drilling programme, which was carried out at a time of national emergency, and also for expenditure on the search for uranium, the expenditure incurred by the department and the movement of departmental staff constitute a record which is well above the average of that of other government departments. In other words, I say that the department has been economically conducted, that it has been careful in all the ventures it has undertaken, that it has been restrained and careful in the control of its staff, and that, in those circumstances, it does not warrant the criticism that has been directed to it by the committee.

I am dealing with these matters in a rather sketchy fashion, but I wish to refer now. to the publication of the quarterly review National Development. I repeat that I am trying to put the position fairly as it affects the officers of the department. Only within the last few months, officers of the department referred to me the question of the continuance of the journal. I considered the information that was put before me, and instructed the department to continue the publica tion. I think the matter is one of some importance. The department has been criticized and if it is acting under ministerial direction, I believe that that should be made clear. I am informed that the review National Development costs between £1,000 and £1,200 a year net after sales. It is sold for 2s. 6d. a copy. Only two persons are employed upon the staff. Those facts have not been altered by the report of the Public Accounts Committee. Honorable senators may criticize me in this matter if they wish to -do so. The fact is that I decided as a matter of policy that the journal should be continued and I am prepared to debate that issue inside or outside this chamber. Having regard to the benefit that is conferred by the publication of National Development, I believe that it is proper to continue its production, and I join issue with the Public Accounts Committee on its statement that the journal is “ an elaborate and costly production “.

I am informed now that actually the journal occupies the time of only one and a half employees. In the circumstances nobody can say fairly and with truth that such a publication which costs the Government only £1,000 to £1,200 a year and has such a small staff is an elaborate and costly production.

I should like to respect the views of the Public Accounts Committee and not debate them. I warn the Opposition that I will not debate the report of the committee on the basis of an attack upon the Government in the guise of a debate upon the report. This is a Heaven-sent opportunity for the Opposition to launch an attack and when an attack is made upon the political level. I shall make a defence upon the same level. I think that I should give some official reply to honorable senators though I hope that nothing that I have said this morning comes within the realm of challenge. I hope that all that I have said is correct. If it is not, 1 shall be prepared to amend it subsequently.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– My first comment is directed to, and at, the Public Accounts Committee. I notice that paragraph 13 of the latest report states that reports of this nature should be tabled by the chairman or vicechairman in the House of Representatives and the Senate respectively, and a motion moved that the report be printed as a parliamentary paper. That is the procedure laid down by the committee. I regret that that procedure was not followed this morning. No motion for the printing of the report was moved. Had such a motion been moved the Opposition could have secured the adjournment of the debate, and a reasonable opportunity would have been given to all honorable senators to absorb the very voluminous terms of the report, which consists of seven closely printed pages and fourteen or fifteen pages of appendices. Owing to the fact that the debate is proceeding almost instantly following the presentation of this document to us, no honorable senator will have an adequate opportunity to state a case or an opinion, or even make a considered answer. Adjournment of the debate would have given honorable sena tors an opportunity to assimilate the details of the report.

My comment on the Department of National Development itself, and on what I might term the divergence of view between the Minister and the Public Accounts Committee, is that it is not a matter, as the Minister says, of his being obliged to defend his department. The truth is that the Minister himself is under charge. Unless the principle of ministerial responsibility for what happens in a department is acknowledged, then no governmental or ministerial responsibility exists in fact. The Minister must not merely come here and pose as a knight in shining armour who is defending an attack on one of his officers, who sits behind him in the seats provided for departmental officers and who may have erred in his preparation of information for presentation to the Senate. The Minister has a. responsibility to know all that goes on in his department and to justify it publicly himself. It is his administration. As he himself admitted only a moment ago, the fourth report of the Public Accounts Committee contains a most caustic criticism of his administration of the department. The committee is a completely non-party body, as he has stated, and one must admit that it has approached a matter like this objectively. I think we can assume that to be true. It is, of course, possible for the committee to err.

The Minister, in the course of this debate, made an immediate answer to the charges contained in the committee’s fourth report. Arising from that answer the committee has now presented another report. In his reply some days ago to the charges contained in the original report, the Minister stated that the report was inaccurate, unfair and misleading, and that it unjustly attacked the honour of senior public servants. He said some very severe things about it. I congratulate the Public Accounts Committee on having so speedily returned with a report that is clearly a justification of its original position. It does not admit that there is any justification for the attack made on its original report by the Minister. In the limited time that is available to me I should like to traverse, as the Minister has done, the latest report of the committee. It deals with the matter of staff in paragraph 20. Paragraph 23 of the report flatly contradicts the figures that were supplied by the Minister in the Senate last Friday. In paragraph 25 the committee returns to its original position. It concludes its comment on this section by stating -

Paragraphs 45 and 46 are, in the opinion of the Committee, justification for its statements.

So the committee adheres to its original opinion and comments on the staffing of the department-

Senator Guy:

– There is an alteration . of the date.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, but it is of relatively minor importance whether the date is the 30th April or the 30th June. It is a minor detail of the whole picture.

Now we come to the oil-drilling plant to which the Minister has made reference, f refer honorable senators to the reference made by the committee to this matter in paragraph 27 of its latest report which begins - tt will be sufficient to refer to the history of the Committee’s investigation and to the number of statements presented by the department to rebut the allegations of inaccuracy.

That non-party committee, having examined the Minister’s statement, has proceeded to rebut his allegations that the committee was inaccurate in its comments. The committee has now set out the whole history of the matter. In paragraph 30 of the report the Public Accounts Committee comments, very properly in my opinion, on the vacillation that took place in the department. In paragraph 34 of the report the committee has stated -

Based on the evidence submitted to it, the committee is of the opinion that its comments in the report relating to this matter were justified.

In other words, the committee has adhered to the position which it took up when it caustically criticized the department originally. Nor has the committee retreated from its original position on the subject of the costs of the department. Paragraph 37 of the report concludes as follows : -

There is no discrepancy between these figures and those of the Minister, and there waa no misinterpretation.

In dealing with the subject of departmental publications, the committee returned to the attack in paragraph 41 of its report. The committee claimed that one particular publication was very costly. Paragraph 45 of the report concludes with the following remark: -

The committee is of the opinion, after taking all factors into consideration, that “National Development” is a very elaborate and costly publication.

It is completely clear that the committee, having considered the remarks that the Minister for National Development made in this chamber during the week and which he had ample time to prepare, has not changed its ground. I can imagine no more severe indictment of a government department than the one that has been presented by this committee in its fourth report. The Minister has again put views contrary to those that were expressed by the committee in the report that it presented to-day. It is not possible for the Senate to sit judicially and examine adequately in the brief time available to it to-day the whole history of this matter. But it seems to me that we have reached a stage at which a completely thorough investigation should be made of this department by a competent body. .1 believe that the Public Accounts Committee is a competent body. But if the Government considers that it is at variance with the committee in relation to these matters, then the Government should set up an independent body to investigate the Department of National Development. That course of action is unquestionably called for by the nature of the report that has been submitted by the Public Accounts Committee. I should be completely satisfied if that committee were to undertake the thorough investigation of the department that I have proposed. But if the Government would prefer the investigation to be undertaken by another body it should speedily appoint another independent and competent body for that purpose.

Senator Aylett:

– It should appoint a royal commission.

Senator McKENNA:

– I do not suggest the form that the inquiry might take, but it would have to be of such a nature as to permit the most exhaustive investigation into all aspects of the department’s activities. The original report on the department by the committee has disturbing features, and the committee has not retreated one inch from its original position. The soothing words of the Minister cannot alter the stringency of the attack by the committee on the department. The suggestions of overstaffing and the issuing of publications solely because money and staff are available, without regard for the need for such publications–

Senator Maher:

– That is a waste of public funds.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is the statement of the committee and that statement, I suggest, the Senate should accept. The committee has reported also that the department has made no effort to stimulate private industry into engaging in research on its own behalf or into contributing to the cost of research and the compilation of data by the department. The committee has referred throughout its report to mistakes of judgment that became cumulative and led to further and further losses. I am not in a position to pass cool judgment on the matters raised by the committee at this stage, and I do not think that any other honorable senator is in a position to do so. No doubt we could undertake the task if we had unlimited time at our disposal. However, as that is not so, I suggest seriously that the Government should acknowledge its responsibility, and the responsibility of the Minister, and take steps at once to institute a proper inquiry into the activities of the Department of National Development. Unless it does so, it must stand condemned by the report of the Public Accounts Committee,, to which that committee still adheres.

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

. -I shall state briefly at the outset a principle which I have enunciated previously in this chamber, and which, I think,’ is closely bound up in this discussion. It is the principle of parliamentary -control, through the Executive, of the Executive and, above all, of the Public Service. That principle has been largely ignored in this debate on immaterial matters of fact on which we cannot form a reliable judgment at present.

Indeed, the principle has been placed in jeopardy. The speech by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), who has repeatedly posed in this chamber as a champion of the Parliament, aimed a blow at this principle of parliamentary supremacy which was the. most grievous blow I have yet known to be struck at it.. Whatever may be the outcome of this discussion, it cannot issue in discredit of any kind to the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) or the Government. It cannot result -in anything but credit to the Government.

Senator Hendrickson:

– The honorable senator should obtain the opinion of the people.

Senator GORTON:

– I shall explain why I believe that to be so. The Government of Australia is the biggest business in the country, and the department with which we are concerned in this discussion is a not inconsiderable part of that, business. The business of governing the country is vastly larger and more complex than that of managing the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, Imperial Chemical Industries of Australia and New Zealand Limited, or any other great public company that carries on activities in Australia.

Yet does anybody imagine that the general manager of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited should be expected to know of, or to be responsible for, every action, administrative or otherwise, that is taken within the company’s organization? Of course not.! He is in the hands of his branch managers and other officers of the company up and down the land. But let us suppose that the general manager of such a great company calls in an outside team of cost accountants and efficiency experts, as often happens, to show him how to improve the company’s business and make it run more smoothly, and let us suppose that that team finds ways in which production can be increased and profits improved. Do honorable senators think that the shareholders of that company at a meeting would complain because the general manager had called in a team of experts and had by that mean? found ways of improving business and dividends, or that they would censure him, and expect him to accept responsibility for any maladministration revealed by the inquiry? Yet that is precisely the position here to-day. Here is a team of experts - an all-party team - called in by the Government, and therefore by .the Minister for National Development as a member of the Government, to help him to improve departmental administration so that money can be saved for the sake of the Australian taxpayer. Yet we are told by the Leader of the Opposition that that merits censure and that there is something discreditable about it. On the contrary, there can be nothing but credit through such action and nothing but enhanced prestige for the Parliament. Supposing we were to accept as true the statement by the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister himself is on charge. Would that not mean that it would be impossible for the Parliament to control any public department in the future? Would that not mean that we could not criticize, as a Parliament, any administrative action in any department without criticizing the Minister concerned and without criticizing the Government? The Leader of the Opposition and every one else here knows that party discipline will not allow votes of no confidence to be passed on a government in this way; and by saying that the Minister himself is on trial in this matter, the Leader of the Opposition is creating a situation in which this Parliament will be unable to perform its proper function on behalf of the people, which is to see that the various departments are administered efficiently. That is why I say that the principle of parliamentary control of the Public Service has been endangered by the thesis advanced by the Leader of the Opposition. That is why I say that no thoughtful member of Parliament can accept that thesis for one moment. That is why I hope that this chamber will not for one moment accept it. What should our proper approach be to a question such as this ? Certainly I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we cannot now debate small, matters which crop up here and there in this report. Surely our proper course is to accept this report aud then,, at some future time, to insist on the right of hearing what has been done as theresult of the report - the right to ask why things which the report has recommended have not been done, if they have not been done, and to express approval of things which have been done as the result of the report, if they have been done. Those are matters to be debated in the future ; but to-day, for goodness’ sake, do not let us listen to the snivelling and snarling stuff we have heard about the Minister being on trial or the Public Accounts Committee being on trial. The Parliament is on trial, and all of us are responsible for determining whether or not the prestige of the Parliament is to be maintained.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

.- I am afraid that I have been unable to follow with any great clarity the arguments presented by Senator Gorton. Possibly the honorable senator has an idea, but he has failed to present it in an unclouded fashion. If he denies that for the public good there should be criticism of these reports, I just cannot understand his point at all, and I shall have to leave his arguments to be understood by some one a lot more intelligent than I am. I have risen to discuss the further report upon the Department of ‘ National Development that we have received from the Public Accounts Committee to-day. On Friday, the Minister for National Development came to the attack like a lion, although perhaps a softly spoken lion. He accused the Public Accounts Committees of being unduly hostile, unduly critical and inaccurate. But this morning, the Minister has gone out like a lamb, or perhaps a more appropriate simile would be, like a light. To-day, he has reduced his criticism to the plea that the Public Accounts Committee has not been fair. His approach on this occasion is quite different from his approach last Friday.

The Minister does not seem to understand that most honorable senators consider that he does not have to rush in to defend the permanent head of the Department of National Development, and the public servants employed in that. department. He must understand that he, as the Minister for National Development, definitely carries the final responsibility for that department. That responsibility devolves on him under the parliamentary system of government, as I understand it. He must bear the final responsibility for his department. Honorable senators are now considering a department that has been subjected to most severe criticism by the Public Accounts Committee, and the Minister need not rise in his place, like Sir Galahad, in the belief that he has to protect somebody else. He has to make his answers on his own behalf. That and nothing more ! He has mentioned that he has already taken appropriate action arising out of the report of the Public Accounts Committee. 1 should like some information about that appropriate action. At least, the Minister admits that there has been a good deal of room for some important appropriate action.

I dealt with this matter last Friday after a very brief survey of the position, and it seemed to me even then that the Minister was taking a very heavy stick to the Public Accounts Committee. Even a superficial glance at the items which he attacked showed that the committee was well justified. To-day, the committee has come back with a report to the .Senate, which, to my mind, almost completely justifies its original report. The committee, in its report this morning, does not retra.ct any of the statements in its original report. I think that the intrusion of the Minister last Friday was illadvised. He took the initiative in this matter, and if any danger to the parliamentary system arises from it, I think that Senator Gorton should be directing his attention to the attitude, not of the Senate, but of the Minister for the way in which he has attacked the Public Accounts Committee.

The position is still not so clear as it might easily be. I admit that matters have to be perfectly clear if I am to understand them. I want the present position to be simplified, so that all honorable senators will be able to understand it. The Minister still adheres to the figures on staffing which have been criticized by the Public Accounts Committee. The Minister contends that the figure of 575 is right. The first mystery which develops and which I should like to have clarified, is, who has the right and authority in this matter. Appendix No. 1 to the report of the Public Accounts Committee, which has been submitted to honorable senators to-day, is a copy of the employment sheet, form Public Service Board 39, forwarded by the Department of National Development to the Public Service Board by memorandum dated the 8th May last. That is to say, the facts and figures forwarded by the Department of National Development to the Public Service Board form the basis for the statements by the Public Accounts Committee in its original report on this department. When the Minister queried that figure, the Public Accounts Committee sought a later report. The document dated the 8th July probably contains the latest information available on this matter. This information appears in Appendix No. 2, which is a copy of the employment sheet, form Public Service Board 39, which was forwarded by the Department of National Development - not by any one else - ito the Public Service Board by memorandum dated the 8th July. The Public Accounts Committee stated that the number employed in the department was 648, not 575, as the Minister has said. Of course, the Minister now claims that the committee included casual workers in that figure. Does he deny the figures of his own department, as forwarded to the Public Service Board? Does he assert that they are incorrect? I have gone through the report presented in May and also that presented in July, and nowhere could I see the figure 575 referred to. I wish to know how the Minister arrived at that figure. The Public Accounts Committee based its figure on a factual document sent to it by the Department of National Development itself.

The second point which was dealt with at considerable length by the Minister concerned the oil-drilling plant. The Minister admitted on Friday that the Public Accounts Committee was entitled to base its observations and findings on the evidence submitted to it. That being so, I am unable to understand the grounds on which he attacked the committee on this point. The third point of the Minister’s explanation has been dealt with by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator

McKenna), and there is no doubt that the Public Accounts Committee has completely justified its findings in this respect. The committee had recourse to official documents, but again the Minister has denied the accuracy of the figures involved. Honorable senators will remember that he said that the estimated expenditure of £1,259,000 was overstated and that, in fact, £1,090,000 was actually expended. This morning, however, the Public Accounts Committee stated that the correct figure is £1,240,000. I should like to know why there has been so much conflict and misunderstanding in relation to these figures. There must be something basically wrong somewhere. At least it can be said for the Public Accounts Committee that it has presented to the Senate the actual documents upon which it. based its conclusions, which is something that the Minister has failed to do.

The points with which I am dealing were raised by the Minister in rebuttal, and in support of his contention that the Public Accounts Committee has been unfair, hostile and inaccurate. Of course, the Minister has not touched at all on other criticisms contained in the report, obviously for the reason that it would not be wise for him to do so. The fourth matter with which he dealt in attacking the committee was the question of the publication entitled National Development. The Minister now says that the actual cost of the publication is only £1,000 or £1,200 a year and that only 1½ persons are employed on its production. It seems to me that the committee was justified in complaining about this publication on the groundthat the department was not able to segregate the costs of the publication. Although the Minister now states that the cost is £1,000 to £1,200 per annum, apparently his officers were not able to break down that cost for the Public Accounts Committee and let the committee know the exact position.

Senator Spooner:

– Did the committee ask that that be done?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– It is referred to in the report. I take it that the committee asked for it to be done.

Senator Spooner:

– The honorable senator should prove that the committee asked for it.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I suggest, that it is for the Minister to assert that the committee did not ask for an analysis.

Senator Spooner:

– The committee has made the allegation.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– If the Minister believes the committee to have been wrong again, let him say so. If he does that, probably the committee will present another report later in the week and prove that it was right. That has been the procedure so far. The allegations made by the Minister of hostility, inaccuracy and unfairness by the committee have been rejected in the report presented to honorable senators this morning. I admit that when the Minister replied to the criticisms of his department made in the first report of the committee, he did so at short notice. I appreciate all the disadvantages of dealing with such a report at short notice, but I assume the Minister studied the background of the matter and acquainted himself as fully as possible with the relevant facts before he made his speech last Friday. We have gone back to where we were before the Minister made that speech, because the committee has confirmed strongly the criticisms of the Minister’s department that were made in its first report.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I did not intend to intervene in this debate until I heard the remarkable discourse given by Senator Gorton. I describe it as remarkable because the honorable senator was not concerned about whether the Department of National Development was wasting public money, whether expensive boring plant was being used in the best interests of the Australian people, or whether a journal printed by the department was costing far more than it should cost. All he was concerned a.bout was’ whether the criticisms made by the committee would bring discredit on the Government and the Minister for National Development and affect the electoral chances of the Government parties at the general election to be held in a few months time.

Senator Wedgwood:

– That is not so.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am delighted that Senator Gorton has such a charming champion, but I prefer to deal with him rather than with Senator Wedgwood. Let us trace the history of this rather interesting episode. It arose from a consideration of the Estimates for the Department of National Develop ment. The most remarkable and interesting feature from my point of view is that a Minister whose departmental expenditure is under close scrutiny has rushed in to attack a committee that has investigated the activities of his department. If I recollect the Minister’s speech correctly, he did not deal with the expenditure by ibis department, but said he was prepared -.to let the figures speak for themselves. He expressed his view of certain criticisms of his department made by the Public Accounts Committee. The Minister rushed in to defend his department. Having very little experience in this chamber I thought-

Senator Wedgwood:

– The honorable senator will learn-

Senator KENNELLY:

– Yes, and I am prepared, to learn. It seemed to me to be a case of a man stepping in where angels fear to tread. Having some knowledge of what such a committee should do, I took the trouble to ascertain the personnel of the committee. I found that it was an all-party committee. I found, also, that the majority of the members of the committee were supporters of the present Administration and I said to myself, “ Surely the committee must be on very safe ground, or it would not have brought in this report”. Then my mind became confused as I listened to the Minister contradicting figures. He may have been quite right in saying that he disagreed with the findings of the committee, because at times everybody is at least entitled to disagree with opinions expressed by others. The Minister flatly contradicted the committee’s report on the number of people employed in the department. He also contradicted the committee on the amount of money spent by his department. I do not think he had a very good idea where this precious oil-boring plant was. The fact is that in very specific instances he disagreed with the committee.

To-day we find that the committee has returned to the attack. I really expected the committee to do so because, as I have said, I had studied its personnel and had found that it had a majority of members who support the present Administration. I said to myself, “ Let us have a look at the report they bring back”.I agree with my colleague, Senator Armstrong, when he said that the attitude of the Minister, when the Senate last met, was that of a champion of his department. In that respect I could, at least, form some respect for him. But his attitude to-day is meek, mild and pleading. He said, in effect, “ There may be room for differences of opinion. There may be things in this report of which I shall see that notice is taken, and to which my department, as far as practicable, will give effect “. In answer to Senator Gorton, I say that the Minister is responsible for his department to the Parliament and to the nation. If that is not the Minister’s responsibility, whose responsibility is it? Like every other Minister, he is responsible to the Parliament, which is responsible to the people. At no time in the limited legislative sphere in which I was previously engaged for some years, did I ever hear a Minister say, or imply that he was not responsible for his department. When I heard Senator Gorton speak in that strain, the thought occurred to me that he would live to learn. He instanced the case of a general manager. If complaints arise in a private business organization, or if that organization fails to pay dividends, to whom do the shareholders look for an explanation? They look, not to persons who may be in charge of sections of the organization, but to the man on top. The Parliament requires the fullest explanation from the Minister in respect of the administration of his department, and if his explanation does not conform to the facts, the Minister, whoever he may be, stands impeached on the ground that he has not fulfilled creditably the duties that have been entrusted to him.

This debate has been interesting. At least, it has revealed that the Public Accounts Committee has performed a useful service. The Minister has implied that he will have something more to say on this matter on some future occasion. When he does so, I trust that he will be in a position at least to explain to the Senate the discrepancies between his statements and those made by the Public Accounts Committee. As I have said, I have no objection to the Minister holding a certain opinion on this, or that, matter. In respect of any subject, individuals may disagree. But the Minister, unless he is able to substantiate his statements, is not entitled to tell the Parliament, and through it the people, that fewer persons are employed in this department than the number stated by the Public Accounts Committee, or that the expenditure incurred by his department is less than the amount that the committee says that it expends. On those two specific grounds, the Minister has failed to satisfy honorable senators. Certainly, he has not satisfied the people in this matter. Sitting suspended from 12.1& to 2.15 p.m.

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

– With some reluctance, I again enter the debate, in order to refer to the discussion this morning on the staff of the department. A figure of 575 was mentioned. That figure is confirmed by the monthly statement that was issued by the Public Service Board on the 30th June, 1953, which shows the following figures: - Department of National Development, 103; Bureau of Mineral Resources, 292; Division of Industrial Development, 174; a total of 569. To that total has been added six on long service leave, thus substantiating the figure of 575 that I mentioned earlier. Appendix No. 2 of the committee’s report submitted this morning shows the following particulars of staff employed at the 30th June, 1953 :- Section A- full-time staff, 562; Section B - absent twelve weeks or more on leave or training. 7 ; making a total of 569, which was the figure that I mentioned previously. We must add to that figure two cleaners and, most important, staff employed outside the Public Service Act, 77, in order to obtain the figure of 648, which is now presented by the committee as the number of staff at the 30th June, 1953. The significance of that figure is that, by the addition of 77 staff outside the Public Service Act, the staff at the 30th June, 1953, has been computed upon an entirely different basis from the total of staff at the 30th June, 1951, and the 30th June, 1952. The figures given by the committee in relation to 1951 and 1952 do not include thosementioned in Part II., but the figures for 1953 that were given this morning did include that part of the staff. In those circumstances, and with respect, I submit that the committee, in its report submitted this morning, should have stated, that not only are the 1953 figures incorrect, but also the 1951 and 1952 figures are incorrect. In other words, if the committee submits figures on onebasis for the years 1951 and 1952, it should not complain if the department thinks that the 1953 figures are computed on the same basis.

The points that I was concerned tomake on Friday were that the staff of the department proper had not increased, and that the cost of administering the department had not increased. The information that has been given in this additional report does not detract from my statement. I submit that the facts and information that I gave in my statement on Friday were correct. They have not been disproved by the report that the Public Accounts Committee presented this morning, in which the committee has made some observations about tb*> contents of paragraphs 45 and 46. In reply, I say that these are matters of fact; the information contained in those paragraphs might be right or wrong, but the fact remains that the information was not available to the department before the issue of the report. The Public Accounts Committee apparently obtained that information from a source other than the department, and included it in the report. T am not going to criticize the’ committee for doing that. The committee can obtain information from whatever source it so desires. When the committee does that and subsequently criticizes the department, it should give the department an opportunity to examine the information before using that information. I repeat what I said concerning paragraph 49 of the committee’s fourth report. The inference to be drawn from that paragraph is that the department took no part in the reconstruction. The truth is that the department initiated it. The department asked the Public Service Board that an inquiry be made. I hare not the exact figures before me, but I believe that the staff of the Division of Industrial Development has been reduced from about 300 in 1949 to 124 at present. A proportion of that reduction followed a governmental order, but the department is entitled to credit for the extent to which it has reorganized itself in recent years.

As to the oil-drilling plant, I said on Friday that the Public Accounts Committee was incorrect in stating that there was no direct statement in the files that the department was buying a new piece of equipment. The report of the committee stated that the department had the responsibility of showing the facts in the clearest way to the Minister. The committee implied that Ministers had approved the purchase of the plant when they did not know what they were doing. E stated on Friday that the facts were clearly presented to me. There was clear evidence also that the two Ministers who preceded me in the control of the department had that evidence before them. Nothing in the report that was presented this morning by the Public Accounts Committee detracts from’ the statement that I made on Friday. It is not sufficient for the committee to table papers presenting its point of view. It has a clear responsibility to get the facts, and present them if it proposes to criticize in trenchant terms. The position of the Public Accounts Committee is little different from mine. As Minister in charge of the Department of National Development, I take full responsibility for it. The Public Accounts Committee must take responsibility for the statements that it produces. The report that was tabled by the committee today stated that I was in error in claiming that a paper I presented was before the Public Accounts Committee. I read from a paper that was presented to the committee. It stated -

On the 27th August, 1951, the Minister was advised that the revised estimate of the cost of the deep well plant was £320,959 and, as at that date approval had been given for the expenditure of £190,008, he was asked to approve expenditure of the additional amount of £.124,291. The Minister approved this submission on the 30th August, 1951.

That paper was prepared by the department and given to the committee, which had the paper before it during its deliberation. It also had the relevant files which contained the details in support of that statement. In those circumstances, I repeat that the report that was presented this morning by the Public Accounts Committee does not set out the position accurately. I must confess that I am getting a feeling of genuine sympathy with that committee in trying to discover facts when there are so many relevant files to be studied. A tremendous amount of work is involved, but that does not detract from the responsibility of the committee to set out the facts accurately and comment upon them fairly. It is my opinion that that is not being done in relation to this transaction.

Regarding the general case outlined by the committee, I told the Senate on Friday that there had been no expansion of the staff or expenditure of this department apart from that which was necessitated by the work that was done on coal and uranium. No responsible senator would say that that was not work of the highest national importance. There is no strong allegation that that work was extravagantly carried out. I hope and I believe that I have dealt with any allegations of that kind effectively. I do not shirk my responsibility as the Minister for his department. I take responsibility for what happens within the department. As I stated in this chamber on Friday, one of my responsibilities is to ensure that the criticism of officers of the department is accurate and fair. I think that that is a reasonable approach to the subject. I had no intention to be provocative on this issue because I believe that the Public Accounts Committee can do most useful work and I shall help the committee in every way that I can. But the committee has had certain officers of my department before it. It has also obtained evidence from sources other than the officers of my department and in the absence of the officers of my department.

The Public Accounts Committee has alleged that the Minister for National Development was not informed of the correct circumstances relating to the drilling plant. The evidence that was given to the committee by an officer of the Treasury shows conclusively that the committee had been informed that the Minister and the Treasury and the Parliament knew what the department was doing in relation to this transaction. The evidence in thi? respect reads as follows: -

The purchase of this plant came under the Treasury’s notice when the Treasury was considering departmental Estimates for 1940-50.

The item relating to the new drilling plant appeared on the Estimates for iba financial year 1949-50. The evidence continues - lt was stated to be a new plant including a complete diesel driven drilling rig and the cost was stated to be £205,000. For running spares there was a further item of £10,200 making a total of £215,200. When an estimate reaches us, the natural assumption is, of course, that the responsible Minister has approved of it. We queried the item with the department in the normal way because it was 1 a new item and we received this explanation.

Surely that evidence disposes of the suggestion that funds were requested, hot for new plant, but for the modernization of old plant. That evidence was in the hands nf the committee before it wrote its report. The explanation that the Treasury received was as follows : - ft must bc understood that unless this plant is obtained the Commonwealth will not have a modern rotary or drilling plant and will not be able to undertake hire” of plant under the Petroleum Oil Search Act.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The Minister’s time has expired.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

– I rise formally in order that the Minister may have an opportunity to. conclude his informative remarks on this most extraordinary subject. I merely wish to say it is unfortunate for the Parliament that the report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Department of National Development, and the Estimates for that Department are under consideration at the same time. However, the debate having proceeded as it has, the matter has become of the utmost importance. I agree with the view that the Parliament must accept the responsibility for this report, and that the Minister, as the head of a department, must be given every opportunity to vindicate his actions.

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

.- -Again I thank honorable sena tors for their courtesy. The point I was making was that the treasury officer whoappeared before the Public AccountsCommittee stated in evidence that, as far back as the 1949-50 Estimates referencewas made to a new plant; that theTreasury queried the item in the ordinary way; and that the department gave theTreasury a reply. When an estimate reaches the Parliament, the natural assumption is, of course, that the responsible Minister has approved of it. The responsible Minister in 1949- did approve of the estimate in this instance. It was confirmed in 1950, and again in 1951. I do not propose to> take any further part in this debate. Honorable senators have been most indulgent towards me up to this stage. I conclude by saying that the Public AccountsCommittee concludes an inquiry, its report is printed and tabled in both houses of the Parliament. The report attracts wide publicity. Necessarily, the department’s reply to the report is made at a very much later stage. My attitude is that I have a responsibility - it is not a pleasant responsibility - to attack the Public Accounts Committee. I consider myself obliged to point out- where the committee’s report is not accurate or is unfair. I claim that in the course of this debate I have substantiated all of my statements. To make those statements and to substantiate them was the least I could do in the circumstances.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I do not know whether we are to infer from the announcement by the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) that he does not propose to participate further in this debate, that this is the final close-down on the affairs of this very important department. There are other important items which I hope the Minister will deal with while the vote for the Department of National Development is under consideration. It is true that this debate has hinged largely on the report presented to the Parliament by the Public Accounts Committee. Undoubtedly, the debate has been prolonged by the manner in which the Minister intervened on Friday last. The report on the Department of National Development is one of the most scathing that has been presented since I have been a mem ber of this Parliament. In fact, I do not recall any other occasion on which a department and a Minister have been under fire as the Department of National Development and its ministerial head have been during this debate.

Senator Gorton:

– Ve have not previously had a public accounts committee.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I know that certain honorable senators opposite were not slow to make allegations against departments administered by Labour Ministers, but the criticism was never as comprehensive as that which has been made to-day. I hope that before this debate is terminated, the Minister for National Development will reply to the very important matters that were raised by Senator Ashley this morning. The Parliament, and also the public, are entitled to a reply to those allegations which were founded on a document which has since been presented to this committee. That document indicates that prefabricated houses, imported from abroad, are still in crates, and that it is possible for similar buildings to be erected by Australian workmen at half the cost of the imported buildings. The honorable senator also alleged that, as a result of certain directions issued to coal authorities in New South Wales, the price of coal was increased so much that a company which had been on the verge of bankruptcy and unable to pay dividends on its preference shares for a period of years, was able immediately to make a payment to its preference shareholders. Because of the increased price of coal, that company was placed in affluent circumstances. A reply should also be made to that allegation.

I appreciate that the’ Minister is no doubt becoming rather tired of this debate. In common with other honorable senators, I regret that an important department such as the Department of National Development, which is called upon to perform a most vital and useful function in the development of Australia, should have come under fire in this Parliament. I know that the department employs many excellent officers who do their best to handle successfully the work entrusted to it. Although we may all regret that this has happened, nevertheless it is the duty of the Minister to see that proper answers are made to the allegations. I trust that the intimation by the Minister that he does not intend to take any further part in the debate will not leave unanswered the charges made in regard to the two very important, matters to which I have referred.

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales

.- I think it would be a great pity if a report presented by a non-partisan committee should be the subject of partisan debate. Great evils could arise if that occurred. If we treat this matter simply as a pal.:7 political one, and as one affecting ministerial responsibility, we may inhibit the members of the Public Accounts Committee, who, so far, have spoken with the one voice. I suggest that should a Minister on a subsequent occasion, come under fire as the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) has done, it is possible that members of the Public Accounts Committe who belong to the same political party as the Minister will be very reluctant to make their report as honest, and as critical as it might otherwise be. I think that some honorable senator? opposite appreciate tha; point. The important thing is that not the Cabinet or the Public Service but the Parliament should control these things. All of us know that with the vast expansion of the Public Service it is utterly impossible for any Minister to control directly all the affairs of his department. In those circumstances, the Parliament requires additional assistance in this matter; and it is obtaining that assistance through the development of the committee system through which members of the Parliament are enabled to keep in touch with members of the Public Service and help them and, if necessary, criticize them. In a matter of this kind, a Minister is placed in a most invidious position. He is personally responsible to the Parliament for the administration of his department, and he must feel that he should always work in amity with all of his departmental officers. I can speak with feeling on this subject because I have been a public servant . for the greater part of my life. I know that the Public Service needs criticism. It has certain tendencies which must be restrained and controlled. I am afraid that Ministers are not always in a position to exercise such control. There appears to be almost a natural law by which not only every department but practically every sub-department tends to expand itself. The reason for that tendency is obvious. Every man likes to emphasize his own importance; and members of the Parliament should be the last to complain on that score. The only way in which the Parliament can effectively control the Public Service is by maintaining; direct contact with it ; and it can do so through the committee system. I compliment the Public Accounts Committee upon the work that it has already done and upon the reports that it has made. I may be wrong, but I have not read in either the fourth or the tenth report of that committee anything that would indicate that the errors that it alleges have been made were made solely under the present Minister, or under the present Government. Maybe, if it is a question of sheeting home responsibility in this matter we may have to review certain actions of the preceding Government. However, I do not think that we should follow that course. This report should be considered and acted upon. The Public Accounts Committee is not infallible any more tha.u the Minister is infallible, but I trust that the debate will not be continued on partisan lines and will not resolve itself merely into an attack upon the Minister.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Earlier to-day the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) indicated that in relation to some of the matters mentioned in the report of the Public Accounts Committee he had taken action that he considered to be appropriate. I regret that my attendance at another engagement obliged me to be absent from the chamber when the Minister was speaking this morning. If the Minister has not since indicated the matters mentioned in the report in respect of which he considers action should be taken, I ask him to be good enough at this juncture to specify such matters and also to indicate the nature of the action that he has taken.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Western Australia

– The appointment of the Public Accounts Committee has been one of the wisest actions that this Government has taken. I compliment that committee upon the report that it has mad” in this instance. I do not say that that report is the last word in this matter, but it has afforded the opportunity to honorable senators to have a very valuable’ debate which, I regret, has been rather debased by some honorable senators who have spoken on party political lines. As a housewife who has had to make ends meet within a budget, I 3ay that a lesson can be learned from the investigation that the Public Accounts Committee has made into the administration of the Department of National Development. No doubt, that committee will conduct similar investigations into the administration of other departments and, in due course, the public will realize the great value of the service that that body can render to the Parliament and to the country. It is not possible for a Minister, personally, to supervise the actions of every public servant under his control. I have been a public servant for many years, and I pay a tribute to the Public Service generally. With respect to the publications that are issued by the Department of National Development, T should say that the expenditure of £1,200 incurred in that direction is well expended. The magazine published by the department is a very creditable production, and I have been proud to send it to friends overseas in order to illustrate some of the things that this young nation is doing. My only complaint is that the city of Perth has not yet been featured in that magazine. This debate has been most valuable. It has proved to critics of the appointment of the Public Accounts Committee the value of the work that a non-party parliamentary committee can do in investigating departmental expenditure and in trying to enable departments to operate within their budgets.

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

– This debate has taken an extraordinary turn. Government supporters have said that they agreed wholeheartedly with the appointment of the Public Accounts Committee and they have praised its work. However, after that committee has carried out the duty of examining departmental expenditure entrusted to it by the Parliament and has revealed many matters in respect of which the Parliament should take remedial action, Government supporters accuse members of the Opposition of partisanship when they endorse the report that t]1e Public Accounts Committee has furnished and, accordingly, proceed to question the appropriate Minister upon the matters raised in it. The Senate is called upon to vote huge sums of money for departmental expenditure. Time after time, we are obliged to seek from appropriate Ministers details of proposed expenditure, but in the great majority of instances the information sought is not readily available. In those circumstances, it is of great assistance to honorable senators to have presented to them reasoned findings with respect to departmental administration as are contained in the report of the Public Accounts Committee. But when we then proceed to ask the appropriate Minister to explain certain matters that the Public Accounts Committee has criticized, with a view to preventing a recurrence of such happenings and, in the course of doing so, members of the Opposition criticize the Minister for permitting those things to develop in hi? department, Government supporters charge us with partisanship in debate. The members of the Public Accounts Committee, particularly its chairman, have courageously carried out their duty in investigating departmental expenditure and revealing to the Parliament faults which they have discovered in certain departments. In this instance, the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), regardless of the fact that the department which he controls is extensive, must accept responsibility for the scathing criticism that the committee ha,« directed at his administration.

Senator Robertson:

– The Minister is not running away from that criticism.

Senator ARNOLD:

– The point I make is that when members of the Opposition dare to mention these things we are presumed to tread upon, the Minister’s corns. Government supporters say that we should be more restrained in our criticism, because, after all, the Minister is doing his best, Government supporters are very tender on this matter. I am confident that if similar criticism were levelled by a joint committee at a Labour Minister supporters of this Government would not then say, “ Do not be too hard on him ; he is doing his best “. Naturally, in such circumstances, Government supporters would do the same as members of the Opposition are now doing. They would reveal to the people that all is not well in the Department of National Development. It is all very well to say that the Minister cannot control his department. Within the last year or two, 10,000 public servants have been dismissed arbitrarily. Presumably the Ministers controlling the various departments knew how many employees could be dismissed from their respective departments. Or did the Government just decide to strike off 10,000 public seryants from the government pay-roll, in order to make political capital out of the situation? If Ministers were able to say that so many of their employees were redundant, presumably they had the control of their departments well in hand. It might well be that those 10,000 public servants were dismissed arbitrarily only to enable the Government parties to obtain a. political advantage. It may have been better for the country had some of those public servants been continued in their jobs, and steps taken to see that the departments expended their funds in a proper manner. That may have obviated the submission of reports such as we are now considering.

I should like the Minister to furnish the committee with information on other aspects of his department. In the last financial year £28,000 was voted for publications and publicity, of which £21,237 was expended. In this financial year, however, the proposed vote for that purpose is only £15,000. Is the cut attributable to the report of the Public Accounts Committee? Is it because the department has been criticized by this fact-finding committee? Or has it been made because the Minister realizes that there has been a dreadful waste of public money under this heading?

I consider that the Public Accounts Committee has rendered a very valuable service to the Parliament. The Minister for National Development will have to do a considerable amount of explaining in order to convince the Opposition that his department is being administered satisfactorily.

Senator MAHER:
Queensland

– I congratulate the Public Accounts Committee on the very useful work that it has performed, and the reports that it has submitted to the Parliament. As honorable senators are aware, the object of the committee is to restore control of the purse to the Parliament. In other words, it is the function of the committee to restore control of this country’s finances to the Parliament. It is evident from report No. 4 and report No. 10 that it is imperative that parliamentary supremacy in these matters shall be restored without delay. The reports contain a very severe indictment of bureaucratic extravagance and mismanagement in the Department of National Development. “ One cannot resist that conclusion after carefully studying the reports.

Senator Benn:

– ‘Extravagance and mismanagement by whom?

Senator MAHER:

– By the high executive officers of the Department of National Development. As a result of perusing the reports, I am convinced that those officers have had an altogether wrong approach to the problems of their department. I deplore the fact that some honorable senators have endeavoured to make political capital from the businesslike manner in which the Public Accounts Committee, which is composed of members of all political parties in the Parliament, has set about ensuring that public funds shall be expended in the interests of the people of this country. We on this side of the chamber welcome the committee’s report. I believe that it devolves upon the Parliament as a whole to see that the matters that have been severely criticized by the committee shall be rectified. The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) has assured honorable senators that he will do so; indeed, he has already moved in that direction. I have no doubt that the Minister will effect a good clean-up in his department. I have never really taken very kindly to the Department of National Development. As the Public

Accounts Committee has. pointed out, the department’s activities extend over such a wide field that they cannot be undertaken without competing with State departments and agencies. But who decides on a. line of demarcation? It is very difficult to determine limits up to which the Department of National Development should compete with State departments in the same field.

Let us consider the activities of the Bureau of Mineral Resources. It undertakes coal exploration. Surely that is a function of the State departments of mines. Then again, surely activity in connexion with grazing properties in pastoral areas is essentially and primarily a matter for State control. I am sure that the taxpayers of this country do not consider that Commonwealth and State departments should duplicate activity by competing one against the other. Yet there is evidence in these reports that the Department of National Development has encroached upon and invaded the domains of power of the various States, and to the degree to which there has been duplication of activity, the people of this country have had to shoulder a double burden in relation to costs. Although the Department of National Development was established by the Government that I support, from the outset I did not favour its establishment, because I am a believer in the rights of the States, and I shall endeavour at all times to protect the interests of the States. The Department of National Development, as a result of the uncontrolled exercise of power by its officers, has moved into fields which properly belong to the various States. I regret that this has happened, and I hope that the Minister will pay attention to this aspect of the matter when he is tightening up the administration of his department. It should not be overlooked that national development cannot be undertaken successfully by hordes of government officials. I have never yet seen a government official carry through successfully a project of real national development. Hundreds of thousands of men who are possessed of grit and determination are carrying out the real job of developing this country. These men of free enterprise are building up this country.

Senator CRITCHLEY:

– What does the honorable senator mean?

Senator MAHER:

– I am sure that Senator Critchley knows that the employment of a whole horde of government officials to travel throughout Australia making investigations and surveys in connexion with matters that we all know about and understand, will not develop this country.

Senator Benn:

– Does the honorable senator consider that the Department of National Development should be abolished ?

Senator MAHER:

– I am not prepared to go to that length. It would be unwise for me to commit myself in that matter. However, the abolition of the Department of National Development would not result in any great loss to the country. I asked the Minister yesterday whether the department had ever submitted to the Parliament annual reports of its activities. Afterwards I was informed that there was no statutory requirement upon the Department of National Development to furnish to the Parliament an annual report covering its activities., I assume that unless a requirement is expressed in the statutes, there is no obligation upon any department to furnish a report to the Parliament. That is a great mistake. The Department of National Development expended over £1,000,000 in the last financial year and it expects to expend just under £1,000,000 in the current financial year. Yet the Parliament receives no annual report covering its activities and has no guide to the work of the department. I believe that that is one of the reasons why all the current bother has occurred over the Department of National Development. No report has been sent to the Parliament from year to year for its guidance. Honorable senators have no way to determine their approach to the department, to measure its value to the country or to learn of the activities of its officers. I believe that a great mistake lies there. The Minister for National Development said yesterday that honorable senators had an opportunity each year to raise questions about the department during the debate on the Estimates. That does not give honorable senators much opportunity be- cause the Estimates go through holus bolus at times, and there is no opportunity to debate the work of important departments. The solution does not lie there. I suggest to the Minister that he study this aspect of the matter. Although he is not statutorily required to submit a report to the Parliament, it would be wise, in the interests of his officers, the department and the Parliament, to submit such a report from year to year with similar reports from other departments that have a statutory obligation to do so.

I turn my attention now to the deep well-drilling plant. I have not sufficient time to canvass the matter fully, but I remind the Minister that the damage has been done and an unused plant that cost £320,000 is lying in crates and apparently rusting away. It is lying idle. Would it not be better to face realities and ascertain if some sound and enterprising company that is interested in oil drilling would lease the plant if it has not the funds to purchase it? On the other hand, it might be better to lend the plant to such a company, and I would not hesitate to do so if the power lay in my hands. The plant is of no use as it is and apparently nobody is prepared to pay £320,000 for it. It would be better to put the plant into use in the hope that a deep well will be discovered. Such a discovery would repay Australia handsomely. It is of no use allowing the plant to rust away in crates. Something should be done about it. According to one interesting section of the report of the Public Accounts Committee, an offer was made by a Western Australian organization to purchase the plant, but the department was not inclined to make a deal. The oil company placed its order for a plant elsewhere, and the Government now has this expensive gear on its hands. I suggest that the plant might be used in the Maranoa oil basin in Queensland. With a deep-well plant, it might be possible to locate the source of the petroliferous gas that was discovered in the Roma district 30 years ago. The plant might be of great value in that known oil-bearing region as geologists claim that the gases there emanate from sources of crude petroleum deep in the earth. The important point is to use the plant, no matter on what terms, because it is of no value to Australia while it is lying idle as at present.

In conclusion, I remind honorable senators that there are two sides to every case but I submit that any person of common sense who studies the report of the Public Accounts Committee that has been presented to the Parliament must uphold absolutely the comments and the conclusions of the committee in all material particulars. I believe that the people of Australia have been four square behind the Public Accounts Committee. On a recent visit to Queensland I was astonished at the public interest that was shown in the work of that committee. Because it is a joint committee representing both political party groups in the Parliament, it has the support of the Australian people. It is important that we should understand that fully. I believe that the Australian people stand behind the committee and accept its reports. I accept the Minister’s assurance that he has already begun to tighten up in his department following the reports of the Public Accounts Committee. I am sure that the people generally and honorable senators will watch with interest the activities of the Department of National Development during the current financial year.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia.

– I approach the report of the Public Accounts Committee in a purely non-party spirit and as an Australian. As a West Australian, I am particularly interested in the Department of National Development because it has shown so much fruit. Much of its activities and. investigations have been directed to Western Australia where private enterprise has been reluctant to accept the responsibility because of the work, and expense involved. I pay a tribute personally to Dr. H. G-. Raggatt and his staff for the work that they have done not only in the Department of National Development but also in the department that preceded it. I also appreciate fully the work of the Bureau of Mineral Resources. Western Australia’s hopes for closer settlement lie principally in the development of its mineral resources, and West Australians have a particular interest in the department’s work for that reason.

The report of the Public Account? Committee is a factual one but all the matters that have been raised by the committee, controversial as they may be, are as nothing compared with the overall good that Australia has derived from the work of the Department of National Development. Even if every allegation, charge and finding of the Public Accounts Committee were proved to the hilt - and I am not saying that they will not be proved - I still believe that the cost in terms of money is still much lower than extravagances that have not yielded anything towards the development of Australia. I appeal to all honorable senators to view the report in the perspective of national welfare and not to’ seize upon it as another way to score a political point, either against the Government or honorable senators on this side of the chamber. There is an essential weakness in the way this matter has been presented. Honorable senators have not the time to debate the matter fully at this stage. The Senate has a great deal of business to deal with and this report has many facets that require consideration. If we only had the time to think of them clearly I am sure that we would be able to approach this matter more constructively than we are able to do in the short time at our disposal.

A great deal that has to be done in this country can only be done by a department such as the Department of National Development. The northern part of Australia, which is more than half of this continent, requires a tremendous amount of development. From time to time honorable senators mention the necessity for developing the north of Australia because of the needs of defence. The Department of National Development is the only department that has faced the problem of the industrial development of the north. We cannot afford to hamstring the officers of such a department as this. I do not doubt the wisdom of the report that the committee has made but we must be realists. The Public Accounts Committee has had to investigate many matters in addition to the one that honorable senators are debating and it could not be expected to produce a reasoned opinion on every aspect of the work of the Department of National Development.

I am not condoning any extravagance that may have taken place in that department. I think that the report of the Public Accounts Committee will do a great deal of good. But I have always, found the officers of the Department of National Development eager to assist in any way possible in connexion with national problems. They are men of the highest standing in the community. Do honorable senators believe that these men would jeopardize their standing by deliberately incurring wasteful expenditure ? There may have been some extravagance in the department, but surely honorable senators do not expect the men in charge of the department to know all that is happening in it. It is not my object to exonerate any of them from blame but I think that the situation must be viewed in the right perspective. The members of the Public Accounts Committee include a number of people who object at all times to government intrusion into economic affairs even though the Government is often the only agency capable of undertaking the work that may be necessary in connexion with national projects.

I endorse what Senator Robertson has said in regard to the magazine, National Development. I was amazed to learn that the cost of publishing this magazine was as low as it is. The money that has been spent on this magazine has. been well spent. I have been proud to send copies of the magazine overseas. I hope that the Department of National Development will in no way lower the standard of National Development, which is one of the best publications issued by any department. It would be regrettable if the report of the Public Accounts Committee were made the subject of political debate. I do not think that it has been debated on political lines. As Australians, we should pay a tribute to the work of the Department of National Development. Perhaps honorable senators themselves could not afford to have a searchlight beating down upon their own personal or political lives so that all their actions would be fully exposed to public judgment. That is the position of this department and those who are responsible for its administration. The public servants are always the butt of criticism. My criticisms have not been directed at them. It has been said that there is great public interest in the report of this committee. Would that interest have been aroused if the report of the committee had not been criticized in this chamber? I think that the public likes to know that the public purse is being well protected. If criticism is to be levelled in connexion with public expenditure I think that it should be levelled at departments other than the Department of National Development, because in the sphere of development lies the future hope of this country, and particularly the future of vast undeveloped areas such as still exist in Western Australia.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

.- As a representative of the State of Queensland, I think that I should make some contribution to this debate. Those who criticize should be open to criticism. As the Public Accounts Committee has constituted itself a critic of the Department of National Development, I think that I should express the opinion that the committee is narrow and shortsighted in some respects. The Public Accounts Committee includes members from Western Australia and Queensland, in which States national development is of major importance. The Department of National Development is one of the finest departments of the Commonwealth. A department such as this can play a great part in the development of a State such as Queensland, where much development remains to take place. The State governments make their contributions to national development, but this Parliament is able to play its part in a wider sphere. I was amazed to read in the report of the Public Accounts Committee that the committee had not attempted to assess the value to Australia of the work done by the Department of National Development. I am disappointed that the committee did not take that aspect of the department’s activities into consideration. In examining the activities of a department, one should consider not only its expenditure but the return from that expenditure. Who constitutes the Public Accounts Committee? Men of accounts tend to lack the imagination that one requires to see the vision splendid that other people in the community see. I believe therefore that the Public Accounts Committee has failed to assess the real worth of this department in the field of national development. That is shown, too; by the Committee’s attitude towards the publication National Development. It talks about making a saving of a few thousand pounds on this publication. I endorse completely Senator Tangney’s view that the magazine is of great value to this country and could be of tremendous value, if it were circulated properly. Any one who has read the publication will concede that the articles and illustrations in it are of a very high standard. Magazines such as this are one of the best methods of publicizing Australia overseas and attracting capital for the development of this country. Goodness knows Australia needs publicity. Australia is not nearly so widely known in other lands as it should be. Only yesterday when we were welcoming a most important guest, I asked one member of his party what position Australia occupied in the minds of the average citizen of the United States of America. He informed me that, as a result of the stationing of American troops here during the war. Australia was much better known in that country than it had been in the pre-war years, but that there was a lot of room for better publicity. Journals such as National Development can play a very important part in making Australia better known in other countries. Obviously the articles published in that magazine must be of a high standard to attract the eye of editors seeking reprint material. It is ridiculous therefore for the Public Accounts Committee to adopt a cheese-paring attitude and to talk about saving a few thousand pounds in this way. Such criticism only indicates that the committee lacks imagination. Only recently I was talking to an American who is the head of an organization in this country. He showed me a leading American newspaper which contained advertisements from practically every country. However, in the entire issue there was not one mention of Australia. That emphasizes that Australia needs, not to reduce its overseas publicity, but to extend it. If we really want more population, more capital, more development and more industries, we must realize that the way to get those things is through better publicity overseas. The committee’s references therefore to National Development rather undermine, in my view, some of its other assessments.

The Minister has shown clearly that certain aspects of the committee’s report are at variance with the facts, and warrant reconsideration. The Minister has stood firmly on his statements and i believe that, too, is an indication that the committee should probe certain matters a little more thoroughly. The report reveals a narrow and short-sighted outlook by failing to assess the work of this department from a national viewpoint and also by advocating the cutting down of publicity. As I have said, a reduction of our overseas publicity would be the wrong way to assist the development of this country. I stand behind the Department of National Development and I believe that if the Department proceeds along the right lines, the future of this country will be very bright indeed. I repeat that no greater task lies ahead of us than national development.

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia

– I find myself very much in agreement with one point made by Senator Wood and two points made by Senator Tangney. I entirely agree that this chamber should not be the venue for attacks on public servants who cannot defend themselves. Furthermore, I agree with both Senator Tangney and Senator Wood that the development of this country is of paramount importance. If that fact is accepted, then we must also accept the fact that goes with it, which is that it is difficult to apply strict measures of accountancy to a department that is concerned mainly with the process of national development. However, nt the same time, it would be wrong to ignore in Government policy or departmental activities signs that all is not well. Much has been said in the course of this debate about who is to be blamed, if anybody is blameworthy at all, for the findings of the Public Accounts Committee. Some speakers have directed their condemnation at the committee. Some have blamed the officers of the department, and others have blamed the Minister for National

Development (Senator Spooner). I submit that the major point bas been overlooked : If any blame is attachable to any one, it lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Government itself. Senator Maher made the remarkable statement that the establishment of committees such as the Public Accounts Committee was a step in the right direction because it restored parliamentary control of the various departments which the Parliament administers. I should like to know at what stage of the career of this Government control of those departments was lost.

Senator Maher:

– Public moneys have been expended by this department without, reference to the Parliament.

Senator TOOHEY:

– That does not alter the fact that departmental administration is ultimately under the direct control of the Parliament and that if any blame is to be attached to anybody, it rightly lies on the shoulders of the Government. I am rather sorry for the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) who I believe is, to some extent, the victim of circumstances. I believe that he has not been supported by other members of the Government: because they themselves are equally culpable. Obviously Senator Maher’s comment about restoring parliamentary control of the various departments was an admission that the Government had lost that control. Is it reasonable to believe that neither the Minister for National Development nor any other member of the Government knew that, an oil-drilling plant had been purchased, that it was stored at a certain place in Melbourne, and that it was not to be used? Ministers must have known that. If they did not know, Senator Maher’s comment is all the more valid, and the necessity for Ministers to shoulder some of the obligations which they seem to >f placing on the Minister for National Development and on officers of the Department of National Development, is all the more imperative. I believe that this debate should not be considered as a condemnation of the Department of National Development. Such a department must have vast difficulties. The generation that pays for the inauguration of a national project may never see its fulfilment. When one works along those lines, it is always easy to direct at such a department or its officers criticism based on the trial and error processes which are so much a part of developmental work. It is obvious that there have been faults in connexion with this department, but I do not contend that the blame for those faults lies with the department. I do not quarrel with the evidence of the Public Accounts Committee, because in my opinion it has made a dispassionate and considered survey of the position on the material at its disposal. I contend that the blame for those faults must be directed at the Government. If that is not so, then the Government must admit that the blame should be placed at the door of the Minister. Although I am extremely reluctant to attack officers of the Public Service, I have no such inhibition in attacking a Minister, and even less inhibition in attacking the Government. In my opinion, Senator Maher put his finger on the keystone of this matter when he spoke of the lack of control by this Government over its departments. If the policy of the Government is to extend the functions of such committees for the purpose of turning them into buffers between Ministers and the departments which they should be administering in a proper and efficient way, it is selfevident that the Government cannot perform the functions of government, and is following the path that governments of a similar political colour and character followed in the past.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– The immediate matter for decision by this committee is whether or not the Department of National Development should be voted £906,000 with which to meet its expenditures during the current financial year. The debate to which I have been privileged to listen on this subject has restored to this chamber a healthy atmosphere, and honorable senators may derive pleasure from the knowledge that they are performing their real functions of public service. That atmosphere has been brought about by the combined efforts of the Public Accounts Committee and the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner). The Government, in its wisdom, established the Public Accounts Committee, and the committee has submitted reports to the Parliament, the fourth of which is of a critical nature. The question is whether or not honorable senators are satisfied that the Department of National Development, which has been criticized in that report, is so suspect that it should not be voted the sum proposed.

I was tremendously impressed by the observations of Senator McCallum and Senator Tangney who, I believe, evoked in other honorable senators emotions which transcend the desire merely to peddle partisan arguments in an attempt to besmirch the Government. The important question for the committee to consider is the national function which this department discharges. Those who seek to draw a distinction between the department and the Minister make a fundamental error concerning the whole structure of our system of government. The Minister for National Development, at the very outset of this debate, in a manner which is characteristic of the sturdy forthrightness that we have come to expect from him, immediately accepted complete identification with his department and complete responsibility. We are not here to take advantage of the absence of highly qualified technical men, highly skilled administrators, and pioneering scientific assistants who are going hither and thither in this country to develop its obscure and widespread resources. Our object is to consider the responsibility of the ministerial head of the department. What evidence have we to suggest that we should be diffident about passing these Estimates? I have considered the report of the Public Accounts Committee, but have not had an opportunity to examine the evidence submitted to the committee. However, as .Senator Tangney has pointed out, it is a fairly ready assumption that the number of witnesses examined by the committee was limited. I give the committee credit for great skill, conscientiousness and assiduity in pursuing its task. On all those matters the committee has my unstinted admiration. On the evidence taken by it, the committee was justified in expressing certain criticism. Prima facie, that criticism has done good inasmuch as it has promoted a debate which has supplanted the question whether we, as representatives of the taxpayers, should vote this sum of money to the department for its expenditure this year. If I were satisfied, as Senator Maher says that he is satisfied, on the criticism of the Public Accounts Committee that an organization of bureaucrats, with very extravagant tastes, is concerned in this matter, and that for that reason the expenditure should be curtailed, or that the real purpose of the department is to encroach upon State activities, I should hesitate to vote this amount. But this is the Department of National Development. 1 suggest that if Australia, which is screaming out for development, cannot take a risk with a relatively small sum of money for the Department of National Development, then I think we are very shortsighted.

We should overlook the purposes of the department and be unresponsive to its past achievements if we were to hold that this criticism is completely justified. I believe that there is great merit in the Public Accounts Committee report, but I also believe that the report has been based upon evidence which, of its very nature, was limited. I think that the committee itself would not pretend otherwise. I was greatly impressed by the statement of the Minister for National Development, and when I look at the proposed vote for the department, I find that it evidences the trend of argument that he advocated. For instance, let us consider the item “ Publications and Publicity “. Last year, in respect of that item, the Parliament voted £28,000. The department expended only £21,237. The amount which the Minister has placed on the Estimates and requested the Parliament to vote this year is £15,000, which seems to me to indicate a trend which we should unanimously approve, not only because expenditure has been reduced but also because it shows that this item has been examined. The degree of reduction indicates deliberate consideration of this item of expenditure before provision was made for it in the Estimates. The same trend is evident in the total vote for the department, which has been reduced from £1,180,000 last year to £906,000 this year. That must be considered in the perspective referred to by the Minister on Friday, when be stated t]]at the Bureau of Mineral Resources, which is one of the major components of this department, is faced with a tremendous challenge in respect of oil prospecting, which I take it is the chief responsibility of the bureau, and also in respect of the development of uranium resources. I rose simply in order to express points of view which, I believe, should leave the committee to approve of these Estimates.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– The Public Accounts Committee has submitted two reports to the Senate with respect to the administration of the Department of National’ Development. Those reports impressed me as being dispassionately worded and well balanced. They adversely criticize the Department of National Development and, therefore, present a challenge to the Minister for National Development’ (Senator Spooner). On the other hand, the Minister has stated that he has the best of reasons for believing that those reports are in certain respects inaccurate and unsympathetic. In the light of the reports and of the Minister’s statements, honorable senators are expected to express judgment. The Minister has given an assurance that he will take appropriate action on the matters in question. That is a general statement. I believe that when the Minister replies to the request made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), .he is obliged to make a positive statement about the appropriate action to be taken because, in this matter, he is under an obligation not only to the Parliament but also to the people. It is not so much a matter of the activities and publicizing of the operations of the department, as Senator Wood has suggested, as it is a matter of management. Good results can b,e produced only by well-informed and competent management. Whilst the Minister cannot be expected to have firsthand knowledge of everything that occurs in his department, he must accept responsibility for the criticism that has been voiced by the Public Accounts Committee. He is expected to know what is being done in his department in respect of major matters that require submissions to be made to the Cabinet before the requisite funds are made available. I have found from my own experience that a Minister who acts in the closest collaboration with his departmental officers obtains the best results. I 3ay to Senator Maher that many public servants are just as capable and as efficient as are persons outside the service. Indeed, our experience during W oric War II. was that in many instances public servants were far more capable. We found that persons outside the service usually did not possess the necessary knowledge to qualify them to participate in the organization of our war effort.

I do not desire to be placed in the position of having to say whether the Minister or the Public Accounts Committee is right in this matter. Whilst I am impressed with the reports that that committee has presented, I am under an obligation to accept the Minister’s assurance that appropriate action will be taken in the light of them. I repeat that the Minister should indicate specifically the action that he proposes to take. This matter cannot be left in the air. The Parliament and the people must be enabled to say whether the Minister or the Public Accounts Committee is right. In all matters of this kind it is inevitable that divergences of opinion will arise. All of us have not graduated from the same school and, consequently, our outlooks differ. It is only in the light of investigations that are made by persons competent to do so that we can be enabled to form a reasonable judgment of what is what and who is who in the general scheme of things. If the Minister would indicate the action that he proposes to take, honorable senators would be better enabled to pass judgment in this matter. No honorable senator desires to do an injustice either to the Minister or to the Public Accounts Committee. Has that committee, or has the Minister, stated all the facts? That question must be answered in the interests not only of the Public Accounts Committee but also of the Minister himself and the Department of National Development. I trust that the action that the Minister proposes to take will satisfy at least the majority of honorable senators.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

.- The committee is discussing the Estimates in respect of the Department of

National Development, and, in the course of doing so, its attention has been directed to two reports that have been, presented to the Parliament by the Public Accounts Committee with respect to the administration of that department. Last Friday, the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) discussed certain aspects of the first of those reports. One of the matters to which he then referred related to comments made in the report with respect to staff employed by the department. In my view, the Public Accounts Committee acted in a paltry manner in referring to that subject in the manner in which it did. I also arn of the opinion that the Minister was equally paltry when he attempted to correct statements that that committee had made in relation to the staff employed in his department. All of us realize that the numerical strength nf departmental staffs is determined by the funds available to meet the cost of salaries and wages. We know also that officers of the Department of National Development are employed throughout Australia, that employees of other departments perform certain work on its behalf, and that the salaries and wages of such employees are not financed by the department itself. The subject of staff is a. “ tiddlywink “ matter upon which the Parliament should not waste time in discussion. When the Minister was speak ing on this subject last Friday I interjected in the hope that I would divert his mind from it and cause him to deal with matters of greater moment that were commented upon by the Public Accounts Committee. I took the view that there could not really be anything in the comment made by that committee with respect to the department’s staff unless that committee desired to establish that officers of the Department of National Development had supplied it with false information. If that has been the case, the Public Accounts Committee has not beer sufficiently severe in the criticism that it has offered in its reports. The Minister discussed other aspects of that report; but he impressed me as being jealous of his persona] reputation and as one who wished to justify the activities of the department since he assumed control of it. He endeavoured to represent to honor- able senators that he has at all times acted conscientiously and has been responsible for every activity that the department has undertaken since it has been under his control. One honorable senator opposite rallied to the Minister’s defence. That honorable senator had examined the evidence upon which the Public Accounts Committee based its report, and he said, definitely, that that committee had not heard any evidence whatever upon which it could have framed such a report. That was a serious indictment of that committee. If that honorable senator had proved that charge in respect of only one item that was contained in the report he would have satisfied every member of the Opposition that the report was false and vindictive as the Minister claimed it to be.

We have been presented to-day with another report from the Public Accounts Committee- which substantiates the information that was contained in the report that we considered last Friday. That committee said, in effect, that all the statements that it had made previously were correct. The Minister said that it was with some reluctance that he rose to open the . discussion on the report that was presented this morning. Instead of the Minister being aggrieved by anything that is contained in any report that a committee may present to the Parliament, his first duty is to accept the responsibility of clearing his department of any charge that may be made against it. I have had an opportunity to peruse the personnel of the Public Accounts Committee. Its members include certain members of the Parliament who have contributed to the literature of this country. At least, two of those gentlemen are troglodytes politically. With that fact at the back of my mind, I carefully perused the two reports that the Public Accounts Committee has presented to the Parliament in respect of the Department of National Development. I asked myself whether those two gentlemen would have any motive to furnish a false report, and my reply to that question was in the affirmative.

Senator MAHER:

– That is unworthy of the honorable senator.

Senator BENN:

– I shall substantiate that statement. I recall that supporters of the present Government boycotted the ceremony that marked the inauguration of the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric power scheme, which is the greatest project that has yet been undertaken by the national Government in this country. They refused to attend that ceremony because they believed that the Government should not carry out such projects. I am aware that this Government has proceeded with that project, but it has done so only because of the progress that had been made and the expenditure that had been incurred on that work up to the time that it assumed office. There are gentlemen in the community who are opposed to the Government undertaking any work in respect of national development. “We have reached the stage in the development of a capitalistic society at which it is possible only for governments to undertake great national projects. I have mentioned the Snowy Mountains project, which will ultimately provide a vast quantity of hydro-electric power, as well as the means of irrigating and making fertile many millions of acres of land. Does any one suggest that that project should be handed over to private enterprise? I point out that no move was made by private enterprise in that connexion during the last hundred years. If a railway line were to be constructed from Dajarra to Elliot, or some other place in the Northern Territory, does any honorable senator believe that private enterprise would consider for a moment undertaking the project? Of course it would not. because it would have to bear a dead loss throughout the period that the railway line remained in service. Although I am convinced that a political party in this Parliament is opposed to development by the Government, some projects must be undertaken by government instrumentalities. The party to which I have referred would abolish the Department of National Development if it had an opportunity to do so.

I hope that the proposed vote will be agreed to, and that the Minister for National Development will ensure that his department shall undertake further discovery work in connexion with uranium. The Bureau of Mineral Resources is performing excellent work. I hope that the Minister, notwithstand ing the reactionaries in the party to whichhe belongs, will be brave enough to widen the scope of his department and go ahead and expend money on boring in an endeavour to discover oil in the Kimberleys and elsewhere in Australia. I am convinced that uranium will be discovered ultimately in Queensland. I hope that the Minister will continue to direct his attention to these matters - at least until the next general election - and ensure that the money appropriated to his department shall be expended wisely.

Senator MATTNER:
South Australia

– For several days we have been considering the proposed vote of £906,000 for the Department of National Development. I remind honorable senators that the budget provides for an expenditure of approximately £1,000,000,000. As a senator of some years standing I recall several occasions on which proposed votes totalling hundreds of millions of pounds were agreed to after very little debate. While I am not saying that proposed votes should not be considered carefully, I suggest that we should keep this matter in correct perspective. Honorable senators, one after another, have lauded the Department of National Development. Let us agree to the proposed vote and proceed to a consideration of the remaining items set out in the schedule. For my part, the debates of the last two days have been most interesting. At last honorable senators are asserting themselves. The Public Accounts Committee was resurrected by this Government, not by our opponents who were afraid to allow the light of day onto their transactions. This Government has nothing of which “to be ashamed. The Public Accounts Committee is comnosed of members of every political party in the Parliament. It has carried out its task to ‘the best of its ability, and it has furnished to the Parliament reports that it believed to be correct and in accordance with the evidence. I am delighted that a new activity has manifested itself in this chamber. Information, of which not even the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) was aware, has been gleaned by the committee, which based its conclusions on the evidence placed before it. Responsibility has not been shirked by either the committee or the Minister. I wish the Public Accounts Committee good luck.. It has been responsible for introducing a breath of fresh air into parliamentary life, and it has placed before honorable senators information to enable them to form a sound judgment on the proposed vote for the Department of National Development. I thank goodness that the. Government was game enough to reinstitute the Public Accounts Committee. I emphasize that this Government has nothing to be ashamed of, and the members of the public want to know how public funds are expended. The Minister has assured us that he will look into the matters that have been criticized by the Public Accounts Committee, in order to form his own judgment on them. The committee’s reports will undoubtedly assist him. I believe that the committee considered, quite rightly, that its job was to submit evidence - without any intention to find fault - to the responsible body, in order to enable it to form its own opinions. I am sure that the Minister will institute in his department any reforms that are warranted.

Senator Sheehan has referred to housing. “When it was announced in this chamber that the Government had decided to subsidize the importation and erection of prefabricated dwellings, on the basis of £300 for each dwelling, every member of this chamber applauded the decision. The honorable senator was one of the most vociferous speakers on that occasion. However, we all make mistakes, and it is easy for one to be wise after the event. I know that some honorable senators will agree with me that at times a grazier buys sheep, considering at the time that it is good business to do so, whereas if he had fore-knoweldge of events to come he would, not buy them. The position is somewhat similar when the Public Accounts Committee sets out to investigate a certain set of circumstances. In many instances it arrives at conclusions, in the light of circumstances that exist after the event. The proposed vote should be agreed to without further delay.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales’

– rA number of issues have been raised by honorable senators on both sides of the chamber during this debate. I should like to make it clear that the Opposition makes no charge against public servants in connexion with the matters that have been mentioned.

Senator McLeay:

– I thought that the honorable senator’s conscience would prick him.

Senator ASHLEY:

– We make no charge against any public servant, high or low, in connexion with the matters that have come to light during this debate. Let us consider the facts. On Friday last, a report by the Public Accounts Committee on the Department of National Development was presented in this chamber, and the criticisms contained in it were challenged forthwith by the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner)- During the week-end the Public Accounts Committee, without hearing further evidence, prepared another report, affirming its first report, which was presented to us to-day. The Minister was somewhat milder to-day than on Friday in his defence of the department. There is still disputation between the Public Accounts Committee and the Minister as to the number of staff employed by the Department of National Development. Surely finality can be reached on such a simple matter. I point out that the report of the Public Accounts Committee was based on information that was supplied by departmental officers.

Despite the considerable period of time that has been devoted to a consideration of the proposed vote, no adequate explanation has been forthcoming from the Minister in relation to the committee’s criticism about the purchase of oil-drilling plant, and the Minister has not informed us of the reason for a cut in the proposed expenditure on the production of a booklet by the Department of National Development. It has been claimed that the booklet is printed on good quality paper, is nicely presented, and has been a valuable advertising medium for the department.

Senator Gorton has truly stated that the Australian Government conducts the biggest business in the land. Surely he does not believe that each department of the Government should not be capably administered ? The Public Accounts Committee has expressed the opinion that the Department of National Development is not being run efficiently. Senator Maher has pointed out that the department has given advice to both primary industries and secondary industries. It is a serious matter if a department that enters so much into the production activities of this country is not conducted efficiently. As the Public Accounts Committee is composed of members of every political party in the Parliament, I consider that its reports should be considered on a non-party basis. If a similar report had been submitted in relation to activities of a Labour government I am sure that wo would have been condemned by every supporter of the present Government. I hope that the Minister will explain satisfactorily the matters to which I have referred. The most important matter is the increase in the price of coal that was engineered by the Department of National Development with the connivance of the Minister himself.

I hope that the Minister will also give honorable senators some explanation of the reason for the importation of large numbers of prefabricated cottages. According to a statement that was made by a Minister in another place, the average cost of supplying and erecting prefabricated houses in each State was as follows: - Queensland, £3,362; New South Wales, £3,895 ; the Australian Capital Territory, from £3,700 to £3,850 ; Tasmania, £3,973; South Australia, £5,176; Western Australia, from £4,076 to £5,200. Many of those homes are deteriorating in various parts of Australia. Houses still in crates at the 1st February, 1953, totalled 533. They included S in South Australia, 8 in the Northern Territory, 16 in Western Australia, 32 in Tasmania, 8 in Queensland, 212 in New South Wales, 163 in Victoria, and S6 in the Australian Capital Territory. The rentals for completed houses ranged from £3 lis. 8d. to £3 19s. 6d. a week. The importation of that large number of prefabricated houses meant the destruction of industries that were engaged in the manufacture of similar units and a decline in the use of Australian timbers. In the northern part of New South Wales a number of timber mills have closed and many others are working part time ns a result of the importation of the prefabricated homes. One firm, Vandyke Brothers, manufactured 30 to 40 prefabricated homes weekly and employed 400 employees. It has closed that section of its works. The Minister for National Development has tried to defend his department. It should be known as “ the Department of National Destruction “ because it has destroyed Australian industries.

It is all very well for the officers, who sit like a jury behind the Minister to advise him, to laugh at my statement. The fact is that Vandyke Brothers dismissed 4’00 employees as a result pf the activities of this Minister for National Development and his department in importing such a large number of prefabricated homes. The reports that have been submitted by the Public Accounts Committee on Friday’ and again to-day constitute a serious charge against the Minister. So also do the matters to which I have referred including the importation of prefabricated homes, the amount of machinery that is lying in crates around Australia, the machinery that was to be used by the Joint Coal Board and the submarine engines at Mascot that are still unpacked. Only two alternatives are open to the Government. It should institute an inquiry into these matters immediately. Failing that, the Minister for National Development should resign his portfolio and give somebody an opportunity to administer that department efficiently.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

.- I direct the attention of the committee to Division 99 - Administrative - and to the item “ Resources and Development Projects - Investigation Expenses “, that comes under that heading. In a discussion of the Department of National Development and any losses that it incurs, it ill behoves Senator Ashley to talk of losses because in the three years that he had charge of the administration of shipping the Commonwealth Shipping Line lost £7,000,000. The item to which I have referred is of importance to Queensland because the Department of National Development is investigating the feasibility and desirability of building a railway from Dajarra through Camooweal to Newcastle Waters. The people of Queensland look upon this project as an important one because it would enable the transportation of cattle from the Northern Territory and the Barkly Tableland to the Queensland market. In addition, the railway would be of great benefit to development of the cattle industry and assist in the conservation of its assets.

The cattle raised in that area are of great value in the aggregate, but severe droughts are experienced from time to time and because cattle cannot be shifted quickly enough on foot, many thousands of them die during the droughts. When heavy losses of stock are suffered, years are required to build up the herds by breeding. The railway line has been discussed for many years. Reports and investigations have been made upon it. Now the people of Queensland look for something of a positive nature because they believe that the project is of vital importance.

The proposed railway line could be divided into three sections. The first is on the Queensland side from Dajarra to Camooweal. I am not suggesting that the Australian Government should undertake the total responsibility for the construction of that section. As it is within the State of Queensland, I believe that it is a State responsibility. However, from the point of view of national development, I believe that the line should be sponsored by the Queensland Government and that it should be heavily subsidized by the Australian Government. A subsidy to the extent of 60 per cent, to 70 per cent, should make the construction of the line possible. I know that the Queensland Government has pressed continually for the Australian Government to undertake the whole responsibility, but I do not agree with that suggestion. I think that the Queensland Government should get practical assistance by way of a subsidy. The first section of the country to which 1 have referred is the worst for travelling stock. The construction of the line to that point would be very beneficial in saving stock during drought and in the development of that section of the country

The line from Camooweal to Newcastle Waters would cut across the Barkly

Tableland. There is fine country in that area. The third extension would be from Newcastle Waters to Birdum. These two sections would be a matter for the Australian Government because the line would cross a part of the Northern Territory. The project should be given favorable consideration by the Government. The people of Queensland believe that it is of great importance, not only from the point of view of the transport of stock, but also for defence. The area is very sparsely populated and a railway line would assist to develop it and encourage a greater density of population. This area merits consideration from a point of view of national development. With the development of uranium and other mineral projects, the construction of the railway line might well mean a transformation of the northern areas far beyond present expectations.

Senator Laught:

– How much would the line cost ?

Senator WOOD:

– The construction of the whole line has been estimated to cost about £20,000,000. It might be more. That is an estimate. That appears to be a. large sum of money, but the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric project, which will benefit the southern States, is costing hundreds of millions of pounds. The proposed railway would serve a vast area and would provide the solution of many problems in that area. It has been suggested that roads would meet the case. I do not agree. I think a railway line is the answer to the problem I have knowledge of some areas in Queensland that are served by roads, but the intensified development that accompanies a railway line does not follow the construction of roads. I believe that railways still have a role in the development of Australia and that they will continue to be of value for many years until a better form of transport is evolved. I commend the project to the Minister for National Development. It is close to the hearts and minds of the people of Queensland and if the Australian Government is enthusiastic about the development of northern Australia, this is one way in which it can demonstrate its desires in a practical way.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Attorney-General’s Department.

Proposed vote, £1,320,000.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– The committee now has before it the Estimates for the Attorney-General’s Department covering very important phases of public activity. This department is concerned with the drawing up of laws and with enforcing and upholding them. It covers such important matters as the Reporting Branch, Bankruptcy Administration, the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, the Public Service Arbitrator’s Office, the Commonwealth Investigation Service, matters connected with Patents, Trade Marks and Designs and the Legal Service Bureau. Generally it is a department with wide ramifications.

I remind the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) that from time to time the Government has been asked in the Parliament whether it proposes to initiate a uniform divorce law in Australia. Quite recently when the New South Wales Judge in Divorce, Mr. Justice Toose, retired, he pointedly directed attention to the urgent need for some such uniformity in the law. He indicated that in 1945 he had drafted such a law. I know from statements of the Attorney-General that the matter has been under the consideration of an expert committee for some years. During the regime of the Labour Government, I know from my personal knowledge that the matter was under consideration. I ask the AttorneyGeneral to inform the committee what progress, if any, has been made by that expert committee, whether the AttorneyGeneral acknowledges the need for uniformity in the divorce laws and whether the Government proposes to take any action about it? Senator Tangney indicated her interest in the subject in the course of a question that she asked in this chamber not long ago.

I also direct the attention of the Attorney-General to the need for suitable accommodation for the High Court of Australia in Sydney. I raised this matter last year and I believe that the Government of New South Wales is pressing for the return to it of the premises that the High Court of Australia uses in

Sydney. Is anything contemplated by the Government in connexion with the provision of adequate accommodation for the justices of the High Court of Australia who sit in Sydney?

There is agreement amongst quite a lot of people who have devoted their minds to the subject that our Constitution is outmoded in very many respects. I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether he has had an opportunity to read an article by Sir John Latham, ex-Chief Justice of Australia, who has had wide legislative experience and wide experience on the High Court of Australia. The article to which I refer appeared in the edition of the Law Review, which was published in Sydney in April of last year. The article was headed “Constitutional Change” and in it Sir John Latham drew attention to many of the outmoded aspects of our Constitution. He described some provisions of the Constitution as stupid and others as completely unreasonable. I suggest that it should be the function of the Attorney-General’s Department continuously to review the operation of the Constitution, observe the defects that emerge from it, and initiate steps to remedy the defects. Consequent upon the double dissolution of both houses of Parliament in 1951, and owing to a provision of the Constitution, the dates of the election of the Senate and the election, of members of the House of Representatives no longer coincide. That’ situation is due to the provision in the Constitution that following a double dissolution the terms of honorable senators shall run from the 1st July preceding their election.

Senator Spicer:

– I rise to order. I do not wish to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) unduly but I suggest that he is getting into a realm which is outside the Estimates of the Attorney-General’s Department. The discussion that he has commenced involves a matter of policy.

Senator McKENNA:

– I thought that I had laid the foundation for my remarks by stating that the Attorney-General’s Department has the responsibility of upholding the law, watching its development, and initiating moves that appear to be necessary as a result of its observations. I had no intention to debate the merits of any particular proposal. I had intended to content myself with pointing out obvious defects without introducing debate as to the methods that could be employed to remedy them. I claim that I am entitled to interrogate the Attorney-General in order to ascertain whether the Government has paid any attention to the defects of the Constitution.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The committee has been given quite a lot of latitude in its discussion of the Estimates. However, I am inclined to the view that at this stage the Leader of the Opposition is launching out into matters of policy and for that reason I SUKguest that he should not pursue his present line of discussion very much further. I agree that he has the right to interrogate the Minister but, as far as I can see, the Estimates of the Attorney-General’s Department contain nothing related to a revision of the Constitution.

Senator McKENNA:

– I merely wish to ask the Attorney-General certain questions. Has he observed the criticism of Sir John Latham? Does the Government propose to do anything to synchronize the dates of elections of the Senate and House of Representatives ? Will the Government address its mind to the problem of resolving deadlocks between the two houses ?

I now wish to deal with Division 55 - the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. The court v/as set up by this Parliament in order to exercise the very limited functions that the Commonwealth enjoys in the field of industrial arbitration. Can the Government continue to regard with complacency the fact that six State courts also determine wage standards and conditions in Australia? Does the Attorney-General not agree that the present situation contains all the elements of industrial turmoil in Australia? I do not propose to comment on what any State government may do in relation to the present position.

Senator Spicer:

– The State governments are doing a good deal to create the turmoil.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is the subject upon which I did not wish to embark. The State governments are sovereign bodies with powers of their own and they may have very good reasons for the actions that they take. I do not want to go into that matter.. I am leading the discussion at a higher level and dealing with it from the broad viewpoint of the interests of the country. I submit that our Constitution should move with the time3. There is no better example of this fact than the recent decision of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court which can be ignored or upheld by State parliaments and State tribunals. The Attorney-General himself has said that the fact that different bodies may operate in this field is likely to cause industrial turmoil. That is the very evil that I suggest he should aim to correct. I do not think that it would be profitable in this debate to examine the action of the State governments. P>ut I invite the Attorney-General to indicate whether any broad review of the Constitution is contemplated by. the Government. If a review is contemplated does the Government propose to initiate the matter in the Parliament or to precede any such action by conventions or discussions? I think that the Australian people have very little knowledge of the Constitution. I think that it would be difficult to find one person in a hundred with a reasonable working knowledge of the Constitution.

We, in Australia, have neither .,he knowledge of, nor the reverence tor the Constitution that is to be found among people of the United States of America towards their constitution. In the United States of America, the constitution is better known and understood than is the case in Australia and it is more intelligently adverted to by the people. A certain reverence for their constitution has grown up among the American people. I suggest that there is nothing of that nature in Australia. I commend to the AttorneyGeneral the suggestion that there is need for a general overhaul of the Constitution. I suggest that if the Government intends to devote its mind to this problem it should begin with young people of fourteen years of age and over at school. I would entertain no hope of accomplishing any wholesale overhaul of the Constitution without a preliminary propaganda period of about ten years. The great issues that are raised in connexion with the Constitution tend to become completely political and thoroughly controversial and they are generally decided in a matter of weeks to the detriment of the country. Big constitutional issues are used as political footballs. In the light of the economic changes and the great social changes that have taken place since federation and in view of the increasing part that parliaments are playing in the lives of the people. I should’ regard it as a service to this country if constitutional change were embarked upon in a leisurely and complete way so that all views could be gradually developed and people would have time to form an intelligent opinion on the whole issue.

I believe that it would add to the progress and the development of Australia if our Constitution were brought more into accord with modern times. I should support any move on the part of the Government to stimulate interest in this subject. I should have no objection to the provision of moneys for the holding of conventions of various kinds for educational work, particularly among children of school leaving age. Those children should embark on their careers with at least some understanding of the Constitution under which they work. They should be able to understand the brake that a defective constitution puts upon their own individual careers, as well as on the progress of the nation. I do not expect . the Attorney-General to enter upon a discussion of the Constitution and its defects. But I invite him to say whether he is prepared to take action of the nature that I have indicated to promote education on the Constitution. A long-term approach is a necessary preliminary to the overhaul of the Constitution with a view to speeding this nation more quickly along the road to its ultimate destiny and progress. If the Attorney-General has read the outstanding article by Sir John Latham to which I have referred I should like to know his reaction to it.

Senator LAUGHT (South Australia) remarks to the committee concerning those who exercise the judicial power of the Commonwealth in the lower courts. As the Senate may be aware, judicial power in the Commonwealth is exercised at the top level by the High Court, on the State level by the Supreme Courts of the States; and at lower levels by the county courts, or the local courts as they are called in South Australia. It has been brought to my notice that a most inadequate number of copies of consolidated statutes has been made available to the Local Courts Department in South Australia. Apart from the’ judges of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, which exercises a special jurisdiction, the judges of the High Court and the Bankruptcy Court are the only federal judges. The States provide the judges for the thousands of smaller cases relating to Commonwealth law. For that reason I consider that the Government is under an obligation to the States to make Commonwealth statutes available to them in greater supply than they have been made available in the past. I believe that only about a dozen copies of consolidated statutes have been made available for use by the special magistrates in South Australia. These magistrates sit in places which are up to 600 miles away from Adelaide and it is quite impossible for them to function precisely and correctly if copies of the consolidated statutes are not made available to them in greater numbers than at present. I should like the AttorneyGeneral to make sure that at least every special magistrate in South Australia is provided with a copy of the consolidated statutes. The consolidation is a great contribution to legal work in Australia. The task was commenced while the Labour Administration was in office, and has been carried on by the present Government. It will take some years. So far, only two or three volumes have been issued, and perhaps another three have yet to be published. It is a momentous work. I regret that it has taken so long, but I should like to see a wider distribution of the consolidation. In particular, I should like to see copies of the consolidation made available to South Australian magistrates whose duties take them hundreds of miles away from the capital into localities where recognized libraries do not exist. “We all owe a special debt to those gentlemen who, although primarily servants of the State, administer federal laws and so save the Commonwealth the tremendous sum of money that would be necessary to provide special federal courts. That is why we should be especially solicitous of their welfare, and assist them as much as possible in their task of interpreting the law.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– There is implicit in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) about Sir John Latham’s most interesting article on the Constitution, recognition of the fact that, under the present constitutional arrangement for arbitration in industry, the Commonwealth’s power is all too restricted, and the court’s powers put it in the position of the economic controller of the country, except insofar as irresponsible State governments interfere with that control. That stimulates my interest in what I regard as one of the real challenges to the present generation. Never was it dreamed, when the Constitution waa penned, that we would be confronted with the interpretation that has been placed upon the industrial powers and the consequent confusion that exists in this most important walk of our everyday life. It will be recognized, I believe, that one of the primary responsibilities of the Attorney-General’s Department is to give assistance in the solution of vital problems such as this. I cannot urge too strongly that consideration be given to this matter in some collective way so that all the skill that is available in every section of the community may be directed towards untangling the mass of intricate law governing our industrial relations. I believe that Sir John Latham’s speech, which was the product of vast experience that is respected in all fields of public service, demands earnest attention. However, it would be inopportune in a debate on the Estimates to enlarge upon that matter.

In relation to certain of the proposed votes for the Attorney-General’s Department, I hope that the honorable gentleman will give to honorable senators something like the degree of information that we obtained from the Minister for National Development (Senator

Spooner). I repeat, if I may be permitted by Senator Seward to do so, because the suggestion was his, the appeal I made last week that when the Estimates are presented to each House of the Parliament there should be in relation to the vote for each department an introductory speech by the responsible Minister. For instance, the Attorney-General could deal with the Commonwealth Arbitration Court on this occasion. Next year perhaps, he could concentrate on the Legal Service Bureau, and in the following year, he could refer specifically to the bankruptcy administration.. Then this committee would feel that it was properly and responsibly seised of the proposals that were before it. For instance, this year’s provision for administrative expenditure by the Attorney-General’s Department is £215,500, or about £64,500 more than was voted last year; yet not a word of explanation has been offered to justify the increase. Possibly a relatively insignificant item in that increase is a proposal about which I have had some correspondence with the AttorneyGeneral. I refer to the proposed establishment of a branch of this department in Hobart - without any purpose whatever so far as I can see and I have a fairly intimate knowledge of the administration of the law in Hobart. When I am confronted with an increase of administrative costs of more than £64,000 at a time when the accent in Commonwealth administration is supposed to be on economy I am inclined to be critical. The total vote for the department this year is £1,320,000 : yet, as Senator Laught has pointed out, the Commonwealth has the assistance, of the State judiciary except in the High Court, bankruptcy and industrial jurisdictions. We have been engaged most earnestly, and I think fruitfully from every point of view, in a discussion of the provision of £906,000 for the Department of National Development whereas £400,000 more than that sum is required for the administration of the law. Let nobody underestimate the contribution that the judiciary in its various activities has made to the way of life that we enjoy; but the cost to this country of administering federal laws seems to be inordinately high and I hope that the Attorney-General will, give a detailed1 statement of the circumstances that the Government considers warrant this increased provision that we are being asked to make this year. To illustrate what is in my mind, I draw attention to Division No. 53 under which the sum of £57,000 is provided for the High Court. That amount, I take it, is to be expended by the justices and staff of the High Court on travelling expenses and the like, and does not include judicial salaries. I pause to emphasize to the committee how this institution which has world status in English speaking countries at least by reason of the great care and integrity which characterizes its administration of justice, still remains comparatively inexpensive. The Legal Service Bureau, for instance, will cost nearly as much this year as the High Court. I appeal to my fellow senators to maintain a proper perspective. Under Division No. 54, the sum of £100,000 is provided for the bankruptcy administration. Last year, the vote was £95,000. That is an ‘illustration of the way in which the octopus spreads its tentacles. For reasons that I do not profess to understand bankruptcy administration was taken over in .1930 by the Commonwealth, to the vexation of the poor public. Any one who has had experience of the federal administration of bankruptcy, knows that no more perfect example of the art of folding papers, sifting documents, and examining threepences, all to no purpose, can be found, even in the Army.

I wish to refer also to- the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration for which the sum of £118,000 is provided in Division No. 55. “What progress has been made with the construction of a new building for this court? Two years ago, the Chief Judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court stressed the need for a suitable building for this important jurisdiction. Anybody who has been in the derelict edifice in which the court functions to-day in Melbourne will appreciate the depressed outlook that must prevail amongst those who have to work within its precincts. I should like to know therefore whether land has been acquired for a new building, whether the foundations have been laid and, generally speaking, whether any progress has been made at all with the project. Seventy or 80 years ago, our forefathers erected fine buildings for the administration of justice. Surely it behoves us to provide suitable premises for all federal jurisdictions to-day. I should be happy indeed to learn that some progress has been made with the plans for the provision of a new Commonwealth Arbitration Court building.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– I wish to discuss Division 55, which refers to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. I should like to know the action which the Government proposes to take to prevent the discontent and industrial unrest which must result from the recent decision of the court to freeze the basic wage. Previously, the court fixed a minimum wage, and I suggest that employers commit no breach of any law if they pay their employees more than that wage. As a matter of fact, honorable senators may remember that employees frequently were paid more than award wages not so long ago. I understand that some State governments are of the opinion that the basic wage should still be adjusted quarterly. If State governments follow that course, invidious circumstances may arise because employees under State awards will receive the benefit of the adjustments whilst their fellow workers, under Commonwealth awards, will not receive them. I understand that a motion which has been discussed in the House of Representatives indicates that the Government is in favour of continued freezing of the wage.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Reid:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order ! The honorable senator should not continue to develop that theme.

Senator ASHLEY:

– That is all I have to say about the matter.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– With regard to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration building in Melbourne, to which Senator Wright referred. I am happy to say that plans have been prepared for a new building. The site has been selected and the department has done everything possible to push ahead with the proposal. It is expected that we shall be able to call for tenders for the erection of the new building early in the new year. It is altogether unnecessary for any member of this chamber to emphasize to me the complete inadequacy of the quarters which the court has occupied in Melbourne for many years. It has been my constant endeavour to try to relieve that situation. Success has taken longer to achieve than I hoped it would, but I am happy to be able to tell the committee that the matter should be well in hand in the course of the new year.

Senator Wright also referred to the increase in some of the Estimates for my department. He mentioned particularly Division 50, which relates to administrative expenses, and pointed out that although the vote last year was £151,000, it is £215,500 this year. I wish to direct his attention to the fact that £40,000 of that increase is accounted for under the heading, “ Publication of Commonwealth Statutes and Statutory Rules”. A good deal of that amount can be accounted for by the publication of the consolidation, and much of the expenditure in connexion with that publication has had to be included in the Estimates for this year. With regard to the general expenses of the department, I think it proper to say that the department recovers from other departments and other sources revenue of a total of approximately £300,000 a year, so that the net expenditure by the department is approximately £1,000,000.

Senator Laught referred to the provision of the consolidated statutes to stipendiary magistrates, particularly in South Australia. I cannot tell the honorable senator the precise number of volumes that are distributed. A certain number are made available in each State for the use of judges of th.p Supreme Court and other judicial officers who may have reason to use them. I thank the honorable senator for his information and shall consider the position to which he has referred. If I find that the distribution is not adequate, I shall see whether an improvement Can be made.

I do not wish to be drawn into a discussion of some of the matters to which thc Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) referred, because I am afraid that if I were it would mean an exten- sion of the debate. However, I shall deal with one item referred to by him, which was the High Court building in Sydney. I am conscious of the need for the Commonwealth to make provision for an appropriate High Court building in Sydney. I am aware that the Nen South- Wales authorities would like to have the use of the building in Sydney which the High Court at present occupies. The great problem has been to obtain a site. I think the honorable senator will appreciate that it is not easy to obtain in Sydney, in a suitable location, a site for a High Court building. A number of sites have been looked at, but so far we have not been able to find a suitable one to meet the needs of the court. However, that problem is being considered by the department constantly and I hope that a suitable site will be found. If I may express my own view3 on this subject, I consider that the Commonwealth has never set out to provide adequate court buildings for the High Court anywhere in Australia. I should like to see action taken in that direction, at any rate in the course of the next few years. One of our problems, of course, lias been that both Commonwealth and State authorities have been called upon, during the last two or three years, to make such great provision for the housing needs of the people that unfortunately they have been forced to overlook many of the other real services that we need. I think we have now reached the stage at which we must learn the lesson that man does not live in houses alone and that if we provide houses for the people in the vast numbers in which they have been provided in recent years, all kinds of other services which a growing community requires will also be needed for the people who occupy those houses.

Both the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Wright inquired whether the department is examining the Constitution from the point of view of its alteration. I have no doubt that both honorable senators are conscious of the fact that the alteration of the Constitution in this country has never proved a popular pastime. Expressing my own views on the subject, I personally am ready to admit that I can see many directions in which the Constitution could, with advantage, be altered. The great problem is to devise means whereby the best results may be achieved. I have given some thought to the, idea, which I throw out to thi committee to-day, having regard to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, that the matter of constitutional reform should start in this Parliament. I am expressing my own view on this matter when I say that useful headway could be made in this direction by the appointment of an all-party committee, designed for the purpose of examining the Constitution and determining the greatest measure of agreement which could be obtained regarding its alteration. I know that there are many people concerned with this subject outside the Parliament who frequently put forward the idea that the Constitution should be submitted to a convention. Frankly, I do not accept that view because I think that to submit the matter to a convention for review, having regard to the fact that this Parliament is in existence,- would be merely duplicating the task. In other words, this Parliament is the convention through which any proposal for alteration of the Constitution must pass before it can be submitted to the people. ‘ On that subject, I merely throw into the ring the idea that I believe a sincere effort should be made by the combined parties in the Parliament to sit down and study the Constitution, having regard to its history over the last 50 years. That could and probably would produce results. We might also find that there is a large . measure of agreement on a number of the matters concerned. But I do not believe that any real results in the way of constitutional reform will ever be achieved as long as that subject remains in any way the shuttlecock of party political combat.

Another matter to which the Leader of the Opposition referred was the subject of uniform divorce law. That matter has not been considered by a committee but, from time to time, certain proposals have come to the notice of my department, as I have no doubt the honorable senator knows. He will be aware that this is a subject of very great difficulty. It is easy enough for people to propound the proposition of uniform divorce law. Unfortunately, almost any uniform divorce law which might be presented to a number of people who were violent advocates of uniform divorce, would itself create among those people a good deal of disagreement, because, in some ways, there is a degree of diversity in Australia to-day which precludes one from merely picking up every one of the grounds for divorce which exist in the various States and throwing them all into Commonwealth legislation. Perhaps the greatest lack of uniformity exists in relation to the ground of insanity. That is a ground for divorce in every State of the Commonwealth but New South Wales. From correspondence that I have received from time to time, I find that it is in relation to that particular ground that perhaps the hardest cases could be put up by people domiciled in New South Wales. That) of course, is a matter which the State legislature of New South Wales could readily remedy, if it saw fit to do so. Other practical difficulties arise in respect of this matter as well as problems related to the form that a uniform divorce law should ultimately take. Those difficulties were at least relieved to some degree under the 1945 act which was passed when the previous Administration was in office. I. refer to the intricacies associated with applications for divorce in the court of domicile.

Senator Wedgwood:

– An anomaly exists also in respect of Victoria.

Senator SPICER:

– I realize that. However, an outstanding anomaly is that insanity is a ground for divorce in every State except New South Wales.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I was interested to hear the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) say that he would view with favour the appointment of an all-party committee to investigate the working of the Constitution and to recommend amendments of it. I was also surprised to hear the Attorney-General express that view, because a few weeks ago when I addressed a question to the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan), in which I suggested that the Government should set up an all-party committee to examine and report upon possible amendments of the Constitution to obviate a deadlock in the Parliament following a double dissolution, that Minister merely replied by saying that that matter had caused concern to all members of the Parliament. Honorable senators will agree that that reply was rather an understatement. However, that was as far as I got in the matter. Now, I am pleasantly surprised to learn that the Attorney-General’s mind is running along the same lines. As I do not doubt bis sincerity, I am wondering whether the Government could not make a start in the matter by appointing an all-party committee to report on possible amendments of the Constitution in order to obviate a deadlock in the Parliament following a double dissolution. Although this matter is important, it is not so very difficult of solution. We shall not serve the cause of stability of government, which we should guard so jealously when we remember the experiences of other countries which have lost that precious inheritance, if we permit to continue a position in which the vOl)1110.1’ will is unable to assert itself through the Government that the people elect.

Senator Aylett:

– What is the objection to a double dissolution?

Senator WILLESEE:

– A further double dissolution would not solve a deadlock that arose following a preceding double dissolution. When the last double dissolution occurred, banking was the main issue put before the people, but the people did not really have an opportunity to express their will because the issue was not fairly put before them during the general election campaign.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable senator will not be in order at this juncture in opening up a general discussion on that subject.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I am simply expressing agreement with the view of the Attorney-General that the constitutional position could be examined along these lines.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable senator was about to embark upon a general discussion from that point. He will not be in order in doing so at this juncture.

Senator WILLESEE:

– With great respect, the Chairman did not prevent the Attorney-General from proceeding along those lines.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The AttorneyGeneral was replying to remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition, and after allowing the latter to proceed a certain distance I ruled that he could not proceed any further along those lines.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I again suggest to the Attorney-General that the Government could make a start in the direction of bringing the Constitution up to date by appointing an all-party committee to investigate and recommend possible amendments with a view to obviating a deadlock in the Parliament following a double dissolution. Attempts to alter the Constitution have an unhappy history regardless of the party political complexion of the Government that has sponsored them. I urge the Government to re-examine the matter that I raised in this connexion a few weeks ago.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– I direct the attention of the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) to the proposed expenditure of £98,600 on the Commonwealth Investigation Service. I point out that further sums are to be provided for similar services in several other departments. A sum of £332,000 is being provided for the security service which comes under the control of the Prime Minister’s Department, whilst a sum of £163,000 is being provided for Defence Intelligence, and a sum of £25,500 is being provided, for the investigation service in the Department of Supply. The work performed by those services is closely allied to that being done by the Commonwealth Investigation Service. In addition, other sums are being provided for similar work, although it is not so closely allied to the investigation service, in various other departments, including the Postal Department. The total sum, proposed to be provided in respect of these services exceeds £600,000. I urge the Government to ensure that full value shall be obtained for the expenditure of that substantial sum. Honorable senators who are sufficiently silly to a3k a question with respect to the activities of the security service are never enlightened. All we can do is to urge the

Parliament to exercise strict supervision of expenditure of services of this kind and to ensure that they shall not be allowed to expand to unnecessary dimensions and provide a refuge for incompetents behind the curtain of secrecy which veils the work that they perform. “.Neither members of the Opposition nor private Government members can do much about the activities of such services. From my own experience when I was a Minister I know that it is difficult for any Minister to probe behind the silken curtain that hides the security organization. However, the expenditure incurred on these services has risen substantially. I ask the Attorney-General to give an undertaking that that expenditure will be closely scrutinized. I cannot see why it should be necessary to expend over £600,000 annually on the maintenance of security services of the type that exist in Australia at present. Only the AttorneyGeneral can indicate the demarcation between the organizations that I have mentioned and which are controlled by the Prime Minister’s Department, the Department of Supply and his own department. The Government should scrutinize closely not only this expenditure but also the standard of personnel who are employed in these services as well as the results that are being obtained. After all, members of the Parliament are afforded an opportunity only occasionally to ascertain whether value is being obtained for expenditure under this heading. T recall that a few years ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), when he introduced the Communist Party Dissolution Bill in the House of Representatives, read out a list of names of persons who, he had been advised, were Communists, and against whom action would he taken after that measure had been passed. Within the following 24 hours it was found that a good deal of the advice that had been given to him. in respect of those persons, no doubt by the security organization, was inaccurate.

Senator Spicer:

– That is not fair.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– The Prime Minister was obliged to make at least tcn corrections.

Senator SPICER:

– It was nothing like that number.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– In any event, the experience of the Parliament on that occasion was that the information supplied to the Prime Minister by the security organization was faulty in serious respects. That was one of the rare occasions on which members of the Parliament have had an opportunity to assess whether this organization, which is so important and upon which we depend so much, is, in fact, efficient. Certainly, having regard to the amount of money that is expended on it, it should be efficient. At the same time, only the Minister can decide whether the service is efficient. I recall that when I was a Minister I had occasion to approach the security organization for information and my experience was such that when the list of names to which I have referred was announced by the Prime Minister I was not surprised that alterations of it had to be made. The security service was not able to give to me the sort of information which I believe an organization of that type would have readily at hand. This is a matter upon which only Ministers, and in some instances only senior Ministers, can exercise control at first hand. I again appeal to the Attorney-General to watch the growth of organizations of this kind, and I ask him to assure the Parliament that the money will be well expended.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I direct the attention of the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) to the peculiar situation that has arisen in Western Australia as a result, of the decision of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to abolish the automatic quarterly adjustments of the basic wage in relation to alterations of the cost of living. Whereas wages boards and kindred tribunals exist in the other States, Western Australia in agreement with the Commonwealth Government decided that the basic wage in that State should be determined on the basis of the weighted average cost of living figure for the six capital cities. I believe that honorable senators will agree that Western Australia acted wisely in collaborating with the Commonwealth in that way. Thus, it is mandatory upon the State Arbitration Court in Western Australia to fix the basic wage on the basis of statistics supplied by the Commonwealth Statistician. These statistics are the major factor considered by the court in determining automatic quarterly adjustments. One virtue of that system is that as adjustments of the basic wage in relation to the cost of living are made automatically, trade unions and employers organizations are relieved of the cost of applying to the court to make such adjustments. I urge the AttorneyGeneral to examine the position that has arisen in “Western Australia and to ensure that the Commonwealth Government shall continue to supply to the State Arbitration Court the statistics that it has hitherto supplied to the court for the purpose of enabling it to adjust the basic wage in accordance with fluctuations in the cost of living, on the lines that they have been previously available, with the idea of allowing’ some sort of crude justice to be given to the basic wage-earner through his department.

Senator Spicer:

– The information never came from my department.

Senator COOKE:

– I should have said it came from the Commonwealth Statistician.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I think that perhaps there is confusion in some quarters about the automatic adjustment of the basic wage and its relationship to the C series index. I shall clarify the situation. The C series index has never been issued by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. It is issued by the Commonwealth Statistician, and it is an indicator of alterations of the cost of living. It is not an indicator of alterations of the basic wage. It just happens to be a particular formula, a particular source to which the court turned when it wanted to find a medium to provide for automatic adjustments. Whether or not there is an automatic adjustment, I imagine that the Commonwealth Statistician will continue to do the job of providing indices of variations of the cost of living.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of the Interior.

Proposed vote, £3,510,000.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I refer to the proposed vote of £311,000 for salaries and allowances, under Division 62 - Electoral Branch. Expenditure under this heading in the last financial year was £289,366. That proposed vote includes provision of £264,925 for divisional returning officers and clerks, compared with an expenditure of £251,784 in the last financial year. As a large electoral staff is employed, would it not be possible for votes recorded at individual polling booths to be tabulated in respect of each municipality? At present no information as to progressive totals in the various municipalities is available until towards the end of counting, and then only from newspaper reports. If my suggestion were adopted, progressive information would be available readily, not only to candidates, but also to members of the public. I believe that the results of voting in different districts should, be available at the polling booths in those districts. Under the system now in operation, scrutineers at a main polling booth are able to tabulate progressive voting figures from country centres so that one may see at a glance the progress of the count in relation to the candidates in country electorates. The electoral staff should be able to apply without difficulty the system, that I advocate. I should like the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) to inform me whether steps will be taken to ensure that at all subsequent general elections, Senate elections, &c, progressive results will be available at the individual polling booths.

The proposed vote of £480,000 for Division 62 - Electoral Branch - includes provision of £13,000 for incidental and other expenditure. I point out that although the members of the electoral staff carry out their duties very ably and make the best use of the materials available to them, in some instances the polling booths are not private. As it is intended that voting for all elections shall bo conducted on the principle of the secret ballot, would it not be possible to arrange for the provision of appropriate screens, and benches or tables at all polling booths? If necessary, they could be returned subsequently to the main polling booth. I do not think that a large expenditure would be involved.

I come now to the matter of voting by patients in the major hospitals in the cities. Although I have no personal knowledge of the procedure in the capital cities on the mainland, I have a close knowledge of what takes place at election time in the principal hospitals in the main cities of Tasmania. Itis deplorable that persons who are ill in bed in hospitals should be bounced by persons who urge them to vote for certain candidates. The conduct of these urgers is typical of the conduct that is evidenced by underworld basher gangs. I do not consider that patients in hospitals should be subjected to threats and persuaded to vote for certain candidates. I should like the Minister to inform me whether arrangements could be made for members of the electoral staff to visit hospitals and assist patients to record postal votes.

Senator McLeay:

– Do I understand the honorable senator to suggest that a departmental officer rather than a member of the organization to which he belongs should visit the patients?

Senator AYLETT:

-Rather than members of any organizations. I reiterate that I do not consider that sick persons in hospitals should be subjected to abuse when they wish to record postal votes.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

. -I refer to the proposed vote of £247,000 for Division 61 - Administrative - which includes provision of £34,000 for the, item “ Motor Vehicles - Upkeep and Hire, including use of - Private Vehicles for Departmental Purposes “. I also wish to refer to the proposed vote of £75,000 for the item “ Transport Services for other Departments in Canberra “. Will the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) inform me how the estimated expenditure on those items has been computed ? Is he able to inform me of the estimated provision for the upkeep of Commonwealth vehicles, and the hire of private motor vehicles respectively? What is the need for the use by the Commonwealth of private motor vehicles?

I come now to Division 67 - Bent of buildings - for which the proposed vote is- £557,000. I point out that there is a vast expenditure on the rental of premises for the use of Commonwealth departments throughout Australia. Does this provision include the rent of all private premises used by the Commonwealth? Has the Commonwealth in contemplation the provision, as soon as practicable, of its own buildings in which to house its employees and staff, in order to ease the strain on office accommodation in the capital cities? I point out that in many instances private enterprise is unable to obtain suitable office accommodation in the cities.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– I wish to refer to Division 62 - Electoral Branch - for which the proposed vote is £480,000. Will the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) direct a competent officer to ensure that officers of the Electoral Branch in Tasmania shall be provided with good working conditions? I realize that this is a joint. Commonwealth and State responsibility, but as elections are held in Tasmania about once a year a vast amount of work is involved in the preparation of rolls and personal cards of electors. It appears that electoral officers in Tasmania are employed on this very important job on only a part-time basis. Senior members of the Public Service, who have great responsibilities, are also electoral officers. I do not consider that sufficient staff is provided to enable them to carry out their work properly, and I consider that the office accommodation provided for them is altogether too cramped. I should like the Minister to assure me that he will institute inquiries in this matter in order to ensure that proper working conditions shall be provided for Commonwealth public servants.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

. - I, also, wish to direct the attention of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) to another aspect of the matter that has been raised by Senator Aylett. I consider that the present system, under which a patient in a hospital has to make application for a postal vote, and the postal voting paper has to be returned to him, and so on, is altogether too cumbersome. The system operates unfairly in the case of persons who are taken ill suddenly just before election day, because there is then available insufficient time in which to make application for postal votes and receive the necessary forms. This occurred in at least half a dozen instances, to my personal knowledge, during the recent Senate election, and I am sure that that was the state of affairs in relation to many persons throughout Australia. I urge the Government to consider introducing a system similar to the system that has been adopted in connexion with State elections in Western Australia, under which a person who is sick and wishes to record a vote may do so in the presence of a duly qualified person. The present clumsy system operates to the detriment of persons who are suddenly taken ill just before election day. I think that the witnesses in such cases should be departmental officers. I have been in hospital myself at election time, and I know how distressing it is for patients to have officials from political parties visiting the hospitals for that purpose even though they may be personal friends. Nobody appears to be a friend when one is too ill to be bothered with electoral matters. I would like to see an overhaul of the provision for absentee votes so that the arrangements may be more suitable to patients in hospitals.

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I direct the attention of the committee to Division 67 -Rent of buildings. I notice that under that heading, item 10 provides for the expenditure of £45,000 by the Department of Social Services, and item 14 makes provision for £70,000 for the Department of Labour and National Service. Those two items for rents alone total £115,000. Some attempt should be made to provide for the two departments to work in one building. In Perth they are separated and they occupy elaborate buildings. I suggest that they might use one building. The provision of £115,000 for two departments for rent alone appears to be too high. The Public Works Committee has considered plans for different buildings in Perth. I would be interested to know whether the buildings that are recommended by the Public Works Committee would be sufficient to house the two departments.

SenatorLAUGHT (South Australia) [5.43]. - I wish to direct the attention of the committee to Division 63 - Meteorological Branch of the Department of the Interior - and in that connexion I invite honorable senators to consider the annual report of the AuditorGeneral for the financial year ended June, 1953. In paragraph 117 of his report, the Auditor-General refers to the balance-sheet of the Postmaster-General’s Department, and he makes this statement -

The major items for which cash is not paid to the Department but for which the Department takes credit were, in 1951-52, £1,250,000 for the transmission of 3,500,000 meteorological telegrams, and £103,000 for work performed for electoral purposes. Provision for these items would require amendments to thePost and TelegraphRates Act and the Commonwealth Electoral Act. While the PostmasterGeneral’s Department may be justified in taking credit for these services, the law requires that corresponding debits are not to be made on the Department of the Interior. The law, however, does not take into considerationthe well-known factor that the recipient of a free service does not always co-operate in securing an economical free service.

This committee should take cognizance of the fact that the Meteorological Branch of the Department of the Interior causes 3,500,000 telegrams to be sent yearly and that there is not an item in the Estimates before the committee concerning those telegrams, although I am informed by the Auditor-General’s report that they are valued at £1,250,000. That is a large sum of money and I believe that if the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Kent Hughes) will consider the matter, he should see that more attention is given in the accounts of the Meteorological Branch to that heavy expense.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to8 p.m.

SenatorLAUGHT.- Although the 3,500,000 meteorological telegrams that are sent each year cost this country approximately 6s. 6d. each there is no reference to that expenditure in the estimates before the committee. I consider that economy would be achiever! if the cost of these telegrams were noted. The Auditor-General has suggested that this is not an economical free service.I should like the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) to inform the Senate whether the charge for these telegrams has been brought to the notice of those who send them. Is a check made to ensure that the telegrams are as short as possible? It appears to me that the average telegram sent must be fairly wordy in view of the average cost of sending them. No doubt the size of each telegram could be reduced. 1 should like to have an assurance from the Minister that this aspect of the transmission of the telegrams is examined. The sum of £1,250,000 is large for an expenditure on telegrams.

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaMinister for Shipping and Transport · LP

. - I am advised by the officers of the Department of the Interior that under the legislation relating to the PostmasterGeneral’s Department no charge can be made for the transmission of meteorological telegrams. These telegrams are sent at urgent rates. The whole subject of the cost of their transmission and the appropriate debit is now being investigated by the Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony) and the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Kent Hughes). The points that have been mentioned by Senator Laught will receive their consideration.

In regard to the question that was asked by Senator Aylett I think that the Senate will appreciate that a Minister must experience difficulty in replying to questions on the Estimates on behalf of a Minister in another place. I assure Senator Aylett and Senator Tangney that I shall refer to the Minister for the Interior the questions that they raised in connexion with the conduct of postal votes in hospitals by a departmental officer. I shall also refer the other questions that they raised to the Minister. I understand that it is not compulsory for hospital patients to register theirvotes. From my own experience I know that people who are in hospital often request that somebody be sent to attend to their voting.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) asked for details of the department’s building programme in view of the fact that it was proposed to spend £557,000 on rentals during the current financial year. The space that the department requires to rent will be less during this financial year than it was during the last financial year, but the in creased amount of the vote is due to an increase of about 10 per cent. in rates. I do not think that the department has undertaken the construction of many new buildings. The administrative building which is being erected in Canberra will relieve a lot of departments from paying rent in the various capitals when it is completed, but by that time the various departments will have expanded to such an extent that this problem will remain a serious one for some time to come. Honorable senators will appreciate that the Government has given priority to the construction of buildings for homes, hospitals and schools. The difficulties that government departments have experienced in obtaining accommodation has also been experienced by commercial houses which have found that buildings are difficult to acquire in this period of expanding trade.

Senator Marriott drew attention to the need for decent conditions for men who work on polling day.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– I was referring to those who worked in the electoral offices.

Senator McLEAY:

– I shall bring that matter before the notice of the Minister for the Interior.

The Leader of the Opposition also referred to the votes for the upkeep and hire of motor vehicles and for the transport services for other departments in Canberra. The officers of the department have advised me that no analysis of the figures mentioned is available. The sum of £34,000 is intended to cover payments for the use of cars and trucks attached to the transport depot in Canberra and the transport pools that are administered by the Department of the Interior in the several States. It is also intended to cover the purchase of oil and petrol and the use of private cars on official business, which is only resorted to when the use of government vehicles is considered to be impracticable or uneconomic. The amount payable for the use of private cars would amount to approximately 5 per cent. of the vote. No amount is included in Division 61 for the use of private vehicles.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I desire to express my concern in relation to the subject of rents paid by the

Department of the Interior for the use of buildings. I do not think that any honorable senator can be pleased with the more or less evasive reply of the Minister to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) in regard to the construction, programme of the Department of the Interior. In the City of Melbourne the Commonwealth acquired land bounded by Spring-street, Latrobe-street, Lonsdalestreet and Exhibition-street over two and a half years ago. Any one who knows the City of Melbourne knows full well that the majority of the buildings in that area are extremely old and form a blot on the capital city of Victoria. The Department of the Interior proposes to pay £557,000 in rent. An annual expenditure of that amount would pay the interest on a building programme of practically £11,000,000. In recent weeks it has been stated that ample material is now available for building purposes and there are a number of unemployed people in the building industry. I do not desire to gain anything from the misery of other people, but I think that the Government should commence the construction of a building in the area that I have mentioned in order to give employment to those who are out of work. In the event of the available labour being mainly semiskilled, the construction of the building could be undertaken in concrete. The Minister would not spend £500,000 of his own money on rent if he could finance the construction of the buildings that he needed by paying that amount each year in interest. If the Government took that course it would not need to use private houses as offices as it does in some cities.

I admit that about two and a half years ago the Commonwealth did vacate quite a number of premises in the City of Melbourne, but it is not good business for the Government to pay £557,000 in rent in view of the fact that it has acquired the site of which I have spoken. I trust that at some other time I may be able to obtain from the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) a list of the properties that are rented by the Government and the amount that is paid per acre in certain parts of the Commonwealth because I am vitally interested in a certain area in my own State. I pay a tribute to the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Kent Hughes). At least he has been fair in the. administration of the area to which I refer. There is a tendency on the part of all governments to pay what is asked of them by private enterprise. Yet governments pay much less for parklands than they would have paid had the area been owned by private people. I am not satisfied with the present position and I do not think this committee should be satisfied with it. In the City of Melbourne to-day two large hotel buildings are being erected. Whilst I am prepared to concede that there is also a need for hotel accommodation, I do not believe that the Minister is justified in saying that offices are not being constructed in the various capital cities where they are needed because available supplies of materials are required for houses, hospitals and other essential services. It is true that there is an urgent demand for housing and hospital accommodation, but I believe that the supply of materials is adequate for those purposes and for the erection of offices as well. It is quite obvious that if payments to the States by the Commonwealth are to be reduced, and loan restrictions maintained, the States cannot build all the houses that are needed. I believe it would be good business for the Commonwealth at least to make a start on the provision of office accommodation. The sooner the work isstarted the sooner will it be completed, and substantial savings may be made in that way.

I am interested also in the work of the Electoral Branch of the Department of the Interior. At some time or other in our lives we are all rather interested in the Electoral Office. It is one office that should not be skimped for money. T have had dealings with the Melbourne Electoral Office for a great number of years, and I have found its officials to be most efficient, but under our existing electoral legislation, the electoral office of each division is authorized to employ temporary officials to “ clean up “ the roll - if I may use an electoral term.. That system is not satisfactory. We are all agreed, regardless of party political affiliations, on the principle of majority rule. Whilst it is true that the law provides for compulsory enrolment, we all know that when election time comes quite a number of people find that they are not on the electoral rolls. I believe that we shall get clean rolls only by appointing an officer in each electoral division to work mainly on the job of keeping the rolls up to date. If the democratic system under which we live to-day is to be retained - I am sure that is the earnest desire of every one of us - we must take all proper precautions to ensure that every one who is entitled to vote shall be able to do so. Instead of engaging temporary employees, many of them elderly people, to keep the rolls up to date, permanent officers should be attached to each electoral division for this purpose. I can say from my many contacts with permanent electoral officers that there is no more efficient or more honest body of men. So far as temporary staff on election day is concerned, we should do our best to ensure that their remuneration is in keeping with the value of their work. Only by doing that will we be able to attract officials who will carry out the job efficiently.

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaMinister for Shipping and Transport · LP

– Whilst I am not prepared to enter into a discussion of the office accommodation problem in Melbourne or elsewhere, honorable senators will be interested to learn that sketch plans for the proposed new Commonwealth centre in Melbourne are now under consideration. Knowing how active the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Kent Hughes) is, I am certain that as soon as the necessary money is made available, he will not let the grass grow under his feet. As honorable senators are probably aware, the commercial community in Melbourne is clamouring for the return of buildings now rented by the Commonwealth. It is a very real problem. I shall bring the honorable senator’s remarks about the necessity to employ permanent staff on the compilation of Commonwealth electoral rolls to the notice of the Minister for the Interior.

Senator HENTY:
Tasmania

– I wish to refer briefly to what Senator Kennelly has said about office accommodation in Melbourne. That matter is now in the hands of the Public Works Committee. The committee has already taken evidence in Melbourne on two occasions, and another meeting will be held in that city next week. I agree with what Senator Kennelly has said about the vacating of parklands. It is interesting to note that at the outbreak of World War II. no objection was raised by the British people or by local bodies when the military authorities took over parklands for the duration of the war. Everybody knew that as soon as the war was over those lands would be vacated promptly, as had always been done in the past. I understand that no parklands in the United Kingdom to-day are occupied by the services.

In Melbourne, if I remember rightly, the Commonwealth still occupies 72 buildings, many of which house central staffs. Again speaking from memory, central officers awaiting transfer to Canberra number more than 7,000. I believe that those staffs should be transferred to Canberra as soon as possible and the buildings in which they are at present housed returned to the commercial community. Many of the buildings are quite unsuitable for office accommodation. One building which the Public Works Committee inspected is a seven-story concrete structure and each story was designed for use as a small factory. That building has been in use for some years by the Department of the Army and other Commonwealth administrations. It is totally unsuitable for office accommodation, and the conditions under which the staffs have to work are by no means good. That building should be vacated at the earliest possible date. The committee also inspected parklands in Melbourne which are still occupied by service departments. I agree with Senator Kennelly that those parklands too should be vacated as early as possible. I understand however, that until the central administrations of the service departments have been transferred to Canberra and the Victoria Barracks vacated, the Albert Park premises will have to be retained. I believe that the rentals now paid by the Commonwealth for the use of the parklands is of some assistance in improving those areas, but that does not obviate the necessity to vacate the park at the earliest possible date. Therefore, I support Senator Kennelly’s remarks and assure him that the Public Works Committee is examining the matter thoroughly. The committee has almost completed its work, and I hope that when its report has been submitted to the Parliament, the erection by the Commonwealth of new office premises in Melbourne will proceed rapidly.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

– Senator Kennelly has admirably emphasized the urgent need for Commonwealth office accommodation in Melbourne. It is hardly necessary for me to remind the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) who is a fellow South Australian, of the position that exists in Adelaide. The Minister will agree that accommodation for Commonwealth public servants and federal members in Adelaide has been causing concern for many years. I understand that we are to be evicted from a part of the premises which we at present occupy in the Parliament House in Adelaide. Will the Minister inform the Senate of any plans which may be in existence to bring about long-awaited reforms in respect of the accommodation in Adelaide?

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaMinister for Shipping and Transport · LP

– There are great difficulties in connexion with the matter to which Senator Critchley has referred. We have had a war and are still expending a great deal of money as a result of it. In addition, the raising of loan funds is an important factor. Nevertheless, I think that the accommodation position has been slowly improving. The honorable senator and every one else concerned will have to make the best of the available accommodation for a number of years.

Senator Harris referred to the need to amalgamate departments in order to conserve office space. I have been advised that, wherever possible, particularly in provincial towns, it is the policy of the Government to accommodate as many departments as possible under the one roof. Of course, honorable senators must appreciate that the provision of accommodation for Commonwealth departments is not as important as is the provision of certain other buildings, such as houses.

In reply to the remarks of Senator Kennelly concerning employment in the building trades, I point out that never in the history of Australia has there been such activity in those trades, and never has there been a greater shortage of buildings. We require hospitals, schools, hotels, and many other buildings. I suggest that if the honorable senator studies records which relate to building activity during the last two or three years, he will discover that this Government has been most active. I hope that it will continue to be active.

Senator Kennelly:

– The Government should be active. After all, it is a long time since World War II. ended.

Senator McLEAY:

– The honorable senator should appreciate that this Government is doing very much better than the Labour Government did when it was in office.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I wish to refer to the latest report of the Auditor-General, in which reference is made to the timber mills conducted by the department. In the course of his report, the Auditor-General stated -

Accumulated losses at the Kingston mill to June, 1052, were £55,093, to which should be added £50,455 over-valuation of timber stock* to that date … At the date of compiling this report annual financial statements for the timber mills had not been prepared by the department. Due to faulty costing of timber stocks no reliable annual operating results are available for the Kingston Timber Mill for some time prior to 1952-53.

The interesting sequel disclosed by the Auditor-General is that the services of the manager of the mill subsequently were terminated. Those are matters which excite my interest because the propriety of government administration and expenditure is involved. I should like to know the real and genuine explanation of those matters.

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

– I point out to the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) that at Port Stephens, in New South Wales, there is a piece of land known as the Soldiers’ Point area. When the Labour Government was in office a number of leases were granted to people in that area; and the lessees were encouraged to build homes them.

After this Government came to office, it was suggested that the laud should be sold to the New South Wales Lands Department. More recently, it has been suggested that the land should be sold to the Port Stephens Shire Council. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the rights of persons who have built houses in that area will be protected. It is important that persons such as age pensioners and those who have not the requisite capital with which to purchase land should be permitted to retain the blocks which they have leased. They were given to understand that their occupancy of the land would not be disturbed.

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

– I am not in possession of the facts concerning the matter referred to by Senator Arnold, nor am I familiar with the policy that the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Kent Hughes) has in mind in connexion with it. However, I assure the honorable senator that I shall bring the matter to the notice of the Minister and ask him to favour me with a report, which I shall furnish to the honorable senator at a future date. In connexion with the losses accumulated by the timber mills to which Senator Wright referred, I point out that the administration of those mills is a matter for the Department of Works, not the Department of the Interior. The fact that the Auditor-General drew attention to those losses in his recent annual report ensures that the responsible Minister will take appropriate action.

Senator MAHER:
Queensland

– I wish to mention a matter which I raised on a similar occasion last year. I refer to the slow transmission of weather information by post offices in country districts throughout Australia to the weather bureaux in the capital cities. I refer particularly to the conditions that exist in Queensland. It seems that the point raised on these matters during the debate on the Estimates go in one ear and out the other. There has been no change in the methods adopted since I last spoke of the subject. On the basis that constant dripping will wear away a stone, I again raise the matter, because I think it is most important. The methods used by the Meteorological Branch are outmoded. They may have been suitable at the turn of the century, but events have moved considerably since then. I suggest that to send from a post office at 9 a.m. a telegram giving information about the weather, which is released at about midday in the capital cities, is frequently of little use, because the weather is apt to change suddenly. Weather information is important not only to farmers and graziers but also to persons engaged in conducting transport and other organizations. The Minister vor Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) should take up this matter with the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Kent Hughes), because there is room for liaison between the Department of Civil Aviation and the Meteorological Branch of the Department of the Interior. It is possible that, as a result of such liaison, some of the up-to-date methods employed by the Department of Civil Aviation in conducting air services will be made available to the Meteorological Branch.

Senator Laught referred this afternoon to comments made by the AuditorGeneral in his recent annual report on the costs incurred by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department in connexion with telegrams sent by the Meteorological Branch. In my opinion, considerable sums of money are being expended on a service which is unsatisfactory. The following extract from the Sydney Daily Telegraph of the 14th June, 1950, is relevant: -

One senior airline pilot - with thousands of hours flying experience - summed up the situation : “ Both the Weather Bureau on Observatory Hill and the meteorologists at KingsfordSmith Airport are units of the Dept. of the Interior. “ They both receive the same basic observations. “ The Observatory people base their forecasts essentially on this information. “ But the aviation meteorologists arc receiving continuous weather information from every plane flying in their area. “ Pilots pass weather information - and more particularly any variations from their given forecast - to Mascot by radio immediately the observation is made. “ Thus the aviation meteorologist men’s view ofthe overall weather situation is constantly” being brought up to date, and with it the degree of accuracy of their forecasts.”

Pilots said there appeared to be no liaison between aviation meteorological men and the Weather Bureau.

Flying men never use the Weather Bureau’s reports, but they suggest that if the skilled information available to aviation meteorological men could be passed to the Weather Bureau - even in condensed form - public forecasts would be fairly reliable.

How often do the weather bureaux in the States forecast a fine week-end, on the basis of which people set forth on an outing which is spoilt by a torrential fall of rain? How often do they forecast dry conditions in rural areas, and rain falls almost immediately? It seems to me that the weather bureaux are often off the beam. If somebody could arrange liaison between the Department of Civil Aviation and the Meteorological Branch, I suggest that useful results might follow.

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia

– I refer to Division 65, which relates to the Forestry Branch. I note that the proposed vote for this year is £5,000 less than was the amount voted last year. I also note that the proposed vote in respect of field and laboratory equipment is £1,300 less this year than it was last year. There has also been a decrease of £2,000 in respect of forestry scholarships, university fees and sustenance payments. It is discouraging to learn that the Government apparently proposes to curtail expenditure on those two extremely important fields of forestry work. Although the provision in respect of those two items is to be reduced, an additional amount of £3,600 is being sought for office requisites and equipment, stationery and printing. It seems illogical that the Government, when it is budgeting for a surplus, should restrict activity in the two fields that I have indicated. I should like the Minister to assure the committee that provision in respect of field and laboratory equipment for the Forestry Branch and in respect of forestry scholarships and university fees will not be curtailed during the current financial’ year. Honorable senators will agree that those aspects of forestry research are important.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 758

NEW BUSINESS AFTER 10.30 P.M

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

– I move -

That Standing Order 68 be suspended for this sitting, to enable new business to be commenced after 10.30 p.m.

The object of the motion is to enable the Senate to pass the Appropriation (Works and Services) Bill in the event that consideration of that measure is not commenced by 10.30 p.m. I have no intention of introducing any new measure this evening.

The PRESIDENT:

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

page 758

APPROPRIATION BILL 1953-54

In committee: Consideration resumed.

Department of Works.

Proposed vote, £2,274,000.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

.- Amounts of £12,000 and £2,500 in respect of the War Service Homes Division are to be deducted from the proposed vote for this department. In the general debate, I directed attention to the fact that war service homes which had been constructed at East Payneham, South Australia, have been so badly built that they were tumbling down. I endeavoured, in vain, to discover where the responsibility for that inefficiency lies. As the Estimates for this department indicate that it is to recover the two payments that I have mentioned from the War Service Homes Division, I should like to know whether I am correct in concluding that this department has been responsible for that debacle. I notice that an amount of £13,500 is to be provided in respect of the item, “ Field and laboratory testing equipment “. Did the Department of Works do the tests of the bay of Biscay soil at East Payneham on which the war service homes to which I have referred were constructed? I ask the Minister to inform me on the exact nature of the work that the Department of “Works carried out and in respect of which it is to be recouped to the amount of the two sums that I have cited.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– From my experience both inside and outside the Parliament I have come to realize with pleasure that a certain degree of comradeship exists between the various departments of the Public Service. However, as is the case in a lot of communities, there seems to be a nigger in the woodpile. I suggest that the Department of Works is the most unpopular among the departments as a whole. The Government should curtail the activity of this department instead of allowing it to expand and to impose its authority, which is mostly entangled in red tape, upon other departments. I am sure that many branches of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, for instance, would be pleased if the Department of Works had no authority whatsoever in respect of their .construction programmes. I am alarmed at the fact that the permanent staff of the department is to be increased by 66, which will involve an increase of payment by way of salaries and wages of £79,000 for the current financial year. At the same time, an amount of £50,000 is to be provided for the purchase of office machines. I can hardly reconcile that proposed provision with the statement that the pruning knife has been applied to the expenditure of this department. I should like the Minister to indicate the details of that proposed expenditure. The sum of £291,000 is to be provided in respect of the item, “ Motor vehicles - upkeep and hire, including use of private vehicles for departmental purposes “. It is also proposed to provide the sum of £19,400 in respect of advertising. I realize that this department does quite a lot of advertising in the newspapers. That raises the important question of whether advertising on behalf of all departments should be handled by one authority. Government advertising is becoming the newspapers’ best bet. Such advertisements occupy columns in the daily press. Centralized control of government advertising would result in considerable saving under this heading.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

.- On Friday last and earlier this afternoon honorable senators had the opportunity to debate reports that were presented by the Public Accounts Committee to the Parliament in respect of the Department of National Development. I direct attention to certain comments that are made in the report of the AuditorGeneral with respect to the administration of the Department of Works. Dealing with the control of labour and materials on projects, that report states -

In the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory there is no satisfactory uniform procedure in operation to ensure that all labour and materials, the costs of which are charged against projects, are actually expended on those projects. Considerable delays are occurring in reviewing costs of projects in relation to estimated costs, many of the reviews being inadequate. Audit representations on this matter have been made to the Department which recently introduced measures to improve tha control over materials. The efficacy of this action is, however, not yet apparent.

The Auditor-General’s report to which I refer was tabled on the 30th June last. As a period exceeding three months has since elapsed, perhaps the Minister would be good enough to inform me whether the efficacy of the action referred to in that extract from the report has yet become apparent. The report continued -

The costing records of the Woomera project are unsatisfactory. Materials have not been satisfactorily accounted for and considerable amounts of operational expenditure have been incorrectly charged to many of the jobs. Existing departmental instructions for cost accounting are not sufficiently comprehensive for proper control.

I should like the Minister to comment on that statement. The report is more damaging when it deals with the control of stores in the Department of Works. On that subject, it states -

The control of departmental stores, including plant, furniture and equipment, in respect of various departmental activities in the Australian Capital Territory is unsatisfactory Lengthy periods have elapsed between stocktakings, and the records of departmental assets in many cases are inaccurate, causing considerable delays in reconciling stocktaking results with ledger balances. Efforts are being made by the Department to improve the stocktaking position and accounting records.

The stores controls at the Woomera project have been unsatisfactory, but the Department has taken action to improve the position. Existing departmental instructions for the control of large project stores are inadequate.

The Government took office in December, 1.949, and on more than one occasion it has intimated to the public that it has within its ranks many experienced businessmen. How do Government supporters reconcile that claim with the fact that, after the Government has been in office for over three years, the AuditorGeneral has condemned the administration of the Department of Works. On page 38, the report states -

Unsatisfactory features, including the control over production, associated with the above activities, and other matters relating to departmental workshops are at present the subject of correspondence with the Department.

That statement indicates that the Auditor-General is far from satisfied with the control that is exercised over certain activities of this department. The report goes on -

I recently advised the Public Accounts Committee that the losses on operations, including those by hostels referred to later, were hidden from the Treasury in the Works Suspense Trust Account. . . .

Senator Wright:

– There is great significance in that comment.

Senator BENN:

– Yes. The report continues - and I suggested to the Committee that relative financial transactions should be processed through separate Trust Accounts established under Section 02a of the Audit Act. Alternatively, one general Trust Account for trading activities would be adequate, provided it is subdivided in the manner of the Australian Capital Territory Transport Trust Account.

I should be glad if the Minister would comment on that statement by the Auditor-General. I come now to a very serious aspect of his report in connexion with the Department of Works. Under the heading “Woomera Project” it is stated -

During the year discrepancies of camp and messing equipment consisting of surpluses of £20,424 and deficiencies £45,114 at this departmental activity came under Audit review. The records and controls were found to be unsatisfactory and no reliable basis existed for determination of the reported discrepancies.

One would expect the accounts in connexion with the Woomera project to be kept punctiliously, yet the AuditorGeneral has reported that they were most unsatisfactory. The report went on -

References are also made in paragraph 55 to the control of labour and stores on this project.

I have already dealt with that aspect. The report proceeds -

For the consideration of departmental measures in the proper control of stores and equipment a meeting of representatives of the Public Service Board, the Treasury, the Department of Works and the Auditor-General was convened in September, 1952. After consideration of the material available the Committee requested further information from the Department including details of the stores system and the governing instructions.

I emphasize particularly the following passage of the report: -

At 30th June, 1953, the Department of Works had nOt supplied the information and the Committee had reached no conclusions.

That is an outrageous state of affairs. In 1952, as the Auditor-General has pointed out, a conference was held of representatives of the Public Service Board, representatives of the Treasury, and the Department of Public Works in order to consider the bad set-up and bad conditions in relation to supervision of stores and other things at the Woomera project. The Auditor-General reported that, at the 30th June, 1953, the Department of Works, which had been required to supply certain information, had failed to do so. I cannot imagine a worse report than the report that the Auditor-General has furnished in relation to the activities of the Department of Works.

Senator SEWARD:
Western Australia

– I should like the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) to furnish to the committee information in relation to several matters that have been mentioned in the Auditor-General’s report for the year ended the 30th June last. Some of those matters have been already dealt with in the report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Department of Works. I wish, particularly, to refer to the proposed provision of £36,450 for plan printing. There is a matter that has been already mentioned by Senator Wright. Surely to goodness there is nothing to prevent the Minister from furnishing honorable senators with a resume of the activities of the Department of “Works. As matters stand, honorable senators have to probe in order to receive enlightenment in relation to some aspects of the department’s activities. As the Minister in this chamber who represents a Minister in another place delivers a second-reading speech on bills received from the House of Representatives, I cannot see any reason why he should not, explain the projected activities of a department during the next twelve months. If that had been done in this instance, I venture to suggest that at least 60 per cent. of the questions that have been asked by honorable senators during the consideration of the proposed vote would have been obviated. “We are considering a proposed vote of £2,274,000. Yet it is necessary for us to direct the attention of the Minister to certain proposed provisions and request information about- them. Some very bad examples of plan printing have been mentioned in evidence before the Public Accounts Committee. In some instances specifications have had to be altered, and in other instances new specifications have had to be prepared. Likewise, plans have had to be altered, and new plans prepared. I have in mind the plans and specifications that were prepared in connexion with the proposal to construct a control tower at Essendon aerodrome. Although that project was considered to be urgent about three years ago. the control tower has not yet been constructed.

I come now to the proposed vote of £800,000 for repairs and maintenance. Surely the Ministershould inform honorable senators of the manner in which it is proposed to expend that money. It is proposed to provide £180,000 for expenditure on behalf of the Department of the Interior, and £218,000 on behalf of the Department of Immigration. We are entitled to be supplied with information and details in relation to that proposed expenditure. I point out that if an honorable senator does not rise quickly after another honorable senator has resumed his seat the proposed vote could be agreed to without further debate. I consider that Ministers should open debates in connexion with proposed votes for the various departments, perhaps not in the manner that the Minister for National

Development (Senator Spooner) opened the debate on the proposed vote for the Department of National Development last Friday, although it is true that by so doing he obviated the necessity for honorable senators to ask many questions. I point out that details in relation to this proposed vote of £2,274,000 are cramped into one and a half pages of the Schedule. I should like the Minister to inform me of the manner in which it is proposed to expend £36,450 on plan printing, i should also like him to assure the committee that care will be taken to avoid the alteration of plane and specifications after they have been drawn, in order to obviate unnecessary expense.

Senator ARNOLD (New South Wales; [ 9.8].- I endorse Senator Seward’s suggestion that Ministers should initiate the debates on the proposed votes for the, various departments, in order to obviate the asking by honorable senators of many questions. It will be recalled that during the consideration of the proposed vote for the Parliament last week Senator Mattner, who was formerly the President of the Senate, stated that although a certain amount of fire protection equipment had been installed in Parliament House, the ‘ fire panel in this building had remained unconnected, to the Canberra Fire Station for the last six months. As many thousands of pounds were expended on the installation of the equipment, why was not action taken, within a reasonable time, to install that vital link? This is an extraordinary state of affairs. Though this building houses hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of valuable records and historical documents, the Department of Works neglected to install the vital link to which I have referred. Will the Minister say whether that link has yet been connected? If so, why did the Department of Works neglect for so long to install the vital link?- If the work has not yet been carried out, can the Minister say when it is expected that the job will be completed? When I attempted to address myself to this matter during the consideration of the proposed vote for the Parliament, the Chair ruled that the matter should be raised during the consideration of the proposed vote for the Department of Works. The facts that I have outlined reveal either that the departmental officers are too fully employed or they are dilatory, or perhaps they are prevented by red-tape methods from performing their work efficiently. I register an emphatic protest against this building being left unguarded against fire for a period of six months, due to a set of wires not having been installed between it and the fire station. I consider that the Minister should demand from his responsible officers a report on why this work has not been carried out. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the work is in hand, and give us an explanation why it has taken so long for the department to undertake the job.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– The details set out under Division 69 “ Repairs and maintenance “ demonstrate the difficulty that honorable senators experience in appreciating fully the proposed financial provision for the various departments. This division includes, under the heading “ Repairs and maintenance “, provision for expenditure by the Department of Works on repairs and maintenance in the various departments. For instance, it includes provision of £218,000 in relation to the Department of Immigration. I submit that, under a proper system of presentation of accounts, that item should be included in the proposed vote for the Department of Immigration. As matters stand, proposed expenditure on repairs and maintenance in the various departments, which amount to £800,000, is included in the proposed vote for the Department of Works. This illustration underlines the emphasis that we should place on a demand that before the Estimates are submitted next year, the accounts shall be reformed completely so that every item of expenditure on behalf of a department will be shown as expenditure for which that department will’ be responsible, and for which the approval of the Parliament is sought.

A most healthy debate ensued this afternoon during a consideration of the proposed vote for the Department of National Development, during which the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), who also represents the Minister for Works in this chamber, made some interesting statements. I desire, now, to direct the attention of the committee to paragraph 56 of the Auditor-General’s report. Under the heading “ General “, after making various observations in relation to business projects, the Auditor-General put in print in his report to the Parliament -

I recently advised the Public Accounts Committee that the losses on operations, including those of hostels referred to later, were hidden from the Treasury in the Works Suspense Trust Account.

The Auditor-General then made certain suggestions. Such use of the term “ hidden “, by a person whose responsibility in the Commonwealth administration is secondonly to that of the judiciary, should sting the conscience of everybody responsible for the department and it demands justificationor refutation. I hope that we shall get one or the other. I turn now to paragraph 59 of the AuditorGeneral’s report.

Senator Ashley:

– That refers to a matter on which I propose to speak.

Senator WRIGHT:

– The fact that, in preceding Senator Ashley, I have anticipated his thoughts, reduces me to a dismal outlook that I never even hoped to reach to-night. I was about to refer to the fact that the Auditor-General had reported upon an item for the purchase and reconditioning of three submarine engines. The report states -

Accounts totalling £E.64,068, certified by an officer of the New South Wales Agent-General’s Office, had been received by the High Commissioner’s office in London, although only £A. 10,000 had been available for all purposes by the Department of Works, Melbourne.

The Auditor-General commented that the three engines were required for only a limited period of service. I believe that a matter of that nature reported in the Auditor-General’s report should be the subject of an explanation to this committee. Honorable senators have not been given a. reason for the adverse comment of the Auditor-General. Having read the comment, honorable senators should be supplied with a statement by the Minister so that they would have before them an explanation that would completely vindicate those responsible for the expenditure.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I direct the attention of the committee to an item under Division 77 “ Administrative “ which provides for a vote of £393,000 for temporary and casual employees. I cannot find an explanation for such a large sum for temporary employees. It may be that they are to be occupied in building construction for other departments. If that is so, I am happy about it. More attention could be paid to works that would relieve the shortage of telephones and other services as a result of which many inconveniences are being suffered by private persons and those who are in business. Senator Marriott queried a proposed vote of £50,000 for the purchase of machines. The Minister may give some explanation for that proposed expenditure. If those machines are to speed up production in the Department of Works and make the work more efficient, the expenditure of £50,000 may be justified, but if the machines are to be left in crates, the money would be wasted. I hope that the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) will explain those items.

SenatorCRITCHLEY (South Australia) [9.20]. - I direct the attention of the committee to Division 69 “ Repairs and Maintenance for the Department of Works “, to which Senator Wright has referred. The total proposed vote for this division is £800,000. Will the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) indicate the site of the premises that are to be maintained and prepared other than those that are clearly named. In most capital cities of Australia, Commonwealth departments are housed in privately owned buildings. I should like to know whether there is any condition in the leases of those buildings under which the Australian Government is obliged to maintain the premises. I know that maintenance is costly and I should like to have more details of the amounts that are allocated for buildings other than those in Canberra. The Estimates contain no details of the allocation of the proposed vote.

I join with Senator O’Flaherty in his request for information about the houses at East Payneham. The Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley) has stated that they were erected under the direction of the Department of Works and subsequently became part of the War Service Homes Division. The tenants have been in them only a few years and those who have not seen them could not imagine that dwellings could deteriorate so quickly as these have done. I am not satisfied with the information that has been given about this matter. After a close scrutiny of the votes for every department Senator O’Flaherty and I are of the opinion that the Department of Works might be the hide-out of the long-lost culprits.

Senator Wright and Senator Benn have drawn the attention of the committee to some caustic comments that have been made by the Auditor-General. One section of the Auditor-General’s report should cause concern to this committee. In paragraph 58 of -his report which refers to the Woomera project the Auditor-General states -

For the consideration of departmental measures for the proper control of stores and equipment, a meeting of representatives of the Public Service Board, the Treasury, the Department of Works and. the AuditorGeneral was convened in September,1952. After consideration of the material available, the Committee requested further information from the Department, including details of the stores system and the Government instructions. At the 30th June, 1953, the Depart-‘ ment of Works had not supplied the information and the Committee had reached no conclusions.

Such projects as that at Woomera are a national responsibility and there may be some delay and inconvenience in obtaining the information about them, but honorable senators must become uneasy when the Auditor-General reports that although information ‘ was sought nine months ago about Woomera, it had not been supplied at the 30th June. If the Minister can give this committee the information that was sought he will be doing a service to all concerned.

Senator HANNAFORD:
South Australia

– I wish to make a comment upon the matter that has been raised by Senator Critchley regarding the Woomera project. While this committee is considering the Estimates, it must give full weight to the report of the AuditorGeneral. I am disturbed by the state of affairs at Woomera also. Inhis statement on Woomera and other projects the Auditor-General reported -

In the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria. Queensland and the Northern Territory there is no satisfactory uniform procedurein operation to ensure that all labour and materials, the costs of which are charged against the projects, are actually expended on those projects.

I think that is a serious indictment, particularly when it concerns such important works as the Woomera project. I have had the privilege of visiting Woomera. Huge sums of money have been expended there. If we have no uniform procedure under which the materials allotted to such projects are actually used on them that is a serious matter indeed. The Department of Works should be responsible for bringing that state of affairs to an end.

I agree that other matters that have been mentioned in connexion with the Department of Works are very important, particularly that mentioned by Senator Wright. The Department of Works undertakes various obligations that are associated with a number of departments under Commonwealth administration. Therefore, it is difficult to assess the expense involved in the various departments. While the committee was discussing the Estimates for the AttorneyGeneral’s Department, I noticed that that department was responsible for charges for other departments. The Department of Works appears to carry out a similar function.For that reason, it is difficult to assess where the expenditure of one department ends and that of another begins. When the next Estimates are brought down, it, should be made clear that the items are to be charged to the responsible departments so that honorable senators may gain a clear picture of the proposed votes and a correct estimate of the expenditure of each department. That should apply, in particular, to the Woomera project. There is no proper procedure to indicate whether allocations are used by particular departments or projects. The Public Accounts Committee made reference in its report to equipment at Woomera that it considered to be open to question. As Senator Benn has suggested, the quite serious discrepancies which have been reported should not have occurred because such occurrences reduce the confidence of the public in departments. I believe that this department should put its house in order so as to gain the greater confidence of the people of Australia.Very serious criticism has been made of the Department of Works. I am not satisfied that this department has carried out its functions efficiently. Many departments should carry out their work more efficiently and economically than they do, and thereby save the taxpayer a considerable amount of money.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

, - I should like the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) to inr form the Senate of themethod of operation that is used within the Department of National Development and the Department of Works. There are many efficient and honest officers in the Department of National Development and the Department of Works who desire to serve the country well.From the manner in which the Estimates of the Department of Works have been presented to the Senate it is - almost impossible to ascertain on what objects the amount of money that has been requested will be spent. The annual report of the Auditor-General is of . valuable assistance to honorable senators in considering the Estimates. The Public Accounts Committee has also made caustic comments in regard to certain items in the Estimates of the Department of Works. I should like the Minister for National Development to tell the Senate who, in the final analysis, approves the expenditure of the vast sums of money that this Parliament is called upon to appropriate, usually in its dying hours. I believe that the method that has been adopted in presenting the Estimates to this Parliament has been responsible for the circumstances which have been the subject of adverse comment by the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee. Those comments could apply to other departments as well as the Department of Works.

The Senate is to be congratulated upon the fact that it has spent some days in examining these Estimates. This procedure contrasts with the way that the Estimates were dealt with in another place. The Government itself must take some responsibility for the discrepancies that have been discovered in the various departments and for which satisfactory explanations have not been tendered to this Parliament. Members of Parliament have been told that they control the purse strings of the nation. What happened in another place? ‘ The debate on the Estimates was guillotined. What opportunity did honorable members there have to examine the various items under consideration ? Apparently the Government restricted, the debate in order to hide the deficiencies of departments. It wished to conceal them from the Parliament until next year when the Auditor-General will again report that certain matters were hidden from the view of the Parliament.

Senator Critchley:

– A new government will be in office next year.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– If a new government is in office next year I hope that the method of presenting these accounts to the Parliament will have been changed. Honorable senators should be given some idea of how the amounts set out in the Estimates are to be spent. Division 68 provides for salaries and allowances, £1,560,000 and for temporary and casual employees, £2,311,000. Where can honorable senators find particulars of that expenditure? In order that honorable senators may know how this money is to be spent these Estimates should be presented in a more efficient manner. I feel sure that some of the officers of the department will be very pleased when the Estimates have been passed. Some of them will be relieved that they did not receive the special attention of the Parliament. That attitude should not exist in our Public Service. There should be no suspicion that officers are acting improperly. It is the system that has brought about any laxity’ that exists. No public accounts committee has functioned for a number of years. Now that one has been appointed it has stirred up a hornet’s nest. That committee will be of assistance to the Auditor-General.

Senator Gorton:

– That will be all to the good.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– It will be all to the good if it results in an alteration in the method of presenting these accounts to the Parliament so that the Estimates will be dealt with more expeditiously and more carefully. One of the first matters that attracted my attention when I entered this Senate as a member of the Opposition was the manner in which millions of pounds were passed for payment without query. The position has improved in recent years but we are returning to the bad old days. I suggest that the criticism that has been directed at the Department of National Development and the Department of Works has been due mainly to the manner in which the Estimates have been rushed through the Parliament.

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

– I think that it might be fairly said that the Estimates of the Department of Works should be examined against the back-ground of the department’s total expenditure. In the financial year 1950-51 the vote for works expenditure was £37,000,000, in 1951-52 it was £49,000,000 and in 1.952-53 it was £43,000,000. In the immediate post-war years the departmental expenditure on works was about £8,000,000 a year. In other words, the expand ing works programme which has been largely due to work for the defence forces, has placed a heavy burden on the department. The department has had great difficulty in coping with this work because of the lack of competent, experienced staff in many of its spheres of activity.

I am sorry that I have to say to Senator O’Flaherty and SenatorCritchley that this is not the appropriate place in which to discuss the subject of war service homes in South Australia. Those honorable senators will have anopportunity to discuss that matter when the Estimates for war service homes are under consideration.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– I want to know what these officers do for the War Service Homes Division.

Senator SPOONER:

– I am informed that they only carry out duties for the War Service Homes Division in the Australian Capital Territory. A separate staff deals with war service homes in South Australia.

Senator Marriott referred to the purchase of office machines for £50,000. The purchase of those machines represents a part of a programme which is designed to perform more accounting functions by machines. The figure of £291,000 in relation to motor vehicles represents not only the amount paid to the Department of Supply but also the cost of maintenance of motor transport in areas nol; served by the central transport authority such as country districts, the Northern Territory, Papua and New Guinea. Wherever possible, the cost of heavy transport is charged to the actual project upon which it is employed.

Various matters that were raised by the Auditor-General have been mentioned by a number of honorable senators and, if the Senate does not mind, I shall give the comments that I have as they fall in logical sequence. The reply of the department to the criticism, of the AuditorGeneral concerning the control of labour and materials on projects is that during the financial year under reference the tempo of constructional activity, coupled with the shortage of technical officers in the four branches of the department in the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory, has presented considerable difficulty insofar as the preparation of estimates on a quantity basis is concerned. However, to achieve an effective measure of control over materials used on projects, appropriate instructions have been issued for the preparation of such estimates, in which respect it is not anticipated that any serious control problems will arise in the future. In the case of Woomera, which, in effect,’ is one project, the apportionment of costs over individual buildings, however desirable, would not reflect true costs, unless accurate detailed costing at extra administrative expense had been undertaken, and in the circumstances, the usefulness of any result achieved would not have justified such additional expense. The departmental comment on stores is that whereas, owing to the shortage of staff, stocktaking in the Australian Capital Territory has been in arrears, considerable progress has now been made. With the full implementation of the quantitative reconciliation, it is not expected that any further difficulties will be experienced because, in addition to building materials and the like, a complete check of hostel equipment has been carried out, and regular physical counts are now in progress in conformity with the requirements of the Treasury.

I come now to hostels and day-labour camps. In the Australian Capital Territory, an economic tariff is now being charged, and this has produced a favorable trading result. Discrepancies at previous stocktakings have been submitted to competent authority for concurrence in adjustment. The 1953 stocktaking has been completed. Losses resulting from the conduct of camps and hostels in the Northern Territory are due to the fact that employees are charged a tariff which is less than operating costs. To recoup this loss, an on-cost is charged to projects, and an amount is provided in parliamentary appropriation to cover the excess cost in respect of employees of other departments residing at staff hostels. Daylabour employees are being charged the maximum tariff allowed under the award, which is less than the operating cost. In the Territory of Papua and New Guinea the policy of the department has been to keep the tariff low in order to induce labour to accept employment there. The tariff is lass than the operating cost, and the excess cost is charged proportionately to projects. I have a further note on Woomera which states that another meeting of representati ves of the departments concerned was held on the 30th July, 1953. The information required from the Department of Works has been supplied, and the report has now been submitted to the Minister. The discrepancies were caused to some degree by large quantities of stores arriving at Woomera before accommodation was provided to store them or to record them. That was due to the rush nature of the project and other circumstances not entirely under the department’s control. Every possible effort was made to recruit suitable staff, but without success, due mainly to the location of, and living conditions at, the project. In 1948, the Department of Works recognized the staffing difficulty at Woomera and made a submission to Cabinet. Cabinet approved the proposal that, if necessary, staff should be transferred to the project from other departments. However, the Public Service Board advised that because of the then existing staff position in other departments, and because of housing difficulties, compulsory temporary transfers presented difficulties. The board stated, however, that it would do everything it could to assist the department in developing the project. The Department of “Works was not at the time in a position to direct experienced employees to Woomera, and, in the main, was obliged to staff the project with employees who lacked proved experience.

I have answered Senator Benn’s point about stores at Woomera and losses on hostels. Senator Seward raised the question of plan printing, for which £36,450 is being provided this year. The explanation is that due to the execution of more work by contract rather than by day labour, increased provision has had to be made for plan printing. I regret that that is all the information I have on that point. Senator Seward asked why Ministers should not introduce -the Estimates for their departments with explanatory speeches. I am not able to comment on that proposal. It is a matter for the individual Ministers concerned. Senator Seward also referred to repairs and maintenance. That is a difficult situation. The Department of Works is the contracting department for all the other departments. Division 69, under which £800,000 is being provided, is, in effect, the grouping of all repairs and maintenance, as distinct from capital works, which the Department of Works carries out for the other departments. I have brief notes outlining the work involved in respect of each department, but even those brief notes cover some pages and I do not think I should read them all to the Senate. However, if a question is asked about any one of the departments individually, 1 shall be prepared to make available the information that I have been given. For instance, comment has been made about the provision of £218,000 for immigration work. This item covers the maintenance of reception centres in the various cities established for the accommodation of immigrants. That illustrates the difficulty of dealing with the Estimates of this department. To get that item of £218,000 in its proper perspective, one would have to know the size, type and location of the immigration hostels throughout Australia which are under the control of the Department of Immigration. I confess that I am unable to present a complete picture to the committee.

Senator Arnold raised the question of the fire alarm system in this building. I am happy to bear glad tidings in that connexion. The work involved necessitates the provision by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department of an alarm line to the fire station. That line has now been provided and all that is now required is the connexion by the fire brigade. An officer of the fire brigade is at present arranging with the House engineer for the connexion of the alarm. I have no explanation of the delay which allegedly has occurred. I regret that when this matter was being discussed by the Senate, I was not able to be present all the time and therefore I have not a clear picture in my mind.

Senator Wright mentioned first the immigration matter with which I have dealt, and secondly losses on hostels. I have no answer to the criticism of the Auditor-General that the losses were hidden. I can only repeat that the losses were in the main due to the fact that the tariffs charged were below operating costs. That was done, as I have explained, to attract staffs to the districts in which the works projects were situated.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:
QUEENSLAND

-Order ! The Minister’s time has expired.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– I am very dissatisfied with the Minister’s reply about the work done by the Department of Works for the War Service Homes Division. He said that the £12,000 provided in the Estimates would be used in Canberra for the War Service Homes Division; but the fact remains that there is a branch of the Department of Works in Adelaide, too, and quite a number of people are employed in it. Apparently from time to time they do some work for the War Service Homes Division. I should like to know the nature of the work that the Department of Works performs for the War Service Homes Division. There has been gross neglect of duty somewhere. The War Service Homes Division states in a report which. I have in my possession that the building of homes was carried out for the Department of “Works by contract. The report states also that some field tests were made. I should like to know whether the Department of Works carries out any field tests such as the testing of soils, whether it carries out inspections for the War Service Homes Division, and whether it has at any time done work of that kind in Adelaide. Surely, the War Service Homes Division would not state in a printed report to the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley) that the Department of Works carried out certain work on a contract basis if that were not so. It is stated that contracts were let to Moore & Sons through the Department of Works. The Department of Works cannot absolve itself of all responsibility. I am trying to lay the responsibility where it rightly belongs. I should like the Minister to give me some definite information on this matter.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– The form of this debate is, I consider, a matter of great importance. This afternoon references were made to a report of the Public Accounts Committee. The debate claimed our attention because of the extremely valuable work the committee is performing so energetically. However, our interest was excited mainly because the committee is new. Ever since the Audit Act was passed, the Parliament has been most fortunate in having before it each year the annual report of the Auditor-General of the Commonwealth. In the last two or three years, the Parliament has been even more fortunate because the report of the Auditor-General has been submitted to the Parliament before consideration has been given to the Estimates. To my mind, the Minister in charge of the department concerned should present to the committee ‘ an explanation of every adverse comment contained in the AuditorGeneral’s report. The question of the relationship between the departments and the Parliament is most important. Submissions should not be made in this chamber in such a way that our consideration and possible criticism of them will be diverted to criticism of the personnel of a department. In this chamber, the

Minister is the department, and notes, if read, are the statements of the. Minister. I raise this matter because a Minister directly and personally assumed responsibility for criticism this afternoon. If the committee is to discharge its function properly, it is most important that it should have statements from. Ministers who are members of this chamber, as their statements on matters for which they accept complete responsibility. There should be no submissions which may’ evoke from us criticism of officers outside the Parliament who are not here to rebut such criticism. I believe that a proper appreciation of these matters will help us to discharge the functions of Parliament in relation to the Estimates much more efficiently and satisfactorily from the point of view of the Government, the departments concerned and also the people.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I wish to refer to a statement made to-day by the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) in relation to certain deficiencies and lack of efficiency at Woomera. I understood him to say that efficiency had not been achieved in some instances because it would be too expensive to have a staff to check the deficiencies that exist. I should like to know whether the Minister agrees that one pays dearly for inefficiency. I should also like the Minister to assure the committee that government property at Woomera will be properly protected and that the necessary facilities for affording such protection will be made available.

I wish now to refer to Division 69, which deals with repairs and maintenance. Honorable senators will notice that although the vote in respect of repairs and maintenance for the Parliament last year was £20,000, only £8,680 was expended. To my mind, that indicates either that the Department of Works is very much behind with such work or that it provided for £20,000 worth of work to be carried out, but saw fit to carry out only £8,680 worth. Despite the fact that last year expenditure was low compared with the amount voted by the Parliament, the proposed vote for this year is £22,000. I should tike to know the reason for the difference between expenditure last year and the proposed vote this year. Does it mean that the department proposes to catch up on work which has been delayed?

I also wish to refer to item 8 of Division 69, which relates to repairs and maintenance for the Department of Works, the proposed vote for which is £37,000 and which last year was £65,000. Expenditure in this connexion last year was £37,053. I wish to know why the expenditure did not equal the amount voted.

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

– In replying to the matter raised by Senator Cooke, I point out that the proposed vote of £22,000 for repairs and maintenance in connexion with the Parliament refers to repairs to the roof of this building which it was expected would be carried out last year. However, it was found impracticable to do so, and they will be commenced either late this year or early next year. I am afraid that I cannot reply off-hand to the honorable senator’s query concerning the Department of Works, but I shall obtain the information which he desires and supply it to him during the course of the evening.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Departmentof Civil Aviation.

Proposed vote, £10,858,000.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

– I agree with Senator Wright that the committee should be grateful to the Auditor-General for having furnished his report in sufficient time to allow honorable senators to dis- cuss it at the same time as the Estimates are being debated. On page 40, paragraph 60, of his report, the AuditorGeneral refers to air route charges in the following terms : -

Under the Air Navigation (Charges) Art which came into operation on16th December, 1952, the scale of air route charges was reduced toone-half of that previously in force. Most operators are paying current charges. At 30th June, 1953, the indebtedness of air line operators to the Department for these services totalled £467.683. being £72,031 for 1952-53 and £395,652 for previous periods.

It seems to me that payment of those charges has been long delayed. Can the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) inform, the committee by whom those payments are due and the possibility of payment in the near future ? I point out that the Auditor-General is also critical of the Department of Civil Aviation in relation to its store accounting methods and register of fixed assets.

I should also like the Minister to inform the committee of the position in relation to the construction of the West Beach aerodrome. I am sure that he, in common with other honorable senators from South Australia, is vitally interested in that work, which has been dragging on for a long time. I am unable to understand the reason for the delay. Honorable senators who have endeavoured to ascertain the reason have been unable to secure satisfactory information.

Senator MAHER:
Queensland

– I should like the Minister to comment, as a matter of Government policy, upon the assistance Which the Commonwealth is giving to local authorities to enable them to construct all-weather air strips in the rural districts of Australia. I refer particularly, of course, to the State of Queensland, where the people are very air-minded.

Senator McLeay:

– I rise to order. I point out that the matters referred to by Senator Critchley and Senator Maher should be discussed when the Appropriation (Works and Services) Bill is being discussed. 1 suggest that since these matters involve capital expenditure it will be more convenient if they are dealt with then.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

– The point of order is upheld.

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

– As this is a very important department, I have arranged with the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr. Anthony) for a brief summary of the proposed expenditure of the department to be prepared. I suggest that if I refer to that summary it may save time in answering questions. Naturally, the summary is not as comprehensive as I should like it to be, but having regard to the magnitude of the functions covered by the various sections of the department, honorable senators will appreciate that it deals with the main points.

Excluding expenditure on capital works, the costs of the Department of Civil Aviation amount to approximately £11,000,000 per annum. Although that is a very large sum of money, it must be remembered that approximately £3,700,000 is accounted for by payments for mail services, of which £3,200,000 is recouped by the air-mail surcharge which is not credited against the expenditure of the department. Thus, of the £3,700,000 involved in the provision of air-mail services, the Commonwealth has to meet only approximately £500,000. Of course, those refunds are not shown in this appropriation bill. In addition, approximately £4,500,000 is expended on account of services such as maintenance and operation of aerodromes, navigational aids, and the provision of air traffic control offices. That expenditure includes, for example, £300,000 in respect of meteorological services, which is credited to the Department of the Interior. It also includes £200,000 for the maintenance of fire-fighting services at all principal aerodromes. Fortunately, those services have not been called out, except for minor mishaps, during the last two years. It must also be remembered that the airline companies pay to ‘ the Commonwealth, by way of petrol tax, approximately £1,500,000 a year, which amount is not shown in the accounts of the department. The department also collects air-route charges from the airlines. This Government reduced by 50 per cent. the air-route charges that were imposed by a previous government, but the airline companies still pay in air-route charges approximately £300,000 a year to the revenues of the Commonwealth. The department also provides £130,000 a year for the encouragement of flying and for subsidies to gliding clubs. Aero clubs provide a reserve of young men who, in the event of war, possess at least the preliminary training to fit them for a flying career. r

In reply to Senator Critchley, I point out that a dispute arose over air-route charges and for a period litigation was pending in respect of that dispute. The Government took into consideration the fact that the companies concerned had ‘ paid £1,500,000 in tax on aviation gasoline and the fact that the price of that fuel had been substantially increased. After considering other relevant factors, the Government decided to reduce the airroute charges by 50 per cent. Having regard to the magnitude of the amount outstanding, it agreed that those amounts should be paid during the current financial year. Since that arrangement was made, the companies concerned have paid current air-route charges, and they will pay the arrears during this financial year.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I refer to domestic air services in respect of which an amount of £997,000 is being provided. The amount of £1,420,000 voted in respect of this division last year included an amount of £430,000 as a refund of airroute charges. Certain airways companies appear to be diffident about paying such charges. Has the department considered inaugurating a system similar to that adopted by many State departments under which amounts owed to the Government for -services rendered to contractors are deducted from amounts due to them by the Government?

Senator McLeay:

-; - The amount of £430,000 mentioned by the honorable senator was a refund of air-route charges to companies which had made overpayments.

Senator COOKE:

– I suggest that when a contractor owes money to the Government in respect of the provision of facilities, the Government should collect payment in contra by deductions from the contractor’s account.

Senator HENTY:
Tasmania

. - -With respect to amounts owing to* the Government for air-route charges, I ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that the previous Government attempted to levy charges in respect of landing grounds which those companies held on lease which did not expire until 1951, and, consequently, the Government was obliged to wipe off such charges because it realized that its claim would not stand the test of litigation?

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

.- I should like the Minister to give details of the proposed vote of £14,400 in respect of staff training under Division 71 - Maintenance and operations of civil aviation facilities. “Will he indicate what type of training is involved? I should also like to know whether the item “ Conveyance of mails - payments to contractors “ in respect of domestic air services is a selfbalancing item. Is the amount recouped from the Postal Department?

Senator McLeay:

– That is so. That amount applies to two companies in Western Australia and is recovered through the Postal Department.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

.- The Minister did not reply to Senator Critchley, who asked for details of the amount of £329,625 owed by companies in respect of air-route charges prior to July, 1952. That honorable senator asked the Minister to indicate the companies that owed portions of that amount. Last year, the expenditure in respect of the conveyance of mails by domestic air services amounted to £834,917. Can the Minister supply details of the companies to which that money was paid?

Senator MAHER:
Queensland

. I should like to ascertain whether the estimated expenditure of £2,681,000 reflects the complete picture in respect of international air services. For example, in respect of the Australia-United Kingdom service the estimated cost for the conveyance of mails is £1,883,000. Is that a legitimate charge against the Department of Civil Aviation? Should it not more properly be shown as a debit against the Postal Department as the expenditure relates to the conveyance of mails and not in any way to managerial expenditure incurred by the Department of Civil Aviation? Most of the amounts proposed in respect of international air services relate to the conveyance of mails. Having regard to the magnitude of the sums involved, I should like to have the Minister’s comments on the point that I have raised.

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

– The amount to which Senator Cooke referred was recouped by the department. I have not the details at hand, but I shall supply them later. The amount of £997,000 represents payments to about thirteen companies which operate throughout Australia.

Senator McKenna:

– Can the Minister indicate the amounts that were paid to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and Trans- Australia Airlines?

Senator McLEAY:

– The sum of £.1 99,199 was paid to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and the sums of £231,542 and £85,497 were paid to Trans- Australia Airlines in respect of the conveyance of mails and the development of air services, respectively. The largest proportion of the amount that is owing by the various companies which, by arrangement, are to pay it during the current financial year, is owing by the largest operator, which is Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. Smaller amounts are owing by about seventeen companies. A question dealing with this matter appears on the noticepaper, and the detailed information will be made available in reply to that question as soon as possible.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of Trade and Customs.

Proposed vote, £3,370,000.

Senator HENTY:
Tasmania

– I direct the attention of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) to a racket in food parcels that has developed in Australia during the last twelve months, and I urge him to take appropriate action in the matter. I refer to action that has been taken recently by countries behind the Iron Curtain whose representatives in Australia, have refused to deliver, except on their own terms, food parcels despatched by new Australians to relatives in those countries. Previously, such persons were able to send food parcels consisting of Australian foodstuffs to their relatives overseas, but that practice has been stopped by certain action which was taken by representatives of Communist governments which have opened agencies in Australia, and which now collect payment in cash from new Australians and effect delivery of food parcels from stores that are held in countries behind the Iron Curtain. I propose to give details which I believe should be in the possession of the Minister. There is an agency of the Hungarian Government known as I.K.K.A., which is represented in Australia by Z. P. Oseti, whose address is Box 5270, General Post Office, Sydney ; O.P.T.O., whose address is 430 Bourkestreet, Melbourne, and B. Batho, whose address is Box 1620m, General Post Office, Adelaide. The Adelaide agency makes provision for food parcels of three types known as the pleasure parcel, the peggy parcel and the spring parcel. Whereas the goods contained in the pleasure parcel can be purchased at any retail store in Australia for 20s. 10½d., the Hungarian Government’s agency charges new Australians the sum of £4 16s. for it. The peggy parcel can be bought at any store in Australia for 17s. 5d., but the price charged by this agency to new Aus-‘ tralians is £5 10s. The contents of the spring parcel can be purchased at any store locally in Australia for £2 16s. 9d.. but the price charged by this agency to new Australians is £9 15s. In computing the local price for the contents of the spring parcel, the sum of 25s. has been allowed for the item “ one bottle of drink” included in that parcel on the assumption that the bottle is a bottle of good Australian whisky. The pleasure parcel contains 1 lb. of cocoa, 3 tins of sardines, 2 lb. of biscuits and 4½ lb. of sugar. If a new Australian forwards the sum of £4 16s. for that parcel to the agency of the Hungarian Government in Sydney, Melbourne, or Adelaide, those goods will be delivered to his, or her, relatives who live behind the Iron Curtain. This practice is iniquitous andcalls for immediate investigation. Another agency, which is known as Darex, is a Czech oslovakian agency, which is represented in Australia by the Swallow Trading Company, of 19 Allen-road, Unley, South Australia, its postal address being Box 1757n, General Post Office, Adelaide. The parcel supplied by that agency consists of 2 lb. of coffee, 2 lb. of chocolate. 1 lb. of cocoa,½ lb. of tea and 2 lb. of rice. Whereas those goods can be pur- chased at any store in Australia for £1 17s. 7d., that agency charges £4 2s. to new Australians. A second parcel, supplied by the Darex agency, consists of 9 cakes of toilet soap and 6½ lb. of washing soap. The local price of those goods is 14s. 2d., but the Darex agency charges £2 16s. A third parcel supplied by the same agency consists of 4½ lb. of green, coffee, 2 lb. of chocolate, 11 lb. of rice, 11 lb. of sugar and 4½ lb. of lard. Whereas the local price of such goods is £3 12s. 5d., that agency charges £9 7s. to new Australians. Single items supplied through the Darex agency include 11 lb. of sugar, for which that agency charges £1 10s., whereas the local price is8s. 3d. and 1 lb. of tea, which can be bought in Australia for 4s.8d. is sold for £111s. The firm charges £6 for 33 lb. of rice, which can be bought in Australia for £1 13s. I have directed the attention of the Minister to this matter because I consider that a great deal of this money is not being applied to the purchase of goods included in the parcels. Much of the money is being used by the Communist partyto disseminate the Communist doctrine throughout Australia, I consider that this is a genuine case of exploitation, and that this racket should be exposed and stopped. I urge the Minister to investigate fully the activities of these agencies.

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

– Senator Henty was kind enough to inform me that he intended to raise this matter during the consideration of the proposed vote for my department. However, I do not think that he has made the position clear. Communist associations in Australia canvass and. advertise to persuade sympathetic or gullible people to give them money. No goods at all pass from Australia to the people overseas. As the honorable senator has stated,’ the money is used for such purposes as the collectors see fit. What actually happens is that some parcels, which are worth only a fraction of the money that these people are gulled into paying, are sent from, a source overseas to people overseas. I do not see how the Australian Government can do much about that. In the absence of direct and easily proved fraud, it is very difficult to protect a fool from his folly. Perhaps we could bring to the notice of people who are being gulled, by advertisements or otherwise, that if they acquire food parcels from reputable traders, at reasonable prices,they will not experience any difficulty in obtainingthe consent and approval of the Australian Government to send them to people overseas. In fact, that is done quite often. Of course some of those people may have found that this is a. convenient way to send money to their relatives overseas. Even if there were an allegation of fraud, the matter would be one for attention by State police. The only way in which we could help the people who are being deceived - if, in fact, they are being deceived - would be to publish widely our beliefs in the matter.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

– I wish to raise a matter in connexion with the proposed vote for film censorship, under Division No. 79. Year after year, during consideration, of the proposed vote for the Department of Trade and Customs, I have directed the attention of successive Ministers to the continued exhibition of unsavoury films and the sale of undesirable books and comics in this country. I know that the. present Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) has definite views about this matter. He pointed out recently that undesirable literature enters Australia with letters addressed to private persons. Of course obscene literature can be printed in Australia, and I realize that the suppression of this activity is somewhat difficult. I am greatly perturbed about the continuance and “expansion of this scourge in Australia. I do not know of a single instance in which the publisher or seller of unsavoury books and comic strips has been prosecuted. This subject has been discussed in the South Australian Parliament, and in several other States parliaments, but they have all attempted to pass the buck to the Commonwealth. The Minister stated that there is a. State as well as Commonwealth responsibility in this matter.

Senator Kendall:

– I understand that the Queensland Parliament is legislating to curb the practice.

Senator CRITCHLEY:

– I am grateful to Senator Kendall, a back bencher, for informing me that at last one State parliament is taking action in the matter. I am greatly concerned about the number of unsavoury books and comic strips that are circulating in the community. At theRoyal Adelaide Show, which was held a few weeks ago, samples of goods were displayed in buckets and cardboard containers, which were decorated in such a manner as to catch the eye of young children. In each container there was a comic strip of the kind that I have mentioned.

Senator Scott:

– The matter raised by the honorable senator has no relation to film censorship.

SenatorCRITCHLEY . -Division 79 is the only division of the proposed vote for the Department of Trade and Customs under which this matter can be raised.

SenatorO’Sullivan - It does not come under film, censorship-.

SenatorCRITCHLEY.- Surely if . 1. urn out; of order either the Chairman or the . Minister should inform me when the matter maybe raised. It is not the prerogative of a back-bencher to tell a senator who is on his feet that he is out of order. I know that this is a difficult matter for any government to handle, but the Minister . should be able to devise some means of overcoming the difficulty. Any one can handle easy problems. I. am sure that every member of this chamber realizes that the continued distribution of filthy literature is undermining the morals of the community. Parents, andleaders of bodies which are attempting to raise the standard of morality in this country, art; very disturbed about the influence that kind ofliterature thatI have mentioned is having on the minds of the children. I hope that the Minister will be able to take steps to . stem the tide of filthy publications in this country.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

. -I support the remarks that have been made by Senator Critchley. I consider that this mattercan be discussed, not. only under the item “Fees to members of Censorship Board and Appeal Censor “, but also under “Film Censorship. If the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) were to refer to picture theatre advertisements in to-day’s metropolitan daily newspapers, he would be amazed- at the number of films that bear salacious and wanton titles, apparently intended to induce the public to pay to view them. I took the trouble recently to compile a list of twenty films that are currently being exhibited in the capital cities. At least sixteen of them were unfit to be viewed by children under the age of sixteen years. I consider, also, that many of them were unfit for children over the age of sixteen years, and for that matter for many adults, who are being afforded very little choice in the matter of the standard of film entertainment in their leisure hours. By and large, the standard of motion pictures has deteriorated considerably during the last few years. I realize that once a book has been banned by the censor its sale value is immediately enhanced. However, that does not relieve the Government of an obligation to ensure that a decent standard of literature and films shall be maintained in the community. During the debate on the proposed vote for the Department of Trade and Customs last year I directed the attention of the Minister to the volume of undesirable comics in the community, and I produced samples of them to support my remarks. Subsequently, I received a letter from the agency that was engaged in distributing the comics throughout Australia. The proprietors were at great pains to assure me that they did not print the comics, but only distributed them. I thought that that made their part in the matter even worse, because they were really acting as middle men. Since that time, many types of sensational comics, which have a bad effect not only upon the minds of children but also upon the minds of adolescents and less mature adults, have been distributed in the community. In view of the fact that an expenditure of dollars is involved in the importation of undesirable comic strips from countries overseas, I consider that the department should interest itself actively in this matter.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Dollars are not provided for the purpose.

Senator TANGNEY:

– Then I do not know how they are obtained. Many of them come from dollar countries.

SenatorWedgwood. - And many are printed in Australia.

Senator TANGNEY:

– There must be some means of seeing that these things are kept to a minimum. The money that is spent in producing and distributing them could be applied to better advantage. I should like to see better types of comics produced for children. I realize that we will never get rid of comics in the community - I am not referring to the human comics - because some of them are quite good. Children must be provided with suitable literature, andI must say that there, are some very excellent comics on the market, but their price is high compared with the price of undesirable literature that is getting into the hands of the children of this country. I consider that the Government should take action to encourage the provision of decent literature for children. Today, the reading undertaken by many children is confined to comic strips. This is an indictment of our education system.

Senator Wedgwood:

– It is more of an indictment of the parents.

Senator TANGNEY:

– Of course, this matter goes back some years. I believe that it is an indictment of our education system down the years, if we cannot provide for the younger members of the community a. decent standard of literature. I should like the Minister to assure the committee that he will take action to prevent the unlimited entry into this country of films of a standard definitely not in the interests of the Australian community.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I refer to the proposed vote of £17,400 under Division 80, for salaries and allowances of the staff of the Prices Branch, and the proposed vote of £2,200 for general expenses, making a total provision of £19,600. Apparently the office of prices consultant, which involved an expenditure of £2,850 in the last financial year, has been abolished, because no provision has been made for salary in this connexion in this financial year. Apparently that is in accordance with the Government’s policy. Provision is to be made for one Controller of Prices at a salary of £1,502, and for ten other persons, the same number as last year. They include a Deputy Controller and nine clerks who will be paid £9,938, and six assistants and typists who will receive £3,869. Various allowances bring the total to £17,559. I hope that the Minister will inform the committee of the function of the branch and its staff. The history of the Australian Government in connexion with prices is completely clear. The Government parties, when in opposition, advised the people in 194S to vote against federal prices controls, and have stood fast against the Parliament exercising any authority in that field. Honorable senators will remember that in 1950, when the Labour majority in this chamber sought to pass a bill to ensure to the Commonwealth Parliament .control over prices, the Government ignored the bill of the Senate and did nothing about it. The Government at least is consistent in that now, after three years, it has decided not to defray the expenses of the States for prices control and has made a general claim that it took that amount into consideration in making the tax reimbursements to the States this year. It must come as a surprise, therefore, to discover that a staff of the size that I have mentioned, is to be maintained by the Department of Trade and Customs. The number of persons employed may appear to be small, but I ask the Minister to inform the committee of the duties of the seventeen persons concerned and whether temporary public servants are included in the staff. What function does the Prices Branch exercise that enables it to maintain a staff of that size?

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

.- I shall refer first to the statements that have been made by Senator Critchley and Senator Tangney with regard to undesirable publications that are unfortunately exhibited, for sale. I do not want to appear to underestimate the importance of the statements that have been made by the honorable senators nor shall I attempt to escape any responsibility. I have a keen desire to see the evil removed, particularly from the reach of young persons, but I repeat the statement that I have made previously that the Australian Government does all that is physically possible for it to do in that direction. If undesirable literature is detected entering the country, it, is confiscated and destroyed. If it is smuggled into Australia, the problem becomes more difficult. Frequently it is included in private mail and sometimes in the form of films, and it is then reproduced in Australia. Once that happens, the Australian Government has no power or authority to take any action.

I have said before, and I repeat, that it would be comparatively simple for the State police in each State as they walk down the footpaths marking motor cars, to turn to the shop windows and inspect the undesirable literature that is exhibited. When it is detected, the proper action could be taken by the police. Prosecutions have taken place, and’ if all who are interested used their persuasive powers with the State authorities, more action could be taken under existing State legislation. The Premier of Queensland, Mr. Gair, made a public statement upon the matter recently and I commend his views. If the other States took the action that he proposes to take, more drastic steps could be taken to eradicate this evil with the co-operation of the Australian Government.

Senator Tangney:

– What is done about undesirable films ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– The censorship of films is extremely strict. All films entering Australia that come under the notice of the Commonwealth authorities are strictly censored. If they are smuggled, it is difficult to deal with them, but I believe that very few enter the country in that way and fewer still are publicly exhibited. If it can be established that they have been imported, steps can be taken to control their exhibition. Some of the States have handed the rights of censorship to the Commonwealth authorities.

Senator Critchley:

– In a. newspaper in my possession, 33 films are advertised for display in suburban theatres and twenty of them are marked as not suitable for general exhibition. Who is responsible for permitting them to be shown?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Some of the States have delegated film censorship authority to the Australian Government, and the censors determine the films that ure suitable for adults and children.

Senator Tangney:

– Children are still permitted to attend the theatres on all occasions.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– That is a matter that should be policed by the State authorities. Some of the States have given the Australian Government the right to determine the standard of the films to be shown. Others control the censorship themselves. The responsibility of determining whether the censorship is observed or not goes back to the States.

Senator Sandford:

– Am I to understand that if the States take action regarding indecent literature, the Australian Government would be prepared to co-operate with them?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– The Australian Government is doing all that it can do with the staff at its disposal to prohibit the importation of indecent literature. We do not censor private mail to determine if it contains contraband. I am sure that no honorable senator would suggest that we do so. The cure would be worse than the disease. I assure honorable senators, however, that the Australian Government will exercise all vigilance to prevent the importation of undesirable literature. Senator Tangney referred to dollar expenditure upon imported literature. I assure her that not one farthing’s worth of dollars is allowed for the importation of indecent literature.

Senator Tangney:

– The States have power to stop the sale?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– That is the simplest way. The importers of this literature know that if the officers of the Department of Trade and Customs get their hands upon it, such literature is confiscated at the wharf and destroyed. Sometimes it is enclosed in private mail or in single copies of newspapers, but it would be beyond the capacity of any staff that the department is likely to have to open all newspapers. Once the literature is exhibited for sale, I am sure that the existing State legislation gives the States authority and power to prosecute successfully. In one State, a mercer was prosecuted for exhibiting for sale a tie that the magistrate found to be indecent. The mercer was convicted and the tie was confiscated. I mention that to indicate that the power exists under State laws for police action to be taken when objects of indecency are exhibited for sale.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) questioned the functions, duties and responsibilities of the Commonwealth Prices Branch. So long as the States have continued prices controls, the Australian Government has maintained similar controls in its own sphere. At one time all prices control administration was in the charge of the Australian Government, and was administered by the Commonwealth. I was not a member of the Cabinet at the time. The Leader of the Opposition has asked why the Prices Branch has been continued. While the States maintain prices controls, it would be difficult for the Australian Government not to continue those controls in the territory that is directly under its administration. When prices controls were resumed by the States and abandoned by the Australian Government, the Commonwealth retained prices control in the areas impinging upon the States. The Commonwealth is responsible for prices control in the Australian Capital Territory, including Jervis Bay, and in the Northern Territory. How long that prices control will remain is a matter for conjecture, but I hope that it will not be for long.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I direct the attention of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) to Division 77, Administrative. Item 13 under that division proposes to provide £21.500 for uniforms for preventive staff. In 1952-53 provision was made in the Estimates for £12,500 for the. same purpose but there was no expenditure. It seems to be the practice in many Commonwealth departments that persons who are entitled to uniforms a.re not supplied with them. Is there a. contract for the manufacture of the uniforms? Why have they not been provided to the persons who are entitled to them ? As a, general rule, the failure to supply uniforms is a method of ‘ breaking down the general conditions of employees. Whether the supply of uniforms is incorporated in an industrial award or not. uniforms should be recognized as a part of working equipment. Many employees do not get them and their uniforms become frayed and dishevelled. Why has this matter been neglected? Apparently it received no attention in the last financial year.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Reid:

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

That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the negative.

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

. - Senator Cooke will probably be interested to know that the decision to provide uniforms for preventive staff was made without the exercise of any pressure from the men who are to wear the uniforms. The proposition was put to me as Minister by the ControllerGeneral of Trade and Customs, who thought that the provision of uniforms would be desirable not only to save wear and tear on the men’s clothes but also to enable preventive officers to be easily identified. However, the decision to spend the amount of money involved was not made in sufficient time to have the goods supplied and paid for during the last financial year.

Senator Cooke:

– The item was on the Estimates last year.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Yes. But although tenders were called for the supply of the uniforms during the last financial year they were not actually received and paid for in that year.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– I desire to direct the attention of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) to Division 78. “Tariff Board”, items A and B. An amount which is about £5,000 more than the vote for the last financial year has been proposed for the Tariff Board. Is that increase due entirely to the inflationary conditions that have occurred during the Government’s period of administration? I ask that question because it has been suggested that the Government would increase the number of tariff boards in order to cope with the work that has to be done. I should like to pay a tribute to the Tariff Board. Honorable senators who peruse the reports of the Tariff Board find them very helpful in considering the economy of the country and in determining their attitude towards industry. The Tariff Board has done very good work and I think that it enjoys the confidence of all sections of the community. .

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

– I am sure that the tribute of Senator Courtice will be appreciated by the Tariff Board because it has come from an honorable senator who, as a previous Minister for Trade and Customs, has had an intimate opportunity of observing the splendid work of the board. The reason for the increase in the expenditure of the board is partly the increase in wages which has occurred throughout the country and partly the increased number of applications that have been made to the board. These have necessitated an increase in the staff of the board in order to eliminate the delay which has unfortunately existed between the completion of hearings and the delivery of the findings of the board.

Senator Courtice:

– The increased expenditure is not due to an intended increase in the number of the boards?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– No. The Government has not drafted any legislation for the purpose of increasing the the number ofboards, although the honorable senator may have seen reports that the Government has decided to take that action.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– Division 77, item A “Salaries and Payments in the nature of Salary “ provides for the expenditure of £393,000 on temporary and casual employees and for the expenditure of £129.000 as extradutypay. The Senate has become accustomed to dealing with such items as this but these amounts are very large. It is only because the. committee has confidence in the consideration that the Minister has given to the items that it has been disposed toapproveof amounts of this magnitude. I have no doubt that this vote is due in no small measure to the shock that was given to the economy of the country last year by the necessary imposition of import restrictions. There was a time during which the Government was very anxious concerning the legal basis of those restrictions. However, a bill was passed by the Parliament this year which provided that import restrictions should be imposed by regulation instead of by ministerial directon. I should like information on the extentto which the power to impose restrictions by regulation has been employed. I should also appreciate information on whether or not it is the intention of the the Government to put honorable senators in possession of a comprehensive statement of the effect that has been achieved by import restrictions. The Minister might also make some prognosis on the future of this system and its continuance. I consider that it would ill-become honorable senators to accustom themselves to the acceptance of restrictions such as these. The subject of the restriction of imports should be considered by the Parliament from time to time.

Senator SEWARD:
Western Australia

– I should like the Minister for Trade -and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan ) to furnish an explanation of Division 77, item B “ General Expenses - No. 14. In,cidental and other expenditure, ?31,000.” That is about the fifth largest amount under the heading of General Expenses. It seems to be a large amount to cover incidentals. Could the Minister provide particulars of that expenditure?

Senator O’SULLIVAN (QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs) [11.10 J. - The figures to which Senator Seward refers have not been analysed in greater detail than appears in the bill.

Senator Wright has referred to the fact that special power to make regulations has been conferred on the Minister for Trade and Customs. That is purely a machinery matter, and has not altered in any way the practice that has operated in the past. I indicated, when the act was passed, that the purpose was really to set beyond all doubt the authority of the Minister to make regulations upon which the system of licensing was based. The passing of the legislation has not altered the original practice.

Senator Wright has also asked for a comprehensive statement on the operation of import controls, and the effect of them on the national economy. I have seen the Prime Minister (Mr.’ Menzies) about this matter. I was not aware that a further statement was to be made by the right honorable gentleman on this subject, and lie was not under the impression that he had given any indication to that effect. The relaxation of import restrictions from time to time has been accompanied by a statement by the Prime Minister on the effect of the restrictions up to that stage, and the reasons which, he considered, justified the modification of the restrictions. Such statements were made in January, April and July of this year, and a further survey of the posItIon was made shortly before the restrictions were eased as from the 1st October. Copies of those statements may be obtained from the press secretary to the Prime Minister. In. addition, a more detailed statement that I made a. few days after the Prime Minister made his general statement may be of interest to the honorable senator. If he will peruse those documents, he will see the general effect of the import restrictions on the economy and the trends which may give some indication of when the import restrictions may be completely removed. The Prime Minister pointed out, at the time the restrictions were introduced, that they were entirely of a temporary nature and would, be used in order to protect the exchange position and the economy, and that as our overseas reserves increased, the. necessity for the retention of the restrictions would disappear. Just when the restrictions will be lifted is not a matter of calendar but a matter of circumstances. The circumstances will be favorable ‘when the income from our export commodities is sufficient to pay for the goods that we wish to import.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– Senator Wright has raised an important matter relative to our fiscal policy and system of protecting industry. This was the first time in our history that a government prohibited imports on a large scale.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The honorable senator is wrong. The importation of goods was restricted at the time I became

Minister for Trade and Customs. A person had to obtain a licence before he could import many categories of goods.

Senator COURTICE:

– The Australian economy was in such a healthy condition when the Chifley Labour Government was in office that our overseas balances were between £700,000,000 and £800,000,000. I do not think that it is advisable to prohibit, by government action, the wholesale importation of goods. The Labour party has always set its face against such a policy. The prohibition of imports caused bad feeling in the United Kingdom. I am not discussing the wisdom or otherwise of the Government in restricting imports, but I point out that, unquestionably, such a policy was an innovation, and I share the hope expressed by Senator Wright that the need for similar action will not arise again. The import restrictions disturbed our relations with the United Kingdom, which had been extremely happy for many years.

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

– I should like to correct the misapprehension under which Senator Courtice appears to be labouring. I do not know whether I have misunderstood the honorable senator, but I am bound to inform him that the import restrictions imposed by this Government were not an innovation. When I became Minister for Trade and Customs, I inherited an elaborate system of import licensing, and I proceeded to modify it considerably.

Senator Courtice:

– Imports from the United Kingdom, were not restricted.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Not entirely. They were restricted to some degree.

Senator PEARSON:
South Australia

– I recall that some little time ago, an indication was given that the Government was considering the advisability of appointing another tariff board to assist the present Tariff Board to carry out its duties. I should like to know whether my recollection of the circumstances is correct or whether I have just imagined the whole thing. I also ask whether there is any real need to appoint a second tariff board, and whether the decision to do so indicates a considerable accumulation of applica tions that necessitate inquiry by the board. I wish to pass on to the Government a suggestion submitted to me by a most reputable source outside the Parliament that the Tariff Board itself would be greatly assisted in its deliberations if a panel of persons, distinct from the board and drawn from various sections of industry, was appointed to advise that body.

Senator Courtice:

– Does the honorable senator mean pressure groups?

Senator PEARSON:

– No.

Senator Courtice:

– They would become pressure groups.

Senator PEARSON:

– If Senator Courtice will wait to hear my suggestion, he will learn that I am not advocating anything of the kind. I suggest that the panel should consist of a number of persons each of whom has a specific knowledge of particular matters that come before the Tariff Board for investigation . and report. For instance, one member of the panel would have a wide knowledge of machinery and matters relating thereto. He would sit on the board during the investigation “ of an application relative to machinery, and his experience would be of great value to the board. When I make this suggestion, I do not reflect in any way on the work of the Tariff Board, because I know that it has rendered excellent service, but I firmly believe that my suggestion, if it were adopted, would be of great value. I suggest, in effect, that a pool of experts be established, nominated by the Minister, who could be called upon by the board from time to time. I do not know whether the Minister has examined such a suggestion, but if he has not done so, I hope that he will give it serious consideration.

Senator Benn:

– It would lead to racketeering.

Senator PEARSON:

– I believe that the suggestion has great merit.

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

. -The proposition that has been advanced by Senator Pearson is not entirely new. It has some merit, but it also has many difficulties. The Tariff Board is not intended to represent special interests in the community. Its members are men of broad experience who have a knowledge of all phases of our economy. They are familiar with the problems of the primary industries, secondary industries, the importer, the exporter, the wholesaler and the retailer, and are able to assess the representations that are made to them by the specialists that the honorable senator has in mind. It would possibly be dangerous to have as members of the Tariff Board men who were particularly interested in the outcome of applications with which the board has to deal. It is far better, I believe, that the board should consist of able and knowledgeablemen who are well informed about the affairs of many industries. We do not want special pleaders for any particular industry sitting in judgment on the claims of that industry. Any special pleading that is necessary should be made from the witness-box, and not from within the board itself. No legislation has been brought down yet to increase the membership of the Tariff Board, but the Government has expressed its intention to increase the number of members from four to seven. That will mean that two boards will be able to sit simultaneously.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department op Commerce and Agriculture.

Proposed vote.. £619,000.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– This is a very important department which is incurring substantial expenditure not only in Australia but also in other parts, of the world. The department maintains a commercial intelligence service overseas which is charged with the task of finding wider markets for Australian primary products. For that work the sum of £363,000 is being appropriated this year. Two other important instrumentalities of the department are the Division of Agricultural Economics, for which £98,000 is being appropriated and the Division of Agricultural Production, for which the proposed vote is £141,000. In spite of the activities of those branches, however, exports of some of our primary products are declining, and the production of certain commodities remains^ at a low level. High production costs in this country are de priving us of some of our overseas markets. I have in mind particularly the berry fruit-growers of Tasmania. In 1949-50 Australia exported 29,000 tons of processed berry fruits. In 1950-51, the production was 18,000 tons, but by 1951-52, it had dropped to 8,893 tons. That was a tremendous fall. If a further decline occurs, or even if exports are maintained at their present level, many berry fruit-growers will be forced out of production. They will be unable to maintain their orchards and if, at some future date, exporting again becomes profitable, either because of increased prices overseas or lower production costs, it will not be possible to bring the orchards back into production. This is a matter to which the attention of the Division of Agricultural Economics and the Division of Agricultural Production could well be directed. The decline of exports has been due to a. number of causes. Last year, provision was made under the vote for Miscellaneous Services for the payment of £100,000 to assist berry fruit-growers. No such provision has been made this year, in spite of the fact that the growers’ plight has become even worse. One factor which lias contributed to the pricing of Australian berry fruit products out of overseas markets is the increased price of sugar. In 1951, sugar cost £40 12s. 9d. a ton. To-day the price is £72 a ton. In addition, in the last four years, wages have increased by 72 per cent. In 1949. the wage was £7 .10s-. a week, whereas to-day it is £12 18s. a week. Freight charges between Hobart and Melbourne have increased by 477 per cent, since 1939. On the Hobart to Sydney run the increase has been 545 per cent., and on the Australia to the United Kingdom run,. 110 per cent. When we consider that the industry has been saddled with all those substantially increased costs, we realize why our export trade has dwindled. When the wheat-growers were faced with the prospect of being forced to- walk off their farms, the Australian Government came to their rescue. The Wool-growers, too, were saved from ruin by the intervention of the Australian Government.. During the war, apple and pear growers: were saved from disaster by the apple and pear acquisition scheme.

Stabilization schemes have’ been introduced for other primary products, including butter. I urge- that similar assistance be given to’ the berry-growers. Berry-growing in Tasmania is not a new industry. It has been in> existence for the last 100 years. It employs a lot of labour in the production of the raw material, the henry fruits1, and in manufacturing processes. That being so, T consider- that the Parlianient would not be doing justice to the primary producers engaged in the industry if it permitted them to be driven, from their farms.

Senator Pearson:

– I ask you to say, Mr. Chairman, whether Senator Aylett is in order in pursuing this, line of discussion. I point out, first, that the berry fruit industry is the subject of an item on. the notice-paper, and, secondly, that the honorable senator is discussing policy rather than administration.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Senator Aylett has gone rather wide of the mark. I have been lenient and have permitted him to wander a little from the items under consideration. I suggest that he should not pursue this line of discussion further.

Senator AYLETT:

– I shall- connect my remarks with the Estimates under consideration.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Or with Senator Wright’s motion.

Senator AYLETT:

– The Minister- for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) is referring to an item on the notice-paper that relates to a matter entirely different from the matter that I am raising to-night. It was placed on the noticepaper only for political- purposes. The proposed vote for the Division of Agricultural ‘Production this year is £41!,000. li assume that that money will be used to promote agriculture production in this country.. The proposed’ vote for the Division of Agricultural Economics this year is £98,000. I appeal to. the Government to use part of that sum. to save an industry that has been established in Australia for the last 1.00 years. The Division of Agricultural Production or the Division of Agricultural Economics should make a scientific investigation of the berry fruits industry. Their reports on the wool, wheat and dairying industries were of such a. nature that Liberal and

Labour governments came to the rescue of those industries. I ask that the berry fruit-growers be treated in a similar way. If the Division of Agricultural Economics or the Division of Agricultural Production made a survey of the berry fruits industry, there is no doubt that a recommendation would be made for a substantial grant by the Government to .save the industry from destruction. I hope the officers of those divisions will not devote all of their energies to experiments in the production of commodities not now being grown ki this country. Let us try to save primary industries already established in Australia, instead1 of looking for something else to grow. Let us save an established exporting industry, so that we shall he able to continue to export a commodity that we have been exporting for a long time. Prom the view-point of quality, our berry fruits compare favorably with berry fruits grown in any other part of the world.

When the Government appealed to the primary producers of this country for more production, the berry fruit-growers responded to that appeal. All that I am asking now is - that the Government shall remember the effort these producers made to increase their production and the assistance they gave in building up the overseas credits that we needed. They are losing their markets owing to high costs in this country. I ask that the Division of Agricultural Economics or the Division of Agricultural Production be instructed to make a careful investigation of the industry. If such an inquiry is made, I shall be astonished if a recommendation is not made that a special grant be provided by the Government to assist berry fruit-growers.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– I address my remarks to Division 90. “Flax Production”. I should like to know when the organization for which provision is made in the Flax Production Act is likely to be established and commence its activities. T understand that the Flax Production Board has not yet been appointed. T shall be glad to know when it will he appointed, and why it has not yet begun to operate. I believe that excellent progress has been made- in South Australia in the erection of important buildings and flax-mills in the Mount Gambier area. I should like to know when those mills will be ready for work, and why they are not already in operation.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Western Australia

– I, too, refer to Division 90, “ Flax Production “. Last year, £605,000 was appropriated for flax production, but actual expenditure was £4.42,748. The sum expended was offset by a similar sum described as “ recoverable from sales of flax fibre “. The Flax Fibre Trust Account is dealt with at page 103 of the budget papers. Last year, the opening balance of the account was £317,471 and the closing balance was £2S6,420, a reduction of £31,051. I should like to know whether the £442,748 described as being recoverable from the sales of flax fibre was, in fact, recovered from the sales of flax fibre, or whether it includes the sum of £31,051 by which the balance of the Flax Fibre Trust Account was written down, leaving an actual amount of £411,697 recoverable from sales. If that is the position, I should like an explanation of why the position is not stated in the Estimates. The use of a trust account to conceal the actual amount recovered from sales is a practice which should not be encouraged. I also notice that the proposed vote for this year is £67,2,000 which, presumably, will be written off again from recoveries in respect of sales. I should like some explanation, in view of the state of the flax market at present, of the reason why a greater amount is being appropriated this year than was appropriated last year.

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaMinister for Shipping and Transport · LP

– A note which I have received from the Department of Commerce and Agriculture indicates that during the year 1952-53 receipts from sales of flax fibre actually exceeded expenditure by £51,748. The figures were receipts £494,496, and expenditure £442,748. Owing to adjustments of credits in previous years, in respect of the amounts due by the British Government under the war-time flax agreement, the sum of £S2,799 was repaid to the Treasury by way of reduction of the trust fund receipts for that year. That had the effect of reducing receipts for that year from £494,496 to £411,697. In reply to thematter raised by Senator Laught, I point out that a flax commission has not yet been appointed. I understand that thedemand for flax has fallen off very considerably, but I am not in a position togive any other information at this stage. I assume that, having regard to the fall in price, no additional expenditure will be incurred this year.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Western Australia

– It may be because of the lateness of the hour that I could not completely comprehend the explanation, given by the Minister. I understood him to say that an adjustment was made in a previous season because of transactions with the British Government. I should appreciate an explanation of the writingdown of the trust account by £31,051.

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

– I shall obtain that information for the honorable senator. I am unable to supply it offhand.

Senator SEWARD:
Western Australia

– I wish to refer to Division 196, “ Miscellaneous Services of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture “, and particularly to the item relating to expenses in connexion with the Dairy Industry Investigation Committee, for which the proposed vote is £600. I should like to know the activities which will be covered by such expenditure. I understand tha.t an investigation is at present being made in Western Australia, and it seems to me that £600 will not cover the expenses involved. I understand, also,’ that a similar investigation was made last year. If part of the cost of that investigation is to be covered by this amount, then it seems to me that £600 will be considerably less than the amount required.

Senator McLeay:

– I understand that the proposed vote for miscellaneous services will be dealt with separately.

Senator SEWARD:

– I also wish to refer to Division 86, B, which deals with General Expenses. I refer particularly to item 4, “Payments to Australian Wheat Board for services in connexion with inspections of flour mills “, the proposed vote for which is £4,300. I should like some information concerning that item. I also refer to Division 87, sub-division B, which relates to expenditure incurred on account of representation in various countries, the total proposed vote for which i3 £.119,000. I am interested mostly in representation in places to the north of Australia, such as Indonesia, Singapore and Japan. Honorable senators will see that the proposed vote in respect” of representation in Indonesia is £3,700, whilst that in respect of Singapore is £3,600, and of Japan £S,S00, whereas in respect of Canada it is £15,300, India £14,000 and Pakistan £4,500. Last year, an exporting firm showed me a report in this connexion which contained some caustic comments. It was pointed out that countries such as Russia and South Africa had highly paid agents in Asian countries who resided there until they disposed of their samples and had established trade relations, whereas the Australian representatives were underpaid and did not stay in the countries concerned for a sufficiently long period, with the inevitable result that they lost trade. I suggest that it is futile to expect to increase our external trade unless we are prepared to take active steps to do so. I contend that there is greater reason for us to expend £15,300 in Singapore or Indonesia than there is for us to expend that amount in Canada. I should like the Minister to give me some information regarding our representation in the area to which I have referred and the nature of the duties on which our representatives are engaged.

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

– For the information of Senator Seward, I. point out that the payments to the Australian Wheat Board for the inspection of flour mills, to which he has referred, were made in connexion with flour for export. The flour mills were inspected under the export flour regulations. At present, there are 133 registered flour mills in the Commonwealth. The Australian Wheat Board inspects such mills, particularly in relation to export flour.

Senator Seward:

– Do the inspectors also inspect the quality of the flour?

Senator McLEAY:

– The flour is inspected before it is passed for export. I am sure the honorable senator appreciates that we have a very active Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen), who has control of the other matters to which he referred. I assure him that expenditure is very closely scrutinized each year. The question whether the commercial intelligence service abroad should operate in a certain area and not in another area is a matter of policy, and the best that I can do is to inform the honorable senator that I shall bring this matter to the notice of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department ov SOCIAL Services.

Proposed vote, £2,411,000.

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– In connexion with the proposed vote for the Department of Social Services, I should like to refer to the excellent work that is being done, particularly in Queensland, in relation to the rehabilitation of invalid pensioners. As the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), who represents the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley), is aware, there is in Queensland a fine organization known as the Kingshome Rehabilitation Residential Centre. Not only is that centre assisting invalid persons to return to work, but it is also giving them confidence and courage to face life once more. I wish to pay a. special tribute to those men and women who are assisting the rehabilitation of such pensioners. Honorable senators may be interested to know that because of that work, 5,393 people in the Commonwealth who had been receiving invalid pensions are now working again. Of that number, 3,S94 are men and 1,499 women. I cite the figures for Queensland, because I am particularly interested in that State. Altogether 974 men and 356 women have returned to work after treatment first of all at Perry Park and later at Kingshome. I frequently see such people performing their occupations and training. I am of the opinion that an excellent service is being rendered. I should like to congratulate the Government upon what it has done and to pay a special tribute to those men and. women who, by their sympathy, tolerance and understanding are assisting these people who have suffered some disability, in many cases for a long period. They had been receiving invalid pensions but they are now able to carry out their occupations in a competitive world with courage and great success.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of Shipping and Transport.

Proposed vote, £1,049,000.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I understand that the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) is concerned with the sale of Commonwealth ships. Will the Minister give some indication to the committee of the progress that the Government has made? Has it yet put a price on the ships? Is the Government engaged in negotiations? Does it propose to sell upon terms? If so, will the Minister give to the committee an indication of the terms that the Government proposes to impose?

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaMinister for . Shipping and Transport · LP

– Negotiations have taken place with Australian steamship owners in relation to the sale of the ships. Having regard to the nature of those negotiations, I am not in a position to give any detailed information to the committee. I think the honorable senator will appreciate that it would be unwise to disclose the information he desires. The only assurance I can give him is, as has been stated probably elsewhere, that if the ships are sold to the Australian steamship companies they will be sold on the condition that they remain in the coastal trade of Australia.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– Is the Minister prepared to give the committee an assurance that, if the ships are sold, they will not be sold to other than those engaged in the Australian shipping trade and for use in that trade? Will that be a condition of the sale?

Senator McLeay:

– That is a condition of the sale.

Senator McKENNA:

– Is there any likelihood of the ships being sold to interests outside Australia or to interests not engaged in the Australian coastal trade?

Senator McLeay:

-i can give the honorable senator that assurance.

Senator McKENNA:

– I suggest to the Minister for Shipping and Transport that he may not have conducted negotiations with all the possible purchasers. Has the Minister given consideration to advertising the terms upon which the Government will sell the ships? If it were made known, for instance, that the Government was prepared to sell the ships upon terms, other possible purchasers might be brought into the field. Although the Minister may not be disposed to give me the exact terms, will he indicate whether the Government is negotiating for the sale of the ships upon terms or only for cash?

Senator Wright:

– Make your offer and put your money up !

Senator McKENNA:

– The honorable senator may rest assured that I shall not be in the field. I should like the Minister to give the committee an indication of the nature I asked.

Senator McLeay:

– I am not in a position to give the honorable senator that information. “There’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip “.

Senator McKENNA:

– Does the Minister’s statement mean that he has not made up his mind or does it mean that he has made up his mind but will not disclose whether the Government is prepared to sell the ships upon terms or for cash ?

Senator Wright:

– It means that the Minister is not prepared to make up your mind.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Senator McLeay:

– As the matter is one of Government policy, I think the Leader of the Opposition would not expect me to state the intention of the Government.

Senator McKENNA:

– I am asking the Minister for that information.

Senator McLeay:

– I am not prepared to give the honorable senator that information.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I refer to the schedule of salaries and allowances in respect of the Marine Branch. The items of expenditure which relate to lighthouses cover the work of surveyors, examiners1- and employees of that nature. It is realized that if a surveyor or a similar officer is required to inspect a lighthouse, he can get to it only by means of slow transport. If a breakdown occurs and an engineer is required to- go to a lighthouse in a hurry, he is still able to go only by that same very slow means of transport. If the seas are rough and an engineer has to be sent to the job, some days or weeks may elapse before the breakdown can be rectified. I have raised this matter at question time, but I can give it greater emphasis here. I know it would greatly benefit the lonely lighthouse-keepers if the Government could see its way clear to devote some of the expenditure on shipping to the provision of more up-to-date transport in the form of a helicopter so that in. an emergency an engineer could be sent to- a lighthouse quickly or a sick lighthousekeeper could be taken out quickly. In addition, it could provide at least a weekly mail service, to which the lighthousekeepers are entitled. Modern means of transport are provided to be used, and I hope that the Minister for Shipping and Transport will give serious consideration to keeping up with the times and giving the lighthouse-keepers that to which they are entitled.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of Territories.

Proposed vote, £159,000.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– I refer to Division 96, “Administrative “, in which £4,500 is provided for visits to Australian territories by members of the Parliament. In 1952-53 £3,000 was voted for this item. The Government has decided to- increase that amount by 50 per cent. I think it is an excellent idea to arrange for visits by members of the Parliament1 to Australian territories. It was my privilege recently, as a representative of the Government, to visit the territory of Nauru. It was a great education to me. I can assure honorable senators that people living in those isolated parts - in the case of Nauru, nearly 3,000 miles away - are greatly cheered by visits of members of the Parliament and are appreciative of what the Department of Territories is doing for them. I suggest that such money is well spent, and I hope that in the present financial year the territory of Nauru will be included in the places to be visited. Territories such as Papua and New Guinea and the Northern Territory are frequently visited.

Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 12.36 a.m.

Thursday, 22 October 1953.

Senator LAUGHT:

– The Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck)’ should consider the possibility of arranging for a small naval vessel to visit Nauru as well as other territories outside the mainland. It would bo a good thing if a small naval craft showed the flag and thus reflected Australia’s interest in those territories. I also suggest that the Minister should arrange for an exhibition of the handiwork of the natives of the territories to be held in Australia. Members of the Parliament should visit the territories periodically, and it is equally important that the people also should be given some- idea of what is happening in these lands that are under Australia’s control.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I refer to the Territory of Nauru. I do so with some trepidation because, although Nauru comes within the jurisdiction of the Department of Territories, it is not mentioned in the Estimates, in which provision is made in respect of Norfolk Island, PapuaNew Guinea, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. Nauru is omitted from the Estimates because its administration is financed through the British Phosphate Commission. Howaver, the Australian Government provides certain funds through that body, including small amounts by way of salaries payable to administrative officials-. In any event, Nauru should show up somewhere in the Estimates or, at least, reports should be furnished direct to the Parliament upon the administration of the island. So far as the Parliament is concerned, Nauru does not exist because the only report in which the island is mentioned and which is presented to the Parliament is the copy of the report that is presented to the General Assembly of the United Nations. I was privileged to be a member of the party of parliamentary representatives which recently visited Nauru. In my lack of knowledge of the island prior to making that visit, I was typical of many, other people both in the Parliament and outside it. “When I remarked to some friends that I was going to Nauru, they replied, “Where the dickens is that?” That seemed to be the sum total of their knowledge of the island. That visit enlightened members of the parliamentary party to which I have referred and enabled them to realize the important part that Nauru and Ocean Island are playing in the production of phosphate for use in Australian agriculture. Because our Department of Territories is concerned with the welfare of natives in the Northern Territory, it was most enlightening for me to see what is being accomplished for the natives in Nauru. The work that is being done in that island gives a clear indication of what can be done for our own aborigines on the mainland of Australia. The natives of Nauru are being housed in four-roomed cottages, the materials of which have been transported a distance of 3,000 miles from Australia. Although the cost of transport has to be added to the cost of the materials, and the cost of erection, those cottages are being erected at Nauru- for £1,000 each. If that can be done in Nauru, then the same type of cottage could be erected on the mainland for perhaps £S00, and the provision of such houses for our own natives would surely solve their housing problems and would not cost the Government very much in comparison with the provision of other types of accommodation.

Very little money will be provided, according to the Estimates, to advance the welfare of the Australian aborigines, although the work being done to enlighten and civilize the natives in Nauru shows how much could be done for the Australian aborigines: There is a very satisfactory education scheme in force at Nauru, and one of my fellow Western Australians is the Nauruan director of education. Native teachers are being:’ trained under him to teach their own people in the government schools. Moreover, native girls are being trained for thenursing profession and other professions, and no doubt similar work could be done among the Australian aborigines. It is ridiculous for us to say that the Australian natives cannot be educated, and that they are hopeless cases, because I know of many natives and halfcasteswho respond very well to particular typesof education, and show quite clearly that they could be assimilated into the general scheme of our civilization. Moreover, with the lesson of Nauru before us we should make sure that the Department of Territories can carry out its proper functions with regard to the aborigines. According to page 123 of the Estimates, £220,000 was voted last year for aboriginal affairs, but only £152,594 of that sum was expended. An amount of £210,390 will be voted this year, and we do not know how much of that sum will actually be expended. I would like to know why so much of last year’s vote remained unexpended, and why the vote for this year has been decreased in comparison with last year’s vote. It is also disturbing to realize that no provision has been made this year for the erection of a single classroom or hospital throughout the whole of the Northern Territory.

Senator Spicer:

– I rise to order. The Senate is at present dealing with the administration of the Northern Territory. If discussion is to take place with regard to other matters, perhaps it would be more convenient if the whole of Part 3 were put before the Senate. The honorable senator is discussing items for which provision is made in Part 3 - Territories of the Commonwealth. That should not be done unless we embark upon a consideration of all of the items mentioned in Part 3.

Senator TANGNEY:

– I am sorry if I have transgressed, Mr. Chairman. I was merely informing the committee of what we learnt during our visit to Nauru. I consider that at least a part of the proposed vote should be applied towards the education of the natives of Nauru. I a.m very pleased that additional provision has been made for visits by members of Parliament to the territories of the

Commonwealth and I hope that arrangements will he made for them to visit Nauru. I consider that members of this -chamber should be afforded an opportunity to learn more about the territories for which we are responsible. I have looked in vain through parliamentary reports for years past for some mention of Nauru and kindred territories.

Proposed vote agreed, to.

Department of Immigration.

Proposed vote, £1,267,000.

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia

– I desire to refer to the proposed vote of £654,000 for “ Administration “ - Division 97. I note that provision has been made for an expenditure of about £144,000 in connexion withthe overseas activities of the Department of Immigration. I make it clear that I do not quarrel with that amount because, if our immigration programme is to succeed, we must maintain our overseas contacts. However, I doubt very seriously whether we are obtaining value for the money that is so expended. There has been a complete break-down of some of our overseas activities. During the last two years it has come to notice that wrong information about this country has been given to intending immigrants. J have been told by immigrants that the picture of this country thatwas painted for them before they decided to emigrate to Australia was not a. true representation of the position. I am convinced that their statements were true, because they would have nothing to gain by misleading me in the matter. It is the duty of the department, and indeed of this committee, to ensure that the Commonwealth shall receive value commensurate with the expenditure incurred upon this item. More important still, we should insist that intending immigrants shall be given a true picture of Australian economic and social conditions. It is obvious that that is not done in all cases. I direct the attention of the Senate to the proposed vote for the item in the hope that in the future intending immigrants will be given the fullest possible information regarding Australian conditions in the economic and social fields. Many persons who have come to Australia in recent years under the immigration scheme have, to use their own expression, been completely hoodwinked about the conditions that obtain here. In general, the officers of the department carry out their functions to the best of their ability, but because of the distance at which they work from their homeland, information furnished to prospective immigrants is not always as factual as it should be. This is such an important matter that it should not be left to chance. I trust that the Government will take steps to discover whether the complaints that I have voiced have a degree of validity that would warrant further inquiry into the matter. If it is satisfied that the complaints warrant further inquiry I trust that it will take appropriate remedial action. Every honorable senator, regardless of the political party to which he belongs, agrees that the immigration scheme, which was embarked upon by the former Labour Government, and which has been continued by this Government, is of such importance to the future of Australia that no risk should be run of a breakdown as the result, of the administrative shortcomings of a section of the department.

Another matter that greatly concerns the immigrants is the accommodation charges made by Commonwealth Hostels Limited. For a number of years there has been considerable dissatisfaction about these charges. In 1952, a committee was appointed to inquire into hostel charges and other matters affecting the relations between Commonwealth Hostels Limited, the Government and the immigrants. In the State which I represent I have seen instances in which it has been perfectly obvious to any person with an impartial mind that the charges imposed have been so high that it has been impossible for some immigrants to meet them. The terms of reference of the committee, with which prominent members of the trade union movement were associated, were not sufficiently wide to enable it to arrive at proper conclusions in respect of hostel charges. I draw attention to the first term of reference by which the investigating committee had to be guided in reaching a conclusion upon what constituted a fair and proper tariff for hostels. The point was that by all comparable Australian standards, the tariff chargeable in Commonwealth hostels should be fair and reasonable. I submit that that was not a proper term of reference to enable the committee to reach a just conclusion. One important factor that was overlooked was that there can be only one comparable standard in Australia. That is the cost, of board for’ a family.. I say definitely that no family whose breadwinner receives the basic wage or . something approximating it could afford to board anywhere in Australia in existing circumstances. Because of that fact, the investigating committee had no opportunity to bring down a report that had relationship to the situation in which the immigrants found themselves from the time that they arrived in Australia. 1 know that representations have been made to the Government and that this matter is not new to honorable senators, but 1 hope that the Government will give earnest and serious consideration to the fact that the committee which last investigated the position was not given terms of reference that would enable it to . arrive at. a reasonable and just conclusion.

One other matter that I wish to refer to honorable senators also concerns the report of the investigating committee. It reveals a weakness in the department and in the relationship between Australians and potential immigrants of our own stock from whom we obtain the best results. The investigating committee stated in its report -

Since the inception of the post-war immigration programme. Australia has received over 700.000 new settlers, of whom some 350,000 are British. As approximately 27,000 persons have arrived under the Commonwealth nomination scheme, the- total number of British people accommodated in hostels since the scheme commenced could not exceed that figure. British men. women and children at present living in hostels total 10.400; of these, 3,100 are responsible for tariff payments, while a lesser number is actually concerned, to a greater or lesser degree, in the withholding of payments.

The committee feels that these figures should be emphasized if the Australian public is to have a proper appreciation of the relatively small proportion of British migrants involved in the complaints.

I believe that two factors have caused a breakdown of British immigration to Australia. One is that since many

British immigrants have arrived in Australia, they have been condemned to live indefinitely under barracks conditions because circumstances and excessive charges will not permit them to save enough money to leave the hostels. Some of those people were given misleading information before they left their own country. Having found that conditions are not as they were let to expect, they have told their friends at home. That has had a serious effect upon the flow of British immigrants. I hope that the Government will consider seriously whether Australia is getting the best results for the huge sum that it is expending upon public relations overseas in connexion with immigration, and that urgent consideration will be given also to another revision of the tariffs that the immigrants are forced to pay in the hostels.

Before I left South Australia, a particular case was brought to my notice and I had an opportunity to discuss it with the person concerned. The immigrant in that case was living in a men’s hostel at North Glenelg. His wife and children were in a holding centre at Woodside. The total amount of the two tariffs and living expenses was approximately 3s. more than the immigrant was getting each week. The statement which that man made to me, and the figures that he gave me, were completely verified. It should be obvious to the Government that unless some relief is given to these people our programme of immigration from Britain will probably break down.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– I refer to Division 97, “ Payments or Services performed by Government authorities, including services under Immigration; Nationality and Passports Acts “, for which the proposed vote is £62,000. I ask the Minister who is in charge of the Senate at the moment, whether the Department of Immigration has taken any steps to tighten up the methods of screening and examination used by the department’s staff overseas in relation to intending emigrants to Australia from countries other than countries of the British Commonwealth. I understand that illegal immigrants have been entering this country. A recent case concerned a Chinese who was prosecuted as au illegal immigrant. He was in possession of forged papers that purported to permit him r,o be in, and remain in, this country. In my view some kind of racket is going on in connexion with the illegal entry of foreigners to this country. Such illegal immigrants are apparently able to defeat i iic vigilance of the Department of Immigration. I do not wish to go into details of the matter, because I believe that the department has made. some inquiries about it, but I wish the Minister to explain, if he can, the steps that have been taken to prevent the illegal entry, or the smuggling, of immigrants into Australia. The presence of illegal immigrants in this country will involve the people of Australia in the expense that the authorities incur in locating, securing and deporting them.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I refer to hostels conducted by the Department of Immigration in this country. I notice with some concern that the proposed expenditure for the administrative side of the department is to be higher this year than last year’s actual expenditure, although the immigration intake into this country is dwindling and will eventually vanish if the decrease continues a.t, its present rate. I should not object to the expenditure proposed for this year being higher than last year’s expenditure if the Department of Immigration were doing a job in the. interests of the country. Incidentally, I remind honorable senators that I do not make allegations that I cannot support with evidence. The administrative side of the Department of Immigration i« staffed by the people who handle the matters that Senator Toohey has mentioned. They arc concerned with the establishment and furnishing of hostels. lt is to that particular aspect of immigra-i ion that I shall refer my remarks. There is a discrepancy somewhere which shows that somebody connected with the furnishing of these hostels is getting a decent rake-off, to put it in good Australian language. There is a huge store-room in Launceston which is half-filled with furniture for the purpose of furnishing a hostel in that city. The construction of that building was completed some time after this Government came into office, but I do not blame the Government for what has happened. I blame those in charge of the administration of the Department. Some of the most modern equipment in the world is in the hostel. I do not complain of that but I should like to know why the Government is keeping it idle. The hostel contains single wardrobes which cost the Government about £9 each and which any honorable, senator with a reasonable amount of intelligence could make by hand and sell for £4 each. The double wardrobes are of a similar grade of construction and they are stacked up by the score. If any one bad been watching the interests of the people the kind of rubbish that I have mentioned would not have been bought by any department. I should like the Public Accounts Committee to inquire into this matter. The proposed vote for this department is equal to the expenditure of the department last year. Why is the vote so large while the immigration programme has been reduced? I want to know whether any more hostels in Australia have been furnished with rubbish similar to that with which the hostel at Launceston has been furnished.

Senator AMOUR:
New South Wales

– I wish to speak on the subject of immigration policy. The Government should have some plan in relation to immigration. At present, men who have immigrated to this country are being kept from their wives and families. Many of these men are living at Bathurst in huts which resemble square boxes and are little better than tents. To keep these men separated from their wives and families for four years is inhuman and is not in the best interests of this country. The Government appears to be endeavouring to build up a communist minority in this country by its treatment of immigrants. Money should be made available to provide these people with proper homes where they can bring their wives and families and live under proper conditions. Around Bankstown there are thousands of these little huts which are occupied by immigrants who work on the railways and in other places. If better accommodation is not made available for these people reports of the deplorable conditions under which they are living will go back to the country from which they came. The Government has spent thousands of pounds in bringing good types of citizens, including skilled artisans, to this country. Now, because of the increase of the cost of living these men are unable to have their wives and children with them. This is a matter of great importance. The Government cannot expect immigrants to come to this country if it houses them only in hostels and huts. The Minister for Immigration (Senator Holt) should urge the Cabinet to make money available to provide homes for these people so that they may live with their families.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– I should like to know whether the inquiry into the issue of false passports instituted by the Department of Immigration has been completed. Also, has there been any investigation of the allegation that a Chinese, who was recently deported, had paid £500 in order to obtain asistance to enter the country? If there is any truth in the allegation, has the department obtained any information to indicate who received the money?

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I am interested in several aspects of the activities of the Department of Immigration, and I wish to discuss in particular expenditure by the department overseas. Like other honorable senators, I am concerned with the state of health of people who are brought to Australia by the department. Press reports that I have read indicate . that some immigrants selected by the department have been suffering from various diseases. I say candidly that I do not acknowledge the authenticity of all press reports, but at least they warrant consideration. Is the department satisfied that the routine physical examination of intending immigrants is sufficiently careful? The newspapers have reported that numbers of immigrants have been found, on arrival in Australia, to be suffering from tuberculosis. This is a disease that can be detected readily by modern techniques. Therefore, it should be possible for the department to make sure that intending immigrants are not suffering from it before they leave their native countries. I have no wish to be harsh, but we must be practical. We need new citizens, and nobody objects to the entry of immigrants from the older countries of the world. Nevertheless, we are entitled to expect them to have a clean bill of healt.li. It may sound rather peculiar, but it is a little more comfortable to be hungry in your own land than in a new country.

I ha.ve spoken with a lady who has interested herself, with others, in the welfare of immigrants, particularly young single immigrants. She has informed me that one of the great problems of the newcomer is the lack of comradeship with Australian people. She says that the greatest need of the young single male immigrant is female companionship. He finds that he is not so welcome among Australians at social gatherings as he had expected to be. Therefore, if our immigration programme is to be a success, we must look beyond the situation mentioned by Senator Amour. I realize the difficulties. Millions of pounds have been spent in order to provide accommodation for immigrants before they arrive here. I should not like to be obliged to tackle the problem. The least we can do is to ensure that the persons whom we bring to this country are healthy. In addition, people who have interested themselves in the welfare of new Australians should be consulted by the immigration authorities with a view to making the life of the newcomers, particularly in the first few years, as happy as it should be. I realize that honorable senators could discuss the immigration policy at great length, but you, Mr. Chairman, have allowed me some latitude to date, and I shall not impose upon your good nature.

I emphasize the point that I have made about the health of immigrants, and ask the Minister, with respect, to request his officers to confer with people who have taken an interest in the. welfare of the newcomers, so that some of the disadvantages to which they have been subjected in the past may be overcome.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– Both Senator O’flaherty and Senator Ashley have referred to the possibility of prohibited immigrants entering this country and having to be deported at some expense to the community. Inquiries are being made in connexion with this matter at present. Senator Ashley referred specifically to some Chinese about whom complaints were made. Both that matter and the whole question of whether there is any underground racket in connexion with illegal immigration are at present being investigated.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– Will the inquiry include prohibited immigrants other than Chinese?

Senator SPICER:

– Yes, the whole question of the entry of prohibited immigrants will be examined. As this investigation is now in progress, I do not think I can usefully say any more about it at this stage.

Senator Ashley:

– The allegation in the press is that the passports are coming from the department.

Senator SPICER:

– The whole matter is the subject of investigation. On the subject of medical examinations of intending immigrants to which Senator Kennel ly has referred, the position is that all assisted immigrants are X-rayed and subjected to a full health check.

Senator Willesee:

– In this country or before they leave to come here?

Senator SPICER:

– Before they leave.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– That is where the inquiries should be made.

Senator SPICER:

– That may be so. In relation to Asiatics of course, inquiries on the other side might be a little bit difficult. However, as I have said, all assisted immigrants are subjected to X-ray examinations and a full health check. Several honorable senators, including Senator Toohey, have referred to expenditure on staffs overseas. I think the figure works out at approximately £70,000.

Senator Toohey:

– £140,000.

Senator SPICER:

– Apparently we are talking about different figures. There is one item under “London “ and another under “ Other Overseas Establishments “. The total works out at roughly £70,000. That covers staffs in London, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. These staffs are employed both in respect of assisted immigrants and, immigrants under the landing permit scheme. Having regard to the extent of the activities, I suggest that the expenditure is not unreasonable.

It is true that there has been some decline in immigration in the last year or so, but it would be quite wrong to regard the reduced flow as permanent. We hope the reduction is only temporary, and that as conditions continue to improve - they have improved very considerably in the last year - there will be a considerable revival of immigration to Australia. Senator Toohey suggested that conditions in this country were misrepresented to intending immigrants. Our immigration officers overseas are, in the main, Australians. They know the conditions in this country. The department does everything possible to ensure that correct information will be given to people who intend to come here. It is easy to make general allegations. If Senator Toohey has a specific case in mind, and if the person concerned can state in what way the information given to him was false, the department will be only . too willing to examine the case carefully. It is much more useful to approach the matter in that way than to make general allegations that cannot be checked satisfactorily. The department is only too ready to check any allegations that incorrect information has been given and to ensure that if it has been done the offence will not be repeated.

Senator Toohey referred to hostel charges and to the findings of the committee that investigated them. He suggested that the terms of reference of the committee were very limited. I have a copy of the terms of reference. I think that they were about as wide as they could be. The committee was asked to examine complaints alleged by the spokesman for the immigrants to justify the withholding of tariff payments. The complaints were, first, that the tariffs chargeable in Commonwealth hostels were not reasonable, and secondly, that British immigrants were required to live in hostels that accommodated also n on -British European immigrants. The inquiry under the first heading was about as wide as it could be. The committee was asked to examine an allegation that tariffs charged in Commonwealth hostels were not reasonable. The committee consisted of Mr. Broadby, the secretary of the Australian Council of Trades Unions ; Mr. Brown, M.P. ; Mrs. F. G. Coombes, the vice-president of the

Young Women’s Christian Association; and Mr. J. C. Neagle, the general secretary of the federal executive of the Returned Servicemen’s League. Observers appeared before the committee in the person of Mr. Cooke, representing the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom; Mr. Boreham, the federal president of the British Migrants Welfare Association; and Mr. D. Skeat, the president of the Victorian branch of the British Migrants’ Welfare Association. The committee found that, by all comparable Australian standards, the tariffs chargeable in Commonwealth hostels were fair and reasonable.

Senator Toohey:

– There are not any comparable standards.

Senator SPICER:

– I am stating the findings of the committee. The committee recommended that the minimum amount to be left in the hands of an immigrant, which, at that time was £2 12s. 6d. a week, should be increased.

Senator Wedgwood:

– It is £4 a week now, is it not?

Senator SPICER:

– The amount varies. For a man, a. dependent wife and one child, it is £3; for a man, a dependent wife and two children, it is £3 10s.; for a man, a dependent wife and three children, it is £4; for a man, a dependent wife and four children, it is £4 10s. ; and for a man, a dependent wife and five children, it is £5. The recommendation of the committee was that the hostel charge should not be such an amount as would leave an immigrant with less than between £3 and £5 of his normal earnings, not including overtime or other payments of that kind.

Senator Kennelly:

– The introduction of the new table meant, in effect, that previously the immigrants had paid too much.

Senator SPICER:

– No, I do not think so. That is not what the report says.

Senator Kennelly:

– Yes, it does say so.

Senator SPICER:

– No. The committee said that the charges made were fair and reasonable, but-

Senator Kennelly:

– The “ but “ is the important matter.

Senator SPICER:

– That may be so, but it does not affect the fairness and reasonableness of the charges. The’ committee then considered another aspect of the matter, that the circumstances of certain people were such that it was desirable that they should have the benefit of a concessional rate because their income was not high. In place of the concession, which would have left them with a. minimum amount of £2 12s. 6d. a week, the committee made the recommendation to which I have referred. In those circumstances, I suggest that the fact that the findings of the committee have been put into operation gives us some confidence that the people in question have been treated reasonably in all the circumstances.

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia

– I do not wish this matter to develop into an interchange of views between the Minister and myself, but it is obvious that there is some misunderstanding in respect of the amount provided in the Estimates for expenditure overseas by the Department of Immigration. I said previously that the figure involved was roughly £144,000. The Minister can correct me if he thinks I am wrong. In the schedule of salaries and allowances for the department, honorable senators will see a reference to the Chief Migration Officer and. other officers in London, the proposed vote for which is £5,374. Under the heading “Other Overseas Establishments “, reference is made to “Migration Officers, Medical Officers, Interview and Selection Officers, Administrative Officers and Clerks “, the proposed vote in respect of which is £64,501. Then, under the heading “State Branches”, reference is made to “ Allowances to officers stationed abroad “, the proposed vote for which is £45,593, and also, “ Exchange on salaries and allowances paid abroad “, the proposed vote for which is £27,941. It is therefore obvious that the amount of £70,000 referred to by the Minister does not cover at least some of the overseas commitments.

Senator SPICER:

– My reference was to salaries. I think that is where the difference arises.

Senator TOOHEY:

– I was dealing with the whole amount estimated for these services. I wish now to refer briefly to the findings of the committee. I still say that the committee had nothing to go on, because its original term of reference was to examine complaints which, according to the spokesmen for the immigrants, justifies the withholding of payments. One of those complaints was that the tariff charges in Commonwealth hostels are not reasonable. I contend that the committee set out to determine the basis upon which a comparison could be made in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. In my opinion, the only reasonable comparison would be to compare an immigrant family living in a hostel with a family living in a boarding establishment. It would be virtually impossible for a married man receiving the basic wage, or a wage approximating it, to afford to board anywhere under those conditions. The committee reported that by all comparable Australian standards the tariffs chargeable in Commonwealth hostels were fair and reasonable. I submit that the committee did not find that tariffs were fair and reasonable but fair and reasonable only as related to comparable Australian standards, which I say are not fair and reasonable and not within the scope of people who are receiving lower rates of pay. I say definitely that, although £3 sounds rather a formidable amount for a family to have left after paying their hostel charges, one must not lose sight of the fact that the question of clothing and amusements and other little amenities such as soap should be taken into consideration. I should not rise to my feet to champion the cause of any particular section of the community unless I thought they needed somebody to champion their cause. I still maintain that migrants who come to this country need somebody to champion their cause in relation to hostel charges.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– The conclusions of Senator Toohey in regard to the report of the investigating committee are not correct. As the Senate representative on the Immigration Advisory Council, I wish to say that all the members of that committee of investigation were members of that council. The report was submitted to the Immigration Advisory Council, but that was not the basis upon which the committee made its investigations. It will be remembered that the investigation was made because of disturbances by certain British migrants. The Immigration Advisory Council is comprised of people from various walks of life, including union representatives. I think I can say fairly that the opinion of the members of that committee was that the grounds for the disturbances were not well founded and that the general opinion, more particularly of some of the union representatives, was that Communistic influences were largely responsible for the disturbances. The tenor of the findings was that the charges were fair and reasonable and that there was no just cause for the disturbances by those British migrants.

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– -In replying to the remarks of the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), Jet me say that, if there is a medical examination, it must be a very poor one. I was informed in 1948 that every immigrant was X-rayed for tuberculosis, but it is known that throughout Australia in 1948 there were immigrants suffering from tuberculosis. It was reported that at Concord quite a large number of immigrants were suffering from the disease. If that is so, either the examination is very poor or somebody is screening the immigrants and they are getting into Australia through the back door. The result is that the disease is discovered here, the immigrants are living in this country, and the Government must pay for their treatment and possibly contribute towards the upkeep of their families. I think a stricter examination should be made. I notice that -there are 52 officers, including medical officers, travelling around the various countries to interview intending migrants. I cannot understand how the migrants are passing the examinations and getting into Australia. Definite instructions should be issued to those officers overseas to remedy existing defects in the present screening methods.

Senator Toohey referred to conditions that exist at immigrant hostels in South Australia. In Western Australia only a few complaints have arisen directly as a result of the separation of families. However, quite a lot of trouble has occurred at the large hostel at Greylands where many immigrants have refused to pay the accommodation charges which they claim are extortionate and such immigrants have staged sit-down strikes at the hostel. No complaint has been made about the standard of the meals or of the accommodation. However, families at the hostel object to living under communal conditions for an indefinite period. At present, those families have no prospect of obtaining a home for at least two years. The Government should face up to its responsibility to provide houses for these immigrants instead of condemning them to live under their present conditions for an indefinite period. These people are prepared to live under such conditions until they fulfil their contract with the Government, but they expect that when they complete their contract they will be enabled to live under normal family conditions. That is the chief cause of trouble that has arisen among immigrants in Western Australia. So long as the Government obliges them to live under conditions that are inseparable from hostels, it will convert the hostels into breeding grounds of communism.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– I rise again to speak to these Estimates in order to make certain that the department is actively engaged in remedying defects that have been found to exist in the methods of screening prospective immigrants at overseas centres. Immigrants fall into two classes, namely, assisted immigrants and Europeans to whom landing permits are issued. I have been informed that an organization in Australia is taking advantage of the loopholes that exist in the method employed at reception depots overseas in checking the health of prospective immigrants. With the aid of that organization, many infected persons are being given a clean bill of health. I askfor an unequivocal assurance that the inquiry to which the Minister referred has actually been initiated not only in Australia but also overseas with a view to closing loopholes of the kind to which I have referred. What I have said applies not only to tubercular diseases, but also to other diseases that are peculiar to Mediterranean countries. I suggest that the Government should tighten up its medical inspections of immigrants at the point of their embarkation for this country.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I am rather confused about the matter of X-ray examination of immigrants. About four or five weeks ago I asked a question of the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) concerning such X-ray examinations, and I understood him to reply to the effect that immigrants were X-rayed at the point of embarkation and also at the point of disembarkation. Is that correct?

Senator Spicer:

– Yes, the X-ray examination is conducted at both ends of the voyage to this country.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senatorreid.)

AYES: 29

NOES: 22

Majority…… 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of Labour and National Service.

Proposed vote, £1,860,000.

Senator SANDFORD:
Victoria

– I should like the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) to furnish me with an explanation in relation to two items in the proposed vote for this department. I shall not, at this late hour, embark on a lengthy discourse on the inestimable value of the department, particularly its comprehensive and scientific placing of labour. The proposed vote for salaries and allowances i3 £1,165,500, compared with an expenditure of £896,955 under this heading in the last financial year, and the proposed vote for temporary and casual employees is £360,700, compared with an expenditure of £549,948 under this heading in the last financial year. It is noteworthy that the proposed increased expenditure on salaries and allowances almost corresponds with the amount by which the proposed decrease of expenditure on temporary and casual employees, compared with expenditure in the last financial year. I should like the. Minister to inform me whether temporary and casual employees are being placed on the permanent staff. I hope that that is so.

I come now to the item “ Office cleaning”, because I believe that cleanliness is next to godliness. Although £23,300 was voted for this purpose in the last financial year, only £6,125 was expended on office cleaning. There was a considerable difference between last year’s vote and the amount expended. A3 no provision has been made for office cleaning in this financial year, I assume that the offices will not be cleaned or that the staff will themselves be required to clean them.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I should be glad if the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) would inform me of the latest figures in relation to the number of persons who are in receipt of unemployment benefits and the number of unemployed persons registered. I should also like the Minister to comment upon employment trends in this country, as the Government sees the matter, if he is in a position to do so.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I believe that the Department of Labour and National Service is one of the most important departments, because the manner in which it is administered has a very considerable bearing upon production in this country. It is imperative that the administrative officers of the department know how to handle men, and that they respect the conditions and customs of the workers. I have no desire to criticize the permanent head of the department or its senior officers, because I was very closely associated with it during the war years, particularly in Tasmania, and I know something of the extent of its ramifications. I understand that the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board comes within the jurisdiction of the department. Recently, a stoppage occurred on the waterfront at Hobart. Let me say at once, lest it be thought otherwise, that the trouble was not stirred up by Communists. The waterside workers in all Tasmanian ports are decent men who have no truck with the Communists. For many years it has been the practice for a gang to work the hold of a ship until loading or unloading operations have been completed. I understand that that practice is followed in all ports. In recent years waterside workers have been granted the right to accumulate leave as have workers in other industries. One of the conditions laid down in respect of accumulated leave is that there must be no unauthorized stoppages. Leave is assessed each quarter and credited to each waterside worker at three-monthly intervals. The administration of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board is not as wise as it should be. Recently the chairman of the board issued directions that a gang should leave a ship before loading or unloading had been completed and work another ship. Another gang was brought in to work the ship from which the men were withdrawn. The men objected and, rather than do violence to their principles, they stopped work. The dispute has not yet been settled. Unless it is settled in the near future it will undoubtedly spread to other ports in the Commonwealth. Because the men had taken part in an unauthorized stoppage their accumulated leave credit was withdrawn. They claim that when they are forced to stop work rather than do violence to a principle that has applied to waterside workers throughout the Commonwealth, or be accused of scabbing on their mates, they should lose, not the whole of their accumulated leave, but only the leave which is applicable to the quarter in which the stoppage took place. When waterside workers stop work it is invariably said by honorable senators opposite that they do so at the behest of the Communists. As I have said, the men who are involved in the dispute at Hobart were deliberately provoked into taking direct action. They have no sympathy or connexion with the Communists. There are ample men there to fill every tally and keep harmony in the ports. The Hobart office of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board is costing £9,864. About ten persons are employed on the staff. In addition there are 23 company bosses working for the various shipping companies so there is no shortage of bosses. The men have been deliberately provoked. The dispute has not been settled. I understand that a move has been made to take the matter before the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, but I do not know whether it has been successful. The Minister might give the matter consideration before there is a stoppage and a renewal of accusations that the communists are to blame.

I turn my attention now to the item in the schedule for the Department of Labour and National Service providing £365,780 for employment officers. I do not object to the expenditure if the employment officers are doing something for those who are seeking work. When the second world war ended they scouted for jobs and placed men and women in employment, but now they brush them off. If one telephones the employment officers asking for employment for a good worker, the reply is that there is no hope of placing the man. If there is plenty of employment available as the Government claims, the employment officers should have details of every job so that they can place suitable men in them at once. They appear to be simply compiling a list of unemployed. I am doubtful if their work warrants the expenditure of £365,780.

It is proposed to provide also £308,410 for clerks and inspectors. Last year the vote was £282,487. That is a big increase. Unless the government expects a big rise in wages in this financial year, there must have been an increase of the staff. Can the Minister give a reason for the increase in the proposed vote ? What work is done by the inspectors? ‘£ turn my attention now to the item “ Permanent Officers occupying uncreated positions, £87,420 “. Will the Minister .explain that item.? If I had not been successful at the last Senate election, I might have been interested in one of the uncreated positions.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

.- Last year £22,500 was voted for advertising and publicity and £10,500 was expended. The proposed vote this year is £21,000. Under the heading of “Miscellaneous”, £1,550 is proposed to be provided for staff training. Last yea.r’s vote for staff training was £.1,500 and expenditure was £724. Could the Minister give me an indication of the kind of publicity and the lind of staff training involved ? In passing, I mention that I have asked questions on staff training in relation to three other departments, but as yet have not received a reply from any of the Ministers concerned.

Senator SHEEHAN:
New South Wales

– I desire to obtain some information from the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) regarding Commonwealth employment officers, not because I believe there axe too many of them, but because I believe that there are not enough of them. I have tried in vain to find provision in the Estimates of the Department of Social Services as well as of the Department of Labour and National Service, for expenditure in relation to salaries and wages of the kind of employment officer we used to have in the country districts. These officers performed a combined service in that they assisted the Department of Social Services in respect of local inquiries regarding pensions and unemployment benefits, and such other matters, and also worked for the Department of Labour and National Service in respect of employment. I understand that these positions have now been abolished. These officers were originally appointed by the Department of Social Services, but that department no longer employs them. I understand the positions are now being filled by officers from the Department of Labour and National Service.

Senator Sandford:

– They are called registrars.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I wish to know something about the matter, because 1 consider the present arrangement is not as satisfactory as was the previous arrangement. The previous occupants of these positions were part-time employees) and were not in receipt of high salaries, but they did valuable work in some of the industrial centres. I believe they were included amongst the large army of temporary employees in the government service. I speak of the town of Castlemaine, from which I come, which is an industrial centre where cases of unemployment occur. People have to wait for a week or more until the visiting officer of the Department of Labour and National Service arrives from Bendigo. They have to arrange to travel, in many instances long distances, in order to see the officer. That means that not only are travelling expenses involved for the applicants, but they are also involved for the department, because the officer ha.s to travel round the area, whereas under the former system the officer lived on the spot and was always available when wanted. He was a kind of guide, philosopher and friend for people who required information about sickness and unemployment benefit or pensions. I hope that the Minister will he able to tell us the reason for the discontinuance of that service. Why is it that the private secretary to the Minister is still filling an unclassified position? Surely a position of that importance should be classified. A. number of the positions that are mentioned in this bill should be classified.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– Some reference has been made to the increased vote for employment officers. I think it will be apparent to honorable senators from figures that I shall cite that the increases are due to alterations that have taken place in salary rates. In 1952-53. there were 338 employment officers whereas 365 are employed in the current financial vear. The vote has been raised from £806,776 to £365,780. The number of clerks and inspectors employed in 1952-53 totalled 334 whilst 337 are employed now. The vote in respect of clerks and inspectors has risen from £282,487 in 1952-53 to £308,410 in 1953-54. Consequently I think that the committee will realize that the greater part of the increased expenditure is duc to alteration in salary rates.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) asked me a question in relation to unemployment figures. I have the figures relating to the recipients of unemployment benefits as at the 10th October,’ 1953.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– Honorable senators cannot get replies from the Attorney-Genera]. They only get evasion. Those are not unemployment figures.

Senator SPICER:

– I propose to give the Senate the figures relating to people in receipt of unemployment benefits.

Senator O’flaherty:

– They are not the unemployment figures.

Senator SPICER:

– I have explained what I shall give to the Senate. These are the latest figures that I have in relation to unemployment. The people in receipt of unemployment benefit in Australia at the 10th October, 1953, totalled 16,S16. That, figure was 597 less than the previous week’s figure and nearly 2,000 less than the total of 18,528 on the 26th September, 1953. I think that it is not irrelevant to point out that at that time the vacancies registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service numbered 30,417. So the numbers of persons in receipt of unemployment benefit was much less than the number of registered vacancies. However, the existence of 30,417 vacancies does not necessarily permit the employment of the 16,816 people who are in receipt of unemployment benefit because the vacancies available may not be suitable for the persons in receipt of unemployment benefit. The figures that I have cited follow the tendency which has been apparent for the whole of this year. In other words, there has been a stead, decline in the number of persons in receipt of unemployment benefit and there has been an increase in the vacancies registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service.. The figures supplied by the trade union movement indicate exactly the same tendency. We have reached a stage at which there is full employment in Australia. Various questions have been asked about matters of which I must confess I know very little. Reference has been made to the provision for “ permanent officers occupying uncreated positions “. I arn informed that these .are simply temporary positions approved by the Public Service Board. Reference has been made also to the fact that no figure for 1953-54 appears opposite the words “ office cleaning “ under the heading of General Expenses. The cleaning costs for 1953-54 will be approximately the same as they were last year. As the amount involved is small, the Treasury has suggested that it be included with the provision for incidental and other expenditure, for which the total provision this year is £32,000. Senator Sheehan asked a question about agents. The Department of Labour and National Service made a survey of agents throughout the Commonwealth and of the rates payable to them. Agents will be retained wherever the volume of business transacted warrants their retention. Otherwise, their services will be terminated.

Senator Sheehan:

– Can the Minister give me any idea of the salaries that these agents receive, especially in view of the fact that the payment of travelling expenses will be involved in bringing officers from other locations to do their work if they are dismissed?

Senator SPICER:

– I cannot supply the information at present, but I have no doubt that it can be obtained for the honorable senator.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

.- I seek information concerning the dual position of certain officers in country districts who serve partly under the Department t of Labour and National Service and partly under the Department of Social Services. Some time ago I referred in this chamber to persons who, after they have reached the age of 65 years, are stood down from employment for a period and apply for the unemployment benefit. Because they are 65 years of age, the officer concerned refuses to grant their claim, and suggests that they should apply for a pension. I emphasize that these persons are not invalids. They do not desire to apply for a pension. They are able-bodied persons, who are eager to work but are temporarily without employment. They, paid their social services contributions in the past, and are paying income tax at the present time. They have subscribed for the unemployment benefit, but when they apply for it, they are told that they are not entitled to receive it on the ground of their age. For that reason, the figure* issued by the Government showing the number of persons in receipt of the unemployment benefit can be misleading. L raised this matter some time ago and I thought that the department had remedied the position.

Senator Spicer:

– The honorable senator is referring to social services.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– The officer of whom I speak acts in a dual role. He serves the Department of Social Services, and the Department of Labour and National Service in a country district. I have endeavoured to ascertain from the Estimates how these positions are divided, and as far as I am aware, they are not yet divided. I believe that an able-bodied person who has reached the age of 65 years and is temporarily unemployed should be granted his right, which is to receive the unemployment benefit, and he should not be fobbed off with the advice that he should apply for a pension. I hope that the Minister will be able to obtain a reply for me before the consideration of the Estimates for this Department is completed. Otherwise, I ask him to bring the matter to the notice of the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt).

Proposed vote agreed to.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.

Proposed vote, £3,660,000.

Senator HANNAFORD:
South Australia

– I can speak with a great deal of enthusiasm on this proposed vote, because I recognize the great value of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization to Australia. I do not know who established the organization years ago, but as a primary producer who is immensely interested in the scientific side of our national life, I view the activities of the organization with admiration and appreciation. The scope of the work undertaken by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization is enormous. Under the heading “ Investigations “ 29 separate items are listed and one is struck by the fact that so many of those investigations relate to the land. It is a clear demonstration that all wealth comes from the soil.Not long ago, we had an opportunity to hear an address by Dr. Clunies Ross on the work of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Dr. Clunies Ross dealt particularly with fisheries, but of course the work of the organization covers a very much wider field than that. Expenditure on investigations in the current financial year is estimated at £4,281,000. To offset that however, certain contributions are being made by various organizations including the Commonwealth Bank, the Australian “Wool Board, the Australian Meat Board and the Australian Dairy Produce Board. Those contributions will reduce the total expenditure to £3,660,000. That is still a very large sum of money, particularly in view of the fact that the head office personnel of the organization number only 179, and officers engaged on investigation total only 3,316. I wish to refer particularly to myxomatosis, the value of which this country does not seem even now to be widely appreciated. The vote for “ Investigations “ includes £64,900 under the heading “ Wild Life (including Rabbit Investigations) “. As a primary producer,I know of the ravages that are caused in this country by rabbits. The spread of myxomatosis under the direction of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization is making remarkable changes. Large areas of country which formerly were denuded of grass by rabbits are now prosperous wealthproducing lands.For this work alone, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization has been well worth its cost.

The organization, in conjunction with other bodies has also done valuable work on soil investigation in South Australia. That work has enabled country formerly considered to be more or less worthless to be brought into a highly productive condition. The job that has been done by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in investigating trace elements is magnificent, because by the use of trace elements semi-arid country has been transformed into highly productive wheat and wool growing country. I say that any expenditure on the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization is worth while. I am intensely interested in the application of science to primary production. I regard the development of the scientific side of our national activities as of the utmost importance. Therefore, I give my wholehearted support to the proposed vote for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Australian Atomic Energy Commission.

Proposed vote, £368,000.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I understand that the Australian Atomic Energy Commission is responsible for the production and disposal of uranium. It has been suggested in successive issues of one newspaper that Australia is receiving only 16s. 3d. for each unit of uranium that it sells, compared with £1 10s. for similar units paid to other countries, including Canada. So far, the Government has consistently declined to either confirm or deny that suggestion.

Senator Guy:

– The Minister for Supply (Mr. Beale) denied it definitely yesterday.

Senator McKENNA:

– He denied that the price was 16s. 3d. for a unit of 22 lb. The newspaper to which I have referred returned to the attack yesterday and suggested that the unit was a unit of 1 lb., not 22 lb.

Senator Guy:

– The Minister denied that too.

Senator McKENNA:

– I was not aware of that.

Senator Guy:

– He said it was considerably above that figure.

Senator McKENNA:

– Why cannot we be told the figure? Surely it is acknowledged that all Australians have a vital interest in how Australia fares in this matter. I suggest to the Minister representing the Minister for Supply that there is no reason why the Government should not be completely frank with the Australian public on this subject. It may be said that security is involved, because a knowledge of the selling price would enable a potential enemy to calculate how much uranium we had sold. But I notice that on page 64 of the Estimates there is an item of £20,000, which is stated to be the sum recoverable for the sale of ore. One would not have to be a wizard to work out that the Government apparently expected to recover £20,000 from the sale of ore by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission.

Senator Henty:

– How many pounds of uranium would that represent?

Senator McKENNA:

– I am sure that the honorable senator would be able to work that out, at 16s. 3d. per lb. It is obvious that no great quantity is involved. If the Government is prepared to tell the world that it expects to realize £20,000 gross, why try to fool ourselves that somebody will not have a rough idea of the price, even if the Government does not say a word about it? The Government has refused to make this information available and has never given any intelligent or reasonable explanation of its refusal.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) gave it last night.

Senator McKENNA:

– He did not give it here. I am asking the Minister to tell the committee why the information is not available.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The Prime Minister issued a press statement dealing with this matter.

Senator McKENNA:

– I have not seen his press statement. I should be obliged if the Minister would tell us why Australia has fared so very much worse than has Canada in dealing with Great Britain and the United States of America in this matter.

Senator MAHER:
Queensland

– I wish to know the fund to which the proceeds of the uranium ore will be credited after the proceeds of sales overseas have been received. I expect that, as the- mining of the- ore becomes intensified, there will be larger quantities of ore for sale to Great Britain and also the United States of America. Those sales may result in fairly large sums of money being received. “Will that money be used for the advancement and development of the Northern Territory or will it be paid into Consolidated Revenue ?

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– Does the Minister deny that the price paid for Australian uranium ore is 195d. per lb., against as much as 360d. per lb. for uranium mined overseas? I do not think there should be any secrecy about this matter, Indeed, security is not involved. The fact that the Estimates disclose that uranium of a value of £20,000 has been recovered and sold does not indicate extensive operations, as the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) would have had us believe when he referred to the exploration that had taken place and the developmental work that had been carried out by his department. As I have said, the Estimates disclose that, up to June last, £20,000 had been received from, the sale of uranium ore.

Senator SPOONER:

– Where did the honorable senator find that information ?

Senator ASHLEY:

– In the Appropriation Bill; in which an entry appears ” Less amounts recoverable from the sale of ore, £20,000”.

Senator Scott:

– To which year does that refer?

Senator ASHLEY:

– To this year. According to> a recent statement made in the House of Representatives by the Minister for Supply (Mr. Beale), it seems that the Government has got off the rails in this connexion, and for that reason it will not divulge the actual price. I understand a contract has been entered into. The sooner people a.re told the price the better it will be for everybody.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– In reply to the questions- asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), Senator Ashley and Senator Maher, I have to say that It is true that the amount shown in Division 101 Iv under the vote for the Australian’ Atomic Energy Commission for the parchase and treatment of ores is £20,000.

T hat amount of money is set aside for the purchase of ore to be used in Australia in accordance with the recently announced policy of the Government. Those ores will represent an asset from which it is proposed to obtain uranium oxide for sale overseas or for use in the Australian Atomic Energy Commission’s own atomic energy research plants. It is expected that receipts from the sale of uranium oxide will at least equal the cost of the purchase and treatment of the ore. That item has nothing at all to do with uranium that is being sold to the Combined Development Agency. I think the Leader of the Opposition hit the nail on thehead when he said it was quite obvious that, if this amount of £20,000 were the amount that was being paid for all the uranium mined and if the price were given, it would be easy to work out the quantity produced.

Senator Ashley:

– Why is the amount included?

Senator COOPER:

– I have already explained that that item has nothing to do with the uranium that the Combined Development Agency is buying. That figure does not give any indication whatever of the amount of uranium ore that is being mined, but if the price were made public it would be easy for any foreign power or anybody else to work out fairly accurately the amount of uranium that is being produced in this country. The government thinks it is not wise to make public the price that is being paid, but I can assure honorable senators that the price that is being received is very much’ greater than the 16s. 2d. that was mentioned.

Senator Ashley:

– Is that 16s. 2d. per lb.

Senator COOPER:

– Whatever the 1 6s. 2d. relates to, the price is very much greater than that.

Senator Ashley:

– The first question asked was in relation to a unit, but I am asking the price per lb.

Senator COOPER:

– It is on a unit basis.

Senator Ashley:

– That is the point. My question is related to the price per lb.

Senator COOPER:

– That is all the information I can give in relation to price.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Where are the proceeds of the sale of uranium to Britain and America brought to account in Australian accounts ? Can the Minister tell me whether the total receipts appear separately in the accounts?

Senator Cooper:

– Sales and prices have not been made public.

Senator McKENNA:

– I suggest that if the total figure of receipts is not available, there could be no harm in disclosing the price. It is only the juxtaposition of total receipts and price that would enable the quantity to be determined. If no information is to be disclosed in relation to the total money received for sales, how could any information be released that would assist an enemy if the price for each unit were made known? That is the simple arithmetical proposition that the Minister must answer. If the Government will not make known the total receipts from those two sources, where is the danger in making known the price received for each unit? There is no reason why the Government should not at least disclose the price.

Senator Guy:

– Does the honorable senator think the public really wants to know the price?

Senator McKENNA:

– I do.

Senator Guy:

– Why?

Senator McKENNA:

– The people want to know whether the Government has let Australia down in the deal that it has made. I remind Senator Guy that at least one newspaper, which is widely read, has alleged that the Government is receiving far less than other governments in the British Commonwealth of Nations are receiving for the uranium that they sell.

Senator Guy:

– One cannot be guided, by newspaper reports.

Senator McKENNA:

– Thefact remains that the people are guided by newspaper reports ; and the people have a vital interest in this matter. Is that newspaper’s allegation correct that Australia is receiving 16s. 3d. a unit whilst Canada is receiving £1 10s. a unit in the same market? The people of Australia, have had that question before them, and they are vitally interested in knowing whether or not the Government has let them down.

Senator Spooner:

– The Government has said that that report is incorrect.

Senator McKENNA:

– That statement by the Government could be completely true if the price that Australia is to receive is not 16s. 3d. but 16s. 4d. for each unit. That is how far the Government’s flat denial carries the matter.

Senator Spooner:

– When a government makes a statement of that kind, it carries the matter a long way further.

Senator McKENNA:

– I do not think so. The Government wants to keep secret the quantity of uranium that is produced, and I admit that disclosure of the price and of the total’ amount received from sales would enable the quantity to bc determined. However, like blue and white seidlitz powders, which will not fizz unless they are brought together, “the price received for each unit of uranium will not indicate the quantity that is sold.

Senator Spooner:

– The honorable senator admits that disclosure of both those factors would be to the disadvantage of world security.

Senator McKENNA:

– I do not say that. The Government says it, though whether with, or without, justification I do not know. The Government has knowledge of the two components and so long as it makes available only one leg of the information it will give nothing away. There is a lot of unnecessary hush hush about this matter. The Opposition is left with the feeling that the Government would be embarrassed, apart altogether from considerations of security, if the price which it is to receive was made known. That is why we are pressing for that information. There is no logical reason why, if the Government kept one element under cover, it could not disclose the other.

Senator MAHER:
Queensland

– During the debate on the estimates for the Department of National Development, it was stated that one important function of that department was the search for uranium. Under the heading of “Exploration and Development” the sum of £271,000 is being provided for the Australian Atomic Energy Commis sion. I take it that that exploration relates to prospecting for uranium and to the development of deposits that are located. Having regard to the magnitude of that amount, I should like to know whether the commission is expending large sums for the same purpose for which the Department of National Development also is incurring substantial expenditure.

Senator Spooner:

– No. The commission finds the funds for the work carried out by my department.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– The expenditure on the Australian Atomic Energy Commission during 1952-53 was £5,775, but the commission expects to expend £18,800 on its administrative staff during the current year. There are three commissioners, one secretary, one principal field engineer, an accountant, a sub-accountant, five clerks, a librarian and peace officers and assistants, machinists and typists. As well as that administrative group there are 24 scientific officers whose salaries will amount to £39,659. Apparently that is the nucleus of another big department, and in fact it may be called a child of the department that has been so severely criticized recently. It does not appear that the scientific officers are particularly highly paid, and I should like to know whether they are engaged on research work, and whether their work is performed on the uranium field itself or on some other phase of the development of atomic energy. Is it expected that they will make some contribution to economic methods of utilizing atomic energy for industrial purposes ? It may be that some of the activities of the Department of National Development have been transferred to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. I would like to be informed about that matter also. It would be most wasteful to set up a scientific section under the Australian Atomic Energy Commission if that section is not thoroughly efficient, and if it cannot give ns full value for our expenditure upon it. Any adequately qualified staff should be well paid and well equipped. The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) stated during the consideration of the proposed vote for his department, that it is too expensive to pay for efficiency. I contend that it is too expensive for this country to pay for inefficiency. I consider that we should decide, at this early stage of the commission’s activities, to pay for efficiency, and see that -we get it.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) has stated that the Prime Minister made a statement on this matter last night. That is true. However, there is some confusion about whether the right honorable gentleman based his remarks on units or pounds. I ask the Minister to say whether or not it is true”1 that Australia is receiving only 195d. per lb. for uranium, as against 360d. per lb. received by Canada, and other countries. A cablegram that has been received from London, and which was published in the press, reads -

The Menzies Government’s! claim that Australia was getting as good a price as any other country for its uranium wau “completely false “, an authoritative source said last night. The source, which is close to the British Cabinet, said that the Government was making a very unconvincing job of trying to cover up the fact that Australia was only getting 10s. 3d. per lb. for its uranium from Britain and America against a world price of 30s. lb.

As I have said, there was some confusion about whether the Prime Minister based his statement on units or pounds.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has made a statement within the last 48 hours about the price that Australia is receiving for its uranium. The Minister for Supply (Mr. Beale) has also made a statement on the subject. The Government stands by the observations of those responsible Ministers - particularly the Prime Minister - on this matter. Senator Maher has referred to exploration.

Senator Maher:

– I am satisfied with the information that the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) gave me at the time, by way of interjection.

Senator COOPER:

- Senator Cooke has referred to 24 officers who are employed by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. They are employed on research work in the laboratory, not on field work. As the Minister for National Development has already pointed out, they work in co-operation with the Department of National Development, and some of their service is performed under the direction of that department. Therefore a portion of the money that is voted to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission is expended on work which they perform under the control of the Department of National Development. The amount expended on the salaries of the officers who are engaged in uranium research work, and on incidental expenses connected therewith, is returnable to the Department of National Development.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– Do the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) a.nd the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) mean that the salaries of these scientists is debited, pro rata, to both the Department of National Development and the Treasury? According to the proposed vote, the commission bears the whole of the charge in relation to their salaries. Is the estimate split on the basis of the proportionate amount of work done) or is the whole of the estimated expenditure included in the proposed vote?

Senator COOPER:
.Minis.ister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– The amount shown in the Estimates is the total proposed vote for the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. The amount of £241,000 represents the proportion of salaries and expenses provided for officers of the Department of National Development who are engaged in uranium research and will be under the control of that department.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Defence Services.

Proposed vote, £200,000,000.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I protest most strongly against the action of the Government in demanding that the committee, at 3 o’clock in the morning, after honorable senators have sat continuously from 10.30 a.m. on the previous day, should consider the proposed vote of £200,000,000 for Defence Services. It is impossible for honorable senators adequately to consider any item that is administered by any of the six important departments included in this section of the bill. It is a travesty of the functions of the Senate to ask it to consider this proposed vote at this hour of the morning. The Government, in forcing the committee to consider the Estimates in this way, has reduced the proceedings of this chamber to the level of burlesque. It is absolutely impossible for honorable senators at this hour to give -o the items included in the proposed vote the consideration which they demand. In every debate that has taken place in this chamber,, irrespective of its subjectmatter. the vital importance of the defence of the Commonwealth has been rightly stressed. Yet this committee of the Senate, the Upper House in this Parliament, is forced to deal with this large proposed vote willy-nilly and by a process of exhaustion. The proposed vote covers the important and widespread activities “of the Department of Defence, the Department of the Navy, the Department of the Army, the Department of the Air, the Department of Supply and the Department of Defence Production. Normally the discussion of the activities of each of those departments would take a considerable time.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

– Order! The honorable senator must confine her remarks to the proposed vote before the Chair.

Senator O’SULLIVAN (Queensland - Minister for Trade and Customs) [3.4 aja.). - I strongly support the rebuke that Senator Tangney has administered to her colleagues in the Opposition. If they had concentrated on the Estimates instead of making a political football of the proposed votes submitted for their consideration we should have had ample time to consider the proposed vote before the chair.

Opposition Senators. - Sit down!

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN Order! Senator Sandford:
VICTORIA
Senator Sandford:

– Why pick on me? Other honorable, senators made the same remark.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Among the shouts: of Opposition senators the honorable senator’s voice was most pronounced. I shall nairne him and other honorable senators if they do not observe order. Senator Sandford must not address the Chair in the way that he has done.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The behaviour of Opposition senators merely emphasizes the justice of the rebuke which Senator Tangney has administered to her colleagues.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
I take strong exception to the remarks of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan · South Australia [3.5 a.m.].

who in a clever, legal way has tried to turn my colleague’s, rebuke of the Government against Opposition senators. There is no Heed for the Minister to be unduly concerned about our attitude. If he desires to continue the. sitting we may repeat the tactics, that we employed when we insisted that the Senate should sit on a famous Saturday morning about two years ago. I hope that the Minister’s- mind is at ease on the subject. Having disposed of that matter, I raise my voice in protest and in disgust at the treatment that wa3 meted out to a young trainee who suffered illness while undergoing his period of national service training.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The. committee is dealing with the proposed vote for Defence Services. The matter to which the honorable senator is referring should have been dealt with during the consideration of the proposed vote for the Department of Labour and National Service.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Honorable senators must deal with matters that relate to the proposed vote before the Chair.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

,. - I do not believe- that th.> money the Government is spending on defence is being, spent in the right way.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– I want to offer every assistance to the committee, but I must point out that five different departments are included in the proposed vote for Defence Services’ and that all of them are not represented by the same Minister..

Senator MCKENNA:

– I rise to order. I ask you, Mr. Temporary Chairman, whether’ the Minister- for Trade and Customs has: raised a point of order. If he has not done so, he has unnecessarily interrupted Senator Kennelly’s speech which relates to the proposed vote for Defence Services.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Senator Kennelly will proceed with his speech.

Senator KENNELLY:

– My remarks relate to the proposed vote for Defence Services of £200,000,000. I wish to refute a statement made by Senator Wright in the Senate a few days ago that I was not in favour of defence preparations. I also wish to refute an insinuation of the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) relative to my attitude to defence. I do not. believe that money voted for defence purpose is being expended by the Government in the right way. The Government is playing with the defence of this nation by spending defence appropriations in a way that the Parliament did not. intend them to be spent. It would be far better from a defence point of view if a portion of the money was expended upon developmental projects. I would have been far better pleased if I could have seen this vote cut by at least £50,000,000 or £60,000,000. Then I should like to see that amount expended upon an attempt to settle people in portions of the empty north of Australia. Unless that is done, I believe that the defence programme will not serve the best interests of the nation.

This afternoon reference was made in this chamber to the construction of the Birdum to Dajarra railway. That project is essential to the defence of Australia. I believe also that a more or less solemn undertaking has been given by the Australian Government to the South Australian Government in connexion with the north-south railway line. In my opinion at least a portion of the proposed defence vote would be expended to better advantage on those projects. I do not want to have my remarks misconstrued either from a party or a personal point of view. Honorable senators should not infer from my remarks that the Australian Labour party does not stand for the adequate defence of Australia. The record of the party to which I belong proves that it has done everything in its power to provide adequate defences at the proper time. In that connexion I remind honorable senators of the part that was played by the Australian Labour party in the foundation of the Royal Australian Navy and the first Citizen Military Forces. While others have given lip service to defence, the Australian Labour party has acted.

Senator McCallum:

– The Australian Labour party repudiated that policy.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Senator McCallum knows all about repudiation because he has gone through that stage. I have not clone so and I leave the matter there.

Senator McCallum:

– I repudiated the evil forces of the Australian Labour party.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Irrespective of the honorable senator’s opinion, the history of the Australian Labour party with regard to defence speaks for itself.

SenatorO’Sullivan. - That will do us.

Senator KENNELLY:

– When the history in 1941 is written, it will speak for itself also. That is the record that will count.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The honorable senator should read the late Mr. John Curtin’s statement about it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! I ask Senator Kennelly to confine his remarks to the item that is before the committee.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am sure, sir, that you will be gracious enough to allow me to answer interjections. I am supported in the case that I am submitting to the committee by no other person than the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies). I admit that I gave the matter a second thought when I discovered that I was on the same side as the Prime Minister in this connexion, but I believe that the right honorable gentleman was correct when he stated at a press conference in Ottawa that if a third world war broke out, Australia’s main role would be food production. If that is so, the provision of money for the development of Australia so that food could be produced would at least support the dictum of the Prime Minister. Therefore, I express the opinion that the proposed vote, if it is expended as the Government apparently intends to expend it, will not be expended in the best interests of the people of Australia. That is why I oppose the expenditure as proposed in the Estimates.

Senator Henty:

– Will the honorable senator vote against it?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I shall vote as I think fit at the right time. When I have been a member of the Parliament for a little longer, Senator Henty will discover that I am never afraid. I believe that we are fooling the people. The best way to defend Australia is to populate it. We cannot populate the country unless we are prepared to develop it. If the Australian Government is not prepared to expend the money in that way, it should give financial assistance to the States so that they can develop the area that is under their control. Then we would not be in the position in which we have been placed in the past twelve months when we had to curtail immigration. After we have taken all the people that we can obtain from our own kith and kin, we shall be able to invite people from the continent of Europe to settle in Australia. I believe that in that way we shall be doing more for the defence of Australia than we shall be doing by expending money on defence in the manner that is proposed in the Estimates.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

– Before I call on the next speaker I wish to make it clear that we are taking, as one item, the proposed vote for Defence Services, which totals £200,000,000.

Senator Critchley:

– Then I was in order, when I was interrupted by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan), who said that I was dealing with the wrong item. I wish to protest, because it is now obvious that he was in the wrong.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– I apologize.

Senator Sheehan:

– I rise to order. I wish to know on whose authority, Mr. Temporary Chairman, we are taking this part as a whole. You have not sought to discover the wish of the Senate in illation to the matter. I do not know whether an arrangement has been made with regard to the debate, but I consider that you should consult the committee to see whether honorable senators desire to deal with this huge amount of money en Hoc, or to proceed in the usual manner and deal with each of the departments separately.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– “ Defence Services “ appears in the Schedule as one item, totalling £200,000,000, and I have taken it as such.

Senator Sheehan:

– I should think that the correct procedure would be to seek the approval of the committee in regard to the matter.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I rule that this part is one item. There is nothing to prevent honorable senators from discussing any of the items that make up the proposed vote of £200,000,000.

Senator Sheehan:

– Whilst I bow to your ruling. Mr. Temporary Chairman, I wish to know whether it is possible, under the .Standing Orders, for the committee, in- order to avoid the confusion that would be caused by a number of senators rising to speak on various parts of these Estimates, thereby making confusion worse confounded and making it almost impossible for honorable senators to follow the debate, to deal with each branch of the Defence Services separately. In view of the magnitude of the amounts that we are asked to vote I think that the items should receive the most careful consideration.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator may move that the several items under Defence Services be’ considered separately.

Motion (by Senator Sheehan) agreed to-

That the Departments under Part XX. - Defence Services - he considered separately.

Department of Defence.

Proposed vote, £712,000.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– I am in accord with the view expressed by Senator Kennelly that the development of our northern areas is the best means of defence of this country. The parties which now form the Australian Government gained thousands of votes in Queensland during the 1949 general election, and the last Senate election, because they promised that the Government would develop that part of this continent. Honorable senators opposite now occupy the treasury-bench as a result of these promises. Though four years have passed since these promises were first made, the Government still has not honoured them. Development is the No. 1 priority for the defence of Australia. I realize that I may not make a second-reading speech at this stage, but I say that as long as honorable senators opposite, especially those from Queensland, owe their position to the making of promises regarding the development of Queensland, we shall be entitled to try to discover from, them when the Government intends to honour the promises. I know that the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey), and almost every Minister who went to Queensland during the Senate election campaign, told the people of Queensland that the Government was alive to the great urgency of developing that State in the interests of national defence. I agree that if we are to defend this country effectively we must have a greatly increased population. One means of increasing the population in our sparsely populated areas is a vigorous developmental programme. The Government’s record in that regard is lamentable. Another means is immigration. This Government has wasted three years of opportunities of increasing the population of our more remote areas, and I register my protest at its failure in that respect. We have ‘ been provided with no information about the method of expenditure of this proposed vote. The Government is inclined to measure its contribution to the defence of this country by the amount of money it expends on defence. I look forward to the day when the Public Accounts Committee will investigate and report on expenditure on defence by this Government.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! Henceforth the discussion on this item must be related to the Department of Defence itself. Any honorable senator who desires to speak about development from the defence point of view should have taken the opportunity to do so during the debate on the proposed vote for the Department of National Development.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– I rise to protest about the fact that in another four minutes time we shall have been continuously in this chamber for seventeen hours except for meal breaks. I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan), even if he has no consideration for honorable senators, at least to show some consideration for the members of the staff who have to report again for duty at 10.30 o’clock this morning. .

Senator McLeay:

– Then the honorable senator should stop talking and sit down.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– , Order! The honorable senator should get on to the subject of defence.

Senator ASHLEY:

– The item with which, I am dealing is “ Legislation by Exhaustion “. I am particularly concerned about this proposed vote, because I wish to know some of the details of the expenditure of an additional sum of £15,000,000 in the last month of the last financial year.

Senator O’sullivan:

– I rise to order. There could be no extra expenditure of £15,000,000 under this item, because the total expenditure provided under it is only £712,000. I suggest that the honorable senator confine himself to a discussion of the Department of Defence.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The point of order is sustained.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I am dealing with the item, and I wish to know what portion of that additional expenditure of £15,000,000 in the last month of the last financial year is covered by this item.

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

– The honorable senator is completely at sea, as usual. He is talking about last year. We are talking about the current year.

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I think that it is appropriate at this stage to seek information from the Government about the source of the extraordinary advice which has led it to propose to expend £200,000,000 this year on defence services.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– I rise to order. The item deals with an expenditure of only £712,000.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The point of order is sustained.

Senator COOKE:

– If the Minister will refer to page 175 of the Estimates he will find the proposed expenditure detailed more minutely.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! The debate is on the item on pages 55 to 67.

Senator COOKE:

– But, read in conjunction with page 175-

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The Senate has carried Senator Sheehan’s motion . that the services departments be considered separately. The Opposition cannot have it both ways.

Senator COOKE:

– We are dealing with the first item under defence services, which is “Department of Defence. £712,000”. Listed on page 175 among other things is the provision for the salary of the secretary of the Department of Defence, £4,100. I should like the Minister to inform me whether the secretary to the Department of Defence places before the Government recommendations in relation to the administration of, and expenditure by, the Department of Defence. I believe that he would collate from the various advisers in the administration all the information required by the Minister on expenditure considered wise by the heads of the Defence Department. A deputy secretary of the department receives 2,7lS a year. I presume that he would be more or less a clerical assistant.

Senator McLeay:

– He has forgotten more about defence than the honorable senator will ever know.

Senator COOKE:

– The only defence that the Minister for Shipping and Transport knows about is liquor defence.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

is rather a cheap remark.

Senator COOKE:

– Last year this department had eight assistant secretaries.

Tt now hae four. If eight assistant secretaries were necessary prior to this year why are only four now required ? There is one war book officer whose salary has been increased by £47. Has this position been reclassified or has this officer simply received an increment? Has the Government taken any cognizance of the opinions of military advisers who have disagreed with the Government in relation to the expenditure of the sum of £712,000? Will this money be spent on purely recording purposes or will it be paid for advice in relation to defence? Can the Minister tell the committee when the administrative section of the department placed a recommendation before the Government in relation to the defence of the country? Has consideration been given to such recommendations and does the Government propose to place the recommendations before the Senate?

Senator ANDERSON:
New South Wales

.- I feel that I should make some comment on the submissions that have been put forward by Senator Kennelly and Senator Courtice. Those honorable senators have suggested that the vote for the Department of Defence could be better spent on the development of the under-developed parts of Australia. In a great national crisis the young men and women of this country will be required to undertake the defence of Australia. As legislators we must ensure that if that time comes, these young <men will be given all the facilities of war that are necessary to defend this country. I know from bitter experience the results of inadequate defence. Whilst the argument of the honorable senator that we should develop our country as a means of defending it may sound plausible, the grim reality is that we must have the implements of war. We must ensure that we do not send young men into battle armed, as the saying is, with broom handles. The best way of defending the country is to ensure that our Army, Navy and Air Force is the best equipped in the world. The further away from Australia that we have to fight the better. Consequently; our defence force must le mobile. Those who have spent a lifetime in studying the art of war have informed the Government on the beet way of defending this country. If one were to accept the argument that we should attend to the defence of this country by diverting its defence expenditure to national development one might also accept the argument that we should build homes or schools for the defence of the country. But we have to fight with the weapons that the enemy uses. We have to be prepared to meet him in the cruel ruthlessness of war. We must rely on the advice that has been given to the Government by those who have spent a lifetime in the study of defence problems. I suggest that the Government has acted rightly in making our defence efficient and mobile. If file grim reality of war comes we should be able to fight the enemy as far away from Australia as possible so that our wives and families and loved ones will be immune from danger.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I invite the attention of the committee to the fact that the vote under discussion is for £712,000. I ask honorable senators to confine their remarks to the items mentioned in ‘the vote. I think that honorable senators could more appropriately discuss the defence of Australia in general terms when the Estimates for the Army, the Navy, or. the Air Force are under consideration.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I should like the Minister to tell the Senate the purpose of the proposed vote of £712,000. The schedule on page 175 of the bill relates to the administration of the Defence Department. I presume that the administrative officers of the Defence Department are the people to whom we look to co-ordinate the general defence policy of Australia. I do not object to the expenditure of £712,000 on the defence of Australia, nor would I object to the expenditure of £200,000,000 on the defence of Australia, provided that the money was spent wisely and well.

Notwithstanding the length of this sitting, the only honorable senators who are absent are those who are ill or engaged on important business overseas. Obviously, therefore, the committee is giving close attention to these important matters. I suggest that no other parliament, after such a protracted continuous sitting, would be prepared to deal so carefully with the business of government. The Department of Defence, for which we are asked to appropriate £712,000, is the co-ordinating authority for the expenditure of £200,000,000’ on the complete defence programme. Therefore, it was wrong of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) to say that the Opposition was playing at politics by discussing the Government’s proposals at length. I have studied the Estimates with great care, and I am sure that other honorable senators will agree with my considered opinion that we have been provided with very little information in relation to the proposed expenditure on defence, although, as Senator Wright has said, in the final analysis we are in charge of defence expenditure. We have been supplied with no information to justify the Government’s proposals. Surely we should be given some data to support the proposed expenditure of £200,000,000 under the direction of the Department of Defence. Of course, we can make eloquent speeches about defence. But who is opposed to the defence of Australia? Surely, as the elected representatives of the people, we are entitled to full information

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

– Order! The honorable senator must refer only to the proposed vote of £712,000 for the Department of Defence.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I am doing so, Mr. Temporary Chairman. I am criticizing the proposed appropriation of £712,000 for the department that will be’ responsible for the control of our entire defence effort. Nobody will deny that this department is the supreme defence authority in Australia. It represents the very beginning and end of our national defence. It will be responsible, in the final analysis, for the expenditure in 1 053-54 of £45,000,000 on the Royal Australian Navy, over £73,000,000 on the Army, £56,000,000 on the Royal Australian Air Force, £14,000,000 on the activities of the Department of Supply, and another £8,000,000 on defence production. If that is not so, what justification is there for the existence of this department? Surely we are entitled to know what it is doing in order to ensure that the proposed overall expenditure of £900.000.000 ‘ on defence shall be effectively controlled.

We have read in the newspapers, on the authority of Ministers and officers of the Department of Defence, that our defence organization is so inefficient that it is impossible to take into the ranks of the armed services all the young men who are available for training. What are the officers of the Department of Defence doing in order to organize our defence system so that our young men can be trained effectively? Apparently, the Government expects us to vote blindly for the expenditure of £712,0.00 for the administration of a department about whose activities we have been given scant information. What are the duties of the officers of this department? Do they walk about our cities day in and day out ? Do they use petrol by riding in motor cars, and do they charge overtime when they ride at night in departmental vehicles? We want to know something about those people who are parading around in the name of defence at the expense of the taxpayers. This department, more than any other, merits investigation by the Public Accounts Committee, and I hope that the committee will find time quick and lively to examine its affairs. Nobody in this chamber or elsewhere will begrudge the expenditure of £712,000 on the department if it is efficient. Unfortunately, we have not been supplied with information to indicate that it is efficient. Vast sums were expended on defence when the Labour party was in power, but the Parliament was informed then of the activities of the department and the people knew that their money was being expended wisely in order to provide for the effective defence of the nation. We have not been given such information by this Government. Instead, it asks us to be quiet and to yield meekly to its demands. We are not to know anything about its defence activities! It is disgraceful that this committee, which is responsible for the nation’s welfare, should be called upon at this hour of the morning, after many hours of continuous meeting, to appropriate money for the defence of the nation without having in its possession more than the barest details of the proposed expenditure.

Senator WILLESEE (Western Aus priation for the Department of Defence, which I assume to be the co-ordinating department for all defence activities, is £712,000. I understand that I may refer to the provisions for the various departments associated with defence.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The committee has decided to consider the proposed votes separately.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I appreciate your guidance, Mr. Temporary Chairman, but I submit that we are called upon to deal with the largest volume of expenditure for any governmental activity under the general heading of defence.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! We cannot have it both ways.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I am dealing with the Department of Defence. The vote for this department in 1952-53 was £730,000, and the actual expenditure was £670,531. The proposed vote of £712,000 for the current financial, year is greater than was the actual expenditure last year. I remind honorable senators that hostilities have ceased in Korea, at least temporarily, so that the provision for the maintenance of our forces in that theatre should be considerably less this year than was the expenditure last year. I ask the Minister to indicate whether this amount of £712,000 will be necessary for coordination and administration. As honorable senators know, it is common practice for departments to transfer money from one item to another. Perhaps the Minister can indicate whether some moneys provided for defence purposes will be transferred to this co-ordinating department.

The speeches on defence delivered by honorable senators opposite have borne a remarkable similarity to the speeches delivered by honorable senators on thi3 side of the chamber. Senator Kennelly has probably expressed the views of the great majority of the Australian people, and Senator Anderson, who evidently rose to contradict Senator Kennelly’s views, actually agreed with him on a number of counts. Senator Anderson emphasized the need to make the Australian Army mobile so that lt could move to battle stations as quickly as possible.

I note that provision is made in the Estimates of the Department of Defence for the appointment of a secretary of the Joint War Production Committee at a salary of £2,245. I note that this office did not exist last year, and I am led to the conclusion that some of the money that will be saved because of the cessation of hostilities in Korea, may be made available for administrative purposes and the establishment of new offices, such as that of secretary of the Joint War Production Committee. I am perfectly willing to support the allocation of a larger sum of money than the proposed vote of £712,000 if I am given some information about the way in which it would be expended. The Department of Defence is of considerable importance, because it is the co-ordinating section. Australia, we hope, has entered a period of peace, although we must be eternally vigilant. Senator Anderson dealt with this matter, and evidently was in. order in doing so because you, Mr. Temporary Chairman, did not intervene.

The honorable senator discussed the necessity for the establishment of mobile forces. I invite the Minister to indicate whether the service chiefs consider that some of the allocation for defence should be made available to finance the construction of a rail link so that troops may be conveyed from Brisbane through the north of South Australia to Kalgoorlie without having to change trains, because of a break of gauge. I should like to know whether the service chiefs regard the construction of that rail link as a valuable contribution to the national defence. In my innocence, I think that such a line would be a useful defence work, but I should like to be informed of the views of the experts on the matter. Again, in my innocence, I think that some of the money provided for the Navy, Army and Air Force could be transferred, with advantage, to the Department of Defence, and I should like the Minister to express his views on the matter. Does he consider that the road system of Australia should be extended and improved in order that our forces may have the mobility that has been urged by Senator Anderson? I throw those views into the arena, and I make no apology for doing so, because our expenditure per capita on defence is sub stantially greater than our expenditure on social services. I do not regret the provision of one penny of this vote, but we should not attempt to fool ourselves with the notion that the people of Australia are completely satisfied that they are getting full value for their money. If Australia can reasonably expect a long period of peace, surely matters of coordination should be dealt with. I regret that you, Mr. Temporary Chairman, have found it necessary to restrict the scope of this important debate-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMANOrder! The restriction has been placed on the debate, not by the Chair, but by the Senate itself.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I do not wish to argue the issue with you. I content myself with saying that the Chair has wide discretionary power, and I believe that the Chair, most regrettably, has restricted the scope of this debateCoordination is essential to the efficient operation of our defence forces and for such purposes as the stockpiling of rare minerals. I hope that the Minister will supply the information for which I had asked.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Department of Defence is the one department which never goes to war. What is the reason for the establishment of this department? Its purpose is to ensure a proper balance between the various arms in the defence forces. If the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy and the Department of Air were to be quite independent of each other, the three major defence activities would be completely un-co-ordinated and non-co-operative. In those circumstances, what kind of defence effort would we have? The function of the Department of Defence is to determine the war potentials that may affect Australia, estimate the dangers to this country, evolve an over-all plan which will meet the position, and then co-ordinate the work of the three arms of the defence forces. I submit that if no reference is to be made to those matters during the consideration of the proposed vote for the Department of Defence, this chamber is denied all opportunity adequately to discuss the defence of the country. There can be no proper consideration of the total expenditure that is supervised by the Department of Defence without consideration of the matters that I have indicated. I join with Senator Willesee and Senator Sheehan in suggesting that this is the opportunity for the appropriate Minister to set out the overall defence strategy of Australia. If, at an earlier stage in this debate, the Minister had embarked upon such a statement we might have been saved a great deal of time. As this is the one opportunity that honorable senators will have this year to consider Australia’s overall defence strategy, I hope that the Minister will take the matter seriously and will give us a. discourse upon the broad outlook of the Department of Defence. Does anybody suggest that we shall have another opportunity this year to discuss the defence of Australia ? There will be no other bill that will permit such a discussion, nor is any statement on defence policy likely to be made by the Government. I hope the Minister will see that viewpoint, and will address himself to defence policy in his reply to this debate.

Senator Sandford:

– I ask you, Mr. Temporary Chairman whether, in view of what Senator MeKenna has said, we are now permitted, in speaking to this proposed vote, to deal with the overall defence of Australia.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

– I am guided in this matter by the following ruling by a former Presidents

On the first reading of an appropriation bill wide latitude is. allowed in debate, but at the committee stage discussion must be relevant to an item in the schedule . .

The committee had an opportunity to discuss the votes for the service departments in toto, but it decided by resolution to discuss them separately.

Senator Ashley:

– Does the Minister not intend to answer the points that have been raised by Opposition speakers?.

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

.. - There- is nothing to answer. If there is any specific item about which the committee requires information, I shall be very happy to give it; provided the request: is- couched in sufficiently clear terms– for mc- to understand it.

Senator ASHLEY:
Nt,w South Wales

– The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) has told us that he is prepared to answer any question that is asked on a specific item. There is before us a round, figure of £2,000,000-

Senator O’Sullivan:

– No.

Senator ASHLEY:

– In the last month of the financial year 1952-53 there was an expenditure of £15,291,000-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable senator will not he in order if he continues on those lines.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– I wish to refer to one aspect of the defence of this country which has already been mentioned by some of my colleagues. The Department of Defence, as I have said, is a co-ordinating body. Not only must it co-ordinate the activities of the three arms of the Services, but also it has a duty to look to the stockpiling of strategic material. I do not think any honorable senator will dispute that. I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan), who represents the Minister for Defence in this chamber, what stockpiling is taking- place in Australia to-day. In 1951, the sum of £50,000,000 was allocated for the purchase of strategic stores and. equipment.. There- is still some money in that fund. However, not all the money expended from the fund was used for stockpiling. Some of it was diverted into loans.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– I rise, to order. If the Leader of the Opposition will state the item of proposed expenditure to’ which he is referring’ I shall do my best to follow his argument.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

– The point of order is upheld.

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– No point of order has been raised. The Minister for Trade and Customs has merely asked inn a question.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The Minister for Trade and Customs has asked the- honorable’ senator1 to which item m the proposed vote for the Department of Defence he is- referring.

Senator McKENNA:

– It appears, in my view, in Division 102 - “Administrative”, item A (1), “Salaries and Allowances as per schedule”. The officials for whom provision is made in the schedule of salaries and allowances include the secretary of the Department of Defence. By deliberate design, the secretary is a civilian, not a military man. He is trained to co-ordinate the activities of the various departments,, and to see that all aspects of the defence of this country are attended to.. One aspect of defence is the stockpiling of materials. Will anybody deny that stockpiling is a function of the Department of Defence and not the sole prerogative of the Navy, the Army, or the Air Force?

Senator Spooner:

– It is done by the Department of Supply.

Senator McKENNA:

– It is done under the aegis of the Department of Defence which supervises the activities of all those other authorities. I claim that when money is allocated for that purpose it goes into loan funds-

Senator O’Sullivan:

– I rise, to order. The Leader of the Opposition is referring to the appropriation of £4,100 for the salary of the secretary of the Department of Defence. I assure him that no stockpiling is provided for in that expenditure. Therefore, it is quite improper for him to deal with stockpiling under that item. I submit that stockpiling may be discussed only on an item which specifically appropriates money for that purpose.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The point of order in relation to stockpiling raised by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) is upheld.

Senator McKENNA:

– I accept your ruling, Mr. Temporary Chairman.. I am criticizing the Defence Estimates because no provision has been made for the defence of this country by providing money for stockpiling purposes. There is a need to do that. That need has been recognized in the past, but no provision has been made for stockpiling in these Estimates. If money allocated for strategic stores and equipment is diverted to loan funds, it will be used for the development of State projects. This Government, by diverting funds to sup port State developmental programmes, is doing the very thing that Senator Kennelly recommended. I claim that moneys have already been diverted for that purpose.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– Earlier in the discussion. I endeavoured to seek information about the re-organization of the administration of the Department of Defence that has apparently taken place. Although I was prevented from speaking about that matter, immediately I had resumed my seat a. member of the Government parties was- permitted to traverse that ground, although perhaps more generally thanI had. proposed to do. I shall address my remarks to Division 102. The post of Secretary of the Department of Defence remains: The post of first assistant secretary has been abolished. The number of assistant secretaries has been reduced, from eight to four.. A new appointment in the department is the Controller of Joint Service Organizations. The Labour party has suggested from time to time that a joint service organization should be established. We want to know whether the Government has adopted our suggestion.

Another new appointment is that of Secretary of the Joint War -Production Committee. I remind honorable senators that the Labour party has suggested the establishment of a joint war production committee to- co-ordinate defence production.. I should like to know what work the secretary of this committee is doing. A further new appointment is that of Secretary of the Board of Business Administration. Has he anything to do with stockpiling or with carrying out business projects on behalf of the defence services? I ask the Minister to tell us what duties the Secretary of the Defence Committee will perform. That is another new appointment. Armed with the information for which I have asked, we might be able to discover whether anything is being done to’ co-ordinate the defence requirements of this country.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– I understand that the committee is dealing with the Department of Defence, the proposed vote for which is £712,000. The activities of the Department of Defence are very vague. I have tried to trace them through the budget papers. The index to those papers states that defence services are dealt with on pages 12, 42, 44, 76 and 78. We can take our pick.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Before the honorable senator proceeds further, I remind him that the committee is dealing, not with defence services as a whole, but only with the Department of Defence.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I understand that. I choose page 44. I turn to that page and find it is headed “Defence services - continued “. On that page there is an item relating to the storage services of the Department of Defence Production. They come under defence, do they not? I should like the Minister to tell me something about those storage services. In 1952-53, expenditure on them was £437,860. It is proposed to expend £550,000 for that purpose this year. What are these storage services?

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of the Navy.

Proposed vote, £45,770,000.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– The Estimates for the Department of the Navy contain items in respect of naval and air stores, ordnance and torpedo stores, and medical and dental stores. I assume that Senator Ashley is interested in those stores also. The proposed vote for naval construction in 1953-54 is £5,830,000.’ I assume that naval construction includes the repair, alteration and rebuilding of naval vessels. I wish to know whether our navy includes vessels other than fighting ship3. I agree with Senator Anderson that if we are to ensure the security of this country we must have naval forces in our northern waters. The northern parts of Australia cannot be protected without a strong navy which, in turn, must be supported by an army. It is also necessary for transport vessels to be available to carry goods and ammunition to the north. Is it a fact that the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) is endeavouring to sell the Commonwealth line of ships? Does he consider that he is “ dinkum “-

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Reid:

– Order! I rule that the question of the sale of the Commonwealth line of ships has nothing to do with the Estimates for the Department of the Navy.

Senator AYLETT:

– Then I shall leave the Commonwealth line of ships out of the discussion. I should like to know how many transport vessels are available to carry torpedoes, for instance, to the north of Australia should it be necessary to use them there. Are our potential transports at present being hawked round the world by the Minister? Does he consider that it is reasonable to dispose of such a vital defence link? Honorable senators may remember that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) told the people more than three years ago that we had only three years in which to prepare our defences. I take it that we are still preparing them, and I wish to know whether we have balanced naval forces.

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The proposed vote for the Department of the Navy is £45,770,000. That, of course, is part of the’ £200,000,000 which the taxpayers have been asked to provide for the defence services for the year, but the actual expenditure may be £250,000,000. Honorable senators may remember that last year, although the vote was £200,000,000, actual expenditure was £215,291,736. I wish to know how many millions of pounds have been wasted by the service departments, particularly the Department of the Army. We know that there has been some waste in connexion with the Department of the Navy. Recently, in Fremantle, H.M.A.S. Horsham, which is a small ship of approximately 300 tons, was put on the slipway, and about 80 men were employed on repairs. They sand-blasted the whole of the hull and gave it one undercoat of paint. Then all those employees were dismissed at a minute’s notice, and the ship was left lying on the slipway with only one coat of paint on it. When I tried to find out why the men had been dismissed, the naval authorities were like oysters. No information could be obtained. After a few days the men were re-employed . for another couple of days and then dismissed again. The ship was taken off the slipway and moved to the graveyard near Garden Island. It is still there. The work has not been finished, and 1 have no doubt that the ship will lie there and rust. That is only one example of waste. Many other instances of similar waste must have occurred over the years.

I hope that the Public Accounts Committee will investigate the defence services, particularly the activities of the “ brass hats “ who are to be seen in large motor cars being driven round the capital cities by young women. The officers sit in the back of the cars looking like parakeets. If honorable senators disbelieve me, they should go to St. Kildaroad, Melbourne, where the heads of the various armed services are recognized as the drones of Melbourne.

I agree that we should have a wellequipped navy and air force, because I believe that, in the very near future, such forces may be needed to cope with the teeming millions in countries not many hundreds of miles away from thi Northern Territory should they decide to come to that part of Australia which we have neglected. ‘Should that happen we shall need a navy. The Army will not be worth two “ bob “. Honorable senators will remember that in Malaya during the last war tens of thousands of Japanese troops completely overran the Australian and English troops in that area. I repeat that we need a navy and an air force. Indeed, I should like to see £100,000,000 of the total defence vote of £200,000,000 devoted to naval purposes, because in my opinion the Navy is our most important defence service. It should be fully equipped and up to date.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I regret that- the time is not opportune for a more detailed discussion of the proposed vote for the Department of the Navy, because I think the majority of honorable senators recognize that Australia is an island continent and that the backbone of its defence really is its naval strength. The residents of Western Australia feel acutely the necessity for well-equipped naval vessels, particularly in their northern waters. Close liaison between the Depart ment of the Navy and the Department of Air is fully recognized as being essential to the defence of Australia. In the past the fact that Australia was an island continent was really its first line of defence, but science has proved that being an island continent is no longer a line of defence and that Australia will have to rely on its naval and air strength in order to defeat any invader from the sea. Australia is not like the European countries where an army can march in from a neighbouring country. The chief form of attack upon Australia can only be from the sea. Because Australia is an island continent, its naval strength should be developed to the utmost.

I was privileged some years ago to launch at one of the Australian shipbuilding yards a ship that has done much fine work in the defence of Australia in Korea and now in the waters north of Australia. I refer to H.M.A.S. Shoalhaven. I think that since that ship was launched in December, 1944, insufficient ships of the same type have been built in Australia’s shipbuilding yards.

I should have liked, as doubtless would other honorable senators, to discuss the Estimates of the Department of the Navy at greater length and to link with that discussion a discussion of shipbuilding programmes in Australian yards. It is of no use to us to wait until a war comes. It is important that Australia should be prepared for war, and the best preparation to repel an attack on Australia is to make certain that it has sufficient naval strength. The world no longer speaks of push-button wars. I am no expert in these matters, but I think there is still need in modern warfare for the human element to be considered. This discussion should be one of the most important discussions by this committee. I regret that we cannot discuss the proposed vote more fully with a view to ascertaining whether it could be increased or whether economies could be effected. I do not think money spent rightfully but economically upon naval defence could ever be described as money wasted.

Senator WORDSWORTH:
Tasmania

– As I view the position, the two important questions that emerge are these - 1. Are we spending too much money on defence? 2. Are we spending that money correctly? A few days ago honorable senators heard the VicePresident of the United States of America, Mr. Nixon, express the opinion that in these days a nation has to spend as much as it possibly can afford to spend on defence without incurring the danger of wrecking its economy. Field Marshal Harding, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, who came to Australia only a few days ago, expressed much the same opinion, and I read in the press only last week that Field Marshal Montgomery said almost the same. Field Marshal Montgomery said that in his opinion the chances of war now were fewer because the democracies were devoting such large sums towards defence. The matter boils down to this : Can one nation of 8,500,000 people afford to pay the sum of £200,000,000 a year for defence?

Senator Sheehan:

– I rise to a point of order. Under your ruling, Mr. Chairman, this is a discussion on the Estimates for the Department of the Navy.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The committee is dealing with the Estimates for the Department of the Navy.

Senator Wordsworth:

– It was ruled by your predecessor, Mr. Chairman, that at this time honorable senators could discuss the Estimates-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator must confine his remarks to the Estimates for the Department of the Navy.

Senator WORDSWORTH:

– Very well, I have finished.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I sought information from the Minister and I still hope that he will give me that information. The amount provided for naval construction is £5,830,000. I want to know what classes of ships are to be constructed. Is it intended to construct transport ships, or is that amount for naval vessels?

In Division 124 - Acquisition of sites and buildings - £345,000 is provided for. In 1952-53 the expenditure on this item was £69,264 although £150,000 was voted for it. I raise this question because the same thing applies to other departments. I should like the Minister to inform the committee where the proposed buildings and sites are.

In 1952-53 over £2,000,000 was expended in respect of Division 125 - Buildings, Works, Fittings and Furniture. In the current financial year it is proposed to expend £2,148,000 for that purpose. On paper it seems that a lot of that money is to be advanced for the provision of furniture and fittings in palatial buildings, because these millions of pounds are mounting up. I think that the money could be used to greater advantage in the construction of naval vessels than in the provision of buildings and furniture for the comfort of those who live at home while their brothers in arms do the fighting. I ask the Minister to give us some information on these matters.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of the Army.

Proposed vote, £73,742,000.

SenatorCRITCHLEY (South Australia) [4.38 a.m.]. - I refer again to an appeal I made earlier in respect of a trainee who became seriously ill in camp at Woodside, South Australia, and was transferred to the Dawesroad Hospital? In the meantime the camp broke up and that trainee was 88 days in hospital without receiving compensation or pay of any kind from the Department of the Army. If the people knew that this sort of thing was happening they would not tolerate such treatment of national service trainees. If the Army authorities rule that this lad’s illness was not attributable to his training service at Woodside, I do not know what one can do in order to convince them that it was. The treatment of this lad is all the more unfair, having regard to the fact that other trainees, who were suffering from the same complaint, were removed from Woodside to an isolation hospital in which they remained until the camp broke up. I do not believe that any honorable senator will countenance such treatment of national service trainees’. I have made representations in this matter to the commandant at the camp concerned, the medical officers, the commanding officer at Keswick and to the Minister for the Army (Mr. Francis). I take this opportunity, which is the last that I shall have to raise the matter before the Parliament adjourns, to appeal again to the Government to do the right thing by this lad, not only in his interest, but also in the interests of the national service training scheme.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I refer to Division 138 - Administration of National Service Acts 1951. I have received a letter from the father of a trainee in which he complains bitterly that his son who was called up compulsorily for’ national service training had been asked, after he made his attestation, to sign a form to the effect that he was serving voluntarily. The father stated -

The plain fact is that National Service trainees, under strong moral pressure, are asked to take an oath “ on the Bible “ and then sign a written declaration that their service has been undertaken voluntarily.

As the lads, before being publicly asked to take such an oath have been ordered into camp with the full force of Commonwealth law and not because of any voluntary act on their part, it is clear that they are pressed to commit wholesale perjury.

I took up the matter with the Minister for Defence (Sir Philip McBride), from whom. I received the following reply -

It may be that your inquiry relates to the attestation form for the Citizen Military Forces which is used by the Army both for persons presenting themselves for voluntary enlistment and for those called up for National Service. Part two of this form makes provision for a person voluntarily enlisting to declare that he is willing to serve in the Citizen Military Forces. I understand that a National Service trainee is not obliged to sign part two.

I ask the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) to consider, first, the disturbed state of the minds of parents who get misconceptions about the national service training scheme; and, secondly, the wrong that the Army authorities commit by presenting to a national service trainee a form on which he makes his attestation, or oath of loyalty, and also a statement that he has undertaken to serve voluntarily in another branch of .the military forces. The presentation of that form to national service trainees causes all the confusion and, perhaps, forces a great many boys to sign the second part of the form in the belief that they are obliged to do so. There should be no * coercion, direct or indirect, about shepherding trainees into the military forces. It is excellent if they decide to go into the forces voluntarily with a full understanding of what they are doing. My complaint is that a form in respect of the Citizen Military Forces which provides in part one for the attestation, and in part two for enlistment, in those forces, should not be presented to a national service trainee. I suggest that the practice that the Minister for Labour and National Service outlined to me quite recently should be discontinued, if that has not already been done, and that provision should be made that when a national service trainee reports for duty and is asked to sign the attestation form, that form only should be placed before him and should not be bracketed with any form of enlistment relating to another force altogether. When the Estimates for the Department of the Navy were under discussion I noticed, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister made two ineffectual- attempts to catch your eye. In those circumstances, I should like to move for the recommittal of those Estimates in order to give to the Minister an opportunity to reply to the debate on them which, unfortunately, he missed.

The CHAIRMAN:

– As the committee is now considering the Estimates for the Department of the Army, I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition should move in the direction that he has indicated when consideration of these Estimates has been concluded.

Senator McKENNA:

– I shall follow that course.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

.- An amount of £73,742,000 is being provided for the Department of the Army. I support the policy of the Government in respect of that department. When this chamber is considering the expenditure of nearly £74,000,000 at this early hour in the morning, and when every honorable senator is concerned that the activities of that department should be fully debated in the limited time at our disposal, I am amazed that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) should concentrate his attention upon the case of one national service trainee. No doubt, the honorable senator regards the principle involved in the matter that he has raised as being of great importance. I do not criticize him for adopting that attitude. However, in view of the circumstances in which this debate is taking place, I fail to appreciate the action of the Leader of the Opposition in referring to the case of an individual when, earlier in the same debate, my colleague, Senator Wordsworth, who is a Major-General and has seen service in both world wars and whose opinion on defence would be of great value to all honorable senators, was prevented from dealing with matters which he sought to raise. He is an authority on defence, just as the experts in the Public Service are authorities in their particular spheres, yet through some rule of procedure of this Senate he has been prevented from discussing the expenditure on defence of £200,000,000 of public money.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I had no option but to rule as I did. The committee refused to allow all the defence service votes to be taken as a whole, and while I am in the chair I shall uphold that decision. The Leader of the Opposition was in order because his remarks did not trangress that decision.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I wish to make it clear to Senator Marriott that I had two reasons for selecting a case concerning an individual to illustrate my point. First, an important matter of principle was involved which affects all national service trainees. Secondly-

Senator Kendall:

– I rise to a point of order. According to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, we are now discussing only the Estimates for the Department of the Army. Therefore, I suggest that Senator McKenna is out of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I understand that Senator McKenna is now discussing a matter relating to national service trainees. At this stage I will rule that he is in order.

Senator McKENNA:

– My second reason is that this matter seems to be rather difficult for the Ministers in charge of defence departments. Ministers have been asked to indicate government policy on defence, the Navy, and the Army, but to the present time they have not replied to such questions. I considered that if I were to ask a question about a minor matter it might be answered, because obviously Ministers will not answer questions about major matters. I was delighted to hear Senator Marriott say that he supported government policy in relation to the Army. Now, as the Minister will not tell us about government policy in relation to the Army, perhaps Senator Marriott, who supports that policy, will tell us the nature of the policy that he is supporting.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I am not attempting to challenge your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I believe that a misunderstanding has arisen because you were not in the chair when the procedure to be followed during this debate was discussed. The Temporary Chairman, Senator Wood, ruled that the matters now under discussion should be taken in toto, and mentioned a precedent for his action. However, Senator Wordsworth has not been treated fairly in regard to this matter.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have given my ruling, and I intend to stand by it.

Senator WILLESEE:

– You have ruled without knowing all the facts of the matter.

The CHAIRMAN:

– My ruling stands.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– I suggest that according to the Estimates, the Government’s policy in relation to the Army is extraordinary. Apparently the Australian Regular Army is a top-heavy, lopsided, brass-hatted organization. At page 179 of the Estimates honorable senators will see that £19,057,000 will be appropriated this year for the Australian Regular Army. It is also indicated that in 1952-53 there were 3,257 majors, captains, and lieutenants in that army, and 17,193 lance corporals, privates, gunners, sappers, drivers, &c. Therefore, there was about one major, captain or lieutenant, for every six lance corporals, privates, gunners and so on. That is not the worst feature of it. Provision was made for 3,203 sergeants. Apparently, there are three lower ranks to each sergeant in the

Australian Regular Army, and one brass hat for every six other ranks. As I have said, there is under each sergeant a lancecorporal and one or two other ranks to boot.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The sergeant cannot boot them.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– I said “to boot “. I was thinking of the other boot, in the sense that they act as a boot for somebody else.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– So the boot is on the other foot?

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– I do not know the term that is applied to a corporal or a lance-corporal who attends to the requirements of a brass hat. This is indeed an extraordinary situation. Apparently, a sergeant gives an order to a corporal, who passes it on to a lancecorporal, and he, in turn, instructs the men who will do the job. It would appear that the policy of the Government is to have a top-heavy, brass-hatted regular army. That is the policy that Senator Marriott supports. I understand that some re-organization is taking place in the Australian Regular Army. I should like the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) to inform the committee of details of the reorganization. What is going to take place in connexion with the Australian Regular Army ?

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

– I am aware that it is after 5 o’clock in the morning and we are all a bit tired, but surely I would not be considered rude if I were to describe the speech that has just been delivered by Senator O’Flaherty as the silliest speech that has ever been heard in this chamber. The honorable senator, who represents South Australia in this chamber, has deemed it appropriate, and even humorous, to go right through the list and compare the number of sergeants with the number of generals.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– I did not mention generals.

Senator SPOONER:

– I suppose the only reason that the honorable senator did not mention generals was that he could not read the figures against “ lieutenant-generals “ and “ major- generals “ in the schedule of salaries and allowances. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has stated that Ministers have not refuted criticism that has been levelled against their administration. I should have liked to answer criticism that was made by Senator Kennelly during this debate. However, I submit that it is an insult to the intelligence of Ministers in this chamber to expect them to reply to the utter, arrant nonsense that Senator O’Flaherty has uttered.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 29

NOES: 19

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed vote - Department of Air, £56,363,000- agreed to.

Department of Supply.

Proposed vote, £14,752,000.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I refer to the proposed vote of £13,000 under Division 162, New Guinea Resources Prospecting Company

Limited - Contribution to share capital. The vote for this item last year was £13,000, of which £12,750 was expended. It would appear from the wording of the entry in the schedule that this item refers to shares in a gold-mining company. Immediately underneath that item in the schedule is Division 163 - Machinery and plant. It would appear that it is intended to invest a portion of the proposed vote for defence services under the control of the Department of Supply in a gold-mining company. But there is no indication whether it is intended to expend the money on prospecting for gold, or in connexion with a timber mill. If the money is to be used for defence purposes will the Minister explain why it is to be invested in New Guinea Resources Prospecting Company Limited? Under Division 167, £44,000 has been provided for defence research and development - acquisition of sites and buildings. Under Division 169, £3,117,000 has also been provided for defence research and development, in this instance for buildings, works, fittings and furniture. The proposed vote for buildings, works, fittings and furniture for the Department of the Army, under Division 141 is £5,157,000. I should like to know whether all of this money is to be spent on the acquisition and equipment of palatial buildings in the big cities. Under Division 172, £240,000 has been provided for defence, research and develop-‘ ment, in this instance for maintenance. A close scrutiny of the proposed votes for defence purposes to be administered by the various departments discloses that a colossal amount of the taxpayers’ money is to be spent, not on defence preparations but on the acquisition, fitting and furnishing of palatial buildings for research officer’s. Is the Minister able to inform the committee of the amount of money proposed to be expended by each department on defence research and development? Is he able to explain why the total estimated expenditure under this heading is spread over so many departments ? Is this merely a ruse on the part of the Government to conceal the total amount to be appropriated for this purpose?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– Senator Aylett asked for information concerning Division 162, New Guinea Resources Prospecting Company Limited - contribution to share capital. An agreement was made on the 19th May, 1950,. between the Commonwealth and the British Aluminium Company Limited., of London, for the formation of a limited liability company to be known as the New Guinea Resources Prospecting Company Limited with a share capital of £100,000 Australian currency divided into 100,000 shares of £1 each of which the Commonwealth was to be allotted 51,000 shares, the balance of the shares being allotted to the British Aluminium Company Limited. An amount of 5s. a share was paid on allotment in 1950-51 and a call of 5s. a share was made in each of the years 1951-52 and 1952-53. It is anticipated, that the final call of 5s. a share will be made in 1.953-54, and provision has been made accordingly. The provision under Division 163 for machinery and plant is required for the purchase and installation of plant, machinery and equipment for establishments under the control of the Department of Supply, excluding the long range weapons establishments, defence research and development laboratories and transport workshops. Establishments covered by this provision are as follows : -

Senator Aylett also referred to the proposed vote of £240,000 for Division 172, defence research and development - maintenance. This provision has been made for the carrying out of essential maintenance on buildings occupied by the research and development sections of the department. Expenditure, made against requisitions by the department, is controlled by the Department of Works.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

, - I propose to direct my remarks to Division 161l, Reserves of stores and materials. Last year a vote of £68,000 was made by the Parliament and £68,297 was expended, but no provision has been made under that head in these Estimates. Will the Minister state the purposes for which the amount of £68,297 was expended last year ? Incidentally, will he state the policy of the Department of Defence in relation to reserves of stores of materials? I take it that this item includes stores and materials of all kinds that the department will require. Two years ago, approximately £50,000,000 was taken from revenueand ear-marked for strategic stores and equipment but the amount was not expended and it still remains intact. Either the Government, in taking the amount out of revenue and placing it into a reserve account for the acquisition of strategic stores and equipment made an error, or it did so deliberately in order to create the impression that it was doing something in the matter of supplies when in fact it proposed to do nothing. I should like the Minister to indicate whether the Government regards the existing supply of strategic stores and. equipment as adequate for all purposes. If it does, why was not the amount appropriated for the purpose returned to Consolidated Revenue? I put it to the Minister that the £50,000,000 having already been invested in Commonwealth bonds, as has been explained by the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), it has really been used to support State developmental programmes. To the degree that the money had been so invested the Government subscribes to the arguments advanced by honorable senators on this side of the chamber to the effect that development of Australian resources makes a major contribution to defence. Does the Minister agree with the proposition put by Senator Kennelly, and is the appropriation, or should I say the misappropriation, of that money for the purposes of development and not for strategic stores and equipment, an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the viewpoint expressed by Senator Kennelly?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– The provision of £68,000 made for reserve of stores and materials in 1952-53 was required to cover the final settlement with the United Kingdom in respect of wartime purchases made on behalf of the Eastern Group Supply Council. Settlement was effected for £68,297. As to the other question, it is obvious that the matter of strategic reserves is one of Government policy. Honorable senators will, realize that stockpiles of strategic materials were made by the Government because it decided that they might be necessary in the event of hostilities. One stockpile was made of rubber, for example. The Government accepts full responsibility for its actions. This was a matter of Government policy and should not be discussed in connexion with the Estimates. The Government has acted as it thought fit and the decision was one for the Government.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of Defence Production.

Proposed vote, £8,661,000.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– In the Department of Defence Production, a certain amount of civilian work was performed formerly in addition to the usual manufacture of munitions and material for war. Has the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) any indication whether the Commonwealth factories are producing civilian materials for civilian requirements and if they are doing so, is the work being done at a loss or a profit?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– Senator Armstrong is quite correct in stating that a certain amount of civilian work is done in the factories in peacetime so that they may be maintained in operation. It is the policy of the Government to undertake only the manufacture of articles that cannot be made elsewhere in Australia. In cases where the factory has been manufacturing commercial goods previously over a number of years, the department is accepting repeat orders for that type of production. I believe that the policy of the department is to accept new orders only when the goods cannot be manufactured in any other Australian commercial factory.

Senator Armstrong:

– Is a profit being made ?

Senator COOPER:

– I am unable to give that information at the moment.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– Apparently the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) is unable to inform me whether the Commonwealth factories are making a profit or a loss upon commercial work. Perhaps he will obtain the information in the near future. The Minister has stated that the policy in the Commonwealth factories is not to undertake commercial work unless it cannot be done elsewhere in Australia or unless an old customer presents a repeat order. That policy must ultimately lead to serious losses. If the commercial interests are going to the department only for work that they cannot get done elsewhere, the Commonwealth factories may be foregoing the cream of the business that would return a profit. If the department is going into the commercial business, it should go the whole way. It is important that the factories should be kept in operation. If they can get commercial business at the right price and keep valuable machinery in use, they should do so but the policy of taking business that cannot be done by any one else inevitably forces the Government into nonpaying transactions. If work can be done efficiently by the department, the industry that wants the goods should pay a fair price. The department should not be restricted in the orders that it can accept. Large sums of money have been invested in high quality machinery and if possible that machinery should be kept in operation. Otherwise it becomes obsolete without having had much use. Employees should be trained in the use of the machinery. I suggest to the Minister that he should re-consider the present policy in connexion with the Commonwealth factories. Every possible avenue of production should be exploited. Prom my experience as Minister for Supply and Development, I know that a huge sum of money has been invested in the factories. Some of the losses in the past have been very substantial, and the only way to reduce them is to get all the work that can be done’ and use the facilities and man-power.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– The full direct costs are being met, and a substantial contribution is being made to the overhead that is not recoverable from service orders.

Senator Armstrong:

– In other words, the factories are not operating at a loss ?

Senator COOPER:

– Not in respect of the goods that are being manufactured.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– J should like the Minister to consider making an attempt to help people in the town of Yallourn where, because of its distance from Melbourne, it is hard for people, particularly young girls, to find employment. The industries of Yallourn are essential, to this country for the purpose of both war and peace. I have been asked to discover if the Commonwealth could transfer some part of its clothing production activities to this area, or take some other action in order to help provide employment in the area, particularly for girls leaving school, so that the residents of the town can have work near their homes. I know that this is not an easy matter, but I think that the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) will know the position as well as I do. There is no work available for girls leaving school in Yallourn, or even in the nearby towns.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I direct the honorable senator’s attention to the fact that this matter comes under the Department of Supply. However, I shall bring it to the notice of the Minister for Supply (Mr. Beale).

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– I ask the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) whether manufacturing plants that make ammonium sulphate come under the Department of Defence Production or under the Department of Supply. If they are under the Department of Defence Production, will he tell the committee the volume of production of these plants and whether they are operating at a profit or a loss?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– Sulphate of ammonia required for agricultural purposes, particularly for the sugar industry in Queensland, is manufactured at the explosive factories at Ballarat, Albion, Mulwala and Villawood. They are all operating at full capacity in respect of ammonium sulphate, and are recovering their full costs.

Senator Armstrong:

– Is production still 12,000 tons a year for each factory?

Senator COOPER:

– The factories do not each produce a total of 12,000 tons a year, because part of the capacity is taken up by the production of methanol and ammonium nitrate. The production of ammonium sulphate this year will be 36,000 tons.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Miscellaneous Services.

Proposed vote, £17,717,000.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– I refer the appropriate Minister to Division 193, on page 85 of the Estimates, item 5, “ Commonwealth elections “. A sum of £250,000 was voted for that purpose last year, and an amount of £244,745 was expended. The Estimates provide for a further vote of £250,000 this year, which is, of course, in respect of the election of the House of Representatives, which is to take place next year. I point out to the committee that unless the Government does something about the matter the only year free of elections in the next five years will be 1955. A Senate election was held early this year, a House of Representatives election will be held next year, another periodical election of the Senate must be held in 1956, and there will be another election of the House of Representatives in 1957. This position has been brought about by a defect of the Constitution, which limited the terms of senators elected after the double dissolution in ]951. The Government had two years prior to the Senate election held this year to see these four elections in five years staring it in the face. The fact that they will involve an expenditure of £250,000 each should have been sufficient to move the Government to action. A total of £1,000,000 is to be expended in federal elections in five years instead of, at most, half that amount. That, of course, is the least offensive aspect of the matter. The

Government should have realized that not only will there be a great deal of disturbance and convulsion in the community as a result of all these elections in such a short period, but, above all, it should have taken steps to avoid the great evil of political instability that must flow from the fact that in the next five years no government will know from year to year, except in 1955, whether it will really be able to govern.

This is a serious matter for the nation. Whether or not a government is good or bad according to individual standards, it is important that it have the power to govern and be able to see down the road for a period of three years, knowing that it can devote its best energies to the government of the country. I charge the Government with having been false to the best interests of Australia by not having done something about this matter before the Senate election of 1953. The Opposition urged it, on a number of occasions, to do something about it. It has not the excuse that it was not warned about the position. I cannot understand why the Government did not have the foresight and wisdom to listen to the Opposition’s warnings and at least provide for a referendum to be held in conjunction with the last Senate election, in order to restore the synchronization of the elections of the two Houses of the Parliament. The Government 3 tas been gravely deficient in the discharge of its duty to the people by not- having faced this problem and done something about it. I do not intend to propound a solution now. There are several alternative means by which we could deal with the matter. I ask the appropriate Minister whether the Government is prepared to address its mind to the problem, whether it recognizes the existence of the problem, and whether it realizes that unless the problem is solved an expenditure on elections of £500,000 more than is necessary will recur in a period of five years? Does not the Government also realize that it will be bad for the country if the governments in office over a period of five years, or more, have no certainty that they will be able to govern properly. I do not wish the Minister to provide a solution of the problem now, or even to indicate the Governments intentions, but I ask him whether the Government recognizes the problem and is prepared to do something about it.

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

– That is a matter of high policy.

Senator McKenna:

– I am not asking for the Government’s policy.

Senator McLEAY:

– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) may rest assured that the matter has not been neglected.

Senator Mckenna:

– I am afraid it has.

Senator McLEAY:

– I remind the Leader of the Opposition that it was an action of the Government of which he was a member that very largely produced the position to which he has referred. I tell him now that the matter has not been forgotten by the Government.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– In Division 196 - Department of Commerce and Agriculture, the amount of -£1,300 has been provided for drought relief for the dairy industry. That vote will be of assistance to the industry. The following amounts are also provided for under this division : -

The proposed grant for the expansion of agricultural advisory services is £162,000 more than the vote for the financial year 1952-53. The following item is also listed : -

I cite these figures to illustrate that the Government is again coming to the assistance of certain industries that are experiencing difficulties. Earlier in this debate, I invited the attention of the Government to the position that is facing the berry fruit industry in Tasmania, which is an old-established activity. Last year the sum of £100,000 was granted for the assistance of this industry but the Government does not propose to grant it any assistance in this financial year. I have specified certain proposed votes so that the berry fruit-growers will be aware that other industries are being assisted by the Government. I hope that the Government will reconsider the position of the berry fruit-growers and help them, also.

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

– Last year the Government, with the assistance of theFruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee, gave £150,000 to the Tasmanian Government in order to assist the berry fruit industry. However, the Government regards the difficulties of the industry largely as a Tasmanian problem.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The sum of £250,000 was given for the assistance of the industry in two years.

Senator McLEAY:

– Senator Wright has been making representations on behalf of the industry in this chamber for the last two years and he is continuing to make them.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– The Schedule on page 83 of the bill reveals under Division 187, Prime Minister’s Department, that’ the visit abroad of the Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration (Mr. Holt) in 1952 and the visit abroad of the Postmaster-General and Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr. Anthony) in 1952 cost approximately £6,000 each. The visit abroad of the Prime Minister is shown as having cost only £2,604. Will the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) inform the Senate whether the full cost of the visit abroad of the Prime Minister is shown in this Schedule?

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

– I am. unable to account for the. difference in the figures that Senator Armstrong has mentioned at the moment. I think that it would be due to methods of accounting. I shall let the honorable senator have an explanation of the position in due course.

Senator WEDGWOOD (Victoria; [5.46 a.m.]. - I wish to refer to Division 197 - Department of Social Services - item 4, “ Housekeeper Service - Grant - £14,000 “. The vote for this purpose last year was £12,000 and the expenditure on the service during the last financial year was £13,892. When this service was first established in 1949 the Commonwealth made a grant to it of an amount greater than the grant proposed for the current financial year in spite of the fact that a total of 37 housekeeper services are now operating in Victoria alone. During the course of the consideration of this bill, honorable senators have discussed the subject of national development. I suggest that no country will ever be developed satisfactorily unless everything possible is done to protect the health and well-being of young mothers. This scheme provides mothers with a housekeeper service in their home if they are ill. If they are in hospital the housekeeper will come to their home and look after their children. The State governments are assisting in the finance of this scheme and the families that are being assisted make whatever payment they can towards its cost. These services should be expanded and I had hoped that the Government would provide a larger grant than that which is mentioned in the bill. I sincerely hope that in future the Government will give greater assistance to this scheme than it has given in the past.

SenatorLAUGHT (South Australia) [5.48 a.m.]. - I invite the attention of the committee to Division 197, Department of Social Services “ Compassionate Allowances - Payments under Special Circumstances, £93,670 “. Will the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) let me know the circumstances in which compassionate allowances are paid by the Government?

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

. - The item to which Senator Laught has referred provides for the payment of compassionate allowances in the nature of age and invalid pensions, wives’ allowances- and funeral: benefits to or in respect of aliens who have resided in Australia since a date prior to the 1st January, 1902, who are unable to become naturalized and who are deserving persons. In other words, the allowances are paid in the form of pensions to those who have been in the country for over 50 years, who are not naturalized, and who are therefore unable to qualify for a pension.

Senator McKenna:

– The allowances would be payable mainly to Chinese of good repute?

Senator SPOONER:

– Yes. The grant also provides for payments equivalent to a widow’s pension in the case of bigamous marriages and for payments equivalent, to certain other social services benefits when they are considered justified on compassionate grounds. The rates of the compassionate’ allowances are identical with the rates of corresponding benefits under the social services legislation.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I refer to the provision in Division 195, Department of Health, for the payment of £50,000 in grants to the States for the assistance of the Australian Red Cross blood transfusion service. Earlier in the current session, I referred to the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) a request from the Australian Red Cross Society for financial assistance for thisservice. The society proposed that the Commonwealth should provide 90 per cent. of the costs of the service, which it is having difficulty in maintaining. The Minister gave an assurance that he would consider the request. Will he explain why the amount of £50,000 provided for this purpose in the Additional Estimates 1952-53 has not been expended, and also inform me whether the proposed appropriation of £50,000 for 1953-54 will be allotted direct to the society or the State governments for distribution?

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– The proposed vote for Division 193, Department of the Interior, includes an amount of £1,300 for the registration of Commonwealth motor vehicles. This item appears strange to me, as a resident of Victoria, because Commonwealth vehicles use roads in that State, and the Treasury takes all but 17.2 per cent, of the revenue from petrol tax in that State and enjoys other advantages “without paying anything in return to the State government. Who will obtain this sum of £1,300?

Senator ASHLEY (New South Wales; [5.53 a.m.]. - The matter that I wish to discuss is related either to the provision in Division 187 for grants for the relief of distress amongst ex-servicemen and their dependants, or to the provision under Division 197 for repatriation payments in special circumstances for social services pensioners. I have here a letter from the Commonwealth Council of Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers Associations of Australia. It reads -

I have to advise you that under separate cover we have posted you a copy of the Queensland T.P.B. Soldiers’1 Magazine for the month of September, which contains a summary of the case presented to the Minister for Repatriation, for the consideration of the Government during the forthcoming Budget Session.

There are in Australia, vide the last Repatriation Report for 1052, some 12,274 special rate pensioners, or in other words those who have to live within the confines of the pension granted by Parliament from time to time.

Senator Spooner:

– I rise to order.

Seantor ASHLEY. - I would expect the Minister to raise an objection in a matter that affects disabled ex-servicemen.

Senator Spooner:

– The honorable senator is being silly. I am trying to say that all the yabbering that he is going on with has nothing to do with the proposed vote for Miscellaneous Services.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I have indicated the items to which this matter can be related.

Senator Spooner:

– It should be discussed in relation to the Repatriation Department.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I ask for the Chairman’s ruling.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I shall permit Senator Ashley to discuss this matter under Division 187 with reference to the provision for the relief of distress amongst ex-servicemen and their dependants.

Senator ASHLEY:

– The letter continues -

Unfortunately, through an ambiguous term in the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act, the circumstances of these pensioners are not understood by the uninitiated.

We often hear of a man being on 100 per cent, pension and many, not unnaturally assume that this means he is 100 per cent, disabled. Such, of course, is not the case, as he only receives up to 100 per cent, of a mead of compensation fixed by Parliament from time to time to compensate him for injuries or disabilities received, taking into account expected shortening of life or working life, inability to engage in full social activities or pain and tribulation as a result of same. He is eligible to engage in any form of business or employment and is not restricted in any way and if on 100 per cent, pension receives at present £4 per week, or portion thereof, according to the percentage he receives, in addition to his earnings as stated.

We have no quarrel with this and feel that all men who suffered injury to their health should receive the best reward the nation can give them ; but we also feel that not sufficient margin is allowed to special rate pensioners who receive £8 15s. per week at present, or, in other words, only £4 15s. per week above the 100 per cent, rate pensioner who has, as stated, the advantage of his earnings in addition, whilst the special rate pensioner is on the industrial scrap-heap and has no earnings other than pension, unless possessed of , private means.

There arc other matters in our case, particularly one which refers to the fact that our wives, who by virtue of the sickness of their husbands are called on- to do a lot of nursing and extra, domestic duties and they receive exactly the same pension as the wife of the 100 per cent, pensioner who probably never has these duties to perform, as generally the husband is engaged in industry and not at home sick all the year round, like many of the totally and permanently disabled men on our rolls. Some of these women have a terrifically hard life, whilst most have much more to do than the average woman, and yet they cannot obtain free medical services when their own health cracks under the strain, on the same basis as other pensioners, yet, ironically enough, when the man dies they then get this service as a war widow, namely, medical attention, medicine. We consider they should have it while the man is alive and would urge you to give this matter your support and attention for the reasons stated in our case, as it will eliminate much worry and hardship which is not good for sick people.

There are other matters mentioned, all of which are self-explanatory, and (particularly the one which refers to old “ burnt-out “ diggers being put in .private convalescent homes costing from £8 to £10 a week, and very little in the way of service in return, simply because they are alone in the world and have no home to go to and are not sick enough to be in hospital, or suffer chronic ailments for which no more can be done.

Many others, after coming out of hospital with the best of care and attention, have to go to rooms and look after themselves.

Surely this is not too big a problem for the Government and ex-servicemen’s organizations and the public to surmount, and your very serious consideration to this aspect is also requested, so that men who have served the nation well in the past, and have lost their health and strength in doing so, shall not be pushed from pillar to post in their declining years.

We do not want the world, merely a reasonable pension to maintain ourselves, and the righting of a number of matters asked for in our case, which we consider to be reasonable, logical and worthy of presentation to you honorable gentlemen who constitute our National Parliament, on whom we must depend for our existence and welfare, and we feel that our magazine will be of use to you during the debate on the Repatriation Bill.

Hoping for the favour of your support and consideration.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– The matter raised by Senator Ashley is not related to the grant of £1,000 for the relief of distressed exservicemen and their dependants. The division of that sum among 16,000 persons would not be of value to any of them. However, I am only too pleased to reply to the submissions made by the honorable senator. A person in receipt of the 100 per cent. pension has a capacity to earn, and is permitted to earn, and is not subject to a means test. In other words, he may earn whatever money he can. A restriction is placed on the earnings of a totally and permanently incapacitated member. However, he is permitted to earn a negligible percentage of a living wage, and that has not been defined, because the department encourages a totally and permanent incapacitated member, in his own interests, to earn some additional income.

When the amending legislation is passed, a totally and permanently incapacitated member who is in receipt of the special rate of pension will receive £9 5s. a week, and his wife will be paid £1 15s. 6d. a week, which makes a total of £11 0s. 6d. a week. No income tax and social services contribution is payable on that amount, and the money is paid to those persons year in and year out. In addition, the member is entitled to full hospitalization and medical attention for himself. A pension of 13s. 9d. a week, and child endowment, are payable for each child. An extra allowance of11s. 6d. a week is payable for a child at the age of twelve years, and 15s. a week at the age of fifteen years. The department also makes provision for a promising child to receive higher education, including university education. It is true that the wife of a member is not entitled to medical benefits from the Department of Repatriation, but she is eligible to join a society that pays medical benefits. A member, who is seriously disabled, may be entitled to have the assistance of an attendant. Frequently, the wife accepts this responsibility for which £1 15s. a week is paid. In this case the total weekly income of a member and his wife will be £12 15s. 6d. A member who is so badly disabled that he is not able to get about is granted a recreation transport allowance of £10 per month. I am sure that every one will agree with me when I say that the Government has not been ungenerous in the treatment of disabled ex-service men and women.

Senator Cooke:

asked for information about the proposed vote for the blood transfusion service. This item provides assistance for the Australian Red Cross Society to enable it to operate its blood transfusion service at the same level as that of 1951-52. The payment is conditional on the States contributing with the Commonwealth on a £1 for £1 basis with the society, by agreement, providing any balance required above the amount of the grant. The following amounts will be payable to the States on behalf of the society on the prescribed basis : -

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

– Senator Kennelly has asked a question about the provision of £1,300 for the registration of Commonwealth motor vehicles. I am advised by the departmental officers that the amount is for the maintenance of a central registry at Canberra, and includes the cost of registration plates and windscreen labels for all Commonwealth vehicles.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I am delighted to receive this most interesting piece of information from the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay). Seemingly, the Commonwealth now pays a registration fee on its motor vehicles as a contribution towards the maintenance of roads in the Australian Capital Territory, but it does not pay one penny in respect of Commonwealth vehicles in the States. Well, I have heard of highwaymen. I do not make that statement in a disrespectful sense, but I am. bound to say that I have never heard of such an outrageous situation. The Commonwealth has the cheek to charge a resident of the Australian Capital Territory a fee for the registration of his motor vehicle, but does not pay one farthing in respect of Commonwealth vehicles in the States. I venture to say that for every Commonwealth vehicle in Canberra, there are hundreds of Commonwealth vehicles in the States. Every one knows that the States, during the last two or three years, have requested this Government to grant to them a larger share of the proceeds of the petrol tax in order that they may repair and maintain their roads. I hope that the Minister will not reply that the Common wealth has only a few vehicles in each State, because I have seen many Commonwealth vehicles garaged at Albert Park. I admit that a. fee is charged by the Albert Park Trust for this service. I hope, now that this revelation has been made, that the State Premiers will insist upon fair treatment in this matter. I believe that Senator Wedgwood will support me, because she has a knowledge of the state of the roads in Victoria. If the Commonwealth will not grant the States a. larger share of the revenue from the petrol tax, the least it can do is to pay registration fees on its vehicles which use the roads in the States.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– For many years, an allowance of £104 has been paid annually to Mrs. H. A. Hinker. the mother of the famous airman. I have no knowledge of the circumstances of this lady, but I consider that in view of the decreased purchasing power of money, the allowance should be doubled or even trebled if she is in the slightest financial difficulty.

Senator WEDGWOOD:
Victoria

– I direct attention to the provision of £126,000 for the current financial year as a contribution to the administration of the Inter-governmental Committee for European Migration. My interest in this matter is excited only for the reason that the proposed vote is £93,000 for this year in excess of the expenditure last year. Earlier, attention was directed to the high administrative costs of overseas establishments, and 1 should like some exact information about the functions of this committee, and an explanation why Australia’s contribution to it is increased by £93,000 this year. This provision seems extraordinary at a time when we all are of the opinion that every effort should be made to bring to Australia immigrants of British origin. I. should like an explanation of the steep increase in the proposed vote.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– The Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration resulted from a plan presented to the Brussels Migration Conference by the delegation from the United States of America. Its immediate aim is to facilitate by financial aid and the provision of shipping, the emigration from Europe of people who would not otherwise be able to emigrate. Prior to October, 1952, it was known as the Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe. Australia was one of the sixteen nations which supported the plan in principle, and the Australian Government ratified this support and approved Australia’s contribution to the administrative budget of the new organization, which for this financial year, is likely to be £66,000. The additional £60,000 represents a contribution to the committee’s operational fund. The United States of America is the main contributor having provided, for example, more than 8,000,000 dollars in 1952, whilst a number of member governments represented on the committee not directly concerned as emigration or immigration countries, also make grants to the operational fund of the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration. Although the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration has considerable funds at its disposal for subsidizing the movement of migrants it is necessary for some part of the cost of movement to he borne also by the countries of emigration and immigration. In fact the American Government’s grant is conditional upon the amount of the grant not exceeding one-third of the total amount received from member governments either by way of reimbursement in full or in part of expenditure on the movement of migrants or by way of outright grant. The Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration has accepted responsibility for the movement to Australia or German immigrants under our bilateral agreement with, the West German Government as well a.3 for the movements of other Europeans including immigrants from the East Zone of Germany currently seeking refuge in Berlin, Greeks and Austrians.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed votes - Refunds of Revenue, £18,000,000; Advance to the Treasurer £.16,000,000- agreed to.

Bounties and Subsidies.

Proposed vote, £21,165,000.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– Inotice “that provision is made for the payment of a subsidy of £4,800,000 on tea. I have many representations made to me for the importation of a better grade of tea for the people of Australia. Will the Minister for Trade and Customs tell me how tea is purchased and distributed? Has the Government any reason to be dissatisfied with the grade of tea that is being imported, and if so, can anything be done to improve the quality?

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

– Under the present arrangement, which has been in operation since the days of the National Security Regulations, tea is bought in two ways. Most of it is purchased at auction and the remainder is bought under contract. We obtain . most of our tea. from Colombo, India, and Indonesia. So long as the Commonwealth continues to pay a subsidy on tea, the Commonwealth must control the buying. The Commonwealth sells the tea to recognized, wholesalers and distributors who do their own blending. There is some dissatisfaction. A few distributors believe that they could do better than the Government is doing, but the remainder who constitute, a substantial majority, are quite satisfied with the present arrangement. Even if they were not, it is necessary that the Commonwealth should continue to control purchases so long as public money is being paid out in subsidies.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

– About a year ago we passed the Cotton Bounty Bill. I have examined the details of the subsidies provided for in this proposed vote, and I find no reference to any payment to cotton-growers in Queensland. Some payments may be hidden in “ Other items “, but I should like the Minister for Trade . and Customs to tell me the sum that has been paid by way of bounty to cotton-growers.

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

– I am not aware of the precise . amount, that has been paid, but I remind the honorable . senator that it is not a direct bounty; it is a guaranteed return to the grower. When the guarantee was increased from 9d. per lb. to 14d. per lb. it did not cost the Government anything. Owing to the encouragement given to the industry by the guaranteed return, in the last three years the acreage planted has increased by about 400 per cent. and it is still increasing. The last . guarantee we gave was very substantial. The money has not actually been paid out yet, but the Government has reconciled itself to the -possibility of a payment of £65,000. That is included in the Estimates for 1953-54.

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

– Last year, the subsidy on coal exceeded £1,000,000. The provision this year is £300,000. I understand that the subsidy has been paid principally on coal imported by Victoria. I should like to know whether the Australian Government proposes to continue this subsidy when it is stockpiling coal in order to keep men employed.

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

– The Commonwealth is paying a subsidy to Victoria on coal obtained from Callide in Queensland. In 1951, the Commonwealth undertook to subsidize the purchase of 600,000tons of coal from Callide upon Victoria undertaking to use that coal in its power houses. The original proposal was for the delivery of 200,000 tons a year for three years, but due to shipping difficulties, the scheduled rate of delivery could not be maintained. At present, about 350,000 tons has not yet been delivered under the original contract. The Commonwealth will continue the subsidy until the full total of 600,000 tons has been delivered.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed vote - Commonwealth Railways, £3,794,000- agreed to.

Postmaster-General’s Department.

Proposed vote, £68,922,000.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I refer to item 9B, “ Advertising and Publicity “, under Genera] Expenses, on page 103. Last year, £25,000 was allocated for advertising and publicity, of which just over £9,000 was expended. This year, the proposed vote for that purpose is £28,000. I should like the Minister to explain the reason for the increase of the vote, in view of the low expenditure last year. As this is a department about which the public knows something, I am wondering why the Government anticipates thatso much money will be expended on advertising and publicity for it in this financial year.

I direct the attention of the committee to item 2, “Postal institutes - Contributions “ under Other Services, on page 104. The proposed vote for that purpose is £25,200. I ask the Minister to givethe committee some idea of the services rendered by postal institutes and to explain why £25,200 is to be made available to them. I should like to know how much of that sum is to be used for the payment of salaries. If a part of it is to be used for that purpose, that sum should be shown in the schedule of salaries and allowances, because the salaries are paid to people who render services related to the work of the Postmaster-General’s Department. Last year, expenditure on welfare equipment was £2,123 in Western Australia, and £2,306 in Tasmania. Two questions arise in my mind. What is welfare equipment? Why is the branch of the department in Tasmania, which employs only half as many people as are employed by the branch in Western Australia, spending more money on welfare, equipment than the branch in Western Australia? A great deal of publicity has been given to meteorological telegrams, which have been blamed for a proportion of the deficit shown by the department. I should like to know why either the Department of the Interior or the Department of Civil Aviation is not debited with the cost of meteorological telegrams so that the Postmaster-General’s Department can be credited with a corresponding sum. The idea is beginning to develop that the department can explain a deficit of £5,500,000 by saying that it has been incurred as a result of free services rendered to other departments, especially in the transmission of meteorological telegrams.

The expenditure and revenue of the telegraph branch requires close analysis by the Minister, because the revenue from telegraphic services is decreasing. This matter was discussed at some length two years ago, just before the increase of rates that put telegrams into the category of a luxury. For twelve months after the increase was made, the department received more revenue from its telegraph services than previously, although fewer telegramswere being sent, but in 1952-53 revenue declined by about £500,000. That is a very serious matter, because the telegraph branch is very expensive to run. It uses the most’ up-to-date and expensive equipment and employs highly trained operatives. Because telegrams are so expensive, neither the equipment nor the operatives are being utilized fully. Obviously, the only way in which to get a reasonable return from expensive machinery and highly trained operatives is to make the fullest use of them. I suggest that the Government introduce a special rate for social telegrams, which, owing to the high rates now charged, are falling into disuse. There is no urgency about the delivery of a social telegram. If a person sends a telegram to wish a friend or relative a happy birthday, he does not mind when it is delivered so long as it is delivered on the appropriate day. If a special rate for social telegrams were introduced, a certain volume of telegraphic business would be attracted which would enable the department to keep its machines and operatives busy. Another aspect of this matter is that the training of telegraphists has a defence significance, because an efficient signals staff is essential for the Navy, Army and Air Force. Telegraphists are trained by the telegraph branches in the six States. Therefore, telegraph services are of importance to defence.

I go back to my old love, staff training. This is the fifth occasion on which I have raised this matter in a discussion of the Estimates. If Senator Cooper answers me now, this will be the first occasion on which I have been given the information I sought. Previously, I have been able to find an item in the Estimates in respect of staff training. On this occasion, I have been unable to do so, but I know from experience that a great deal of staff training is undertaken by the Postmaster-General’s Department. If Senator Cooper can enlighten me on activities in regard to staff training in the department, I shall be grateful. I stress the importance of the suggestion that I have made about half -rate telegrams. The Government must recognize that its experiment in drastically increasing telegraph rates about eighteen months ago has been unsuccessful. The official figures prove that already the revenue of this important branch is beginning to fall.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– Recently in the House of Representatives, the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Anthony) cited figures which indicated that the position in relation to telephone installations had improved substantially. For instance, in New South Wales, there is now only a back-lag of approximately 69,000 applications. During the last few months a slick individual from the United States of America was able to set himself up in our capital cities as a quiz master, after he had been in the country a very short time, and to obtain a large number of telephones. In .Sydney he had at least ten telephones set out on tables, and in Melbourne he had nine. His practice was to ring people and ask them very simple questions, such as the name of the Treasurer of the Commonwealth. Apparently, it did not matter what answer he received; even if the -answer was not correct, the person who gave it was asked to come in to his office to receive a prize. This person was obviously adopting get-rich-quick methods. I wish to know why he was able to obtain so many telephones when members of this Parliament have to battle every day for telephone installations for their constituents. I hope that the PostmasterGeneral’s Department has the address of this man so that it will be able to send accounts to him. Apparently he became one of the department’s best customers almost overnight. I should like to know why he was able to obtain so many telephones in such a short time. Obviously he used a formula which most honorable senators do not possess.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– It is to be regretted that at this hour of the morning, when one is usually turning off the alarm clock, honorable senators should be asked to debate the Estimates for a business undertaking of the Commonwealth which will cost £68,922,000 this year. I also express regret that the Postmaster-General’s Department is not being developed in such a way that it may assist a greater number of taxpayers. I hope, when the present sessional period ends, to enlarge on this matter elsewhere. I support the remarks of Senator Willesee concerning the importance of defence training for technicians of the Postmaster-General’s Department. During my maiden speech in this chamber in March last I also referred to that subject. I impress upon the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), the importance of technicians employed in the department receiving training in the Navy, the Army or the Air Force. It is essential for the security of Australia, that as many of these technicians as possible should receive defence training.

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

– I wish to refer to the proposed vote for the Australian Broadcasting Commission and to register a protest to the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), who represents the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Anthony) in this chamber, concerning a practice that has grown up. in recent times. I have previously protested to-the Postmaster-General about it, but. have not yet received a reply. The most recent incident occurred at Newcastle when members of the Australian Labour party made representations

Senator Cooper:

– The proposed votes for Broadcasting Services have not yet been reached, but I shall’ deal with this matter if the honorable senator wishes me to do so.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Pearson:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Order! The committee is dealing with the Estimates for the Postmaster-General’s Department, not with those for Broadcasting Services.

Senator ARNOLD:

– I appreciate that fact, but I think that the Minister will reply to my remarks. I am making a protest in a general way. In the district in which I live, I have found that the Postmaster-General is discriminating in themaking of replies to supporters of the Government and members of the Australian Labour party. The last instance, of such discrimination occurred a. couple of months ago when representations concerning certain wireless stations in the Newcastle area were made to the Postmaster-General by both Government supporters and members of the Opposition. Although those representations were made at about the same time, a Liberal party member who resides in the district received a reply between three and four weeks before the Labour members in the district received replies of exactly the same kind. It is obvious that arrant discrimination is being exercised by the PostmasterGeneral. Although protests have been made to him about this matter, no explanation has been received. It is wrong that a political party should thus discriminate in order to bolster the fortunes of its’ supporters.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– Why does the honorable senator say, “ a political party”?

Senator ARNOLD:

– It is perfectly obvious- that, the discrimination has been exercised to the disadvantage of the Labour party. The same kind of thing has’ also been noticed in connexion with other- matters. If the practice continues-, members of the- Australian Labour party will protest’ vigorously on every occasion’ that Ministers give preference of that kind.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– Recently, during- the adjournment debate in the Senate, I addressed to the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) a question concerning the PostmasterGeneral’s Department to which I have not yet received a reply. At the outset of my remarks, I wish to exclude the personnel of the- administrative staff of the Postmaster-General’s Department from any criticism which I propose to. make-, because the staff of the department merely carries out government policy. I notice that the Estimates of the department last year included provision for £1,750,000 to cover increases of the basic wage during 1952. I refer to Division 237k. It is evident that, as the Commonwealth Arbitration Court has frozen the basic wage, the department does not intend to pay increases to its permanent staff in this financial year. It is obvious that provision was made for an increase in the basic wage in 1952-53 but that no such provision is proposed for the current financial year. Thestaff, therefore, will suffer a big. disadvantage because of rising prices.

With a decrease in expenditure,.” the Postmaster-General’s Department cannot expect to satisfy the increased demand for telephones. The cost of instruments is rising and will continue, to rise, and I fail to see how the department can avoid the- payment of increased wages. The vote in 1952-53 was £69,945,000, of which only £65,816,223 was spent. This year the proposed vote is £1,000,000 less, despite an increase in- the cost of equipment and in spite of the fact that in the last financial year £1,750,000’ was provided for an increase in wages. The policy of the Government is stifling business.

Senator McLeay:

– Hurry up.

Senator AYLETT:

– The. stage has been reached where it is said that there is a delay of two years in transferring a. telephone from one house to another in the same street. The Minister is anxious to have the discussion concluded, but I do not raise such matters unless I have the factual details.

Anybody who desires to get a new telephone can just forget about it. I do not know which is the more difficult - to get a war service home or to get a telephone. I ‘know of applicants who have been waiting for telephones since before this Government took office. The reason given is that the department has not the cables, ‘but, in spite of that fact, it is not employing more men to lay cables. There is no . shortage of material and there is no shortage of man-power. Good technical men wereput off when the Public Service was reduced by 10,000 employees, but men are not. being trained to take their place. One can see no hope of an improvement in the position. I do not know the reason for it, but perhaps my secretary was ‘-right when she said, “ It looks to me as though this Government is preparing the general public for further hardships’”.

SenatorWedgwood. - Act on your own opinion.

Senator AYLETT:

– The honorable senator who has just interjected is probably more fortunate than the residents of Tasmania. If the honorable senator were in business and were dependent on that business for her living she would be very annoyed if the department told her that a telephone that she had had for fifteen years could not be moved a few doors farther up the street, inside of two years and that in the meantime the service would be cancelled. If she could defend the Government on a policy of that nature, honorable senators would be delighted to hear what sort of case she would put forward. I know that the constituents of honorable senators on the other side of the chamber are faring no better.

If it is not a shortage of cables, the department says it has not the exchange equipment to cope with the installation. In the city of Launceston, about twelve months ago, the department bought . a large building and I commended the Government for its action, because I knew the position in which the department found itself. But why has the department not altered the building to enable, it to install a (telephone exchange? The reason probably is that it ‘is -waiting for somebody to submit a contract price in the vicinity of the estimated price, . but conditions are not so bad yet that contractors have to . use sweated labour in order to cut their prices. In Tasmania . the Postmaster-General’s Department is continually dismissing men who could have made the necessary alterations to this building. The alterations could have been completed and an exchange installed. Instead of doing that, the department, having paid between £30,000 and £40,000 for the building, has allowed it to remain idle for twelve months. The equipment is available and the qualified men are available to install it. If the department could not get a contractor to do -the work, it could have done the work itself. The reason that suggests itself to the average person is that -the Government is deliberately imposing these . hardships in order to prepare the people for further hardships.

Unless the Government brings down , a supplementary budget to provide for increased expenditure, the present state of affairs will continue for another twelve months. Honorable senators are becoming weary of approaching the Deputy Director of Posts and Telegraphs in order to obtain relief for the people who are suffering these hardships. If the supporters of the Government are not receiving complaints from their constituents, there must be something in the story just related by Senator Arnold.I fail to see why, if the Government is receiving the same complaints as are being received by members of the Labour party, it is not taking any notice of -them. I warn the Government that if it does not change its present policy and take steps to relieve the public of the inconveniences and hardships which it imposes upon the people unnecessarily, it will receive its just due at the next general election. Adequate funds, man-power and materials are available for the extension -of existing services. ‘Consequently, the existing conditions must be due to the fact that the Government does not possess sufficient intelligence to get on with this urgent job. Ithas the ball at its feet, but is . too stupid to kick it. I repeat that, for the reasons that I mentioned earlier, the Government is deliberately adhering to a policy of causing hardship to the people.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I trust that the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), as the representative in this chamber of the Postmaster-General, will be able to allay the fears that have been expressed by members of the Opposition. It is time that the Government made a special effort to overcome the existing shortage of telephones. However, one cannot derive much hope from a perusal of the Estimates that it will take such action. I cannot understand its failure to do so. Members of the Parliament who, from time to time, make representations on behalf of persons who are waiting to have telephones installed receive stereotype replies to the effect that the necessary equipment is not available or, as happens in some instances, the applicant is not prepared to accept the duplex system. Usually, the department replies that sufficient cable is not available. The instance that Senator Armstrong cited is typical of the impression that exists in the minds of persons, whose applications for telephones have been refused, that something is radically wrong in the department. When persons who have been waiting for a considerable period to obtain a telephone note that the department is installing systems of a special type, which can be of benefit to only a small section of the community, they immediately conclude that a person without influence will not be provided with a telephone. I have a high regard for the efficiency of officers of the Postal Department. Whenever I have made representations to them I have received a sympathetic hearing. Invariably, they have placed their cards on the table. I believe that owing to the shortage of funds the department is unable to do more than it is doing at present. The Minister should explain in the plainestlanguage the specific difficulties that are preventing the department from obtaining the requisite equipment. The Minister should state clearly the reasons why the requirements of country residents are not being met. Why cannot an effort be made to develop the automatic exchange system to a greater degree than it is being developed at present? The telephone is a necessary amenity in country areas. A perusal of country telephone directories shows that exchanges that have already been established in country areas are open for only a limited portion of the day. It is necessary to extend the hours of telephone services, particularly in view of the fact that, whereas telegraph offices used to remain open for business up to 8 p.m., they now close at 5 p.m.

Senator Henty:

– The honorable senator forgets about the 40-hour week.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– The department has failed to take steps to offset that contingency. It could do so to a large degree by installing a greater number of automatic exchanges in country areas. As a result of the earlier closing of telegraph offices and the present high cost of telegrams, the department is meeting buyer resistance for the services rendered by the telegraph branch. In view of the exorbitant cost, the average person thinks twice before he or she will pay for a telegram.

At one time, the Postal Department was the largest revenue-earner for the Government, and for many years its operations resulted in a surplus. In view of the deterioration of the department as o revenue-earner, the Government should revise its present policy. I direct the attention of the Minister also to the lack of amenities that are provided for persons who are obliged to make telephone calls at post offices in metropolitan areas. A few days ago, when I visited the Melbourne telephone exchange, I saw many people standing about while they were waiting for their calls to be put through. The seating accommodation provided for the public at such offices is totally inadequate. Many of those persons were obliged to wait for considerable periods before their calls were connected. Surely, a department of the magnitude of the Postal Department should be able to provide adequate facilities for its customers. The shelter provided for people who must make, or receive, calls at post offices in country areas is entirely inadequate. The department should not permit such conditions to exist. I urge the Minister in his reply to the debate to explain specifically the difficulties that are preventing the department from providing telephones for the long list of applicants who are waiting for them.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– Senator Willesee asked for details of departmental expenditure under various headings in each State. The department does not keep such records on a State basis. Consequently, I can supply the information that he seeks only in respect of the Commonwealth as a whole. Item 9b concerns advertising and publicity. There is an increase of general Commonwealth costs of £18,732. The provision for 1952-53 was appreciably under-expended, and the contributing factors to that under-expenditure were the postponement of a staff magazine and inability to purchase certain equipment required in connexion with film activities. It is necessary to make provision for those items during 1953-54, and also for the purchase of background films from the National Library to replace worn-out films. No replacements were made during 1952-53. The next matter is Item 8, “ welfare equipment in which, there is an increase of £5,989. The increase is due to the necessary replacement of items of equipment such as cookers, dish-washing machines, water coolers, stoves and so on, and the provision of equipment for buildings due for completion during the year. The next item concerns engineering services, telegraph and miscellaneous services. That expense is for the maintenance of telegraph lines and equipment. ,

Senator Willesee:

asked me about the training of staff in the Postal Department, and the department has informed me that much of the work that it carries out is of a specialist nature and requires the employment of skilled staff. Therefore, it has been necessary during the years, and particularly during recent years, to train employees in the various classes of work connected with post office activities. Schools have been established in many centres where the trainees have been given courses of training both in theory and in practical work on the job, in connexion with the work in which they are normally engaged. The courses vary in character and extent according to the nature of the work. During 1952-53 approximately 8,000 persons received training. Finally, Senator Willesee asked a question about contributions to postal institutes. There has been an increase of £2,500 to be allotted to postal institutes, and the increase is to cover increments and cost-of-living adjustments payable to secretarial staffs, and to provide for the higher subsidies due to the growth of membership. The Australian Postal Institute, which has a division in each State, performs valuable work in the educational and social fields, and is an important factor in building staff morale.

Senator Armstrong spoke of the telephone services that were installed for certain individuals, but I cannot give any information about that matter. The Postal Department knows nothing about it at all. However, I believe that the figures that I have to put before the Senate will be very informative. In 1946-49, 172,217 new telephones were installed, and in 1950-53, 273,718 new telephones were installed. In 1946-49, 847 public telephones were installed and from 1950 to 1953, 2,967 public telephones were installed. From 1946 to 1949, 787 trunk lines were added, and from 1950 to 1953, 2,033 trunk lines were added. In 1946-49, 18 rural automatic exchanges were installed, and from 1950 to 1953, 300 were installed. On the 31st December, 1949, 125,144 telephone applications were outstanding, and on the 30th June, 1953, 59,739 were outstanding. I am sorry that Senator Aylett is not in the chamber, because I am sure that he would be very interested in those figures. In regard to the question asked by Senator Arnold, two letters were addressed to the Minister on the subject to which the honorable senator referred. They were sent by the Minister to the Broadcasting Control Board for report upon them. The letter from a Government supporter arrived first, and, therefore, the reply to it was prepared first. There was a little delay in. sending the reply to the letter from Senator Arnold, which arrived after the first letter, but that was not due to discrimination. The same reply was sent to both letters.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I would like the Minister to consider certain representations made to me by the executive officers of the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union, and by the Tasmanian branch of that organization.. The union is very gravely concerned about the practice that has been adopted recently by the Postal Department of letting contracts for’ the installation of telephone lines and conduits to private contractors-. As other honorable senators have pointed out,, the Public Service cuts that were imposed in 1951, in quite- an arbitrary fashion,. were applied to linemen employed by the: Postal Department.. Many hundreds of experienced and very skilled linemen and workmen were dismissed. The department, as well as many of the men, was gravely concerned at the time. According to the Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony) the department is- now letting, contracts to private contractors for the laying of. conduits underground, and the installation of overhead lines, involving the sinking, of posts, the clearing of tracks, and all the incidental work. The first point that I make it. that it is uneconomical for the department to proceed in that way. Exactly the same number of men is. involved, whether the work be- performed by departmental officers or contractors. But the labour that the private contractor will employ is not skilled. M:en. who carry out, this kind of work, have to acquire up skill and. experience over a period, but,, of: course,, when- a- contractor undertakes the work the Postal Department, does, not have to worry about physical factors. I assume that there . is no- suggestion that the skilled artisans employed by the- Postal Department could not do as much work in a day as the unskilled and inexperienced workers- employed by private contractors. It is quite certain that more maintenance will be required subsequently on installations that have been carried out by contractors than on. those made by skilled Postal’ Department employees. I understand that if the conduits are not laid carefully, great damage may be caused to the lead cables when they are pulled through,, and there is then a grave danger of water getting into the cables.. I understand, that past experiencehas shown that work done by contractors involves subsequently a vastly heavier amount of maintenance than work performed byexperienced regular officers of . the department. There is also a contingent danger if the overhead work is not done properly.. The supervisor employed by the Postal Department cannot watch, at the same- time> the- sinking of a number of. poles. Instances are on record of poles having been cut in order to obviate the contractor having to sink them to the regulation depth. If that practice is allowed to continue) the linemen, who- work strapped to the poles will be exposed to the possibility of grave injury. For all these reasons, and more that I cannot think about at this hour of. the morning, the union is bitterly and strongly opposed, to the new practice that the department, has adopted. I point out that the Postal Department has all the plant necessary for carrying out this work,, and it will be necessary foot the contractors- to borrow the plant from the department.. I understand that the contract system, was tested out in. Great Britain on a very grand scale, but the British Postal Department is- now reverting, to1 its- former practice of employing its own. staff to do this very, important work. It is no use for supporters of the Government to claim, either in- this chamber or outside of it, that a reduction of the number of permanent public servants has been effected,, if it is going to let contracts of this kind, and the men employed by the contractors will be employed permanently on this, important installation work.. The same number of unskilled workers are being employed by the contractors as these were skilled, experienced, men. formerly, employed- by the- department.. The work was then performed more efficiently, more cheaply, and- with less likelihood of subsequent injury to the employees of the department.

Representations have been already made to the- Government in’ this matter, and it has’been stated on behalf of the Government that only some trial schemes have been embarked upon. The union is veryalarmed lest this practice should, be extended. Insofar- as trial work of this kind has been undertaken, I should like the Minister to say what- has been the experience of the department in relation) to speed’, cheapness, and the safety of the departmental officers. I have been- very impressed with the case that has1 been presented to me,, not only by officials of the union, but also- by overseers and men who have had experience in the past when this kind of work was previously done by contractors. They are fearful of the outcome of the practice.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I think the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) will admit that the matter that he has raised should not be dealt with during the consideration of this proposed vote. I think that he will admit, also, that the matter relates to Government policy. As I am not the Postmaster-General, but only represent that Minister in this chamber; I do not consider that I would be justified in expressing an opinion on the subject, especially as the honorable senator has told us that he has been informed that this system is only on trial. If that is so, surely an opinion should be expressed by the PostmasterGeneral himself after work has been carried out by contract and he has definite information on which to base an opinion.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator R. W. Pearson.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 20

Majority…… 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed vote, £4,729,000.

Senator HENTY:
Tasmania

– I direct my remarks to the provision for the A. B.C. Weekly, and to the revenue from the sales of the publication. Once again, the Australian Broadcasting Commission is budgeting for a loss of £5,300 of the taxpayers’ money on this- publication. I congratulate successive governments upon having lost no less than £212,131 on this publication . since 1939. It is high, time that the Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony) abolished the A.B.C. Weekly, which now is published only in New South Wales and Queensland. In the other States, the newspapers publish the broadcasting programmes each week, and not a word of complaint has come from citizens about the non-publication of the A.B.C. Weekly. I do not believe that this publication has any constitutional backing, in view of the fact that it is published only in two States. Year after year, the Auditor-General has directed attention to the losses incurred on this publication. The Auditor-General, in his last report, states that no amount is charged against the A.B.C. Weekly to cover head office and administrative expenses, and credits are allowed to the publication in respect of advertisements of concerts sponsored by the commission, notwithstanding the fact that the publication is virtually owned by that body. The Auditor-General has also stated that £906 was expended in an advertising campaign to increase the sales of the publication, and that that expenditure was debited, not to the A.B.C. Weekly, but to the commission. It is’ high time that the Government considered the abolition of this publication.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I desire to refer to the broadcast listener’s licence-fee, which was increased in 1951-52 from £1 to £2 a year. If ever there was a mean and contemptible act, the action of the Government in increasing the fee falls within that category.

Senator Laught:

Senator Laught interjecting,

Senator KENNELLY:

– I can well understand, that the honorable senator has no feeling in regard to this matter. The people whom he represents do not care whether they pay £1 or £2 for a broadcast listener’s licence. Prior to the increase of the fee, a listener paid £1 in respect of each receiving set in his possession.

Senator Spicer:

– What has all this to do with the proposed vote?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am relating my remarks to the amount of money which the Government seeks to appropriate for the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Senator Spicer:

– The honorable member is still dealing with ancient history, which has nothing to do with the proposed vote.

Senator KENNELLY:

– The Government should have some consideration for the poorer sections of the community, and restore the licence-fee to the former amount and make it applicable to each receiving set in the possession of a listener. I realize that the Government has to obtain revenue to finance the services of the nation, but surely this is a paltry means of so doing. I do not suggest that licences should be issued without payment of a fee, but I do suggest that those persons who possess more than one receiving set should pay, as they did before, a separate fee for each set. The change made by the Government benefited only wealthy people, most of whom possess two or three wireless sets in their homes, and one in their motor cars. This action on the part of the Government shows precisely where its sympathies lie.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– Senator Henty has referred to the A.B.C. Weekly. This is a hardy annual. It is true that publication has been stopped in all but two States. There are very good reasons for that. As the result of the heavy increase of the cost of production during 1952-53, including the high cost of newsprint and increased printing charges, it was not possible to maintain the satisfactory results of the previous year, when a small profit was earned by the publication. The Estimates for 1953-54 have been based primarily on the results attained in 1952-53. However, since these Estimates were computed in

April last, the cost of newsprint has been reduced, and, consequently, the actual expenditure for the current year should be less than the estimate, and the net result should be much more favorable than would appear from the figures contained in these Estimates. In preparing these figures no credit has been given for the advertising value of the journal. It is considered also that the value derived from publicizing the commission’s programmes in the States in which the A.B.C. Weekly is issued would be considerably greater than the net cost to the commission. As to thelicence-fees, it is true as Senator Kennelly has stated, that they were increased last year. During the last two years, charges for all facilities have risen. The licence-fees were increased in keeping with the general upward movement. In Great Britain the fees have been doubled. Nevertheless, age and invalid pensioners and other persons who are in distress still pay a licence-fee of 10s. a year. The increase does not apply in general to persons who cannot afford it.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator R. W. Pearson.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 20

Majority…… 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Northern Territory.

Proposed vote, £2,67 4,000.

Australian Capital Territory.

Proposed vote, £2,405,000.

New Norfolk Island.

Proposed vote, £58,300.

Papua and New Guinea.

Proposed vote, £5,931,700. (Ordered to be considered together.)

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I wish to refer to Division 259, “ Miscellaneous Services “, in the proposed vote for Papua and New Guinea. I notice that there is a grant to the administration towards expenses, including native welfare, development, war damage and reconstruction. Many other items are included in the proposed vote. I draw the attention of the committee to the position of a number of married Australians who are employed in the territory. Many of them are worried about educational facilities for their children. The families suffer some disability in that respect. While the allowances for a married man are a little better than similar allowances on the mainland of Australia, I suggest that the Government should consider an education allowance to assist parents who wish to send their children to school outside the territory. Many of the young men who are employed by the Government are university students who want their children to have the advantage of a higher education.

Senator MAHER:
Queensland

– I had the privilege of visiting the Territory” of Papua and New Guinea this year. It is a very colourful and important territory. During our travels with the parliamentary delegation, _we went to a small village named Garina and were welcomed by the children from the native school. The Australian flag was flying from the masthead and the children were able to speak excellent

English. Recently the use of pidgin- English in the territory has been the subject of press criticism and the matter was raised at the United Nations Assembly. It is good to know that the Administration is arranging to teach young native boys English, but the weakness of the system is that, by order of the Luluai of each village, native girls are not allowed to attend school. The result is that although the boys learn to speak English fluently, when they return to their villages they are the only ones there who speak it, and they naturally relapse into the use of their native dialects. As a result the system will be of no help in the future development of New Guinea, and will not prevent the perpetuation of pidgin-English, which is only a form of baby talk. The Administration should attempt to overcome the objections of the Luluais to girls attending school. Even if the girls attended school only for the purpose of learning English, that would be a great accomplishment, because when they reached maturity, married and had children, they could teach their children English, and we would soon have a large English-speaking population in the territory. I emphasize the importance of this matter to the Minister, and ask him to place it before the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck).

Senator BENN:
Queensland

– I wish to refer to several items that appear in Division 247. I refer particularly to item 25 “ Animal Industry Branch - operational expenses “ and to item 26 “Animal Industrial Branch - Equipment “. I can understand that equipment costs a’ great deal and that expense is’ involved in operating it. The vote for equipment last year was only £5,000, and the sum of £4,290 was expended. This year the vote is to be £15,700. Perhaps the Minister will explain why the vote has been increased. I have had an opportunity to visit the place where the equipment is located and used, and I should like to know why the vote is being enlarged, and whether there is any justification for an increase of the service provided. I ask that question because the cattle population of the Northern Territory is not great. It does not exceed 1,000,000 head of cuttle which are distributed throughout the whole of the territory, whilst the equipment is located at only one place. That is an activity which should be curtailed as far as the Northern Territory is concerned.

Item 27 is the proposed vote for subsidy in respect of transport of stud stock to the Northern Territory. The amount to be voted is £6,000. I do not think that any honorable senator would object to an improvement of herds in any other part of Australia, but this vote refers to the Northern Territory, where landowners have been exempt from income tax for many years, and where some holdings are as big as 11,000 square miles. One property in the territory has an area of more than 7,700,000 acres. I know that this year, stud stock was transported from Victoria to a station in the Northern Territory by air, and it is evidently proposed to subsidize such transport of stock this year at double the cost of last year’s subsidy. I can understand both the State and Commonwealth governments assisting small men to improvetheir herds, but I cannot understand this proposal to assist the big landlords and herd-owners of the Northern Territory to improve their herds by means of a subsidy for the transport of stud stock to the territory. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me on that matter.

I turn now to item 31 which concerns drought relief. Last year an amount of £100,000 was voted and an amount of £.10,522 was expended. This year it is proposed, irrespective of whether there is a drought or a good or bad season in the Northern Territory to vote a sum of £5.000 in respect of drought relief. 1 should like the Minister to inform me of the number of persons who have received such assistance from the Commonwealth this year.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– The expenditure on the operational expenses of the Animal Industry Branch last year was £9,249. The larger amount of £15,700 is required this year because of the greater provision made for the purchase of dippingpreparations that are required for the increased number of animals to be dipped. Charges are made to pastoralists for the dipping of stock, and it is estimated that the revenue received from that source this year will be £3,400.

Transport of stud stock to the Northern Territory has been subsidized since 1936, so it is a long standing practice. No subsidy is paid in respect of stud stock brought into the territory unless the owner gives a guarantee that it is to be imported for breeding purposes only and not for racing purposes. The proposed vote this year is to be increased to meet freight charges for the transport of stud shorthorn bulls from Victoria and New South Wales for a show and sale that was held at Brunette Downs.

I cannot give the honorable senator the details that he has asked for in relation to the provision for drought relief. The amount of £5,000 is required this year in order to meet commitments, arising from drought, that have already been incurred.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator R. W. Pearson.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed votes agreed to.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 841

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL 1953-54

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 8th October (vide page 416), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

, - The bill before the Senate has been adequately explained by the Ministerfor National Development (Senator . Spooner) in his second-reading speech. It covers an amount of £62,7.21,00.0 which, added to the amount of £32,277,000 granted by Supply earlier this year, makes a total of £94,998,000. If to that figure is added the £6,550,000 that has already been specially appropriated by other legislation, the total expenditure on capital works and services will be found to amount to £101,54.8,000 for the current financial year. At this late hour I content myself with the comment that this amount, because it will be paid from revenue, will constitute a very heavy burden on the taxpayers. As I expressed my views on that subject when another measure was before the Senate I shall not repeat them now. Honorable senators who wish to familiarize themselves with my previous remarks may refer to theHansard report of the speech that I made on the previous measure. The various projects covered by . the proposed vote are set out in the schedule to the lull and I suggest that they might be dealt with when the schedule is receiving consideration rather than now.

Senator ANDERSON:
New South Wales

– The first vote proposed in this bill relates to the provision of £28,000,000 for war service homes. The war service homes scheme commenced in 1919, and since 1949 £89,000,000 has been provided for the acquisition of homes by returned servicemen. In addi tion to providing grants for the acquisition of war service homes the Government has assisted -ex-servicemen to secure homes by means of the grants that it has made to the States under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. An extraordinary situation has arisen in regard to the allocation of moneys for war service homes. In New South Wales, as at the 30th June, 1953, 10,082 applications for assistance to purchase war service homes had been granted. In Victoria 21,916 applications had been granted at that date, and in Queensland 12,501 applications had been granted. These figures are extraordinary in view of the fact that enlistments in the forces in New South Wales during the 1939-45 war totalled 368,326, whilst they numbered 279,920 in Victoria and 142,028 in Queensland. It will be appreciated, therefore, that although a greater number of personnel enlisted in the forces in New ‘South Wales than in Victoria the number of ex-servicemen that have been granted loans in New South Wales is far lower than the number that have been granted loans in Victoria. Of course, certain conditions are peculiar to New South Wales. Building society . finance is used in New South Wales to a greater extent than in other States and I think that many ex-servicemen in New South Wales prefer this type of finance to the assistance of the War Service Homes Division. At present all applicants for assistance under the war service homes scheme have to wait about fifteen months before they can secure a loan from the division. I ask the Minister to make a greater proportion of the fund available to New South Wales this year.

I have referred previously to the administration of the anti-tuberculosis campaign. I refer now to capital expenditure. The bill provides that £1,500,000 shall be paid to the State governments this year in order to ‘reimburse them for capita] expenditure incurred under the terms of the Tuberculosis Act 1948, with which honorable senators are familiar. The figures in relation to capital expenditure to the 30th June last reveal an extraordinary state of affairs. New South Wales has claimed only £494,537; whereas Victoria has claimed £1,008.000, and Queensland, which, has a much smaller population, has claimed £576,185. In order to emphasize the- comparison, I point out that New South “Wales has a population of 3,350,000, Victoria has a population of 2,300,000, and Queensland has a population of 1,200,000. The remarkable figures that I have mentioned indicate a lack of appreciation by the New South Wales Government of the antituberculosis scheme, which was introduced by the former Labour Government. Lest honorable senators entertain any doubts on this matter, I refer them to the actual numbers of persons drawing tuberculosis allowance at the 30th June last, in the three States that I have mentioned. That is the true test. The figures are as follows : -

It is clear that this dread disease has a higher incidence in New South Wales than in the other two States. Yet, although the New South Wales Government has been given a blank cheque by the Commonwealth and has been offered every inducement to build tuberculosis hospitals, it has claimed only about £500,000 for capital expenditure, whereas Queensland, with a much smaller population and a lower incidence of the disease, has claimed £576,000. I need not discuss the reasons for the New South Wales Government’s attitude. I merely draw attention to it in the hope that some publicity will be given to it. It is absolutely futile for a State to conduct a survey of tuberculosis infection unless it intends to provide adequate hospital accommodation for the treatment of sufferers. This is a sad story in New South Wales. After all, the hospitals will always be useful. Ultimately, when tuberculosis is completely under control, they can be used to accommodate hospital patients in other categories.

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

– Will the Minister for National Development (.Senator Spooner) give me information in relation to an advertisement that appeared in the newspapers yesterday to notify an auction sale of equipment, owned by the Snowy Mountains Authority? The sale will be held on the 9th November. Many machines will be offered at auction. They are supposed to be unserviceable. Will the Minister explain how they became unserviceable and how the Snowy Mountains Authority determined that they were no longer useful? Were they offered to Government departments before they were made availlable for sale at public auction ?

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

– in reply - I shall answer Senator Arnold’s inquiries during the committee stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– In a previous debate I tried to elicit information in relation to war service homes but was fobbed off. This bill includes provision for the payment of £28,000,000 to the credit of the War Service Homes Trust Account. Will the appropriate Minister bring to the notice of the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley) the fact that 98 homes built under the war service homes scheme in South Australia are falling down because of the inefficiency of building inspection and soil testing and the low standard of the materials in them? The occupiers of these homes, who are exservicemen and war widows, should be able to obtain redress. The houses, which were built in 1951, cost approximately £2,000 each. I pointed out in my speech on the motion for the first reading of the Appropriation Bill 1953-54 that the Minister had stated that we were to advise the occupiers of the houses to take down other exservicemen by selling the cottages to them. In that way, the original occupiers could get rid of their commitments to the War Service Homes Division and would be given another opportunity to obtain a war service home. Ex-servicemen and their families, and the widows of exservicemen who wanted war service homes, went into the cottages because they believed that the buildings would accommodate them for the rest of their lives.

Now, the War Service Homes Division has told them that they may vacate the homes provided they comply with certain conditions. I ask the Minister to order an inquiry into this matter. I have not been able to ascertain who is responsible for this position. The War Service Homes Division claims that the Department of Works is responsible for it, but the Minister for Works (Mr. Kent Hughes) denies responsibility. I wish to know who is responsible for the calamity that has occurred in South Australia. The walls of some of the houses are held together only by the roofs. I’ am prepared to show the houses to any honorable senator who is interested, and in the meantime I shall have photographs taken to show the great cracks that have appeared in the walls, and other structural defects. The houses were erected on pillars, but some of them are now sliding off the supports. We are not able to obtain any redress. I urge the Minister to raise this matter with the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley) with a view to ascertaining who is responsible for this terrible construction work and for obtaining money to remedy the defects.

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

– The Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley) is responsible foi1 the administration of the War Service Homes Division and, therefore, for the houses that have been erected in South Australia. He has inspected all the cottages and has spoken to all the tenants, and he has all the circumstances within his own knowledge. The situation is not nearly so bad as is indicated in the exaggerated story told by Senator O’Flaherty. As I have stated, the Minister for Social Services has seen the conditions for himself. He has discussed the position with the tenants of the cottages and thus has had an opportunity to undermine the propaganda that Senator O’Flaherty has disseminated. The fact is that these houses are built on Bay of Biscay soil. Whatever advantages South Australia has, it suffers from the disadvantage of this Bay of Biscay soil. This housing settlement is built on that soil and the houses are in no different condition from that of thousands of other houses which are built upon the same soil in Adelaide.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– Nonsense !

Senator SPOONER:

– I am not a South Australian and I have no knowledge of conditions in that State. There are ten Senators from South Australia in this chamber and it is for them to say whether the information given to me on this matter is correct or incorrect. The information which I have is to the effect that this is a wildly exaggerated story which should not be spread in the way in which it is being spread; that there are hundreds of houses built in South Australia on the Bay of Biscay soil which are in the same condition as the Avar service homes; and that those who build on this soil in South Australia are aware of the risks that they incur by so doing. The war service homes are affected because- they have been built upon this soil. That the houses have cracks in them is admitted. That the war service homes suffer disadvantages is well known. But those disadvantages and cracks also occur in hundreds of houses in the same area. Broadly speaking, the tenants of the war service homes realize the position. By and large, the ex-servicemen who occupy these houses are content. Generally speaking, the occupiers of the houses are well satisfied with the treatment that they have received and are most appreciative of the action of the Minister in visiting them personally and discussing the problem with them.

What is the proposition that the Minister has put to the occupiers of those war service homes? He has informed them, that if they do not like their bargain, be will release them from their contract. That is to say, the occupiers may step out of their houses and find other accommodation if they so wish. If they desire not to remain in the houses their deposits will be returned to them and they may make a new start elsewhere. What has been the response to the Minister’s offer? The ex-servicemen are remaining in the houses because they know that they have good bargain’s and that the condition of the cottages may be expected in that part of South Australia. What else has the Minister told them? He has stated that South Australians generally are familiar with this building problem’, and that certain remedial action can be taken. If the occupiers of the cottages desire to take that action, the “War Service Homes Di vision will make . a special loan to them and add it to their existing loan, if they so wish. The Minister has also told them that if they desire to leave the houses and sell them, the Division will give them a second advance under the war service homes legislation so that they may purchase other war service homes. The people in the houses are satisfied with the conditions. Those occupiers who do not wish to remain in the houses are selling the cottages at a substantial profit.

SenatorCRITCHLEY (South Australia) [8.18 a.m.]. - For the first time in my life I must disagree completely with the remarks made by a Minister. The statements by the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) were conveyed in a. letter to Senator O’Flaherty and myself about three weeks ago. We expressly visited these places of our own volition and’ not at the invitation of any ex-serviceman who was living in the area. Everything that Senator O’Flaherty has said about the cottages is true. The Minister, in his firebrand’ reply, stated that hundreds of houses built in the area are in a similar condition to that of the war service homes. I agree that every South Australian knows that a part of the metropolitan area has the so-called Bay of Biscay soil, but a great calamity has undoubtedly occurred in the erection of the war service homes. The Minister for National Development, has stated that the Minister forSoocial Services (Mr. Townley) inspected) the war service homes, discussed, the problem with the occupiers and conferred with the Commissioner of War Service Homes.. To the best’ of my knowledge; the Minister for Social Services was in Adelaide for only a few hours before he went to the south-east part of the State. The- statement of Senator Spooner is completely misleading.. I say without fear- of contradiction, that SenatorO’Flaherty has spoken the truth. I tell the- committee with all the sincerity at my command that not. one of those exservicemen does not wish to’ do his- best to make a comfortable home’. All they want is that the truth- of the situation shall be made known. When Senator-

O’Flaherty and I interviewed the war service homes authorities in Adelaide; they admitted that the houses were bad. Senator O’Flaherty knows too much, about building. to> be- misled by any tiddley-winking excuses. The; War ServiceHomes Commission- offered to experiment with two’ or three of the homes- to see whether anything could be done with them. The condition was that if the work could’ be clone satisfactorily the tenant would pay for it, but if, on the other hand, the results were not satisfactory, the tenant could put his home on the market,, pay off his commitment with the proceeds, and make a fresh start. The responsibility for this rests with the Government. The information that Senator O’Flaherty and I have brought before this chamber is correct in every detail, and I resent the accusations that have been made- by the Minister for National Development..

Motion (by Senator McLeay) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator I. A. C. Wood.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted1.

Bill read a third time.

Sitting suspended from8.27 to 11 a.m.

page 845

DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

Report of Public Accounts Committee

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I present the report of the Public Accounts Committee on the following subject: - ‘

SixthReport - Department of External Affairs.

page 845

ESTATE DUTY ASSESSMENT BILL 1953

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

page 845

SEAMEN’S WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES BILL 1953

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 845

SOCIAL SERVICES CONSOLIDATION BILL 1953

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 the bill be now read a second time.

The bill gives effect to the Government’s’ decision to increase age, invalid and widows’ pensions and to liberalize both the income and the property means test for these pensions. I should like to remind the Senate that this Government has increased pensions in every budget it has brought down. When the Menzies Government took office in December,. 1949, the maximum rate of age and invalid pensions was £2 2s. fid. a week. In 1950, this- Government increased the pension by ‘7s.. 6d.. a week,, which was 50 per cent. higherthan the largest increase ever given by any other government. In 1951, the Government again increased the pension,, this time by 10s. a week,, which was double the largest increase any other government had ever given.. Last year, a further increase of 7s.,6d., a week was made, bringing, the maximum pension to £3 7;s.6d. a week. The increase of 2s.6d. provided in thisbill will bring the pension up to £3 10s. a week. In addition, this Government has provided pensioners with a free medical service and free medicine which,, of course, add materially to the- value- of the pension.

It will, I know, be contended, by honorable senators opposite that the new pension rate of £3 10s. a week is inadequate because it represents a slightly smaller percentage of the basic wage than the pension of £2 2s. 6d. which was payable when the Labour Government went out of office- in December, 1949. I think, however, that honorable senators know very well that the basic wage is not a satisfactory yardstick for determining a fair rate of pension at any given time. In recent years the basis on which ‘the court has determined the basic wage has been changed,, and’ the capacity of industry to pay has become the chief factor. Other elements than needs now enter into the determination of the wage and, consequently, it is fallacious to draw conclusions from a comparison of pension rates as a percentage of the basic wage at different times.

The1 only satisfactory basis on which to make any comparison of the purchasing power of the pension at, different times is to relate- the rate of pension to the C series retail, price index number. The last.C series retail price index number issued by the Commonwealth Statistician before theChifley Government went out. of office was 1428, for the September quarter.. 1949: The maximum pension was then £2 2s.6d. a, week. The latest price index number announced a few days ago is 2321, which is for the September quarter, 1953. By taking the ratio 2321 over 1428 of £2 2s. 6d., we get the result of £3 9s. Thus, on relative values measured by the C series price index number, the new pension rate of £3 10s. a week will be ls. a week higher than the value of the pension immediately before the Labour Government went out of office.

Our expenditure on social services is now on such a scale as to have become a major budget item. The Government would be failing in its duty to the country if it were to increase our expenditure on social services without having regard to its other financial commitments and the resources at its disposal. This Government’s practical interest in and sympathy with the welfare of pensioners is clearly shown by the fact that, since it assumed office, it has granted increases totalling £1 7s. 6d. a week, which represents an increase of 64.7 per cent, on the pension of £2 2s. 6d. a week paid in 1949, when Labour was in office. Increases up to 5S per cent, have also been made in the rates of widows’ pensions since 1949.

I particularly draw the attention of honorable senators to the fact that, not only will every one of the 496,000 age, invalid and widow pensioners receive the increase of 2s. 6d. a week, but also some 120,000 of them will receive much larger increases. These are pensioners whose pensions are at present reduced on account of income or property. In many instances, where the reduction is due to earnings or other income, the total increase of pension will be 12s. 6d. a week for a single person and £1 5s. a week for a married couple. Furthermore, if present pensions in such cases are also reduced on account of property, there will be even larger increases. These additional increases in pensions are due to the fact that, under the bill, the Government is increasing the amount of permissible income which a pensioner may have without reduction of pension from 30s. to £2 a week. The increase in permissible income for a married couple when both are pensioners is from £3 to £4 a week. This will mean that a married couple will be able to have a total income of £11 a week, inclusive of their pensions, in- stead of £9 15s. as at present. A singlepensioner will be able to have a total of £5 10s. a week, including pension, instead of £4 17s. 6d. as at present.

The Government has recognized that some special provision is needed for married couples of whom only one party is qualified for pension. Hitherto, such couples have not been able to receive by way of income and pension the same total as a married couple when both husband and wife are pensioners. The bill provides, therefore, that a married couple, of whom only one is a pensioner, may have income of £5 a week between them without reduction of the pension. The couple will be able to have income of £5 a week and one full pension of £3 10s., making a total of £8 10s. a week. If they have income in excess of £5 a week, the rate of pension will be reduced by half the excess income. The couple, however, will not be permitted to receive by way of income and pension more than the total of £11 a week which may be received by a couple where both, husband and wife are pensioners. This special liberalization of permissible income for married couples of whom only one party is a pensioner will apply also to couples of whom the husband is an invalid and the wife receives a wife’s allowance. They will be able to have income of £5 a week in addition to the husband’s pension of £3 10s. and the wife’s allowance of £1 15s., a total of £10 5s. a week. If they have children under sixteen years of age they may receive additional income of 10s. a week in respect of each child without any reduction of the pension or the allowance. Thus, an invalid pensioner and his wife, with two children under sixteen years of age, will be able to have an income of £6 a week in addition to the husband’s pension of £3 10s., the wife’s allowance of £1 15s. and a child’s allowance of lis. 6d., with child endowment of 15s., making a total of £12 lis. 6d. a week.

The increases of permissible income will particularly benefit pensioners receiving fixed incomes from other sources, such as superannuation. For example, a pensioner whose pension is now reduced by 10s. a week or more on account of superannuation or other income will receive an increase of 12s. 6d. a week in pension. For married couples when both parties receive pensions the total increase in pensions will be 25s. a week, and when only one party is ‘ receiving a pension the increase of pension will be 22s. 6d. a week. A person who, at present, is not entitled to an age pension because he is receiving superannuation or other income of £4 17s. 6d. a week will become entitled, subject to other qualifications, to a pension of 12s. 6d., making a total of £5 10s. a week, A married couple at present disqualified for age pensions because they are receiving superannuation or other income of £9 15s. a week will become entitled, subject to other qualifications, to age pensions of 25s. a week between them, making a total of £11 a week.

The following table gives a few examples which show the extent to which pensions now reduced on account of income will be increased as a result of the increase of pension and permissible income: -

In addition to the increases of permissible income, the bill contains four important liberalizations in the property means test. First, the property exemption, that is, the amount which a pensioner may have without any reduction of pension, is being increased ‘from £100 to £150. The increase in the exemption for a married couple will be from £200 to £300. Honorable senators will know, of course, that, the value of a pensioner’s home is disregarded entirely up to any value, as well as furniture and personal effects. Secondly, the scale for progressive reduction of pension on account of property above the exemption has been liberalized. At present, the reduction is £1 a year for every complete £10 of property above £100 up to £450, and £2 a year for every £10 above £450 up to £1,000. No pension is payable if the value of the property, other than the home, &c, exceeds £1,000 or, for a married couple, £2,000. Under the bill, the scale for reduction of pension will be £1 for every complete £10 of property above £150 up to £450 and £2 for every complete £11 of property above £450 up to £1,250. As an example, I cite the case of a pensioner who has property of £300 apart from his home. At present, he receives a pension of £70 10s. a year. Under the new exemption and scale he may receive a pension of £90 a year. Thirdly, the limit of property beyond which no pension can be paid is being raised from £1,000 to £1,250. For a married couple the limit will rise from £2,000 to £2,500. Consequently, a married couple will not be debarred entirely from pension unless the value of their property, apart from their home, furniture and personal effects, exceeds £2,500. The fourth liberalization relates to reversionary interests. These interests are now subject to a special exemption of £750 in respect of their present value. In law a reversionary interest is regarded as property but the Government recognizes that pensioners experience much difficulty in realizing upon such interests. In future, reversionary interests will be completely disregarded as property for pension purposes.

It is sometimes said that the means test penalizes thrift and savings, but it is easy to over-state its effects in that direction. Many people who have been able to make moderate provision for their old age are not debarred from pension benefits. It may surprise many people to know that, when this bill becomes law, it will be possible for a married couple of pension age to have an income of £4 a week and money in the bank, or other property, to the value of £319. and still receive full pensions totalling £7 a week. In addition, they may own their home, without limit as to value, furniture and personal effects, life assurance policies with a surrender value up to £750 for each party, and receive free medical service and free pharmaceutical benefits.

Widows’ pensions are being increased by 2s. 6d. a week. The maximum rate for a widow in class A, that is, a widow with one or more children under sixteen years of age, will become £3 15s. a week, and the rate for other classes of widows will become £2 17s. 6d. a week. The permissible income for all widow pensioners is being increased by 10s. a week, that is, from 30s. to £2 a week. Additional permissible income of 10s. a week will be allowed in respect of each child under sixteen years of age. Thus, a class A widow with two children will be able to have income of £3 a week and receive the full pension of £3 15s., which will give her a total income of £7 10s. a week, inclusive of child endowment of 15s. The bill also liberalizes the property means test for widow pensioners. At present a class A widow is disqualified from receiving a pension if she owns property, apart from her home, furniture, and personal effects, of a value exceeding £1,250. This limit is being raised to £1,500. All widows who become eligible for pension because of this extension of the limit may qualify for full pension, because there is no scale for progressive reduction of a class A pension on account of property. The property limit for other widow pensioners will also rise by £250, that is, from £1,000 to £1,250. At present the pensions of such widows are reduced by £1 per annum for every complete £10 of property above £300 up’ to £450 ; by £1 for every £7 above £450 up to £750; and by £2 for every £10 above £750 up to £1,000. Under the provisions of the bill the exemption of £100 will rise to £150, and the scale for reduction of pension on account of property will be £1 for every complete £10 above £150 up to £450, and £1 for every £7 above £450 up to £1,250. Reversionary interests will also be disregarded entirely under the property means test for widows’ pensions.

As honorable senators know, ceiling limits are imposed on the total amount which a person may receive by way of a civil pension plus- a. war pension. They were first introduced in 1948. It has been customary in the past to raise the ceiling by the amount of the increase of either the civil or the war pension. It is proposed on this occasion, however, to raise these limits to such an extent as will enable the pensioner to receive the full increase of civil pension, together with the full increase of war pension, and a further increase o’f the civil pension up to half the increase of permissible income.

The present ceiling limits and the proposed new ceiling limits for each classof pensioner are as follows,: -

I should like to make it clear that these ceiling limits apply only to Commonwealth payments by way of civil pension plus war pension. Of course, the pensioners can have additional income from any other source in order to bring their total receipts, inclusive of the pensions, up to the appropriate limit of income plus pension.

Age and invalid pensioners who are inmates of benevolent homes will receive £1 4s. 6d. a week. The amount payable to the home for the pensioner’s maintenance will be £2 5s. 6d. a week. In keeping with our modern approach to social welfare, this measure will substitute the term “ benevolent home “ for “ benevolent asylum “ in the social services legislation.

Honorable senators will no doubt recall that the amending legislation that was introduced by this Government last year provided a means-test-free pension of £3 a week for blind persons. Some blind pensioners have children under sixteen years of age, but they cannot receive a child’s allowance unless they are eligible for some pension under the means test for blind persons. This is being rectified by the bill, and in future any blind pensioner who has a child under sixteen years of age will be entitled to receive a child’s allowance of lis. 6d. a week, in addition to the pension.

Under another amendment that was made last year, a new provision was introduced in order to liberalize the conditions under which occasional absences from Australia may be treated as residence in Australia for the purpose of satisfying the residential requirement of twenty years’ continuous residence for- age pensions. Experience has shown, however, that this amendment did not entirely cover all the cases to which it was intended Ur Apply, and the provision is now being altered so as to give it a wider application.

Another amendment of a somewhat similar nature concerns invalid pensions. Where a claimant has become permanently incapacitated in Australia, or during a. temporary absence from Australia, he needs only five years’ continuous residence in Australia to qualify for the pension. In other instances twenty years’ residence in the aggregate is necessary. A child born to parents while they are temporarily absent from Australia may be permanently incapacitated from birth, or may become so before the parents return to Australia. . The bill contains a provision that will enable such a child to be regarded as having become permanently incapacitated in Australia.

Another provision, relates to funeral benefits which are paid in respect of the funeral expenses of .age and invalid pensioners. At present a benefit received, from a. contributory funeral benefit fund may, if it is large enough, affect the amount of the Commonwealth payment, unless it is received from a friendly society. By the proposed alteration of the present provision the contributory funeral benefit funds of trade unions may be regarded, in the same way as those of friendly societies.

Under an amendment that was made last year, amounts received from organizations registered under the Hospital Benefits Act in relation to hospital treatment were excluded from “ income “. for the purposes of age, invalid, and widows’ pensions, and unemployment and, sickness benefits) to the extent to which they are required to meet hospital expenses over and above the amount of Commonwealth hospital benefits. It is proposed to allow the. same exemption, under similar conditions, in relation, to amounts received from organizations registered in connexion with the Government’s medical benefits scheme by way of medical benefits. The amounts of medical benefits payable. by the Commonwealth will be disregarded-, as are also Commonwealth, hospital benefits and pharmaceutical benefits.

The increases and liberalizations provided in the bill will operate from and including the. first pension pay-day after the measure has. received the. Boya, assent. It is expected that increased payments of age and invalid pensions will be made on Thursday next, the 29th October, and the increased payments of widows’ pensions on the following Tuesday, the 3rd November.

I have already explained that about 120,000 pensioners, out of a total of 496,000, will receive pension increases of considerably more than the basic 5s. a fortnight. In every one of these 120,000 cases the rate of pension has to be reassessed. This involves a very great deal of work, but most of it has already been done. In the great ma jority of cases, the full increase will be paid on the first payday after the bill becomes law. In any cases where this is not practicable, the re-assessments will be completed, as quickly as possible and the additional increases will be paid together with full arrears

The cost of the increases and liberalizations contained in the bill is estimated at £4,531,500 a year. The cost for this financial year will be £3,200,000. This will bring expenditure under the Social Services Consolidation Act up to approximately £153,000,000 for 1953-54. When this figure ils compared with £74,592,000 for the year 1948-49,. the last full year during which the Labour Government was- in office, some idea will be gained of the extent to which this Government has liberalized these services.

I have already mentioned that this Government, since it assumed office, has increased the rate of age and invalid pensions by 64.7 per cent, and the rate of widows’ pensions, up to 58 per cent. . Taking, also into account the liberalizations now provided, the Government has increased the property limit by 67 per cent.,, the property exemption by 50 per cent, and- the permissible interne by 34 per cent., or more where there are dependent children. In addition, it has abolished the “ adequate maintenance “ provisions which formerly debarred many invalids under 21 years’ of age from receiving pensions; and it has provided a means-test-free’ pension for blind persons and granted other valuable concessions. In the circumstances, the Government can justly claim to have remembered those members of the community who, because of age, infirmity or widowhood, have not been able to participate directly in the increased prosperity which has been experienced during its term of office. The Government is proud of its record in the field of social welfare, particularly in view of the fact that its commitments in other directions have reached unprecedented levels. We have, at the same time, been able substantially to reduce taxation and thus ease the burden on the productive members of the community.

Debate (on motion by Senator Tangney) adjourned.

page 850

STATES GRANTS BILL 1953

Bill received from 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 the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to authorize the payment, during the current financial year, of special grants amounting to £15,400,000 to . South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. The payment of these grants has been recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in its twentieth report, which was tabled last week. In its twentieth report, the commission has continued to apply the same general principle of financial need as it adopted in its third report in 1936. The commission has expressed this principle in the following terms : -

Special grants are justified when a State, through financial stress from any cause, is unable efficiently to discharge its functions as a member of the federation and should be determined by the amount of help found necessary to make itpossible for that State by reasonable effort to function at a standard not appreciably below that of the other States.

In applying this principle, the commission makes a detailed comparison of the budget results of the claimant States with those of the non-claimant States. When making this comparison, the commission takes account of the differences between the claimant and non-claimant States in their levels of expenditure and in their efforts to raise revenue. As in recent years, the commission has adopted a balanced budget standard as the starting point for its investigation.

Because of the difficulty of making precise estimates of the needs of a claimant State in the year in which the grants are paid, the special grants recommended are divided into two parts. One part represents the commission’s estimate of the State’s financial needs in the year for which the grant is recommended. This part of the grant is treated by the commission as an advance payment which is subject to adjustment two years later when the commission has examined in detail the audited budget results of the States for that year. The other part of the grant represents a final adjustment of the special grant paid two years earlier. Thus in its twentieth report the commission has decided upon the grant which each State required in 1951-52 and has compared these amounts with the advance payments made in 1951-52 in order to arrive at a final adjustment. The special grants recommended for payment in 1953-54 are therefore made up as follows: -

The special grants recommended for payment in 1953-54 are £534,000 less than the special grants paid in 1952-53. But, the tax reimbursement payments to the claimant States in 1953-54 will be £1,312,000 higher than last year. The net effect, therefore, is that the total revenue grants to the claimant States will increase by £778,000 over last year, so that South Australia will receive £348,000, Western Australia, £201,000 and Tasmania, £229,000 more than in 1952-53.

On the basis of the preliminary budget estimates submitted to the commission by the claimant States, the effect of the commission’s recommendations would be to leave each of them with a small deficit in 1953-54. These estimates, however, are tentative only and in two years’ time the commission will recommend adjusting . payments in the light of the actual budget results achieved by the States.

The special grants recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission have in each year been adopted by the Australian Government of the day and the present Government considers that the commission’s recommendations should be adopted again this year. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 851

QUESTION

SUPERANNUATION

Senator GUY:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Is it a fact that following an investigation, recently concluded, the Government proposes to make the necessary provision to increase pensions payable to retired public servants under the contributory Commonwealth superannuation scheme?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question: -

An investigation has been made of the position of superannuation pensioners and a report is being prepared. Until the report has been considered, the Government is unable to indicate its intentions.

page 851

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT LOANS AND FINANCE

Senator GORTON:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Has the Government of Victoria, at any time since the date of the last Loan Council meeting, made any official approach to the Australian Government requesting it to make a special loan or grant of £5,000,000 for use by the Victorian State Electricity Commission?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question: -

In July last the Acting Premier of Victoria wrote to the Australian Government indicating that the State Electricity Commission of Victoria required additional funds for capital works and asking that the Commonwealth give financial assistance to Victoria over the financial years 1952-53 and 1953-54 to enable the latter to provide further moneys for the commission’s use. The amount of the assistance required was not stated.

page 851

QUESTION

OIL AND PETROL

Senator GORTON:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

  1. Will the Minister approach the major petrol companies and’ endeavour to arrange that the companies make available to motorists petrol of a higher octane rating, as well as the petrol that is now available?
  2. If higher octane petrol has to be sold ata slightly higher price, as is the case in England, will the Minister, in conjunction with the States, endeavour to arrange that this be made possible so that motorists may exercise a choice as to the quality of the petrol they desire to use?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I have the following reply to the honorable senator’s questions : - 1 and 2. The Australian Government exercises no control over the quality of motor spirit marketed in Australia. According to a recent statement in the press by the Premier of Victoria and spokesmen for the oil industry, the possibility of distributing a premium grade of motor spirit in Australia has been under consideration. These reports, however, indicate that the proposal is unlikely to be adopted at present. The re-introduction of premium grades of petrol in the United Kingdom followed upon the commissioning of a number of refineries in that country. It is possible that the completion of Australia’s new refineries now under construction could be followed in the same way by a return to two grade marketing.

page 851

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) - by leave - agreed to -

That the Orders of the Senate fixing the resumption of the debate on the following bills as Orders of the Day for the next day of sitting, be rescinded, and that the resumption of the debate be Orders of the Day for a later hour this day: -

Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1953.

Excise Tariff Validation Bill 1953.

Loan (War Service Land Settlement) Bill 1953.

page 851

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from8th October, 1953 (vide page 418), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

.- Although the Opposition will not move amendments to this bill it considers that many aspects of the bill justify criticism. It is interesting to examine the history of sales tax as a background to this bill. Sales tax, in its original form, was a turnover tax which was introduced by European countries after World War I. The financial position of these countries had become very difficult, primarily due to rising internal costs and reduced income from customs duty. These circumstances had reduced the economy of those coun- tries to such a state as to cause difficulty even to obtain money for ordinary governmental works. Consequently, the governments of those countries instituted the turnover tax, . generally at a- rate of 1 per cent. But that tax was applied to an article every time that it changed hands so that finally., a tax of up to 10 per cent. might be paid on the one item. Historians attributed great value to this tax as a method of keeping countries on an even financial keel in those serious days. By 1925 even Turkey had adopted this form of taxation. In 1920 it was adopted by Canada. That country, too, was facing the same internal problems that faced Europe. In those days the imposition of this tax was considered to be a last resort, of governments that were endeavouring to squeeze an extra few pounds out of taxpayers in order to keep ordinary governmental business in operation. In Australia this tax was introduced by the Scullin Government on the 30th July, 1930. The late Mr. Scullin faced problems very similar to those that had been faced by the European countries and Canada. When he introduced this tax he was asked to state that it would be a. temporary tax, but he would not agree that it would be a temporary or emergency measure. I suppose he had enough wisdom to know that once a tax is introduced it is difficult to get rid of it. When Mr. Scullin introduced this tax in Australia he was advised that instead of passing a simple assessment rates bill in order to make the tax law he would have to introduce nine assessment bills and nine rates bills. That procedure has been simplified since then so . apparently the advice that . he was given by very eminent counsel was not quite perfect. Now it is possible to impose this tax by meansof one assessment bill and nine rates bills. Mr.. Scullin first introduced this tax at a general rate of2½ per cent. but he intro duced it as a sales tax in contra-disti nction to the turnover tax that I have mentioned. The tax of2½ per cent. was levied at the last point of -movement of the goods, before the retailer received them. In its first year of operation the tax returned the Government under £3,500,000. As I have said, it was hoped that the tax would be a temporary measure but it has grown to be a permanent measure. The rate of the tax was increased in 1933 to 6 per cent. The Lyons Government reduced the rate to 5 per cent. and subsequently to 4 per cent. but the rate again rose to 5 per cent. in 1939. In 1940, the Menzies Government increased the general rate to 6 per cent. In 1941, the general rate became8½ per cent. In 1942, the Curtin Government reduced the general rate to 5 per cent. but applied two other rates of 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. That was the first occasion in the history of the tax in Australia on which it was levied at three different rates. That position remained until 1946. The urgent post-war problems that faced the Curtin Government caused it to increase the general rate to 12½ per cent. and the special rate to 25 per cent. In 1949, the Chifley Government reduced the general rate to 10 per cent. In 1950, it, was reduced to8 per cent. During the last years of its office the Chifley Government effected gradual reductions in sales tax and other taxation rates.’ In 1951, the Menzies Government introduced three special rates of sales tax, namely 10 per cent., 25 per cent. and. 33 per cent. In 1952, that Governmentraised the general rate to 12½. per cent. and levied special rates of 20 per cent., 25 per cent., 33 per cent., 50 per cent. and 66 per cent. In 1953, the Menzies Government reduced the special rates to 20 per cent., 33 per cent, and 50 per cent. The bill before the Senate proposes that the general rate shall remain unchanged at 12½ per cent., which is the highest general . rate in the history of sales tax in Australia. Then there is the special rate of 16f per -cent. W-e are told that sales tax collections this year will amount to £87,740,000. That “is indeed a far cry from the original revenue of £3,500,000, 22 years ago. The sales tax yielded its record revenue in 1951-52 when collections totalled £95,000,000. Last year, £89.,-000,000 was collected and now, ‘with the munificent reductions provided for in this legislation, the revenue is to be £8.7,740,000 foi’ this year. Ministers who have presented the various tax proposals of the budget have invariably referred to the “ cost of these concessions “. We are told that the cost of the sales tax concessions provided for in this measure will be £11,700,000 in a full year and £8,700,000 in the remainder of the current financial year. We are led to believe that this £11,700,000 is being sacrificed by the Government and given back to the community. But surely what really matters is the total revenue that is being collected from the community by the sales tax. As I have said, whereas last year’s sales tax .collections totalled £89,000,000. this vear the yield will be £8:7,740,000.

  1. have always regarded the sales tax as very important because it has a. direct effect on the cost of living. In the first eighteen months of this Government’s term of office, much harm, .was done to our economy by the Government’s inaction and its disregard of pressing administrative problems. It was in those months that inflation was given its greatest impetus. One can only regard the sales tax as one of the most serious burdens on the average family. The increasing of the rates two years ago had a most inflationary effect. Ordinary household requirements were heavily taxed. A levy of 12£ per cent, on such commodities is a gigantic impost. When severe taxes are imposed on luxuries, the public has the choice of taking them or leaving them, but it has no such choice in regard to most of the items on which the general rate of 12^ per cent, is levied. Those items include furniture, refrigerators, cleaners, knives, forks, spoons, cakes, pastries, scones, buns, puddings, jelly crystals, pepper, salt, imported canned fish, aerated waters and soap. Those are essentials in every household. If the Government had really wanted to help the family man, it would have reduced the sa’les tax on essential -goods, or perhaps exempted most of such commodities altogether instead of scaling down the tax on luxuries. The -Government boasts that a house may be built without the payment -of sales tax on .any of the materials used. But, when a house has been built, is it not just .as important that the owner should be able to buy household equipment such as floor coverings, free of tax? Yet floor coverings are taxed at the rate of 124 per cent. Blinds too are subject to the general rate and in the same category are other essentials such as sewing machines, electrical appliances, brooms, brushes, and kitchen hardware. Even the pots and pans for the kitchen .are taxed at the rate of 124 per cent. ! How the Government can take so much credit for its sales ta,x proposals Ls quite beyond me. Other common items upon which the general rate of I2i per cent is levied include hotwater bottles, hand tools, garden tools, and lawn mowers.

If one needs any further evidence of this Government’s inconsistency one has only to consider the now famous or infamous Defence Preparations Act. Truly this is a government of alarms and excursions, stops and starts, indecisions and inconsistencies. The Defence Preparations Act which was introduced dramatically into the House .of Representatives by the Prime Minister gave the Government power to control almost every commodity, except, of course, money. The war threat was the excuse for that measure. Looking back however, we find that the only regulation that has been issued under the Defence Preparations Act is that reconstituting the Capital Issues Board. I do not know who laboured and brought forward the mouse, but certainly on that occasion somebody laboured and brought forth very little. It seems to me that the Government needs another Defence Preparations Act to defend the Defence Preparations Act. On the pretext of preparing this country for war, the Government sought higher revenues by increasing the maximum sales tax impost to 66& per cent. Now, reductions have been made of the rates applicable to luxury items. If the choice lay -between relieving the hurden of people in the lower income groups by exempting essentials from the sales tax or giving an incentive to luxury purchases by reducing the sales tax on such goods, the Government should not have been in doubt for one moment. Surely it is far more important that a young woman setting up house should be able to purchase floor coverings and other household items free of tax, than that a wealthy woman should be able to buy a mink coat or jewellery. I cannot understand the Government’s choice. The result of this sales tax legislation will only be to reduce further the purchasing power of the average family man whose wages have lost so much of their value during the term of office of this Government.

The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) has told us over and over again that this Government had steadily reduced taxes. The Opposition has been trying to tell the Government what the final result of these so-called tax reductions will be. The Government is still taking from the community as much money as ever it took.

In connexion with the sales tax, I wish to refer to the plight of the manufacturers of aerated waters, which are subject to sales tax at the rate of 12i per cent. Honorable senators may not be aware that sales tax has been removed completely from drinks manufactured from fruit juices. The manufacturers of carbonated waters are in a desperate situation. They contend that it is futile for the Government to reduce company tax while sales tax prevents them from making profits. I suggest that if the aerated water industry in New South Wales is examined it will be found that the shares of companies which produce the best carbonated drinks, such as “ Canada Dry “, are on the market at approximately 7s. The prospect of such companies being able to pay dividends are very dim. The 5s. shares of other companies, such as the company which produces Pepsi-Cola, are on the market at approximately 2s. 6d. .These companies badly need sales tax relief. I point out that 80 per cent, or 90 per cent, of those who buy their products are young people. The companies cannot increase the prices of their commodities beyond the capacity of those young people to pay.

They are at a disadvantage compared with the vendors of pure fruit juices, whose goods carry a high rate of profit.

I have been advised by a company whose title I shall not mention, because I think it would be unfair to do so, that the present sales tax of 12^ per cent., while theoretically only 25 per cent, higher than the earlier rate of 10 per cent., monetarily is 140 per cent, higher because it is being charged on higher selling prices. The company stated -

In the last two years sales tax gained £5 18s. for every fi paid in dividends as against £1 5s. for every £1 in the last two years of the Chifley Government. In the last two years all forms of federal taxation gained £8 9s. for every £1 paid in dividends «s against £2 3s. for every £1 in the last two years of the Chifley Government.

I have no doubt that the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) is well acquainted with the company concerned. I should like him to consider this matter as an illustration of the operation of a punitive rate of sales tax in relation to certain industries.

I am grateful, of course, that the number of categories of sales tax has been reduced to two. One of the imponderables in connexion with all taxes is the reaction of those who are obliged to pay the tax. It is necessary for the Government to ask, in effect, “What additional work will be entailed by the tax, and how many additional employees will have to be employed in order that the Government may obtain the desired return ? “ I suggest that very often the simplification of the task of taxpayers in complying with taxation legislation is just as valuable as is a reduction of the tax itself, because such simplification renders less expensive the duties imposed on them by the relevant legislation. I cannot understand why the Government has allowed the general rate of sales tax to remain unaltered. The majority of the people in the community purchase the household goods to which I have already referred, but will receive no benefit from this socalled reduction of sales tax. In relation to the items covered by the 66f per cent, rate, approximately twelve months ago, the Government, under its defence preparations legislation, tried to send the manufacturers of such items out of business. The Australian Labour party opposed that attempt because it was of the opinion that the alarms and excursions of the Government did not warrant drastic action such as that threatened by the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) in relation to luxury trades. It will be remembered that the right honorable gentleman said, in effect, to the manufacturers of luxury goods, “ There is no place for you in the schemes of this Government “. Apparently he has been advised differently since then.

Almost every item of household equipment will carry sales tax at the rate of 12$ per cent, when this bill becomes effective. That rate of tax will impose a very heavy burden on people whom the Government should be assisting. I suggest that if the Government is able to make great reductions of taxes in respect of companies it should also be able to reduce sales tax for the benefit of young people who are setting up homes. It could have directed some of its vaunted generosity into that avenue. The circumstances under which sales tax was introduced in 1930 do not exist to-day. At that time, the customs and excise revenues were reduced to a minimum. According to this Government, we now have a most buoyant economy. Customs duty and excise are said to be at record levels. However, instead of eliminating this most vicious tax on the basic equipment of the home, the Government has reduced company tax. Sales tax on these necessities directly affects the basic wage, and for that reason it should be either reduced or eliminated.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– In supporting the bill, I remind honorable senators of the effect on the community of the taxation proposals of the Government when the budget was introduced recently. “Within 24 hours, advertisements appeared in the main newspapers of Australia to the effect that the prices of many goods would be reduced immediately. Those reductions were as much as 4s. 6d. in the £1. I wish to read to honorable senators a comment made by Mr. A. E. Heath, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Taxation of the Associated Chamber of Commerce of Australia, as set out in the September issue of Canberra Notes. In relation to the taxation policy of the Government, particularly sales tax policy, the comment is as follows: -

With this keynote of encouragement to individual effort, business enterprise and saving, the Government has rightly concentrated its efforts on reductions in direct taxes. However, the substantial reductions in sales tax on many types of goods must do a great” deal to promote retail activity in those lines, a process which must lead back to a very prosperous outlook for those who manufacture them. It can well be said that this budget, on the revenue side, will carry benefits into every home and every business.

It is possible to see, from the Government’s imaginative treatment of sales tax; the direction in which our economy is moving. The reductions of sales tax will promote a better outlook on the part of manufacturers.

I remind the Senate that our national income has risen in a most spectacular manner since 193S-39, when it was £7SO,000,000. In 1949-50, the year in which this Government came to office, it was £2,302,000,000, and this year it is expected to be £3,579,000,000. Therefore, the national income has almost doubled during the regime of the Menzies Government. It might be expected that with such an increase of national income, taxes would also increase, but I point out that they have not increased in proportion to the increase of the national income. In the last year of Mr. Chifley’s term as Treasurer, he left with the people £1,2S9,000,000, after taking from them taxes amounting to approximately £504,000,000. In the financial year which ended on the 30th June last, this Government left with the community £2,730,000,000, which is more than double the amount left by Mr. Chifley in his last year of office. I recommend honorable senators to study the seventh report of the -Public Accounts Committee which deals with the administration of the sales tax. That document contains an interesting statistical history of the tax. As Senator Armstrong pointed out, the sales tax was introduced by the Scullin Government in 1930-31. In that year, when the tax hardly got going, collections totalled £3,000,000. The following year collections totalled £S.500,000, which was 15.6 per cent, of the total revenue derived from taxes of all kinds. Ten years later, in 1941-42, when the Curtin Government was in office,, collections: of. the sales tax totalled £26,000,000, which represented 14.9 per cent. of the total revenue collected from taxes of all kinds. Last year, collections of the ‘sales tax totalled £89,000,000, hut I point out that that revenue represented’ only 10.1 per cent. of the total revenue derived from taxes of all kinds. That decrease in relation to total taxation revenue has been a feature of. this Government’s policy, and I have no doubt that that percentage will continue to decrease so long as the Government remains in office. Anotherimportant point in the consideration of a tax is the cost incurred in collecting it. Whereas in 1948, when the Chifley Government was in office, the cost of collecting sales tax was . 56 per cent. of total collections and in the following year it was . 50 per cent. of total collections, last year the cost was only . 36 per cent. of total collections. Under this Government that cost has been steadily reduced to an economic level.

Senator Armstrong expressed gratification at the reductions of tax proposed under this measure. However, the Government in addition to reducing the rates is also reducing the number of classifications. Two years ago, the tax was levied at rates of 66 per cent., 50 per cent.,, 33 per cent., 25 per cent., 20 per cent. and 12½ per cent. Such a multiplicity of classifications operated to the disadvantage of the business community. Consequently, I welcome the Government’s proposal under this measure to reduce the number of classifications by replacing the rates of 50 per cent., 33 per cent., and 20 per cent. by a rate of 16 per cent. whilst, at the same time, numerous goods will be entirely exempt, from tax. Last year the maximum, rate of 66 per cent. was reduced to 50 per cent., the rate of 50 per cent. to 33 per cent., and the rate of 33 per cent. to 20 per cent., whilst the rate of 25 per cent. was abolished. Those reductions, together with the exemptions of numerous classes of goods,, represented a. cost to revenue of £6,000,000. Under this measure, the rate on sporting goods and equipment is to be reduced from 20 per cent. to 12½ per cent. It is estimated that the cost to revenue of the reductions proposed under- the bill will be £11,700,000. A glance at the specifications of goods that this Government has exempted from sales tax since it assumed office in 1.949, gives some indication of the principles on which the Government is. approaching this class of tax.. Those goods include coffee, and cocoa, ice, miscellaneous foodstuffs including sandwich spreads, meat extracts, vegetable oils, &c.,. certain, items of builders’ hardware, bath and sink heaters,, hot water storage systems, and goods for use by non-profit making schools, universities and hospitals. The relief granted to the last-mentioned institutions last year proved of great value to them. Following the exemption from the sales tax of goods which they must necessarily use, I received numerous letters from the authorities controlling colleges and convents in South Australia in which they praised the Government for its realistic approach to the sales tax. I point out that under those provisions even a motor truck that was used for the clearance of garbage at one of the biggest colleges in Adelaide was exempt from the sales tax. I commend the Government for giving such encouragement to educational institutions. Other goods exempt from the sales tax since the Government assumed office include bassinnettes, cots and cradles. Under’ this measure goods that will be entirely exempt include matches, fruit juice cordials not previously exempted, buttons,, buckles, hooks, eyes, and slide fasteners, water softeners and insecticides. In addition,, the_ rate of tax in respect of a wide range of goods will be substantially reduced under this bill. Of course, every member of the Parliament would like to see the sales tax abolished altogether. However, the Government cannot afford to be so- generous, and,, at the- same time, face up to its responsibility to finance defence preparations, social services, and national development projects as well as make provision for State finances. Having regard to that responsibility, the Government would not be true to its trust if it vacated a field of taxation which now yields an annual revenue of £80,000,000. Many of the goods which Senator Armstrong suggested should be exempt from the sales tax provide an indispensable source of revenue to the Government. Reviewing the Government’s policy in relation to this tax as a whole, it has achieved in large measure its objective of reducing the prices of the most essential goods. One has only to study current business advertising and note the general tempo of business for proof of the truth of that statement. It is unfortunate that certain manufacturers of aerated waters are feeling the pinch at present, but their difficulties have arisen mainly as a result of competition from the coco-cola class of product which has been introduced into Australia in recent years. It would be wrong in principle for the Government to alter its policy from time to time in relation to the sales tax merely in order to enable a particular industry to meet new competitive stresses. Although the Government should carefully consider all representations that are made to it, it should not automatically accede to them. Senator Armstrong, in the valuable contribution that he made to this debate, said that the Opposition would not oppose the bill. Having regard to the extent of the concessions that the Government has made in respect of the sales tax generally since it assumed office, I believe that reasonable people will be satisfied with the additional relief that is to be provided under this measure. I heartily support the bill.

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia

– The introduction of this measure, as has been the case in respect of measures introduced earlier, has been accompanied by the usual propaganda and hymns of praise from Government supporters. The Parliament has now had an overdose of the praise which those honorable senators bestow upon the Government and themselves. It would appear that they are now beginning to believe some of the things of which they have been endeavouring unsuccessfully to convince members of the Opposition. The Parliament is witnessing a political phenomenom. in that Government supporters have become so practised in the art of deception that they have now succeeded in deceiving themselves. They seem to have entered a rosy world in which nothing seems to matter so long as they can admire themselves. They have entered a world “ where every prospect pleases sr. - r-3l ] and only reality is vile “. However, if Government supporters will not face up to economic realities, the duty devolves upon the Opposition to give thought to the difficulties that confront the people. Before dealing with the provisions of sales taxation in general, 1 shall refer briefly to two comments that Senator Laught made. He said that the proposals embodied in this measure had evoked a magnificent response on the part of the newspapers. The honorable senator said that the newspapers were loud in their praises of the sales tax concessions.

Senator Laught:

– I referred to the advertisements in the newspapers.

Senator TOOHEY:

– I am sorry that I misunderstood the honorable senator. However, it would be nothing new for the majority of the newspapers in this country to praise the Government’s sales tax proposals, because they are always praising the Government parties for something. I assure the Senate that realization has not yet come to many people in this country that they are deriving any benefit from the reduction of sales tax. Despite the alleged concessions that have been granted by this Government under the budget that was introduced recently, the cost of living in Australia has since risen by 1.2 per cent. Therefore, honorable senators opposite will experience difficulty in convincing the people of this country that the concessions granted by the budget have benefited them materially. The cold stark figures that have been published by the Commonwealth Statistician prove that the Government’s claims in this connexion are fictitious. Senator Laught emphasized that the reduction of sales tax was a real concession to the people of this country. However, the expected yield from sales taxation in this financial year will be . only about £2.000.000 less than was collected by this means in the last financial year. SUP.110 r t,el S of the Government still continue to refer to articles upon which the rate of sales tax- has been reduced. As I pointed out during my speech on the budget, we should examine the reductions of sales tax in the light of the policy that has been applied by this Government since it assumed office. Only by that means can we keen this matter in true perspective During the last year of office the former Labour Government only two rates of sales tax were imposed, namely, 10 per cent. and 25 per cent. That Government’s budget for 1949-50 reduced the 10 per cent. rate to 8 per cent. The per cent. applied to about 75 per cent. of the purchaseable articles that were required by the people. That is a factor that should be borne in mind, because sales tax at the rate of 25 per cent. was imposed by the Chifley Government on only about 3 per cent. of purchaseable articles in the luxury category.

The present Government appears to deal almostwholly in millions of pounds. It continues to extract millions of pounds from the people in taxes. Under the Chifley Government’s budget for 1949-50, only approximately £45,000,000 was taken from the people of this country by means of sales tax. I shall trace briefly the history of sales taxation since the present Government has been in office. This Government submitted its first sales tax proposals to the Parliament in 1950-51. In that financialyear it wrung from the people of this country by this means about £15,000,000 more than was collected by the Chifley Government in 1949-50. In 1951-52, the year of the horror budget, this Government collected more than £95,000,000 from the people of this country in sales tax, and in the following financial year it reduced sales taxation’ by about £6,000,000. ‘When we consider the things that were done by this Government in the horror budget, particularly in relation to sales tax, the paucity of that remission is apparent. It might be well for me to remind the Senate of some of the comment that was made in October,1949, by prominent members of the parties which now form the Government of this country, but which were then sitting in Opposition. They criticized the Chifley Government’s sales tax. legislation because they did not like it. The then honorable member for Balaclava.. Mr. - now Sir Thomas - “White, deplored the fact that the Labour Government had imposed sales tax at rates as high as 25 per cent. on some articles. He said -

In the war-time emergency the people did not mind such an impost, but now there is no excuse.

The present Minister forRepatriation (Senator Cooper) who was then sitting in opposition in this chamber, said, according to the Mansard report of the 26th October, 1949-

The sales tax must be passed on to the public in the form of increased prices. It will increase the burden that rests upon the taxpayers of this country.

I can only assume that his heart had ceased to bleed for the taxpayers of this country by the time that the horror budget was presented to the Parliament in 1951. The Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison) when sitting in opposition in another place in 1948, opposed the imposition of sales tax on household furniture. He made some very amazing and touching remarks. He said -

The happiness, harmony, and satisfaction of young couples would mean far more to the country than the obtaining by the Government of even hundreds of thousands of pounds by way of sales tax on these commodities.

His thoughts can be imagined when he was forced to agree to the horror budget in 1951-52, because in that budget very little consideration was extended to young couples about to marry. We can only hope that the Minister did not suffer too badly as a result of the sorrow that it must have implanted in his mind. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) stated in 1949, referring to sales tax -

We will review the incidence of indirect taxation, which is a huge item in Australia.

And how he reviewed it! In less than two years sales tax was doubled. The total amount of £95,458,000 was taken from the people of this country in 1951-52 by that means, compared with £42,425,000 in 1949-50. Sales tax is a most vicious form of taxation. There is nothing tangible about it, and it has the effect of destroying the purchasing power of the average worker in the community.

I shall now refer to some of the provisions of the horror budget. Some supporters of the Government do not like members of the Opposition to refer to the 1951-52 budget as the horror budget, but I consider that that is an apt description of it. The 1951-52 budget increased the general rate of sales tax from 8 per cent. to 12½ per cent., at which rate it remained until recently. Supporters of the Government, when sitting in opposition in 1949, roundly condemned the rates of sales tax that were then imposed.

The present Government placed motor cars and ice-cream blocks in the 20 per cent. sales tax category. It must have been very comforting for the average worker, when driving out to the hills in his limousine at the week-ends, to realize that he was required to pay the same rate of sales tax on the ice-cream block that he bought for his son, as he had paid on his motor car ! There were some extraordinary groupings in the 25 per cent. schedule, such as cow bells and sleigh bells. What an injustice to the farming community of this country! There were also tuning forks and hammers. What stupidity and utter nonsense! As far as I know, tuning forks are used only by school teachers in order to give the class the right key during singing practice. So assiduous were the leaders of the Government parties in their search for means to increase revenue that they imposed sales tax at the rate of 25 per cent. on such articles. Other musical instruments, including trumpets, were similarly taxed. Fountain pens, propelling pencils, hand bags, purses, and shopping bags were placed in the same sales tax category as yachts, launches, and speed boats. I wonder by what process of mental endeavour such articles were grouped. Nothing was sacred in the 1951- 52 budget. Magic flutes were also subjected to sales tax of 25 per cent. I wonder what would have been the reaction of honorable senators opposite if they were now sitting in opposition and a Labour government imposed such high rates of sales tax. Of course, I admit that circumstances alter cases. In the schedule of items subject to 50 per cent. sales tax, some extreme luxuries, such as face powder, rouge, face cream, and face lotion were included. Honorable senators opposite apparently believe that very few women use these cosmetics - probably not more than 99.9 per cent. of women in this country!

Senator Wedgwood:

– We have reduced the rate of sales tax on those commodities.

Senator TOOHEY:

– This “ Shylock “ Government has forced the women of this country to pay a very heavy rate of sales tax on commodities that they use daily.

Senator Wedgwood:

– As a result of the reduction of sales tax, lipstick can now be bought for 7s. 10d., comparedwith 8s.11d. previously.

Senator TOOHEY:

-I acknowledge the value of the concessions to which the honorable senator has referred, and 1 want to do justice not only to her, but also to the Government that she supports.

Sitting suspended from12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator TOOHEY:

– When the sitting of the Senate was suspended, I was trying to do justice to an interjection by Senator Wedgwood, who was good enough to remind me, when I was criticizing some of the actions of this Government, of an inconsequential item upon which the Government had granted some relief. I am grateful to the honorable senator, and will be even more grateful to her if she brings to my notice other concessions that I have overlooked. I was dealing earlier with some of the injustices and the extraordinary decisions associated with the budget of 1951 in connexion with sales tax. I was discussing the 66 per cent. rate and the anomalies associated with it. Cheek by jowl in that scale with silver and jewels were hairbrushes, manicure sets, studs and sleeve links. At least it might be said of the Government that when it formulated that schedule it brought within the 66 per cent. scale as wide a variety or articles as it could find. . The humble sleeve link and hair brush were placed on the same schedule with amber, alabaster, marble and other valuable objects. The injustices that were provoked when that schedule was formed must be accepted by this Government as its responsibility.

I leave that particular section to return to a statement that was made by the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) who, if we are correctly informed, was the real architect of the horror budget. I believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) was a willing partner in it, but did not actually formulate the budget.

Senator Henty:

– The right honorable gentleman has always accepted full responsibility for it.

Senator TOOHEY:

– If that is so, I admire the Prime Minister’s loyalty. At least it may be said of anybody who would take a vestige of responsibility for a budget of that character that even if he had little discretion or consideration for the pockets of the Australian people, he does not lack courage. I remind honorable senators that on the 20th October, 1948, the Treasurer said -

Is there any parent who would allow Iiia child to grow u,p through a toy-less and partyless childhood or without some indulgence in sweets and ice-creams? It is only those of us who have experienced the ingenuous happiness that children get from the simple pleasures who can appreciate the official niggardliness that taxes them so severely.

That was the statement of the Treasurer in 194S. In 1951, probably forgetting those grand words, he imposed a severe and repressive tax on the very things that he claimed to be the natural right of childhood. If this Government had set out on a policy of increased taxation and had placed before the people a clear statement that its activities would entail a progressive increase of taxation, at least it could have been said to have had the virtue of honesty. But I believe that the Government comes under more severe stricture because of the flowery contributions that it made prior to occupying the treasury bench. Some of the promises that it made had reference to fields of taxation. All the things that it said it would not do and, in fact, pledged itself not to do, have been imposed upon the Australian people. In the budget of 1952, the Government became progressively generous. The reaction of the horror budget upon the minds of the Australian people was a sufficient warning to the Government that at least it could not repeat that budget. But it went close to doing so in 1952.

So that the Australian people would gain the impression that some concessions had been given, the Government eliminated the 66$ per cent, and the 25 per cent, sales tax from the schedule, leaving only the 50 per cent., 33:- per cent., 20 per cent, and 32$ per cent, charges. If honorable senators compare those schedules with the modest schedules that operated under the Chifley Government, they will gain some conception of the way in which the economy of Australia has been disturbed by this Government. Eventually the Government exempted certain lines from sala’ tax altogether. Somebody must have reminded the Treasurer that he had spoken in 1948 about, ice cream, and the sales tax on it was removed.

I turn my attention now to the present budget. I remember the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) rising when the budget was presented and talking about substantial deductions in sales tax and the great relief that would accrue from the actions of the Government in that field of taxation. Yet when the amount that is expected from sales tax is examined, I find that it will be only £2,000,000 less than the amount that was collected last year and £6,000,000 less than that collected under the horror budget. It is true that the Government has eliminated certain schedules, but the 12$ per cent, general rate remains unaltered. I compare that with the S-1,- per cent, minimum general rate that was imposed by the Chifley Government in 194S. The people of Australia have a right to expect that this Government would have at least brought down the general schedule, to the rates that existed when the Chifley Government was in office. It has eliminated certain inconsequential things. I believe that I have previously mentioned aeroplanes in that connexion. I thought it was more than ironic that the Treasurer should make such play of the fact that aeroplanes had been exempted from sales tax. Whom did he expect to impress? He did not impress me because I have not an aeroplane. He will not impress many other people either because the number who will benefit from that concession will be infinitesimal. It is more than ridiculous that he should highlight the fact that sales tax on aeroplanes had been eliminated. It would have been more to his credit if he had eliminated from sales tax some of the e very-day necessary articles and commodities that are required in the home life of ordinary Australian families. Of course he would not do that. This Government has no intention to do anything of the kind.

I have traversed the activities of this Government in the field of sales taxation since it assumed office in 1949. I have shown the Senate clearly and unmistakably that there has been a steady upward trend of taxation in that field ever since this Government was returned to office. I have pointed out that when the Chifley

Government vacated office in 1949, the total sales tax imposed amounted to no more than approximately £45,000,000. I have not used my own figures to make the point that sales tax collections rose to £57,000,000 in the first year of office of this Government. In the horror budget of 1951-52, it went to £95,000,000. The following year the total dropped to £S9,000,000- and the estimated revenue from sales tax under the present budgetis £87,000,000.

Supporters of the Government may be somewhat tired of charges by the Opposition .about the broken promises that the Government made to the people. It is the duty of political parties, if they mak<» solemn promises to the electors, either to keep them or to take the consequences that flow from breaking them. It is the right of the Opposition to remind the Government that it made those promises, and I remind the Government again that it has failed to fulfil the solemn undertakings that it gave to the people. Moreover its actions indicate that it had no intention to honour its pledges. What grandiloquent offers were made to the people prior to the advent of this Government to office ! This Government practically promised the people the millenium if they returned it to power. In this bill and in practically every money bill that has passed through the Senate in this session honorable senators have seen evidence of the progressive decline of this country’s economy. We have witnessed oppressive increases in taxation. Whatever Government senators might say to the effect that the Government has given some assistance to the Australian people in respect of sales tax I say that those claims are false. The Government’s own figures prove that they are false. I think that the Government should give some consideration to the fact that whilst on two occasions it has successfully managed to delude the Australian public into believing that it had the public’s interest at heart, its present term of office will convince the general public that this Government has gone far enough along the path of broken promises. The Government is now in its last term of office.

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales

– I must congratulate Senator Toohey on the energy and enthusiasm with which, after a sleepless night, he has attacked this subject. But one would imagine from the speech of the honorable senator that the bill before the Senate was a bill to increase taxation. It is a bill to reduce taxation and it must be considered not only by itself, but in relation to the whole budget. There is no such thing as a perfect tax. Objections can be raised to every kind of tax. I dislike the sales tax because it is inflationary. It tends to raise prices. But it has one great merit : it is hard to .evade. Income tax which is, in many ways, the best form of taxation, can be evaded by some people and cannot be evaded by others. In planning the budget the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden), the Cabinet, and Treasury officers prepared a wellconsidered document. It is not possible to prepare a complicated plan in which somebody cannot pick a fault somewhere. The debating society style of speech that honorable senators have just heard excelled in finding faults. “ But who shall arbitrate ? Ten men love what I hate “. A decision must often depend upon the choice of individuals. I think that Senator Toohey made 57 references to a horror budget. I believe that both that budget and the one that has just been presented to Parliament contain many items that could be criticized. Some honorable senators on this side of the House, including myself, criticized items in the last budget. But among our Treasury officials are some of the best that the world has seen. A leading member of the Indian Public Service named Nehru, a relative of Pandit Nehru, told me that he considered one of the gentlemen iri our Treasury the ablest person that he had met.

I shall now answer Senator Toohey’s remarks on the subject of broken promises. One theory of government which is eternally false is one that the Opposition constantly puts forward and which I call the “ errand boy “ idea of government. This is the idea that the leaders of the country should give a number of specific promises and that under .all circumstances they must keep those promises. Such a -proposition usurps the functions of the Almighty. Honorable senators know that the world conditions, under which the election of 1949 wa3 fought were totally different from the conditions under which the “ horror budget “, which I shall call the “ medicinal budget “ was framed. I shall not juggle figures. But honorable senators opposite know perfectly well that the increase in our export income and the enormous inflationary wave that came into this country had to be dealt with. It is now one of the tenets of every economist that one of the methods of steadying inflation is to increase taxation. The “ medicinal budget “ was framed with that object in mind. I will admit that the effect that it should have had was lessened by another act of the. Government. I refer to the Government’s action in giving the States certain amounts of money that they could not obtain in other ways. But the intention of the Government was to stem inflation by preventing too much buying and to allow the States to carry on their work and so prevent unemployment. I believe that if the Government had not increased taxation at that time inflation would have been greater than it was and unemployment would have occured on a large scale.

The reduction of sales tax proposed is very substantial. The bill has the great merit that it exempts from tax many articles that are important to the ordinary man. Furthermore, it will replace four categories of taxation rates by two. It has the merit of simplicity. With Senator Armstrong I hope that this bill is just a step towards the abolition of the sales tax. But it is disingenuous of any one to attack the Government on the one hand for not increasing social services and on the other hand for not reducing taxation. In the budget that it has just presented to the Parlia- ment the Government has managed to do both very well. I shall mention a few items of value to the ordinary man on which the rate of sales tax has been reduced. Even the aeroplane is not a toy of the rich, as Senator Toohey suggested. Many of the people in aeroplane clubs are young fellows with small incomes. They will benefit substantially from this bill. Sporting equipment, fountain pens, travelling bags, picnic hampers, and matches are items of common use. As I have said before, it is possible to deride any proposal but such derision impresses nobody.

It is still too early to judge the effect of the budget on public opinion. I do not attach any importance to a gallup poll that was taken immediately after the presentation of the budget when many people were completely unaware of the effect that it would have. But anybody who does shopping must have felt the effect of this budget on his own purse. Senator Toohey selected ice cream as an item on which sales tax should not be imposed. But ice cream is a commodity on which sales tax can well be paid. I think that honorable senators will find that a good deal of the sales tax that has been placed on that commodity over a period of years has been paid by ice cream manufacturers. In New South Wales there are two or three ice cream companies, one of which I consider to be the best in the world. I know that that company has absorbed a considerable amount of sales tax instead of passing it on to the public. The point that we have to keep in mind is that a whole number of intricate considerations were taken into account in deciding the rate of tax to be imposed on various items. I have not found anybody except Opposition senators who have said that this was a bad budget and Opposition senators have only said that when they were talking for propaganda purposes. I have spoken to people of all types and occupations who have examined it and they have said emphatically that this is as good a budget as one could expect at the present time. The only serious criticism I have heard has come from economists who have thought that the Government may have reduced taxation too much.

Senator CAMERON:

– Did the honorable senator speak to pensioners?

Senator McCALLUM:

– Yes. I know quite a number of them, but I did not hear one pensioner criticize the budget.

Senator Cameron:

– The honorable senator should have heard all the pensioners.

Senator McCALLUM:

– Nobody could possibly hear what all the pensioners had to say. I think that this bill must be considered as a part of the whole scheme of reduction of taxation. It is a good measure and I think that the Senate will unanimously approve of it.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– Senator Me,Callum made the amazing statement that the sales tax is a good system of taxation because no one can evade it. He then made the remarkable statement that income tax can be evaded and he implied that it was evaded. If the honorable senator has knowledge of cases of evasion of income tax it is his duty, as a citizen of this country, to give that information to the Taxation Branch so that those who are evading the payment of income tax may be made to obey the law of the land. It was one of the most remarkable statements I have ever heard made in a parliament. It is true that this bill reduces the sales tax in certain directions; but it does so only by eliminating some of the increases that were made by this Government itself two years ago. Certainly the measure will not reduce very much the total receipts from the sales tax. Indirect taxation is undoubtedly one of the worst forms of taxation, and, therefore, I welcome the reductions proposed in this measure, but I should prefer them to have taken another form. Let us examine the ramifications and the history of this tax. It was introduced in 1930 by a Labour Government at a time when the financial and economic position of this country had never been worse.

Senator Henty:

– There were too many Labour governments.

Senator KENNELLY:

– No. There was a minority Labour government in Victoria and it is true that there was a Labour government in Tasmania; but 1930 was one of the three famous years during which Queensland had a nonLabour government. However, to-day’s problems cannot be solved by canvassing the reasons for the introduction of this tax more than twenty years ago. I shall not attempt to absolve the party of which I am a member of the responsibility for introducing the tax, but as I have said, economic conditions in those days were vastly different from what they are today. In the first year of the operation of “the sales tax, it yielded £3,500,000. In the last year prior to the outbreak of World War II. the yield was approxi mately £8,000,000, and by 1949-50 the revenue from it had increased to £42,500,000. Under this Government’s first budget, collections from the sales tax totalled £57,200,000, or an increase of nearly £14,000,000 over the revenue collected during the last year of the Chifley Government. In the year of the horror budget - a word which, according to Senator McCallum, was used by Senator Toohey 57 times - revenue from the sales tax rose to £95,000,000. What will be the effect of this legislation? Certainly revenue from the sales tax will not return to the £42,500,000 collected in 1949-50. The estimated revenue for the current financial year is more than £S7,000,000. It is true that, due to the steady decline of the purchasing power of our currency in recent years, that £87,000,000 may not be worth any more than the £42,000,000 was worth four years ago. I concede that because I wish to be fair and the only real test of the value of money is what it will buy. However, the fact is that whereas the sales tax yielded approximately £89,000,000 last year, receipts in the current financial year are estimated at about £S7,750,000. That, I submit, is a valid comparison because although inflation has continued, its pace has slackened. It cannot be denied that revenue from the sales tax has not been reduced since 1949. The present Government has resorted to a clever political trick in its taxation proposals. It realized that having been elected for three years, it could do very much as it pleased in the first year. As Senator Toohey has said, the present Government parties not only made definite promises of reduced taxes at the 1949 elections, but also they repeated those promises in 1951. Surely the honest course for the Government to follow would have been to go back to the people and say, “ It is true that we made those promises. They were made in good faith, but the economic position now is such that we cannot carry them out “. If there is anything this country really needs it is honest politics. Regardless of our party political affiliations, we all agree that the welfare of the Australian people and of this country is of paramount importance. I say again that the honest course for the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) and his colleagues to have adopted! in 1951 was to admit frankly to the people that unforeseen circumstances had upset calculations and made impossible the fulfilment of the 1949 election promises.

I should be very glad to see abolition of the sales tax. For that reason, I welcome any reductions of it. This measure reduces the number of classifications to two, but who increased the number of classifications in the first place? That was done by this very Government in 1951. Now it is making1 a virtue out of a necessity and claiming credit for undoing the evil that this Administration itself perpetrated. Some people may be misled by the Government’s propaganda about the reductions proposed in this legislation, but I am sure that the Minister for National Development is too good a campaigner to use that argument on the election platform. Senator McCallum glossed over recent gallup polls. I must confess that I do not like gallup polls because they are instruments of the political propaganda machine of the present Government parties. I had occasion once to write material for a. broadcast during an election campaign in “Victoria. “When Senator McCallum introduced this subject, I took the trouble to investigate the origin of the gallup polls. I found out that the office of the organization is in the offices of Radio Station 3DB, which is controlled by the Melbourne Herald, that great Liberal party propaganda sheet. That discovery enabled me to understand many things.. The figures to which Senator McCallum referred were alleged to have been ascertained three weeks after the budget was presented.

Senator HANNAFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP; IND from Feb. 1967

– Three days !

Senator KENNELLY:

– I read that they were obtained three weeks afterwards. I am pleased that the categories of sales tax have been reduced in number, but I suggest that it would have been better had the general rate been reduced, because that would have benefited people on- the lower rung of the economic ladder. It seems to me that if a person could afford to purchase some of the items referred to by Senator McCallum, he would not be unduly concerned about sales tax at the rate of 50 per cent.

This Government is not as politically wise as it thinks it is. It brought down this budget for the sole purpose of winning votes. I do not wish to set myself up as a prophet, but it seems to me that the Government would have had a. better chance to achieve that objective had it so framed this legislation that a greater proportion of the people would benefit from its provisions. When the highest rate of sales tax imposed by the Chifley Government was 25 per cent., it was disclosed that that rate applied to only 3 per cent. of the goods purchased, in the community, whereas the revenue from the sales tax at the general rate of 8 per cent. provided three-quarters of the revenue raised from this source. Isuggest that the Government should alleviate the incidence of sales tax on those on the lower incomes. The Minister for National Development is a wise campaigner, but apparently he does hot appreciate that he would have won wide support from the people had the budget proposals favoured the lower-income groups.

Senator Spooner:

– I thought the honorable senator said that he believes in honesty in politics.

Senator KENNELLY:

– What have I said that is dishonest?

Senator Spooner:

– The honorable senator is advising the Government that it should attempt to win an election by framing its budget with that end in. view.

Senator KENNELLY:

– No. I am saying that the Minister- is a pretty hardheaded politician. I like a man who is hard-headed in that respect. I do not want the Government to do anything dishonest. I am merely contending that the Government could have helped more of the people by means of these budget proposal’s than will in fact be- the1 case. I admit that the only representations that have been made to me concerning the incidence of sales tax have come from a number of pastrycooks who claim that they are being nut out of business by the tax. I do not think that the Government deliberately intends to harm the industry in which they are engaged, but it is in fact doing so in the course of trying to put over a “ shrewd one “.

Senator HENTY:
Tasmania

– I listened with great interest to the speeches made by Senator Toohey and Senator Kennelly. I was particularly interested to note that, throughout his remarks, Senator Kennelly offered the Government gratuitous advice concerning the sales tax schedules. He advised the Government that it should have framed this legislation in such a way that it might he instrumental in winning votes.

Senator Kennelly:

– I did not say that.

Senator HENTY:

– I also listened with great interest to the remarks of Senator Toohey. Apart from his 57 references to the horror budget, some of the statements made by him were so baseless that it was a pity he made them. I think he should be told, for instance, that ice-cream is still subject to sales tax. The honorable senator claimed that it is exempt.

Senator Kennelly:

– He did not say that.

Senator HENTY:

– I made a note of it, and so also did Senator Wedgwood. Senator Kennelly may say what he likes. I have been insulted by experts in my time. The honorable senator does not worry me.

Senator Kennelly:

– I rise to order. I should like Senator Henty to explain in what way I insulted him.

Senator HENTY:

– I did not say that the honorable senator had insulted me. I said that I had been insulted by experts. He could not do so because he is not an expert.

Senator Kennelly:

– I again rise to order. I think we should at least attempt to keep this debate on a decent level. It was certainly not my intention to insult any one. I should like to know how I did so, and the words I used. If you, Mr. Chairman, rule that I have contravened the forms of the Senate, I shall apologize for my conduct.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I should have called Senator Kennelly to order had I thought that he was infringing the rules of the Senate.

Senator Kennelly:

– If that be so, then I again rise to order. If you are satisfied that I did not commit a breach of the Standing Orders, Mr. Chairman, I take strong exception to the statement of Senator Henty that I insulted him.

Senator HENTY:

– We have had a very late night and I shall pour oil on the troubled waters. I did not say that the honorable senator insulted me. I said that I had been insulted by experts in my time. He is a mere amateur and no amateur can insult me.

I now wish to refer to certain matters raised by Senator Toohey during this debate. I was interested in his comparisons of the rates of tax which applied in 1948 and 1951. The honorable senator stated that in 1948, when the present Government parties were in opposition, they attacked the Labour Government of the day very trenchantly because it did not reduce taxes. The honorable senator also stated that in 1951 this Government increased taxes. He completely overlooked the fact that when this Government came to office in 1049 four years had elapsed after the end of World War IT. and the Government had kept taxation at a high level. In 1951 the Korean war broke out. It should not be forgotten that this ‘Government took over from the previous Labour Government a defenceless Australia. The Salvation Army could almost have taken the country at that time. The Government increased taxes in order to strengthen our defences. It makes no bones about its action in that connexion. If similar circumstances arose, it would do the same again. I am confident that the people of Australia now appreciate that the Government did the right thing.

Senator Toohey also referred to the Hansard record of certain statements by the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden). All I can say in that connexion is that I have a splendid little dossier, which has been built up during the last two or three years, of Hansard records of speeches of honorable senators opposite, and also by members of the House of Representatives. That dossier will make interesting reading should the Australian Labour party ever again attain office. In my view, the relief to be afforded under this measure is the most substantial concession that is being provided under the budget. Members of the Opposition have made irresponsible allegations about budget leakages. I point out to those honorable senators that the Government’s proposals to reduce the rates of sales tax was one of the most valuable pieces of information that could have been given in advance to the business community. The fact is that the forecast of not one newspaper or of any other class of tipster came anywhere near the reductions of the sales tax that are now to be made. The reductions proposed under this measure are unprecedented.

I also congratulate the Government upon reducing the number of classifications to two. The task of employers, who are obliged to collect the sales tax on behalf of the Government, was made all the more difficult by reason of the fact that the tax had to be computed in respect of four classifications. Thus, the reduction of the number of classifications will prove a boon to employers. Under this measure the rates of 50 per cent., 33-J per cent, and 20 per cent, are being reduced to one rate of 16f per cent. Obviously, an enormous range of goods will fall within that one classification. I remind members of the Opposition that the reductions of the sales tax effected by the Government have not yet made their full impact upon the community. I believe that that most desirable result will become apparent within the next few weeks. Stores throughout the Commonwealth are holding stocks upon which the old rates of sales tax would apply. When this relief is felt to its full degree the community as a whole will reap the benefit.

Senator Ryan:

– How ?

Senator HENTY:

– If Senator Ryan is a smoker he will benefit from the exemption of matches from sales tax, because when this measure is passed the price of matches will be reduced by one half-penny a box. I have no doubt that the honorable senator shaves himself as frequently as he should. When this measure is passed the price of a packet of razor blades will be reduced by 3d. The price of baby powder will be reduced by 3d. a tin. I have no doubt that over the years honorable senators generally have been interested in the purchase and use of that commodity.

Under this measure, the price of fruit juice cordial will be reduced by 5d. a bottle. To match the cheaper razor blade, shaving cream will be reduced by 3-J-d. a tube. The price of watches will be reduced by as much as £2 each; and the price of motor cars, as a result of the reduction of sales tax under this measure, will be reduced by amounts up to £40 each.

Senator Hannaford:

– What about aeroplanes ?

Senator HENTY:

– I commend the Government for reducing the sales tax on aeroplanes. In Tasmania aero clubs are being established in increasing numbers. As those organizations will provide a means of training yoting men who will be of great assistance to this country if we should ever get into trouble in the future, they deserve every encouragement. The reduction of sales tax on the dearer classes of cigarette lighters will result in a reduction of their price by 15s. each. I have, cited those instances in reply to the request of honorable senators opposite to indicate how the reductions of sales tax to be effected under this measure will benefit the community. I have confined my attention to articles that are in every-day demand. It is unnecessary for me to indicate how the reduction of sales tax on thousands of classes of articles will be passed on to the public in lower retail prices. Earlier, I mentioned that the full benefit of reductions of the sales tax that the Government effected has not yet filtered through to the community. I point out that the latest C series index figures shows that, for the first time for some years, the cost of clothing has been reduced. That has resulted partly from earlier reductions of the sales tax on clothing, and proves that those reductions are beginning to have the effect that the Government realized they would have.

The Taxation Branch has overcome a great difficulty that confronted employers in the process of collecting sales tax on behalf of the Government.

Articles or commodities that are aids to manufacture, or aids to the manufacture of exempt goods, are exempt from the sales tax. Those lines are used in the main by small business people who usually maintain contact with the local wholesalers by messenger, who, invariably, is a youth. In those circumstances, misunderstandings frequently arise with respect to the provision of requisite documents, including the lodgment of certificates to the effect that the article on which exemption from tax was claimed fell within the classes that I have mentioned. During recent years, the department has taken a broader view of this matter. It now allows a registered wholesaler to supply such certificates monthly. Under that system, the wholesaler accepts responsibility for the claim that the goods sold are aids to manufacture, and also accepts responsibility for any mistakes that might be made. I commend the department for adopting a sound outlook in that matter.

It has been said during this debate that under this measure total collections of sales tax will be reduced by only £2,000,000 a year. Honorable senators who make that statement ignore the tremendous increase of the volume of retail sales which has resulted from the wise policies implemented by the Government. The greater the volume of retail sales, the higher will be the revenue derived from the sales tax. The fact that the recent loan was oversubscribed by £15,000,000 indicates the increasing investment value of government loans. When loan moneys become more freely available, it will be possible for the Commonwealth to make greater loan funds available to the States for financing their public works, and the Government will then be enabled to provide further taxation relief to the community.

The Commonwealth Committee on Taxation has just issued its report with respect to sales tax on freight charges, which is a matter of particular interest to Tasmania because of high freights from the mainland. At present, if a wholesaler in Tasmania, sells £100 worth of goods and that figure includes £10 for freight, he is liable to nay sales tax amounting to £12 10s. if the transaction falls within the 12£ per cent, classifica tion. However, if goods to the same value are sent from the mainland and the purchaser himself pays the freight, the sales tax chargeable is only £11 5s., because in that instance the sales tax is not chargeable in respect of freight. That is a grave disadvantage to persons who reside in Tasmania, and I hoped that the committee would realize that fact. However, in paragraph 6 of its report, the committee states -

From its examination of the subjectmatter, the Committee is satisfied that theoretical equity is virtually unobtainable. It is fundamental that sales tax should be simple enough in form to be collected economically and, to this end, a small measure of equity might be sacrificed. In the opinion of the Committee, the present basis of the tax is a -reasonable compromise . . .

In substantiation of that conclusion, the committee adds -

The Committee does not recommend any departure from the present basis of sales tax to exclude freight charges from the sale value on which the tax is imposed where any such charges are included in the amount for which the goods are sold.

I regret that the committee arrived at that decision, because persons living in States where they are obliged to pay substantial freights in respect of goods that are obtained from sources in other States, are placed at a considerable disadvantage in relation to purchasers in other States.

I whole-heartedly support the bill. In my opinion, it is a landmark in sales taxation, just as the budget is a landmark in economic policy generally. In introducing measures of this kind, the Government has proved that it faces up to its responsibilities. I have not the slightest doubt that when the time is opportune it will reduce taxes generally still further.

Motion (by Senator Spicer) put -

That the question be now put.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

SAXES TAX BILLS (Nos. 1 to 9) 1953.

Second- Reading,

Debate resumed from the 8th October (vide page . 419), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bills be now read a second time.

Senator CAMERON:
VICTORIA · ALP

– At the outset, I remind the Senate that there are two kinds of taxation - direct and indirect. Sales tax in an indirect tax. It is imposed at a flat rate, and is payable by all sections of the community at that rate. Supporters of the Government believe that that is a proper approach to the subject, but I consider that it is grossly unjust that a pensioner should be compelled to pay the same rate of sales tax as a wealthy member of the community. If honorable senators opposite approached this subject on an equitable basis they would not tolerate the continuance of such an unjust tax. In recent years there has been a tendency on the part of the Government to increase the incidence of indirect taxation. I point out that by so doing’ the wealthy section of the community is favoured’. Obviously supporters of the Government believe that the burden of taxation should be placed on the shoulders of those least able to bear it. My remarks apply equally to the excise tax, which also is- a most iniquitous tax. Its imposition is not justified by any process of reasoning. I venture to suggest that had the majority of the electors understood the real position in connexion with sales tax, they would have had it abolished long ago-.

The Government expects to derive revenue of about £8’7,000’,000’ from sales tax in this financial year. I contend that the purchasing power of the workers, pensioners, and superannuitants will be reduced correspondingly. Sales tax is a double-edged weapon, because to the degree that the purchasing power of the community is reduced, production is lowered. Already the acreage, sown to wheat has been reduced. It is about 53,000 acres less than last year. Wow, then, can the Government parties claim that they are legislating in the interests of the community as a whole? Obviously sales tax is a. vicious class tax. It is more so as a result of the abolition of the automatic quarterly cost of living adjustments to the basic wage. The workers who pay this tax will also lose millions of pounds as a result of the abolition of quarterly adjustments. Unless the Government checks the drift in this country we will find ourselves faced with a situation similar to that of the thirties. Already the Tariff Board has reported that, for all practical purposes, the country is on the threshold of another economic crisis. I shall repeat what I said during the ‘thirties, that is, that if the purchasing power of the producers of wealth is deliberately reduced, an economic crisis will be precipitated. Do honorable senators opposite really believe that they are legislating in the interests of the country as a whole? When the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) addresses meetings during the next general election campaign he will probably assert thatthe Government has legislated in the interests of the whole of the community. However, the contrary is the,case. Honorable. senators on the other side have stated over and over again that they consider that the budget that was recently introduced into the Parliament was a fair budget. However, I emphasize that a reduction of the purchasing power of the producers of this country, the useful people, the people who produce the wealth, will precipitate strikes and industrial disputes. The Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot impose unfair taxation on the people, and at the same time expect to maintain industrial peace. That cannot be done. I consider that sales taxation should be abolished. It operates wholly and solely in the interests of the wealthy sections of the community. The people who are least able to protect themselves, those who do not understand the position, will be forced, ultimately, to take overt action in order to obtain a measure of redress. If the proposed sales tax is imposed, it will have inevitable repercussions. I am in duty bound to make that point, but I have not the same duty to accept all the stupid arguments that are put forward by honorable senators on the Government side. Senator Laught said that the national income had doubled. Actually there is no such thing as a national income. What is termed “ national income “ is really private income divided among the wealthy. The age pensioners, the workers and all the rest of the people do not participate in the national income. I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I cannot allow the Government to get away with a Hansard report that would imply that honorable senators on the Opposition side do not understand the position. The sales tax is a vicious class tax that cannot be .’justified. The Government claims to represent the community, but it cannot claim to be legislating in the interests of the whole community because the sales tax is a class tax that favours the wealthy.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

, - I wish to make some comment upon the bills now before the Senate and I would like to have had something to say about the bill that has been gagged. That measure related to the amended classification under the sales tax provisions but the Government decided that the blade of the guillotine would fall.

In speaking to- the bills now before the Senate, I express my disapproval of the Government’s actions in connexion with the sales tax. I agree with Senator Cameron that the sales tax should not be inflicted upon the people. It was born of dire necessity and was introduced by a Labour government.

Senator Spicer:

– And it was never abolished.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– That is true. I remind honorable senators, however, that it was introduced at a time of dire necessity. The government of the day had to keep Australia solvent and desperate ills needed desperate remedies. It was never intended that the sales tax should be continued for ever and a day. It was to be removed as early as possible. The government of which I was a follower maintained the tax, but that government reduced the tax during its term of office. No doubt if it had continued in office during the prosperous times that this Government has met, the tax would have disappeared, but during times of great prosperity, this Government failed to eliminate the tax or reduce it. Instead, it increased the tax until in many cases the impost paralysed Australian industry. Some Australian industries are now suffering severely from the effects of the sales tax.

I regret that the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) is not in the chamber because he administers a department which implements customs and excise duties that also have a marked effect upon Australian industries. Recently the Westclox industry in Melbourne had to close because of the high cost of production. Honorable senators on the Government side have suggested that unless Australian industry can reduce costs, we shall cost ourselves out of the markets. One would have expected the Government to reduce the sales tax in an endeavour to protect Australian industries. In his second-reading speech, the Minister for Trade and Customs referred to the fact that sales tax has been removed from matches. But matches are subject to excise which is another form of indirect taxation. I, and others, have made representations to the Minister for Trade and

Customs in connexion with the match industry which is important to the Australian economy. The Minister has been informed that the imposts upon matches will cause the introduction to Australia of mechanical lighters and that because of the imposition of sales tax and excise, the match industry can no longer continue to compete on the Australian market. Some manufacturers have closed down. The manufacturers and those who are employed in the match industry are disappointed with the classification into which the industry has been placed in connexion with the sales tax. All the difficulties of the match industry have not been removed. Following upon the announcement of the Government regarding its sales tax proposals, the union that is associated with the industry prepared a statement and for the benefit of supporters of the Government I shall quote from it so that they may understand the situation. This document was sent to me and was prepared for the executive committee of the Manufacturing Grocers Employees Federation of Australia, Victorian branch, by the organizer, Mr. N. A. Gibbs. It stated -

We forward for your information the following report on the effect of the 1953 Federal budget on the Australian safety match industry.

Prior to the 1953 Federal budget, the Federal Government collected 9d. in taxes from the sale of each packet of one dozen boxes of surety matches. Excise duty was 6id. and sales tax 2§d. These taxes increased the retail price by more than 56 per- cent.

The Federal Government now collected 6 1/2d excise duty on the sale of each packet of one dozen boxes of matches, or more than Jd. on each box. Without this impost,, the retail price of one dozen boxes would be not more than ls. 5d. The Federal Government adds more than 38 per cent, to this amount, making the retail price ls. Hid. per dozen boxes.

In 1939, the manufacturers’ price to the wholesaler was 4s. 3d. per gross boxes, plus excise duty of Od. which increased the price by 11.78 per cent. At present the manufacturers’ price to the wholesaler is lis. lOd. per gross boxes, plus Cs. (id. excise duty which increases the price by 54.9 per cent.

In 1939 the basic wage was 81s., and in 1953 it was 235s., an increase of 190 per cent. The manufacturers’ price in 1939 was 4s. 3d. per gross boxes and in 1953 it was lis. lOd. per gross boxes, an increase of 178.4 per cent. Excise duty in 1939 was 6d. on a gross of boxes and in 1953 it was 6s. Od., an increase of 1,200 per cent. Had excise duty increased in the same ratio as wages and manufacturers’ price since 1939, the duty would now be approximately ls. 5d. per gross. The manufacturers’ price to the wholesaler would be 1 ls. lOd. per gross boxes plus ls. 5d. excise duty. The retail price would be approximately ls. 5 1/2d per dozen boxes or 1:d per box instead of the present price of ls. 11 3d. per dozen or 2d. per box.

The nature of the match industry allows the Government easy access to complete production records on which to collect taxation. This household commodity provides a lucrative source of income from indirect taxation. (£1,500,000 in the year ending June, 1952.) During the 1939-45 war years heavy indirect taxation was imposed on luxury goods. The 1952 and 1953 Federal Budgets provided substantial reductions on such goods. The 1952 budget provided no reduction in match taxation. The 1953 budget removed sales tax from matches but left undisturbed the excessive excise duty.

Prior to the budget of 1952 cigarette lighters which are in direct competition to matches, carried a sales tax of G6# per cent. The 1952 budget reduced this to 50 per cent and the 1953 budget reduced the sales tax on cigarette lighters to 16§ per cent. Since 1952, sales tax on cigarette lighters had been reduced from 66 2/3 per cent to 16$ per cent. The reduction in sales tax percentages lowered the amount actually paid in sales tax on cigarette lighters by 75 per cent. The reduction in tax on matches totalled 27 per cent. The tax relief given on imported cigarette lighters has been far greater than that given Australian made matches.

The loading of match prices with excessive taxation has assisted the competition from imported and other mechanical lighters. Australian imports of cigarette lighters rose from 4,740 in the year ending June, 1949 to 207,000 for the three months ending September, 1951. Import restrictions have steadied the inflow, but in the three months ended June, 1953, 12,71.4 lighters were landed in Australia, only 5,000 of which were from Britain. The import restrictions on this class of import is to be eased by 10 per cent, as from 1st October, 1953. No statistics are available as to the import or local manufacture of other types of mechanical lighters such as household appliance lighters.

The price of matches is considerably increased by the rate of excise duty which place matches at a serious disadvantage with mechanical lighters on a competitive selling basis. High price is considered a prime reason for decline in match sales. Australian labor force employed directly and indirectly in the safety match industry is being replaced by cheap foreign labor manufacturing cigarette lighters imported into Australia. In 1941, there were five safety match manufacturing companies in Australia. Three were located in Victoria, one in New South Wales and one in Western Australia. At present there are three safety match manufacturing companies in Australia. One in Victoria, one in New South Wales, and one in Western Australia.

In 1941, the three Victorian companies employed a total of 734 workers. At present the one remaining company employs” 300 workers and is operating at two-thirds capacity to fully supply the market. The other two companies have closed their doors. It is impossible to estimate the indirect loss of employment in industries supplying basic materials to the match industry. As Victoria is the principal producing State, the experience of Victorian companies is reflected in the other States and may be accepted as the Australian trend. By continuing to impose such heavy taxation on matches the Federal Government is destroying a highly specialised Australian industry in which hundreds of thousands of pounds are invested and from which many Australian workers obtain their livelihood.

When that report was presented to the union it was adopted and the union decided to appeal to all honorable senators for assistance in obtaining some further protection for this very important industry. I suggest that the Government should seriously consider the incidence of sales tax on the cost of production. The plight of this industry is concrete evidence of the effect of taxation, both direct and indirect, upon our economy. This state of affairs may extend to other industries. In considering proposals in relation to all forms of taxation, the Government should be careful to avoid imposing a tax that will have a detrimental, effect on the economy of the country. All governments have played their part in building up Australian industries. I know that one school of thought suggests that some secondary industries may pass out of existence in Australia and that the labour at present employed in those industries might be directed to primary. production.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McCallum).- Order! I ask the honorable senator to confine his remarks entirely to the bills before the Senate.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I shall not offend further, Mr. Acting Deputy President. Thank you for the latitude that you have given me. But whilst the Senate is considering the subject of sales tax it is necessary that it should have before it the broad picture of the Australian economy. I trust that, after reflection, the Government will take advantage of another opportunity to eliminate the excessively heavy duty on matches.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without requests or debate.

page 871

STATES GRANTS (SPECIAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 14th October (vide page 515), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

, - The measure before the Senate is the States Grants (Special Financial Assistance) Bill 1953. This legislation has become a regular feature of the budget session of this Parliament in recent years. As a result of the continuance of uniform taxation into the post-war period, a formula was agreed upon in 1945-46 for determining the basis of the income tax reimbursement grant to the States. The formula was based upon an upset amount of £40,000,000, and it fluctuated from year to year according to changes in population and changes in average wages paid. At that time the general concensus of opinion was that the formula was a very firm basis for income tax reimbursements. The legislation that was introduced to give effect to the arrangement was expressed to remain static for seven years. Section 10 of the legislation provided that the formula would not be varied unless a major constitutional change affected the relationship of the Commonwealth to the States. Unfortunately, conditions never remain static in this important and fundamental field of Commonwealth-State relationships. Although £40,000,000 was paid in income tax reimbursements to the States in 1946-47, it became necessary to increase the amount to £45,000,000 in the next year. With the onset of inflation, the grant under the formula increased very substantially from year to year. In the financial year 1948-49 the amount of the grant was £55,750,000 and in 1949-50 it was £62,500,000.

Senator Wright:

– Are those the figures for all States i

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. I am only citing totals. The grants have increased progressively as follows : -

However, despite this very great increase which has accelerated in tempo over the years, the formula has not been adequate to meet the real needs. Year by year, commencing with 1948-419, amounts, over and above those determined by the formula, have been granted by the Commonwealth, and it is rather interesting to note the progress of those extra amounts of financial assistance, related closely as they have been to the income tax reimbursement. In 1949-50, the extra amount was £S,000,000 in the following year it was £20,000,000; and in 1951-52 it was £33,500,000. Last year, it was £27,500,000 and under this measure it is proposed that the amount shall be £21,910,000. It is rather interesting to note the way the additional grant has risen and fallen since 1949-50. It commenced at £8,000,000 in that year and rose to a peak of £33,500,000 in 1951-52. It descended to £27,250,000 last year, and it is now proposed that the amount shall dro,p by approximately £5,250,000 to £21,910,000. At least it can be said that the Commonwealth, in this fundamental matter of income tax reimbursement grants, has not been rigid in its approach. It has had regard to the needs of the States in the light of the circumstances of each year. I think it is reasonable to comment that the formula laid down to operate for the first time in 1946-47 had considerable merit, and represented the first real effort to put income tax reimbursement on some intelligible and foreseeable basis. The mere fact that the formula has not been altered since it was laid down and has provided grants rising from approximately £40,000,000 in 1946-47 to the very high total of £120,000,000 this year shows an extraordinary degree of flexibility. In only seven years the grants have been trebled.

Senator WRIGHT:

– It was a matter of agreement.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. It was an agreement and, as I indicated earlier, that is best evidence by the fact that the Commonwealth, acting unilaterally, has written into the original income tax reimbursement legislation section 10 which expresses what was a gentleman’s agreement between the States and the Commonwealth that there should be no variation of the formula during a period of seven years. There were long negotiations and a very determined effort to try to put this highly controversial matter on a sound basis, and I think that the formula, by and large, has served its purpose very well despite the need for the measure of extra financial assistance that has been given year by year. At the last conference, the Commonwealth, immediately it met the Premiers, offered £.1.42,000,000 and intimated that it would no longer go on with the special grants that had been given to the States in reimbursement of administrative expenses incurred in connexion with prices control. The Commonwealth made it clear that in offering the £142,000,000 to the States, it had regard to the fact that it was abandoning that contribution as a specific! ally ear-marked grant. When it came to distribution, in order to get some measure of agreement amongst the States, the Commonwealth undertook to contribute another £419,000 to Victoria to bring its total up to. £35,000,000 for this year. The Commonwealth went further and made an offer of an additional £40,000 to Tasmania. The net result was that the extra amount over and above the formula was to be £21,910,000, which is the amount this bill seeks to appropriate in favour of the claimant States. Its distribution follows the formula except for the separate amounts ear-marked for Victoria and Tasmania.

This whole question of Commonwealth and State financial relations is, in my view, completely foundational. It is of vast importance to the economic structure of Australia. It also lies at the basis of Commonwealth and State relations in many other respects. One is tempted to embark on other fascinating aspects that present themselves in that way, and whilst I have yielded to that temptation on other occasions’, in the light of the state of the Senate noticepaper and the condition of the Senate, I shall resist that temptation now. In these circumstances, as the Opposition supports the bill, I merely record that fact and defer the pleasure of discussing other problems at length to some other occasion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 873

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 21st October (vide page 704), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– The purpose of the measure before the Senate is to validate, to the 5th December next, customs proposals that were presented to the Parliament on the 9th September last. The bill will give temporary statutory approval to proposals that have already been lodged. Whilst some of those proposals are controversial and worthy of debate, I understand that I have the assurance of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) that an opportunity to debate such matters will be given when the final validating bill is before the Senate. If the Minister acknowledges that that is so, I need say no more on this occasion.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– That is so.

Senator McKENNA:

– In those circumstances, the Opposition has no objection to the passage of the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 873

EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 21st October (vide page 705), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -

That thebillbe now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

,. - This measure is relatively in the same position as was the Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1953. Its purpose is merely to validate, for a limited period, until the 5th December this year, excise proposals which were introduced into the Parliament on the 9th September last. If the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) gives me an assurance similar to that which he gave me in connexion with the Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1953, there will be no need for me to add to my remarks.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– I give a similar undertaking. I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) for his co-operation in connexion with these matters.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 873

LOAN (HOUSING) BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 15th October (vide page 563), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

.- I move-

That all words after “ That “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “this Senate is of the opinion that the moneys should be advanced to the States but the Government should call an immediate conference of the parties to the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement (1945) and announce its intention of carrying out the Commonwealth’s financial obligations under the agreement and endeavour to secure an amendment to the agreement which will enable tenants to buy their homes ‘on easy terms, and which will secure a substantial reduction of the interest rate “.

Under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, the Commonwealth makes available moneys for expenditure on housing projects in the States. The agreement was ratified by all the State parliaments, with the exception of that of South Australia. ‘ In many respects it has operated favorably, but in my opinion it is necessary that an opportunity should be provided for the parties to the agreement to . discuss the various matters which are impeding the progress of housing projects throughout Australia.

It is pleasing to note that the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement has been carried out without party political discrimination. Every political party in this Parliament concedes that the housing of the people is a vital matter. Since the making of the agreement, successive Australian governments have endeavoured to achieve the objectives which the Chifley Government had in mind when it initiated the agreement. The primary objective was to overtake the lag in housing that had developed over a period of years, particularly during the depression, when money was not available for housing purposes, and later during World War II., when materials were scarce and the requisite man-power was not available for employment on housing projects. Although a record number of houses has been constructed during the last few years, there are still many people awaiting accommodation. In June, 1945, 11,481 persons required accommodation in Western Australia. In June, 1952, after a vigorous effort as the result of an influx of immigrants, the number had risen to 12,044. In June, 1953, there were 11,737 people awaiting homes, applications for which had been lodged before 1949. Honorable senators will, therefore, appreciate that although the States have made stupendous efforts to house their people, they have been able to do little better than keep pace with the natural demand for houses.

When the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement was first conceived, it was thought that, in addition to meeting normal housing demands and improving housing standards, slum clearance schemes would also be undertaken. However, very little has been achieved in that direction. As a matter of fact, because of inflation, in many instances housing authorities have been forced to accept lower standards than are desirable.

Difficulties are being experienced by State governments in administering the funds made available to them under the agreement. It has been said repeatedly by Australian governments, both Liberal and Labour, and also by State governments, that it is most desirable that persons who are allocated homes under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement should be given the opportunity to purchase such houses. One of the difficulties in that regard is to prevent progressive increases of weekly rentals for the homes. That is quite easy to understand, because during recent years, despite statements to the contrary, inflation has taken a firm grip of our economy. I refer to the latest report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission upon which Senator Wright commented favorably. That report shows changes that have occurred in important index figures from 1946-47 to 1952-53 as follows:- On a base figure of 100, bank advances increased to an index figure of 208, wholesale prices increased to 223, retail prices increased to 195, export prices increased to 237 and male wages to 218. The commission stated -

The table shows the continuance into 1952-53 of the movements which developed late in 1951-52. Particular importance attached to the upward trend in domestic prices and wages in the face of a downward trend in export prices.

The commission which, at the time that report was compiled, included Professor Gordon Wood, an unimpeachable authority in these, matters.

Another great difficulty is that of preventing progressive increases of weekly rentals that result from increases in general building costs, including the cost of housing sites. The States must evolve methods to overcome this difficulty. The States that are parties to the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement have experienced considerable difficulty in effecting sales to occupiers of houses erected under the agreement. There are three main reasons for this difficulty. The first of them is the demand by the Commonwealth to be recouped in cash of the sale price of any house that is disposed of. This factor is aggravated by the drying up of credit for house construction. A prospective purchaser must find in cash a sufficient sum to release his obligation under the agreement. That difficulty could be overcome by the Commonwealth and the States arranging to provide adequate credit in respect of purchases. The second reason for the existing difficulty in respect of sales of houses constructed under the agreement is the general restriction of finance throughout Australia. For instance, under the State act in Western Australia deposits by purchasers were accepted readily and such persons were thus enabled to own their own homes. However, and this is the third reason for difficulty to which I refer, the restriction of loan moneys and the general shortage of finance for administrative expenditure in that State now prevents the Western Australian Government from financing the purchase of houses under its housing legislation. Previously, Western Australia had in operation the most effective system for enabling persons to become home-owners. There has been a constant and keen demand by the occupiers of houses constructed under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement to purchase the houses in which they live. Considerable financial assistance was given to such purchasers by the Rural and Industries Bank of Western Australia for this purpose, and 1,441 houses were sold. That number was more than half the number of houses that were sold throughout Australia under the agreement. However, whilst that was the best figure for any State, it represented approximately only one-fifth of the number of houses that were built by the State Housing Commission in Western Australia.

Senator Wright:

– What does the agreement provide in respect of each house?

Senator COOKE:

– The State must clear in cash the liability to the Commonwealth. The present dead-lock cannot be overcome except by amending the agreement in order to enable occupiers of houses that are built under it to purchase on a rental-purchase basis. The Commonwealth must change its present attitude in this matter and enable houses to be purchased on payment of a reasonable deposit and the balance of the principal to be repaid in monthly instalments. If the Government is sincere in its advocacy of home-ownership, it will adopt this practical means of achieving that objective.

As at the 30th June, 1952, a total of 56,000 houses had been completed under the agreement, but of those only 2,699 had been sold and of that number, as I have said, 1,441 had been sold in Western Australia. As far back as November, 1952, the States were considering proposals to amend the agreement along the lines that I have indicated. On the 17th February last the Premier of Victoria, Mr. Cain, submitted in writing two proposals to the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies). The first of them was that the Commonwealth should agree to accept the proceeds from the sale of houses by way of repayment instalments as they were received by the State authorities; and the second was that in an endeavour to reduce rentals the amortization period under the agreement should be extended from 53 to 73 years. As a result of increased building costs, the difference between the economic rental, which is fixed at one-fifth of the family income, and the rental that would be payable on the basis of actual cost of construction has increased considerably, and the Commonwealth’s liability to pay three-fifths of that difference has increased correspondingly. One result of this development is that wage-earners and families in less favorable financial circumstances now experience great difficulty in obtaining the tenancy of houses constructed under the agreement. On the 27 t11 March last, the Prime Minister wrote to the Premier of Western Australia, Mr. Hawke, intimating that he had received a submission from Mr. Cain and asking for any comment that Mr. Hawke might desire to make on the matters that Mr. Cain had raised. The Prime Minister’s letter was as follows : -

You will remember that towards the end of the Premiers Conference last month the Premier of Victoria referred to certain matters under the Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement. It was arranged that the Premier should send copies of his submission to the Commonwealth and the interested State Governments so that consideration could be given to tha arranging of a conference between the Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for housing.

The Prime Minister made that suggestion and it is the basis of the amendment that I have submitted. The letter continued -

I have received a submission from Mr. Cain in the form of a letter dated 17th February and I understand that you also have received a copy of it direct from Mr. Cain.

I suggest, that it would.be helpful if you and the Premiers of the other States concerned, to whom I am writing in similar terms, could forward any comments you may wish to make on the topics which have been raised by the Premier of Victoria. I would then propose to circulate these to the interested governments. This would, I think, assist us to clarify issues which a conference might consider.

The Prime Minister indicated that when he received the comments from each of the State governments that were parties to the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement he would circulate them among the governments for further comment. Subsequently, the Prime Minister forwarded to Mr. Hawke copies of correspondence that he received on this matter from the Premier of South Australia, which State at that time had become a party to the agreement; and also the Premiers of Queensland- and New South Wales.

As a result of an examination of all of the proposals made by the States for amendment to the agreement, the Acting Premier of Western Australia, Mr. Tonkin, on the 9th July last, wrote to the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden), who was then Acting Prime Minister, as follows : -

Amendment to Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement.

I refer to your letters of the 27th March, 1953, and the 5th ultimo, relative to the proposed sale on terms of houses erected under the above agreement, and now append the view of my Government in regard thereto.

  1. Sales to be made to occupiers under agreement for sale and purchase subject to eligibility to be defined by State concerned.
  2. . Rate of interest to be a minimum of 1 per cent. over Commonwealth rate of 3 per cent. with a maximum of 5per cent. at the discretion of the State concerned - to cover administration costs and to provide for bad debts and losses. (Protection in case of fall of value for Commonwealth and States.)
  3. Deposit to be at discretion of State authority.

The personal equation must enter into the matter. If the State authorities could assist persons, as Western Australia did when credit was not so restricted as it is at present, through either the Rural and Industries Bank of Western Australia, or within the provisions of the agreement itself, they would do so to the utmost degree but, at the same time, the Commonwealth’s interests would be fully protected.

That is embodied in the agreement. The letter continues -

  1. Sale price to be at not less than cost.
  2. Period of repayment to be a maximum of53 years for new houses, with the period for other houses to be related to the balance of the period for that particular house under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement.
  3. Purchaser would have the right to complete the purchase at any time.

Very often a tenant desires to become a home-owner. Under the proposed scheme, such a person would be able to take the first step in that direction upon payment of a deposit, and amortization would, to a degree, relieve the Commonwealth of responsibility. Gradual repayment of loans would keep the fund sufficiently liquid to enable additional loans to be granted to other persons who desired to purchase homes. The letter proceeds -

  1. Repayment to be by monthly instalments including principal and interest, with the option of paying greater instalments if desired.
  2. Purchaser to pay rates, taxes, insurance, and to maintain property.

The prospect of becoming, ultimately, the owner of the property, would provide the purchaser with an incentive to maintain it in good condition. The next paragraph of the letter reads -

  1. Deposits and principal repayments due, to be paid by State to the Commonwealth quarterly, and respective loans credited in accordance with present conditions operating in respect of sales for cash.

By this means, the matter would be transferred to a State instrumentality, and the Commonwealth would be thereby relieved of the obligation. The letter goes on -

  1. State to be responsible for any losses incurred - to be recovered from reserve provided in interest rate to be charged as set out in sub-para. (b).

That brings us to the matter of easing high rentals, a problem that is common to all States. The rentals have become extremely high. In many instances they are beyond the financial capacity of the average wage-earner. If the basic wage is to- be frozen, in an attempt to halt inflation, a meeting “of the Commonwealth and

State Housing Ministers should be convened to consider the- easing of the high rental burden. The final part of the letter of the- Acting Premier of Western Australia continued -

Considerationof Easing the Burden of High Rentals.

With reference to the question- of easing the burden of higher rentals, it is considered that the amortisation period might be extended from 53 to 73 years.

The suggestion made by Queensland to eliminate the redemption of the cost of the land from the economic rent is not supported, for the reason that the rent reduction would be negligible, and there is necessity to repay the loan to the Commonwealth for the cost of the land and its development.

My Government is ofthe opinion that the suggested alterations to the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement along the lines as suggested in the foregoing are most desirable and, towards finalising matters in the Agreement affected by such alterations, it is suggested that a, conference of State Housing Commission officers might be arranged, prior to a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers, to finalise any such proposals. It is also thought that such conference should take place at a reasonably early date.

Yours faithfully, (Sgd.) J. T. Tonkin

Acting Premier.

I regret that the Australian Government has not yet indicated its willingness to amend the act along the lines suggested. Despite the obvious desirability to amend the act, in order to provide, particularly, that houses may be sold on a rentpurchase basis, the Australian Government has not accepted the plan proposed by the States, which would conform to the agreement, nor has it indicated that the necessary amending legislation will be introduced. The States have informed the Commonwealth that they desire to sell the houses on terms. On the 25th March, the then Acting Premier ofNew South Wales, Mr. Heffron. stated in a letter to the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden), who was then Acting Prime Minister, that he was agreeable to the adoption of the proposal. Mr. Gair, the Premier of Queensland, and Mr. Playford, the Premier of South Australia, also wrote to the right honorable gentleman to that effect, on the 27th and 24th April, respectively. On the 17th February, Mr. Cain, the Premier of Victoria, suggested to the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) that a conference should be called’ to endeavour to overcome) by mutual agreement, the difficulties now being experienced, but no pronouncement on the matter has yet- been made by the Commonwealth. Broadly speaking, that was the desire of all the States. The problems confronting the various State governments in connexion with the Commonwealth, and State housing scheme are becoming- very difficult. I think that the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Act 1945 should be amended, and I hope,, therefore, that the Senate will support the amendment.

I shall now summarize- the reasons why I consider that the act should be amended to provide that sales may be effected. They are (a) The desire- of the occupiers to purchase the homes, (b) The great necessity to develop home-ownership a; against a house rental scheme, (c) The ever-increasing problem associated with maintaining satisfactorily the rental houses erected under the scheme - there are approximately 6,000 houses in Western Australia to be maintained under the scheme, and that number should increase by approximately 1,200 each year, (d) The ever-increasing rates and charges associated with the houses constructed under the scheme which causescontinuous unrest among the tenants. Increases of municipal and water rates, and other charges, are passed on to the occupiers by an increase of rent. If the homes were being purchased by the occupiers, I am sure that they would bear the burden of the additional charges, and regard the increases as a part of the price demanded for home ownership. The position in the other -States is similar to that in Western Australia, (e) The availability of finance for that purpose, is diminishing as time goes on despite the desire of many occupiers to purchase the homes. Even the purchase of existing houses under the war service homes scheme is being restricted, although finance is obtainable more readily from the War Serv ice Homes Division than f rom the normal money market. (f) The need to arrange for easier finance. If the Commonwealth agreed to the proposal that has been submitted, it would receive annually a return of loan moneys equal to - if not more than - the average amount that it is at present receiving under the restricted financial arrangements. At the present time, the Commonwealth authority receives each year the amount of principal repayment that is included in the rent, as well as the whole of the purchase price of any house sold, which includes loan principal amount outstanding, plus any profit. Under the proposal of the States the Commonwealth would continue to receive the normal repayments of principal. Furthermore, many purchasers might, during the amortization period, repay substantial additional amounts of capital. Acceptance of the proposal would result, ultimately, in the liquidation of indebtedness by the States to the Commonwealth, and greatly increase individual home ownership. On the rental side, of course, the proposition would be equally as satisfactory.

All governments in this country are concerned about the ever-increasing cost of providing housing accommodation for the people. This has prompted some of the States to recommend an extension of the amortization period from 53 years to 73 years. They do not all follow that line but they are eager to establish a formula in order to bring about a reduction of rentals. The Premier of Victoria pointed out in his submission to the Prime Minister on the 17th February that such an extension would necessitate an alteration of paragraph 4 of the First Schedule to the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, and any such alteration would have to be approved by all governments which are parties to the agreement. Mr. Cain stated that, in order to afford a measure of relief, the period upon which amortization is calculated should be extended from 53 to 73 years. He pointed out that such an extension would result in a reduction of rental from £3 to £2 16s. Id. a week, and from £2 to £1 17s. 5d. a week. While the reduction of weekly rent would not be very great, the saving over a. long period would be considerable. Mr. Cain emphasized that, as the houses are maintained under government supervision, they are kept in good repair. Therefore, depreciation would be negligible, and they would provide a good security for the extended period of 73 years.

Another difficulty, which has manifested itself in Western Australia, should be submitted to a conference of the authorities. On the 17th September, Senator Vincent asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) a question in relation to certain flats and other projects in Western Australia. The question was a “ Dorothy Dix “-

Senator Spooner:

– What did Senator Vincent ask me?

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– He asked whether the Minister was aware that Western Australia proposed to erect a large block of flats at Subiaco, near Perth. Objection to the proposal had been expressed at a meeting of the Liberal party in the Nedlands area, although the project would really ‘be in Subiaco.

Senator Willesee:

– The protestations by the Liberal party did not come from Subiaco.

Senator Spooner:

– I have not received a protest from the Liberal party.

Senator COOKE:

– The Minister informed Senator Vincent that at that stage nothing had been done at the Commonwealth level. During the past few months, the State Government of Western Australia has experienced difficulty in obtaining a decision and/or assistance from the Minister for National Development. Difficulty is being experienced in an endeavour to operate under the terms and conditions of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Act. Therefore, I propose to analyse the situation so that the problems and difficulties that the Western Australian Government is encountering can be understood and appreciated.

The housing projects with which difficulty is being experienced in negotiations with the Australian Government are the construction of flats at Subiaco, the Maniana multi-unit house-building proposals and the erection of houses for natives. Those proposals are indicative of the Western Australian Government’s realistic approach to the housing problem. They indicate an endeavour to provide housing accommodation at a cost below that of the traditional type and to utilize services, including roads, water and power, to a maximum extent. The proposals envisage a financial saving compared with the traditional type of building. The estimated saving by the construction of 242 flats compared with brick houses is £120,000. The estimated saving to be made by building under the Maniana project 323 multi-units in timber frame is £150,000, and in the building of the native homes, £8,000. These estimates have been made and checked by an efficient firm of architects, Messrs. Crantze and Sheldon, of Perth, whose services have been engaged from time to time by both Liberal and Labour governments.

The construction of the flats at Subiaco has been approved by the State Housing Commission and the Subiaco City Council, and the proposal has been strongly supported by the Building Advisory Panel and the “Western Australian Chapter of the Royal Institute of Architects. The Housing Advisory Panel inspected the plans and described them as excellent for the type of work. The members of the panel were Messrs. C. J. Cornish (Chamber of Manufactures), H. Downey (Builders Guild), W. Fairweather (Master Builders Association), G. Duckett (country builders), D. Vincent (merchants), W. Rees (Sawmillers Association), C. G. Dudley (Building Industry Congress), A. B. Winning (Royal Institute of Architects), R. W. Brownlie (chairman of the State Housing Commission) and A. D. Hynam (technical officer of the State Housing Commission). The Australian Government acted wrongly in dismissing the proposal which had been recommended by such a selected group.

Bulletin 15 of Australian Housing, published by the Housing Division of the Department of Works and Housing in June, 1948, contained the final report of the Commonwealth Housing Commission. It recorded a number of definite opinions on the place of multi-unit dwellings, including flats, in the Australian housing programme. The report stated -

Both houses and flats are necessary according to the particular way of life and circumstances of the persons to be housed.

Following the final report of the commission, multi-unit dwellings were approved and they have been erected in every State. The commission in its report also stated -

Because of the lack of private open space where children may be left to play under their parents’ care, supervised play areas should be provided. For other persons, the blocks should not be more than three storeys high if lifts are not provided. Where lifts are provided, the possibility is not excluded that in some areas, particularly in the inner areas of our towns, blocks of multi-unit dwellings, six to twelve storys high may be appropriate, provided that, the commission’s recommendations concerning overall density are not exceeded and that ample provision is made for recreation facilities.

The Minister for Housing in Western Australia claims that all those conditions have been met. The proposed house building programme for Maniana has as its objective the building of houses at the lowest possible cost to provide housing accommodation for workers who will be engaged in the industrial area that has been already established at Welshpool and is constantly being expanded. The building of houses in single, duplicate, triplicate and quadruplicate units was proposed for the express purpose of reducing building costs and utilizing services such as roads, water and power supplies to their fullest extent. The estimated saving in building along those lines, as against the traditional timber framed house, is approximately £150,000. Such saving would be reflected in the rent to be charged to the occupiers. Any departure from present proposals will upset the economics of the whole scheme.

The result of the commission’s approach to the Australian Government in respect of the proposals that I have described has been of a negative nature. Originally, business of this kind has been transacted between the Department of National Development at Canberra and the State Housing Commission of Western Australia. I shall give honorable senators a. brief summary of the result of the commission’s approach to the Commonwealth for recognition of its proposals. In the case of the Subiaco flats, the following telegram was received from the Australian Government : -

Minister’s view is that Subiaco proposal as presented is not the type of project which is contemplated under housing agreement and lie considers that funds provided under the agreement should not be used to finance it.

A communication that was received subsequently from the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) and dated the 25th September, 1953, stated in part - . . . in its present form, the project is not suitable for acceptance as a housing agreement undertaking . . .

A reply was sent to Canberra by the Premier of Western Australia, Mr. Hawke, in which he drew attention to the outstanding advantages of the proposal. Many aged persons and married couples without families need accommodation. I am satisfied that a number of elderly persons would relinquish possession of bigger houses if they could get small bousing units. Thus they would release bigger homes for those who need more accommodation. The object of the Maniana housing project has already been explained. The first approach by the State Housing Commission to the Commonwealth authority in connexion with this matter was made on the 23rd July, 1953. Correspondence between the Department of National Development and the State Housing Commission has taken place since that date. In a letter received on the 18th September, the Commonwealth authority raised certain queries respecting the project and in a letter dated the 23rd September, the secretary of the commission set out in detail the commission’s reply to those inquiries. The commission, receiving no reply to its letter, proceeded with the project. Tenders were invited. Upon a suitable tender being received, a telegram was sent to Canberra informing the Commonwealth authority that it was proposed to confirm the acceptance on Thursday, the 8th’ October, On the 7th October, however, the following telegram was received from Canberra : - .

Minister strongly opposed to Welshpool project in its present form. Consequently acceptance of a tender will be at your risks so far as admission to project under housing agreement is concerned.

That telegram was signed by Dr. Raggatt. It is apparent from the lack of decision as indicated in the telegram that the Commonwealth authority is aware that it has no legal authority to interfere with State proposals. This is a very serious matter and all the State authorities should be called together in conference to discuss it. The question is whether the Australian Government has entry into the States administration. Before any announcement was made by the Australian Government in a communication to the relevant State authority, a pronouncement was made in the form of a question that was answered in the Senate by the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner).

Senator Spooner:

– That is quite wrong.

Senator COOKE:

– I hope that it is. Would the Minister prefer that I suggest that he had knowledge of negotiations with the Government of Western Australia and made a statement in the Senate before the parties to the agreement were informed upon the matter?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– Having reached a decision on the representations that had been made, I gave an answer to a question that was asked in the Senate. There is nothing wrong with that. I cannot control questions and answers in the chamber.

Senator COOKE:

– That statement is just as true as others that honorable senators have heard in this chamber. The Minister for National Development does control questions and answers, and I charge him with a breach of etiquette. It should be possible for all State Premiers to meet and discuss these matters and reach agreement, not only upon relations between the States and the Commonwealth, but also in connexion with the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement itself. The State governments are at the cross-roads. On the one hand, the Crown Law Department’s advice is to the effect that under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Act, it is he business of the commissions to build houses under the scheme and it is the business of the Australian Government to find the requisite amount of money. It is true that the Australian Government can require the commissions to give consideration to suggested alterations of standards of building. The State authority may decline to adopt them, however, after considering the suggestions fully. On the other hand, the attitude of the Commonwealth Minister is rather difficult to understand. In the first place, he indicates that he is definitely opposed to the projects.

A dead-lock appears to have developed in Western Australia. I do not think that it will stop the housing project from continuing. However, I think that more consideration could be given to the wishes of the States than has been given to Western Australia. The State Premiers should be given an opportunity to meet and discuss the problems that I have mentioned’.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I second the amendment. As is stated in the motion, the stage has been reached in connexion with the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement when a further conference should be held in order to review the application of the agreement. As I understand the law, the Commonwealth is not entitled to withhold the payment of moneys for the purpose of housing under the Commonwealth States Housing Agreement. I understand also that under the agreement, the Commonwealth has agreed to make moneys available on the understanding that the States may construct whatever type of building. they require. The Western Australian Go”vernment is probably unique in Australia in that it has been building houses for 40 years. I wholeheartedly support the proposal to hold a convention of Ministers in order to consider the position which has arisen. In 1949, 12,000 applications for the purchase of homes were awaiting consideration by the Western Australian Government. That Government considerably increased the rate of housing construction, but I believe that the number of outstanding applications is even greater than it was in 1949. A government in the position of the Western Australian Government has to do something drastic. But housing is a difficult matter to do something drastic about, because people have their dream homes in their minds and the economic realities of the position may not coincide with their idea of a dream home.

The Government of Western Australia decided to build a block of 242 flats at Subiaco, an inner suburb of Perth. At Maniana, an outer suburb, the Government decided to undertake a project of multiple houses. I understand that under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement the Government of WesternAustralia has the right to decide what type of houses it will build. However, I understand that the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Kent Hughes) has said that he will not allocate money for the construction of the type of building that the Western Australian Government proposes to erect. Surely it is clear that there is conflict of opinion between the Minister who represents the Commonwealth and the State Housing Commission, which is the agent of the Western Australian Government in this matter. What course of action would be more sensible than the holding of a convention for the purpose of determining whether or not the Australian Government should be able to decide what type of house the States should build? The Government may consider that the person who pays the piper should call the tune. But, evidently, up to this point, the Australian Government has not endeavoured to restrain any State government from building the type of housing project that it thought best. Surely there should be no more delay in resolving this position. Only twelve months are available in which to spend moneys allocated in each budget and a certain amount of the time available for the expenditure of the moneys allocated in the present budget has already gone. I understand that the Government of Western Australia undertook the projects to which Senator Cooke referred in order to provide housing for people quickly. The projects were also considered to be a means of grappling with the problem of economic rents in view of the fact that ordinary house rentals were becoming too high for the average workingclass person. I understand that the rents of the flats” at Subiaco will be under £3 a week, whereas the1 rent of other flats in the same vicinity is- £4 and £5 a week. I hope that representations from the owners of those flats have not influenced the Government. Let the Government decide whether it desires to allocate money only for a specific objective or whether it will provide money for housing and. leave- the State governments to carry on with their own schemes. Whatever the view of the Minister for the Interior on this matter, surely it would be sensible to hold a conference on it. The States are not making much headway with housing, no matter how hard they try. Something has to be done. Surely a lot of good could result from accepting Senator Cooke’s proposed amendment to the bill. so that the responsible authorities might discuss this problem in the light of their experience since 1945.

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

– I am afraid that the Government cannot accept the amendment that has been proposed by Senator Cooke. The acceptance by the Senate of the proposed amendment would result in the abolition of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement for the current year because the effect of the motion is to substitute for the bill before the Senate a pious resolution which makes no provision for the borrowing of moneys or their allocation under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement this year.

Senator Cooke:

– The motion does not attempt to amend the legislation. It proposes to amend the motion that the bill be now read a second time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reid). - If the motion were agreed to the bill could not be read a second time.

Senator SPOONER:

– The technical advice that I have received is that the amendment is not drafted to give effect to what Senator Cooke has in mind and that its effect would be to destroy the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement for the current year. However, I shall not rely on that argument in opposing the motion.

I think that it is fair to say that the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, like the curate’segg, has been good in parts, but that, as the years have passed, more disadvantages have been found and now even the most fervent early admirers of the agreement are casting doubts upon it and wanting alterations to it. A grave disadvantage that has arisen is that it has resulted, in most of the States, in large governmental building organizations being created with disturbing consequences to the building trade. There has been a constant criticism that those building organizations have been building at higher costs than other builders could build, and in several States, particularly New South Wales and Queensland, quite substantial difficulties have arisen between contractors and the State building authorities.

Senator Willesee:

– The Minister would not apply that remark to Western Australia ?

Senator SPOONER:

– I think not. I recently told the Minister who is responsible for housing in the Western Australian Government and his director that their building record was good. Their costs are not high and for some years the housing commission in Western Australia has built houses for the War Service Homes Division. But above all,, other reasons why the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement has to be reconsidered is the fact that, as a result of its operation and because of the continuance of rent controls, governments are virtually the only builders of homes for rental purposes.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

page 882

QUESTION

BERRYFRUITS

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I move -

That this Senate is of the opinion -

1 ) That the Sugar Concession Committeeshould sympathetically consider providing out of the Committee’s surplus funds sufficient moneys to enable a price payable to the producer to be paid in respect of manufactured berry fruits;

That the Federal Government should give consideration to the provision of finance to promote a vigorous programme of expansion of sales within Australia of berry fruit products ; and concurrently -

That the Tasmanian State Government has a prime responsibility to assist the industry in a tangible form ; and

Thatthe reorganization of costs of the industry is imperative in all phases of picking, transporting and processing of berry fruits.

I am glad to have this opportunity to bring to the notice of the Senate the plight of one of our smaller primary industries, the berry fruit industry of Tasmania. The difficulties of this industry have arisen from two causes. The first is the unusually good European crop, and the second is high Australian production costs. Tasmania produces about 90 per cent, of Australia’s production of berry fruits, and the export trade is vital to the success of the industry. The growing of berry fruits, of course, does not involve annual planting and I believe there is a responsibility upon this Parliament, which is concerned with the welfare of primary industries, to see that temporary periods of difficulty such as that now being experienced by berry fruitgrowers, should be eased by Commonwealth assistance. The proposal contained in my motion is not without precedent. It is fitting, I believe, that one should acknowledge readily the temporary assistance which was given to berry fruit-growers last year through the special efforts of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay), who was then acting for the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. It is also fitting to acknowledge the great interest that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) himself has taken in this industry this year. In all consultations that we Tasmanians have had with him, he has been most helpful, as have the officers of his department. I hope that the motion will be treated on a non-party basis. Honorable senators will notice that the motion is divided into four parts. My colleagues from Tasmania, Senator Henty, Senator Wardlaw, and Senator Marriott will place emphasis on paragraph 2, 3 and 4 of the motion, and I shall deal specifically with paragraph (1), which asks that the Sugar Concession Committee should sympathetically consider providing out of its surplus funds sufficient moneys to enable a price payable to the producer to be paid in respect of the manufacture of berry fruits. Honorable senators will recall that the Sugar Concession Committee was established as a consequence of the Sugar Agreement which this Parliament approved last in 1951. The sugar industry, of course, agreed at the outset, that in recognition of the benefits that it enjoyed as the result of the embargo on the importation of sugar from abroad, it should contribute the sum of £216,000 a year to the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee.- That committee consists of a representative of the Commonwealth Government who is chairman, a representative of the Queensland Sugar Board, one representative of the proprietary processors, one representative of the co-operative and government processors, and two representatives of the producers. Therefore, the producers are in the minority. I acknowledge that last year, in co-operation with the Commonwealth Government, the committee voted approximately £50,000 for the assistance of the berry fruits industry.

In order that honorable senators may see the propriety of the proposal contained in paragraph (1) of the motion, I point out that the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee has three functions under the Sugar Agreement. First, it fixes the price which it requires the fruit processors to pay for sugar at a reasonable minimum to qualify those processors for the special domestic rebate of £2 4s. a ton provided for in the agreement. Secondly, in respect of exports of manufactured fruits, the committee fixes and distributes the export sugar rebate to compensate the manufacturing fruit industries for any handicap imposed upon them by reason of any difference between the Australian and the overseas price of sugar. After those two matters have been provided for, the agreement stipulates that the committee should use its funds - and here I quote so that the Senate will have before it the actual language for -

The promotion of the use and sale of Australian manufactured fruit products in the Commonwealth of Australia or overseas.

The fact that the Australian Government and the committee came to the assistance of the berry fruit industry last year when the predicament of the growers was roughly parallel with their plight to-day is. I submit, a practical argument for a repetition of the assistance this year. But when I point out that in 1951 the minimum price fixed by the committee for non-canning black currants was 6 1/4d. per lb., that in 1952 is rose to 9d., and this year, despite the continued upward trend of costs, it has been again fixed at 6ld.. honorable senators will appreciate the degree to which the growers are ‘ in need of some temporary assistance. Let one illustrate the problem by dealing with the price of raspberries. In 1951, the minimum pricefixed for non-canning raspberries was 6d. per lb. In 1952, it was 9d., and this year it is 6½d. The productionof berry fruits is between 6,000 and8,000 tons a year so that an increase of1d. per lb. in price means an additional £60,000 -a merefleabite in the language in which we talk in the federal sphere. To bring the industry up to parity with last year, an additional 3d. or 4d. per lb. would be needed and that would involve between £200,000 and £240,000. As I have pointed out the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee receives an annual contribution of £216,000 from the sugar industry. According to the report issued by the committee in . June of last year - the last report that is available - surplus funds then held totalled £944,000. Obligations that the committee has undertaken since that date have reduced the available funds to approximately £700,000 or £750,000. That representsthe actual surplus over the committee’s ordinary requirements as indicated by the provision in the sugar agreement which states that so long as the committee’s funds are in excess of £550,000 the annual contribution of £216,000 from the sugar industry shall remain in suspense. Clearly anything over the £500,000 held by the committee is actually surplus to its requirements. That surplus is approximately £200,000 or £250,000. I am sure nobody will argue that the mere fact that assistance to the berry fruit industry might bring the fund down below £500,000 and would therefore cause a resumption of the sugar industry’s contribution, can validly be used against my proposal. The sugar industry knows its obligations under the sugar agreement. It can hardly be argued that the arrangement is unfair, particularly when we recall that it was made in 1951 when . the price of sugar to the manufacturing fruit industry was about £42 a ton, whereas it is now about £72 a ton. So, there is a surplus of money, and there is a unit contribution to replace that money. . Surely it will not be suggested that that money should remain surplus and sterile when an industry so vital to approximately 1,300 growers in Tasmania, and involving a seasonal work force of about 4,000 people languishes. I -appeal to the Senate to approve of the principle that the Sugar ‘concession committee be urged to view . sympathetically the application that these surplus funds be used for the assistance of the industry.

Senator McKenna:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that these moneys will be payable direct to berry fruitgrowers ?

Senator WRIGHT:

– No. I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has raised that matter, because it concerns a fault which I found with the assistance given last year. The Australian Government delegated to the Tasmanian Government sole distribution of the money. The manner of distribution decided upon was a direct recompense for fruit losses, but the proposal which I recommend is that the moneys should be made available in respect of fruit actually manufactured, in order to enable the processors to increase their minimum price. There should be no difficulty concerning the practical arrangements, because when a market was available to growers during the four years which preceded 1951, these processors in Tasmania actually operated an export surplus pool, whereby profits made over and above the minimum margin were distributed to growers on a co-operative basis. I believe that an argument which is so simple and which will have such effective results loses nothing by the brevity of its presentation. I ask the Senate to adopt the proposal.

Senator GUY:
Tasmania

.- I second the motion. In doing so, I have no desire to traverse ground which has been covered by Senator Wright. I point out, however, that the Sugar Agreement Act 1951 contemplates similar assistance to the Australian berry fruit industry as that which the honorable senator has proposed. Section ‘7 (1.) of that act provides -

That, subject to the proviso next hereinafter contained, the Queensland Government, on behalf of the Australian cane-sugar industry, shall during the agreed period assist the Australian manufactured fruits industry by creating a fund by an annual contribution of Two hundred and sixteen thousand pounds payable in equal monthly instalments to the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee

The same section of the act also provides that the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee may - in such manner and subject to such conditions as it thinks lit. apply such moneys as may remain in the saidfund after payments have been made in accordance with paragraphs (a) to (d) (both inclusive) of this clause for-

  1. i ) the promotion of the use and sale of Australian manufactured fruit products in the Commonwealth of Australia or overseas; or
  2. scientific or industrial research for the purpose of increasing the yield per acre of Australian fresh marketable fruits required for Australian manufactured fruit products.

The proviso referred to in the act is that when the credit in the fund exceeds £500,000 the contribution by the Queensland Government may cease. The last balance-sheet of the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee which I have been able to secure indicated that, at that date, the fund was in credit to an amount of approximately . £900,000. However, Senator Wrighthas pointed out that it has since been reduced to approximately £700,000. The twenty-first annual report of the committee, for the year which ended on the 31st August, 1952, states that -

As an inducement to processors to purchase all available berry fruits, the Committee allocated an amount of £50,000 -(later increased to £100,000) to assist the sale of berry fruit products in overseas markets. Processors’ fours proved to be well founded, as great difficulty has . been experienced in clearing 1952 stocks of jams and berry fruit pulps at the prices sought by processors. The difficulty was accentuated by substantial yields of raspberries and blackcurrants in the United Kingdom and on the continent. Buyer resistance on the Australian market was also encountered. At the time of this report no payments of special export assistance had been made, but indications arc that the Committee will be called upon to make substantial payments from the funds allocated for this purpose.

The passage which I have just read indicates that there is ample precedent for the motion moved by Senator Wright. These small fruits are perishable, and the crops must be handled expeditiously. Many economic problems confront the industry. Costs have increased greatly. For instance, wages have increased from approximately £7 10s. a week in 1949 to approximately £11 18s. a week to-day. The cost of tinplate has increased by 42 per cent. The berry fruits industry depends on the overseas market for the disposal of crops in excess of local requirements. However, the industry is unable to compete successfully with overseas countries. Competition has been particularly severe in South Africa because of the cheap labour which is available in that country: The overseas market has declined to such a degree that although 57 per cent. of the total crop was marketed overseas in 1949, only 21 per cent. was marketed last year. Exports to the United Kingdom of jam,, jellies and pulps have declined from 26,341 tons in 1949 to 5,782 tons last season. I am sure that honorable senators will agree that the producers are entitled to the cost of production, plus a reasonable margin of profit.

Tasmania is the only country in the southern hemisphere which produces raspberries, blackcurrants and loganberries in sufficient quantity to justify processing. A particular type of soil and also a particular kind of climate are required for the production of those crops. I agree with the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee that there must be a long-range plan to stabilize the industry. In this connexion, the report of the committee to which I have referred states: -

Exceptfor a period during World War II. and the immediate post-war years, the berry fruit industry in Tasmania has consistently sought financial assistance to enable it to market its surplus production. The stage now appears to have been reached where earlier problems are recurring, and it appears desir- able for the interests concerned to initiate an investigation into the economics of the industry and to formulate a long-range scheme for its economic development.

Just prior to World War II., the Tasmanian small fruit-growers were urged toincrease production of their product. Consequently, Tasmania initiated the overseas marketing- of jam and small fruits. In 1951-52, there were 4,200 acres under plantation in Tasmania. At that time the capital value of the industry was approximately £5,250,000. To-day, there are 1,300 registered growers in Tasmania. Unless some assistance is given to the industry, those 1,300 breadwinners will be on the employment market. Because of the difficulties to which I have referred, the acreage has fallen from 4,511 in 1949-50 to 3,763 at present.

Consequently, production has declined considerably. Honorable senators “will recall that during “World War II. berry fruit products were keenly sought after by the defence forces. I have been told that that blackcurrants contain a very high vitamin C content, which is necessary to maintain a balanced diet. In 1948-49, the markets in the east were promising, but the import restrictions which have been imposed by India and Pakistan have caused a severe falling off in those markets. In addition, shipping problems are great. Freight charges are now almost prohibitive. For instance, the freight charge in respect of 40 cubic feet * of cargo being transported between Hobart and Melbourne has increased by 477 per cent, since 1939, that for transportation of goods between Hobart and Sydney has increased by 545 per cent., and between. Hobart and United Kingdom ports by 110 per cent. Tn other words, the charge in respect of cargo shipped from Hobart to United Kingdom ports has inCreased from £3 2s. 6d. for each 40 cubic feet to £6 lis. 6d. An announcement was made recently that a further 7£ per cent, increase will operate in the near future.

It is the duty of the Australian Government to assist in a vigorous programme to extend the sales of small fruits. Similarly, it is the duty of the Tasmanian Government to afford every assistance necessary to preserve this industry from destruction. I urge the Senate to give favourable consideration to the motion moved by Senator Wright.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– Although I support the motion, I move -

That in paragraph (2), after the words “to the provision of finance to “ the following words he inserted: - “assist the berry fruit growers and to “. ,

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– I accept the amendment.

Senator AYLETT:

– I appreciate the honorable senator’s action, because this matter should be dealt with on a nonparty political basis, particularly in view of the fact that the Parliament has made available substantial financial assistance to practically every branch of primary production. The dairying industry, for instance, is now being subsidized to an. amount of approximately £17,000,000 annually. If the motion is agreed, to, the Government will not be pinned down to the provision of a specific amount of assistance. The degree of assistance will be a matter still to be arranged between the Commonwealth and the Tasmanian Government. The primary purpose of the motion is to emphasize the urgency of providing assistance to this industry.

Most of these growers operate on small holdings. The total area devoted to berry fruits is only 4,200 acres, and that area consists of 1,300 holdings. However, the growing of berry fruits is an expensive business. A fair volume of outside labour is employed but, at the same time, growers can make a reasonable livelihood on a moderate price return. The position of the industry was set out in a case that the Tasmanian Government presented recently to the Australian Government. I quote the following paragraph from that document -

The overall capital value of the industry, including production and processing, is conservatively estimated to be £5,250,000. This figure is arrived at from the value of some 1,300 holdings, involving 4,200 acres of plantations. Then, there are buildings, cultural and harvesting equipment as well as roads, irrigation schemes and sundry necessities associated with intensive cultivation. From the production aspect, the capital value of establishments is considered to be in the vicinity of £3,250,000.

Having regard to the comparatively small number of holdings, those figures are of impressive proportions. The average area of the holdings is so small that if growers are forced out of production, the holdings cannot be economically converted to other classes of production which would enable the owners to make a reasonable livelihood. The only assets that would be left to them would be a house and a small plot of land which would be practically non-income-earning. At the same time, no work would be available in the neighbourhood to which displaced growers could turn for a livelihood. Any serious curtailment of production would involve substantial loss to the State and also to Australia as a a whole. Approximately 7,000 pickers are employed in the harvesting season, involving a wages bill amounting to approximately £200,000, whilst wages paid to employees in the processing section of the industry amount to £500,000 annually. Having regard to the limited area of the holdings, the amount of assistance that would be required to stabilize and save the industry would not be nearly so great as that which has been made available to other branches of primary production.

In addition to the growers, thousands of workers depend on the industry for a livelihood. This matter should be considered from the viewpoint of the producers, the employees in the picking and processing sections of the industry and from that of the Australian Government as well as that of the State Government.

The industry earns considerable income for this country on overseas markets. Unfortunately, overseas sales have declined as a result of increased costs of containers, sugar and wages. As a result of the inflationary trend, costs have increased to such a degree that the industry is experiencing difficulty in competing with the products of other countries. Government supporters claim that inflation has been checked and that our economy will soon be replaced on an even keel. I trust that that will be the case. In that event, the berry fruits growers would not require the financial assistance which is being sought for them in the terms of the motion now before the Senate. They would again be able to compete successfully on world markets. However, they, urgently require substantial assistance to tide them over the present difficult period. If these orchardists are forced out of production, they will be lost to the industry for all time. They will not be able to recover their position even when inflation has been entirely arrested. But for the assistance that was given to the apple and pear industry during the war years, hardly an acre would now be devoted to the growing of those fruits. However, thanks to the assistance, that industry is now exporting 4,000,000 bushels of apples and pears annually. At present, the berry fruits industry finds itself in a position comparable to that which confronted the apple and pear industry when it was saved from extinction during World War II. The Government must give serious consideration to the provision of adequate financial assistance to this industry.

Every honorable senator will agree with paragraph 3 of the motion which states -

That the Tasmanian Government has a prime responsibility to assist the industry in a payable form.

However, the State Government has assisted the industry to the limit of its resources, and it will continue to do so. That Government realizes the serious consequences that would follow if the in-, dustry were allowed to collapse.

Senator Sheehan:

– It would be worse for Tasmania than losing “ Tatts “.

Senator AYLETT:

– Tasmania will lose revenue exceeding £1,000,000 annually as a result of the transfer of the head-quarters of Tattersalls lottery from Hobart to Melbourne, which, it is reported, will be effected at the end of the year. That loss of revenue, which will seriously embarrass the Tasmanian Government, makes more urgent the provision of adequate assistance to the berry fruits industry. I again express appreciation of the co-operation of honorable senators on both sides of the chamber in their approach to the motion.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator HENTY:
Tasmania

.- I support the motion. I commend the Government for giving to the Senate this opportunity to discuss the position of the berry fruits industry. I propose to confine my remarks to paragraph 2 of the motion. I realize that over the years the Australian Government has assisted this industry. Last year, it made available the sum of £100,000 to assist growers to recoup losses incurred as a result of fruit dropping on the ground. However, all honorable senators will agree that assistance of that kind will not contribute to a permanent solution of the difficulties that confront the industry. It is a solution that we seek. I have believed for some time that, only by the introduction of the system of shock freezing of berry fruits, can the future of the industry be assured. I have advocated repeatedly during the last two years the provision of money from the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Fund for the installation of experimental shock freezing plant, and I am sure that, with the help of the Commonwealth Scientific and

Industrial Research Organization, this innovation would prove successful. There is a good market for fruit on the mainland all the year round. Large quantities of shock-frozen Tasmanian scallops,, in cellophane packages, are sold by food shops in the mainland States throughout the year. There is a continuous demand for this excellent sea-food. Several months ago I was a guest at a dinner given by the Cool Storage Association of Tasmania. The whole meal consisted of out-of-season shock-frozen products. The strawberries were indistinguishable from fresh fruit, and, with cream, were delicious.

I consider that the berry fruit juices trade should be expanded. During the last five or six years the berry fruits processing industry has conducted a campaign in Tasmania to increase the consumption of these juices. If the consumption of this product on the mainland were equivalent, on a per capita basis, to its consumption in Tasmania, the whole of the production of the berry fruit industry could be utilized in that way alone. The industry has a great potential future, and should be developed.

A sales promotion campaign should be conducted on the mainland, in order to provide the consuming public with factual information about the high value of berry fruit juices, when compared with orange, lemon, pineapple and tomato juices. Only the best of the berry fruit juices should be marketed on the mainland. They should be displayed in attractive bottles, bearing distinctive labels. In view of freight difficulties in Tasmania, the juices could be sent in bulk to the mainland for bottling. When the mainland trade was fully developed we would not have to compete on the overseas markets with berry fruit products of Scotland and Holland. There is no reason why canned and pulped berry fruits should not become very popular in Australia. An efficiently conducted sales promotion campaign would bring to the notice of the Australian public the high quality of the products of the Tasmanian berry fruits industry, and would ensure that these products would always command a ready market in this country in the future. I urge the Government tomake a grant of £50,000 to the berry fruits industry for the purpose of such a sales promotion campaign. I support the motion,, and I thank honorable senators for the interest that they have shown inthis very important matter.

Senator COLE:
Tasmania

– On a previous occasion, when speaking to a motion for the adjournment of the Senate, I outlined the history of the berry fruits industry in Tasmania. The motion that has been moved by Senator Wright to-night is a practical application of my previous remarks. I support the amendment that has been moved by Senator Aylett, which has as its object the provision of financial assistance to the berry fruit-growers. Even if a sales promotion campaign were undertaken immediately, I am afraid that little benefit from it would be derived by the industry this season. I urge the Government to keep this industry alive, and I assure honorable senators that the growers are very grateful for the very generous assistance that was provided to them last year. Even at this late stage assistance should be provided to the growers, because if this season’s crop is allowed to rot and fall to the ground the berry fruit-growers will be unable to carry on.

I support the remarks that have been made by Senator Henty about the desirability of developing the berry fruit juices trade. If these excellent juices could be made available in attractive bottles to shopkeepers throughout Australia, we would soon not need an overseas market. It is imperative that an efficient and economical means of transport and distribution of the products of the industry should be provided as soon as possible. The Tasmanian Government has a prime responsibility in this matter, which I think it has discharged reasonably well. That Government went to very great trouble to draw up the report on the berry fruits industry that has been placed before honorable senators to-night. I take this e Importunity to thank the Department of Commerce and Agriculture for the assistance that it has given to the berry fruitgrowers, and I commend Senator Wright for bringing this matter forward. I hope that the motion will be agreed to, and carried into effect without delay.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– I have much pleasure in supporting the remarks that have been made by other representatives of Tasmania in this chamber, and I hope that honorable senators on both sides will support the motion, so that assistance may be provided to the Tasmanian berry fruits industry. The Tasmanian senators, as a team, have applied themselves to this subject, and I assure them that I will make a diplomatic approach to the Tasmanian Labour Government in the matter. I believe that that Government should do more to promote the sale of the berry fruits, both in Tasmania and on the mainland. There is always a tendency for a State government to expect the Australian Government to assist the industries of the State. In this connexion I point out that during the last three years the Commonwealth has, I believe, made available £250,000 to assist the berry fruits industry of Tasmania. Recently, the manager of a branch of the Commonwealth Bank in Tasmania assured a meeting of berry fruit-growers that he would assist them as much as possible. It is right and proper that the Tasmanian Government should be requested to assist the berry fruit-growers of that State with their problems.

Senator WARDLAW:
Tasmania

– I rise to support the motion, and to pay a tribute to Senator Wright and my colleagues from Tasmania for their excellent presentation of the case on behalf of the berry fruits industry. Senator Guy has already mentioned the very, steep rise of shipping freights to the mainland ports. That is the principal reason why this industry is in such a parlous condition. Since 1951, shipping freights from Tasmania to the various mainland ports have risen by from 396 per cent, to 545 per cent. As I pointed out recently in this chamber, the freight on goods from Tasmania to Brisbane is now £22 a ton. It costs about three times as much to send a ton of produce from Tasmania to Brisbane as it does to send it to England. This is a serious matter for Tasmania. Owing to our insular position, we are at a great disadvantage. I do not think that many mainlanders realize Tas.manias difficulties. Shipping is the only means we have to transport our produce to the mainland markets.

I have before me a report to the effect that Tasmania sends an average of 5 tons of produce a head of population to the mainland markets by sea, compared with only .9 ton sent by that means by Queens^ land, which has alternative means of transport. The average wage of employees in the berry fruits industry in Tasmania has risen from £7 14s. a week in 1949 to £12 18s. this year, which is an increase of 72 per cent. The cost of overtime and the provision of .amenities has risen in the same period by about 125 per cent. The cost of tin- cans has risen by 46 per cent, since 1949, whilst the price of sugar has risen from £40 12s. 6d. a ton in 1951 to £72 a ton this year - an increase of 75 per cent. It is apparent, therefore, that the Tasmanian growers do not receive a great return for their work. To support that assertion, I point out that a 30-oz. can of processed peas contains 20 oz. of peas and 10 oz. of brine. The .price to the consumer is 4s. Hd. Of that amount, only 6d. to 8d. goes to the primary producer. From the sale of a 16-oz. tin of apricots for 2s. 8d., only 4d. goes to the growers. The balance of 2s. 4d. is represented by wages and costs and the value of the tin. I read recently that the British Government set up a tinplate factory at a cost of £80,000,000. It made a profit from the factory in the first year of £60,000,000. The ‘tinplate was sold to the manufacturers in England at £76 a ton and to Australia at £104 a ton. We can manufacture tinplate in Australia, and sell it to the processors for £50 a ton. Tinplate is 98 per cent, steel and only 2 per cent, tin, and it could easily be manufactured in Australia. Thus the processing industry would he assisted.

Senator Henty’s suggestion is an excellent one but we must do something quickly to relieve the industry. I believe that if a committee is set up under the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, it should be sent to the United States of America, Holland and the United Kingdom. Such committees are known in England as productivity committees. They include producers, growers, transport operators and representatives of all who are connected with a particular industry. They investigate the reasons why an industry cannot compete with industries overseas. In the five years since 1948, England has sent abroad 66 productivity committees. I know of no reason why Australia should not send one committee abroad to investigate the difficulties of the industries that honorable senators have been discussing. I support the motion.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– I rise to join the queue of Tasmanian senators who have addressed themselves to this question. I should be surprised, indeed, if anybody representing Tasmania were not aware of two things. The first is the vital nature of this industry to Tasmania, and the second is the parlous condition in which it is to-day. The third point to which I direct attention is the need for early steps to be taken to help the industry. All honorable senators representing Tasmania are agreed upon those points. Accordingly, I shall say nothing about the economics of the industry. Every honorable senator representing ‘ Tasmania has been provided with a most complete brief at the instance of the Minister for Agriculture in Tasmania, Mr. Dwyer, which sets out the whole of the economics of the industry with an indication from the Minister that we would be asked to help the industry regardless of party. I welcome the statement of Senator “Wright in which he intimated that the thought in his mind in proposing this motion was that it should be completely non-party. I subscribe to that sentiment generously and shall return to it in a moment. In the meantime, I shall refer to the first of the three proposals contained in the motion. It is -

That the Sugar Concession Committee should sympathetically consider providing out of that Committee’s surplus funds sufficient moneys to enable a price payable to the producer to be paid in respect of manufactured berry fruits ;

As is recognized by the terms of that paragraph, while the committee is under obligation to pay a rebate in certain circumstances, it is merely given a power but not a duty to make payments of that nature. The word “ may “ is used in the agreement in referring to the power and not the word “ shall “. The second point is that the terms of the motion are not specific as to whom the proposed “ sufficient moneys “ are to be paid. Senator Wright clarified that point by indicating that he intended that the moneys should be paid to the fruit processors on the condition, as I understood it, that they ultimately went to the fruit-growers who had supplied fruit for manufacture.

Senator Wright:

– That is so.

Senator McKENNA:

– Senator Wright also made some reference, not in this case but in some other, to the fact that the profits above a certain amount were shared with the growers. I take it that he does not put this matter in that category but intends that the whole of the money should be provided by the Sugar Concession Committee and should be paid in toto to the fruit-growers through the processors.

Senator Wright:

– That is correct.

Senator McKENNA:

– In those circumstances, I am in complete accord with the first part of the proposal but I should like to repeat, so that the Senate will have a complete picture, the clear fact that the duty of the Sugar Concession Committee is to the fruit processors of Australia. Each industry, vital as it is, will -be and has been regarded by it according to the overall position. I believe it is true, as an honorable senator has said, that the. Tasmanian industry represents a modicum of 5 per cent, of the whole picture and we honorable senators who represent Tasmania are not losing our perspective. The Sugar Concession Committee already has acknowledged its moral obligation at least to help this industry. It has provided money pursuant to this request. The second part of the motion reads -

That the Federal Government should give consideration to the provision of finance to . assist the berry fruit growers and to promote a vigorous programme of expansion of sales within Australia of berry fruit products.

I support that proposal fully. The Australian Government already has been generous in making provision for the berry-growers. It has granted assistance over the past two years. The motion asks the Australian Government to consider assistance directly to the fruit-growers and to promote the sale and use of their products. The third paragraph is -

That the Tasmanian State Government has a. prime responsibility to assist the industry in a tangible form.

When I read that paragraph first, I thought that it might have implied or suggested a criticism of the Tasmanian State Government. I considered the paragraph carefully, because in my opinion, it is not proper for the Senate to criticise another Parliament, particularly a State Parliament. I put that forward as a matter of mere propriety. But having accepted Senator Wright’s assurance that nothing of a party political nature was intended, I was shocked when I heard Senator Marriott’s comment. He plainly directed criticism at the Tasmanian Government. I noted his words that the State Government could do more to help. I am not arguing at the moment, for the purpose of this proposition, whether that is so or not, but I do say that that remark, in the light of events that appear to be imminent in Tasmania, introduces a highly political flavour into the debate, and destroys the whole basis upon which this discussion has hitherto taken place. I regret that that is so. I believe that it has destroyed the whole function and basis of the motion.

Senator Wright:

– There is nothing in the case to which the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has referred suggesting assistance from the Tasmanian Government.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is so, but Senator Wright will recognize that in the preparation of that case, the Tasmanian Government has played a major part through the Department of Agriculture. It has helped in representations to the Australian Government. As every honorable senator knows, a financial disaster is pending in Tasmania. The State Government is not likely to have more resources in the near future. Indications are that it will have a good deal less. If this motion is directed at financial assistance, I should say in the light of events that appear to be ahead that the State Government will experience greater financial stringency, particularly in this financial year which is the relevant one for the current fruit crop. I could have supported the whole proposition as it stood with enthusiasm but for Senator Marriott’s comment. I should like him to indicate to the Senate that he is prepared to withdraw any reflection upon the Tasmanian Government. I do not believe that honorable senators should make any reference to that Government in this chamber. It is not proper to do so.

But when such reference is postulated with, a comment and criticism with a party political significance, it destroys the whole basis of the objective approach that was being made to this matter.

Senator McCallum:

– It does not alter the motion.

Senator McKENNA:

– If honorable senators see the significance of my remarks, I suggest that those who support the motion on the Government side might agree to the deletion of that clause in the light of what has taken place. It could be said that the Tasmanian Government has a prime responsibility to an industry upon its own ground. I acknowledge that situation, but I do not subscribe to it in the terms in which it has been supported by Senator Marriott. I regret that the honorable senator spoke as he did. So that we can be unanimous on this matter, I hope that Senator Marriott will withdraw his statement or authorize Senator Wright in his reply to negate any suggestion of criticism of the Tasmanian Government. Unless that is done, I shall be in difficulty about the matter. On the fourth proposition I have no difficulty at all. The motion in that connexion reads -

That the reorganization of costs of the industry is imperative in all phases of picking, transporting and processing of berry fruits.

That is apparently the whole cause of the trouble, unfortunately. Rising costs have put the producers out of overseas markets, stocks have accumulated and accordingly the producers are not in a position to buy the current crop. If they did process it, they could not store it and if they stored it, they could not sell it. I hope that the flaw that I criticized in paragraph (3.) will be amended to my satisfaction and I believe that easily the best way to do so would be to delete the clause completely.

Senator WORDSWORTH:
Tasmania

– I heartily support the motion. In reply to Senator McKenna I point out that there is the possibility of an election in Tasmania in the near future, and a government of a political colour different from that of the present Government may be elected. This motion might apply equally to any government that is returned. Therefore, I cannot agree with Senator McKenna’s contention. It is known that after the next election in

Tasmania the strength of the political parties in the Tasmanian Parliament may be approximately equal and it is difficult to say which party will form the Government. If the remarks of Senator Marriott apply to a Labour Party Government they could also apply to a Liberal Party Government. I support the motion.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– Honorable senators are indebted to Senator Wright for having focussed the attention of the Senate on the parlous state of the berry fruits industry. For sometime the industry has been in a bad position but I cannot agree with the suggestion of Senator Wright on how to overcome the problem of the industry. The first part of the honorable senator’s motion states that the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee should sympathetically consider providing out of its surplus funds sufficient money to enable the price payable to the producer to be paid in respect of manufactured berry fruits. I venture to say that if the industry received sugar for nothing it would still be in a bad position. If will not get out of its difficulties by the method that Senator Wright has suggested. The sugar concession committee has been in existence for many years and has rendered very good service to the fruit industry of Australia. The fruitgrowers have often expressed their satisfaction at the support that the sugar industry has given to their industry. I have sympathy for the berry-growers. I know that they are in difficulties. I know that berries are being grown in England more cheaply than in Tasmania and that the containers for this fruit are so expensive iri Australia that it is difficult for the industry to market its produce. But to suggest that this proposal will get the berry industry out of trouble is nonsense. The sugar concession committee has to deal with the entire fruit industry of Australia. But the output of the berry fruit industry represents only about 5 per cent, of the fruit production of Australia. Does Senator Wright suggest that this industry should be assisted at the expense of others which will need assistance shortly?

The finances of the sugar concession committee have remained sound only because sugar has been sold more cheaply in Australia than elsewhere. That state of affairs will not continue. The sugar industry wants to help the fruit industry but in order to establish itself in this country the sugar industry had to make tremendous sacrifices. So far as paragraph (3.) of Senator Wright’s motion is concerned, I think that it would be bad form for this Parliament to tell a State Government its duties. That part of the motion suggests that the Tasmanian Government has given no consideration to this important industry. No wise Government, irrespective of its politics, could fail to give serious consideration to an industry as important as this one. Senator Wright has often criticized government enterprise and government assistance and said that private enterprise should be given a chance to stand on its own feet. Now he has advocated that the taxpayers should assist this industry. I do not object to that proposal if it will enable the industry to continue. But surely it is not our responsibility to ask another industry to assist this industry. The sugar industry is always exposed to the searchlight of public opinion. When I was a Minister I had to fight to enable the sugar industry to continue in existence. The money for the payment of 1 1/2d. freight on wheat shipped to Tasmania is to be provided by the people of Australia, not by another industry. I say that another industry should not be called upon to finance the berry-fruits industry. The position in which the berry fruits industry finds itself is not a passing phase. Its position is very difficult. Last year berry fruits brought 9d. per lb., but now they bring only 6£d. per lb. because the fruit processers are unable to pay the price that they -paid last year due to the economic position of the processing trade.

Even if the berry-fruits industry were provided with free sugar it could not compete in the world’s markets. The contents of a 24-oz. container of berry fruits represents only 15 per cent, of the price of the full container. This commodity has not sufficient value to justify putting it on the market. This is a great problem. The position of the berry-growers was satisfactory in 1949. They aid not need assistance then. But the cost of the materials and the labour that they use has now increased by over 100 per cent, and they find themselves priced out of the market. What does Senator Wright mean by the term “ re-organization “ ? Does he mean “ reorientation “ ? I think that it is necessary to re-organize the economics not only of the berry fruits industry but of this country. We had difficulty in developing the sugar industry because the more sugar the growers produced the lower the price fell and the nearer the industry came to bankruptcy. It is not fair to submit to the Senate ii motion of this kind, concerning an industry that has rendered great service for many years. We must not penalize one industry in order to assist another. Senator Wright’s proposal will not result in the berry fruit industry being placed in a position to compete under present conditions.

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

– I rise to speak, not as a member of the Government, but as a Queensland senator with a reasonable knowledge of the sugar industry, which is necessarily concerned in the matter under discussion. As Minister for Trade and Customs, I also have a knowledge of the working of the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee. J have been delighted at the tone of the discussion, that has taken place on this motion. I hope the honorable senators supporting the Government will vote ou this motion as they wish. They are under no obligation to support my views. However, I have had discussions with my Queensland colleagues of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party on this subject from time to time and my remarks will express their views as well as my own.

Senator Guy appears to be under a misapprehension in that he considers that Queensland has a monopoly of sugar production. That is not so. Sugar is also grown in New South Wales. But those interested in the growing of sugar in Australia, whether in Queensland or in any other State, are protected by a Commonwealth act under which certain obligations are placed on the growers of sugar. It is a fact that the colling price of sugar must not exceed a level which is approved by the Commonwealth. But no State has any monopoly of the production of sugar. In case any body is under a misapprehension that the Australian sugar industry has caused any hardship to the users of sugar in Australia, two facts are worthwhile mentioning. There is an obligation on the producers of sugar to make sugar available to any Australian exporter of fruit products at a price at which the cheapest foreign sugar could be landed in Australia, free of duty. In addition, for many years the Australian users of sugar have been able to buy sugar in this country at a price which has at times been as much as £50 a ton below world parity. Only since 1951 has the price of sugar moved upwards. While the price of sugar in Australia was lower than the price overseas, there was no drain on the fund to which the sugar industry’s contribution of £216,000 a year was paid. Now that the price in Australia is higher, payments out of that fund to the exporters of fruit products will be resumed. In fact, whereas in August, 1951, that. fund stood at more than £1,000,000, it had fallen to £662,000 at the 30th August, 1953, allowing for an outstanding incurred liability of £94,000.

For the benefit of those who are not acquainted with the work of the sugar concession committee I should state the position briefly. The committee is an autonomous body constituted under the Sugar Agreement between the Australian Government and the Queensland Government. The Commonwealth has only one representative on the committee. He is an officer of the Department of Trade and Customs and he is chairman of the committee. Other members of the committee include a representative of the Queensland Sugar Board, a representative of the producers of canning fruits, a representative of the producers of non-canning fruits, a representative of the co-operative and State manufacturers, and a representative of the proprietary manufacturers of fruit products. Therefore the fruit industry has four members out of six. The committee administers the fund provided by the Queensland Government, not out of its consolidated revenue, but on behalf of and out of the funds of the Queensland sugargrowers. Out of that fund, the sugar concession committee pays to manufacturers a rebate of £2 4s. a ton on sugar used in completely processed products consisting substantially of Australian fruit, fruit pulp, &c. Secondly, the committee pays a rebate on the sugar content of Australian manufactured fruit products exported from Australia. The rate of this rebate is an amount per ton equivalent to the excess cost, if any, of the Australian net home consumption price of sugar over the lowest c.i.f. cost of foreign sugar, exclusive of Australian duties of customs and other taxes. Any funds remaining after the payment of those rebates may be applied by the committee for the promotion of the use and sale of Australian manufactured fruit products in the Commonwealth of Australia or overseas; or for scientific or industrial research to increase the yield per acre of Australian fresh marketable fruits required for Australian manufactured fruit products. The fund was raised by means of an annual contribution of £216,000 by the Australian sugar industry. During the war years, as the payment of the rebate on exported sugar was not required, the committee’s funds accumulated. The 1951 Sugar Agreement provided that the sugar industry would not be required to make further contributions to the committee’s fund until the fund was reduced below £500,000. I have already stated how the fund stands at present.

The attitude of the Australian sugar industry to the fruit processors has been one of friendly co-operation over the years. Although the Australian sugar industry has had to overcome difficult times in the past, since 1932 it has contributed more than £4,797,000 out of growers’ funds for the benefit of fruitgrowers. Between 1937 and 1943, the years in which the local price of sugar was higher than the overseas price, the industry contributed £435,000 in addition to the £216,000 per annum required under the agreement. Therefore, the sugar industry has given practical evidence of its interest in those undertakings that use its products. Undeniably the Tasmanian berry fruits industry is in a bad shape to-day. However, to suggest that it could be freed of its difficulties by the payment of a further subsidy is, as Senator Courtice has said, quite unrealistic. The sugar content of the average 24-oz. can of berry-fruit jam represents approximately 17 per cent, of the retail price. The cost of the fruit itself represents also about 17 per cent., and the balance represents labour, processing, tinplate, packing, transport and selling costs. Therefore, even if sugar were made available to the industry free of charge, the Australian product would still not be able to meet the competition against which it is fighting at present. The return from exports to the berry fruit-grower after all costs and charges have been met is 3d. per lb. Out of the fund to which I have referred he gets another 4d., which brings his return up to 7d. per lb. But it is claimed on his behalf that if he is to cover his expenses, he must receive lid. per lb. The position is therefore that a subsidy of 8d. per lb. on top of the selling price would be necessary to enable the producer to meet expenses. I do not think that we are competent, nor do I think it is our function, to decide the amount of a reasonable subsidy. We have a special tribunal to determine the assistance to which any primary or secondary industry is entitled. I refer to the Tariff Board, which has ways and means of examining applications for assistance. It is able to hear evidence for and against any such proposal. The fact that a particular industry is in a bad condition is not sufficient warrant for us as a deliberative body to authorize payments to be made out of a special fund. I am not competent to decide the merits of the case of the berry fruit-growers, but I do know that those growers constitute only 5 per cent, of the growers of fruits for processing. The needs of other sections of the industry too must be considered. I have been informed recently of a canning association that has claimed £100,000 from the fund to assist it in a campaign to advertize Australian jams here and overseas. There are many other people who would have just as much right as the berry-growers to make demands upon the fund. Should we be exercising our responsibilities in a proper manner if we were to disregard other sections of the canning fruit industry and to recommend the payment of a substantial sum of money out of this fund to berry-growers? We do not know for how long there will be a surplus in the fund, but we do know that the sugar industry’s contribution of £216,000 a year will have to be renewed any time from now. If the difference between the overseas price and the local price widens, that fund will not have any surplus. One may also ask where further assistance would come from if the fund were exhausted. Would it be fair to expect the sugar industry to subsidize another primary industry? That is a matter which we should need to discuss fully, after complete inquiry. I suggest that it would not be proper if representatives of the sugar industry were to come down here and say, “ In view of certain conditions, we feel that we should ask somebody to move that the Senate recommend to the Tariff Board, or some other primary industry board, that our industry be given favorable consideration “.

I do not object to the phraseology of the motion, and I do not comment adversely on its terms. I do not consider myself competent to comment upon the merits of the industry’s claims, but do honorable senators consider that this is the proper place to discuss those claims? After all, the Senate is not like a progress association. We cannot, with complete abandon and with one accord, pass a motion that a public telephone should be installed on a certain corner. We have other obligations. If we give special consideration to the small fruits industry, we may be called upon to take similar action in respect of other industries. Would it be wise for the Senate, after having heard no evidence in connexion with the matter, to recommend assistance to this industry? I wish to sound a note of warning. In my opinion, a very bad precedent will be created if the motion is carried. Honorable senators should ask themselves how they would view similar representations by an organization which, for instance, had an application before the Tariff Board. What would be their attitude to a motion which recommended that a cer tain body of manufacturers or a particular industry should be given sympathetic consideration by the Tariff Board ?

It seems to me that, inherent in the motion, is the suggestion that the sugar concession committee does not sympathetically consider applications which are made to it. Let us examine the facts. The committee granted £100,000 for special assistance to exporters of berry fruits from the 1951-52 crop, and £50,000 in connexion with the disposal of the 1952-53 crop. The Australian Government made a grant of £100,000 to the Tasmanian Government in respect of the 1952-53 crop, so that the berry-fruit industry was granted £250,000 in a period of three years. Despite that assistance, the industry has not been able to remain on a viable basis. That £250,000 has gone, and more money is now required. The Senate is dealing with public money, which should not be expended without good reason. Can we be satisfied that the need for this assistance will ever cease? I am advised that it is of a temporary nature, but if the industry is to get what it seeks, a subsidy, which must be provided by one government or another, of £300,000 per annum will be required, on the basis of production of 3,500 tons of pulp per annum.

Senator Brown:

– When would that assistance cease ? Would it be given every year?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– On the present basis, yes. I do not propose to carry the matter further, but I urge upon honorable senators, for the reasons that I have given, the need for serious consideration of this matter. I have expressed my personal views, and I have attempted to deal with the matter on a non-partisan basis. As I have already said, I do not feel competent to deal with the matter on its merits. There are two public bodies which have the necessary machinery and experience to enable them to deal with applications of this kind. If honorable senators consider the matter seriously, I do not think they will be prepared to establish the precedent of attempting to influence a statutory committee which, for many years, has carried out its functions with a great deal of responsibility and satisfaction. I strongly urge that further consideration of this matter be deferred.

Motion (by Senator Scott) put -

That the debate be now adjourned.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin.)

AYES: 34

NOES: 14

Majority . . . . 20

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 896

ELECTORAL

Debate resumed from the 17th September (vide page 129), on motion by Senator Guy -

That a joint committee be appointed to consider and report upon the electoral laws of the Commonwealth.

That five members of the Senate- be appointed to serve on such committee.

That a report on its deliberations be submitted by the committee to both Houses of the Parliament within four months after its appointment.

That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders -

the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from placeto place, and to sit during any adjournment of the Parliament; and have leave to report from time to time the evidence taken;

the committee have leave to report from time to time its proceedings, and any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report;

five members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee;

the chairman of the committee have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, have a casting vote ;

a message be sent to the House of Representatives requesting its concurrence and asking that six members of the House of Representatives be appointed to serve on such committee.

That the resumption of the debate be made an Order of the Day for this day week.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 896

LOAN (HOUSING) BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 882).

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

, - When the debate was adjourned, I was dealing with the reasons why the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment that has been moved by Senator Cooke. I pointed out that the effect of rent control and landlord and tenant legislation throughout the Commonwealth had brought about a position in which the Commonwealth, under the Commonwealth and . State Housing Agreement, was, for all practical purposes, the only source of funds for the construction of houses for rental purposes. That fact ‘ of itself gives rise to a problem of some consequence, but, in addition, building societies and similar organizations are not obtaining all the funds that they require for financing house construction. At the same time, the demand for war service homes has increased considerably, and persons who are unable to obtain nouses under those two headings are increasing still further the demand for houses under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. In other words, many persons who would prefer to build, or purchase, their own homes are applicants for houses on a tenancy basis. At present, the total investment in house construction in Australia is of the order of £190,000.000 per annum. Of that sum., the Government in this year’s- budget is providing approximately £70.000,000 under various headings, including war service homes, construction in the territories, and construction under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. Last year the Commonwealth Bank provided, in close collaboration with the Government, the sum of £20,000,000 for housing projects. The periods in which the sums that .1. have mentioned will be, or have been, expended are not exactly co-related. The sum of £190,000,000 is current expenditure; the sum of £70,000,000 will be expended in the year ending the 30th June, 1954, whilst the sum of £20,000,000 was expended during the year ended the 30th June last. Whilst the periods to which the expenditure of those sums relate do not coincide, nevertheless the amount in toto indicates the magnitude of the problem. Exercising a little poetic license, T shall say that, directly and indirectly, the Australian Government is providing of a total sum of £190,000,000 the sum of £90,000,000, or, approximately, 50 per cent, of the amount that is being expended on housing construction at present.

Having indicated those figures with the reservation that I have made it is hardly necessary for me to emphasize the importance of this problem. It can be said that every second house now being built in Australia is being financed directly, or indirectly, by the Australian Government, or by the . Commonwealth Bank. These funds have been the means of maintaining continuity of employment in the building industry and a regular demand for building materials. Thus, the Government is the dominant motivating force in house construction in this country to-day. Because of the economic and social importance of the problem, the Government has filled that role in close collaboration with the Commonwealth Bank. It is estimated that housing needs will run to the order of from 65,000 to 70,000 houses annually. Last year, nearly 80,000 houses and flats were built throughout Australia. Thus, the claim can be substantiated that the community is meeting current requirements and, is picking up soundly and surely at the same time, the backlog in housing. Everyone will agree upon the importance -of making this progress and also upon the importance of doing so on the basis of lower building costs in an economic situation in which other costs are rising. Building costs vary as between States. It is reasonable to say that during the last twelve months building costs have fallen on the average by approximately 15 per cent. That result and the maintenance of the present high level of employment in the building industry are great achievements, having regard to the increasing demand for houses as a result of our increased population combined with the backlog that occurred during the war years.

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What is the basis for that figure of 15 per cent.?

Senator SPOONER:

– That figure is commonly cited in the building trade of New South Wales. I mention those facts not as being a solution of the problem which, it will be agreed, is a matter of high policy not to be advanced in the course of a debate of this kind, but in order to indicate that the situation is being handled wisely and well and also to emphasize that one of the great objections to the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement - it has many virtues - is that, in conjunction with rent control and landlord and tenant legislation, it has driven private investment out of the house building field with the result that Governments are now the only builders of houses for rental purposes throughout the Commonwealth. The work is being done with funds that are being provided by the Australian Government, but it is not a good proposition, economically or socially. I point out to Senator Cooke, who has taken a great interest in this problem, that as governments become the only builders of houses for rental purposes, the States are tending to utilize to an increasing degree the funds that are made available under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement for the purpose of building not houses but flats. We must walch that position carefully or we shall find ourselves in much the same position in respect of the building of flats as now exists in respect of the construction of houses. Unlimited provision of advances at low rates of interest is preventing private builders from competing. If the States do not realize that houses should be sold on the basis of an economic deposit, we shall become the only providors of finance for the building of houses. I am sure that every responsible person will pause to consider that possibility.

We have in this country great resources for the building of houses and it is our responsibility to harness those resources to the great army of builders large and small. No responsible government would desire to drive private contractors out of the industry, or to put them in a position in which government authorities are the only source of contract work. We must pay regard to the social approach to this problem. The style and character of homes express the personality of the people, and we should do all we can to encourage variety and attractiveness of design in housing. That task would be made more difficult if the control of house construction were restricted to one big instrumentality in each State. Traditionally, over a long period of years, a substantial number of banks, insurance and building societies and private persons have invested in housing; and it should be our aim to give them every opportunity to do so in the future. We must encourage more investors to return to this field. So far as the eastern States particularly are concerned, it is most important that we should recognize and encourage still further the great contribution that building societies are making in this sphere. Those organizations have a wealth of experience in providing houses at moderate cost on a co-operative basis. We should do all we can to assist housebuilding programmes of that type. A further point, which I do not need to emphasize, is that we should constantly maintain contact and work in with the building industry itself, because that industry determines to a large degree the levels of employment and economic conditions generally in the community. That is one reason why the Government has worked in such close co-operation with the Commonwealth Bank in this sphere in recent years, and also why the bank has made available substantial finance for house construction. The last annual report of the bank shows that during the year ended the 30th of June, 1953, the bank advanced £12,600,000 to cooperative building societies. Honorable senators should carefully consider those facts. Without wishing to be presumptuous in this matter, I repeat that at the last meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) sympathized with the Premiers in their home-ownership problems and assured them that, in due course, the Commonwealth would confer with them on this most important matter.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Cooke’s amendment) be left out.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin.)

AYES: 20

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) for the candid manner in which he dealt with the various matters that were raised during the second-reading debate. I point out that a situation has developed in connexion with the Commonwealth and State

Housing Agreement which casts great responsibility upon the Commonwealth and it should be clarified. Conditions have changed since the agreement was entered into. The factors that were mentioned by the Minister are worthy of consideration as also, I contend, are those that were submitted by the Opposition. It is obvious that there has been a misunderstanding in connexion with the implementation of the agreement and I hope that, at the earliest possible moment, a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers will be convened in order that the situation may be clarified. I consider that by that means embarrassment to the States may be obviated, and a loss of revenue and the incurring of unnecessary expenditure avoided.

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

– I assure Senator Cooke that I need no convincing on the importance of the problem. I have endeavoured to state clearly some of the difficulties associated with the matter, and to indicate how my mind is working on the subject. However, I realize that many minds will be exercised on it before a satisfactory conclusion can be arrived at. I do not consider that responsibility to provide a solution rests solely on the Australian Government. In these circumstances, I do not consider that I should be justified in giving an assurance that Senator Cooke’s request will be acceded to. T believe that the matter must first be determined on the highest level, that is, by the Cabinet.

Senator Cooke:

– I should like to make it perfectly clear that I have requested that a conference be convened at the earliest possible moment between representatives of the Commonwealth and the other parties to the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 899

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Senator HANNAFORD:

– I present the seventh report of the Printing Committee.

Report read, and - by leave - adopted.

page 899

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 899

SOCIAL SERVICES CONSOLIDATION BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 22nd October (vide page 850), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– In rising to resume the debate upon this bill I express regret that the measure has been introduced so late in the session, because it contains much that could be profitably discussed by honorable senators. After the long hours that the Senate has been sitting, honorable senators are not in a mood to do full justice to this very important measure upon which the welfare and happiness of so many persons in the community depend. Honorable senators on the Opposition side will support the bill. Our main objection to it is that it does not go far enough. At the outset. I pay a tribute to the members of the staff of the various branches of the Department of Social Services and to the deputy directors in all States, and particularly to those in my own State, Western Australia. They have always received every request that has been made to them on behalf of individual cases with the utmost sympathy. The staff in Western Australia is well trained to deal with these matters and to give the public assistance and advice. The people are fortunate in the choice of those who have to administer these most human of all the activities of any Government. I feel sorry for the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley), because he is a kindly man who has at heart the welfare of the numerous pensioners who come within the ambit of this bill. The budget that the Senate has been discussing involves the expenditure of about £1,000,000.000, and it must have been galling to the Minister to have his department provided with so little to divide among so many. This bill will not come into effect until it has received the Royal assent. It is a very important measure and it should have been brought to the Senate a fortnight ago. That would have made considerable difference to the pensioners concerned and would have allowed free discussion of the measure in this chamber. I register my protest against the bill being brought into the Senate at this late hour because discussion will be stultified and the bill will not receive the attention that its importance justifies.

After studying the bill, the Opposition believes that it does not go far enough. Therefore, it is my intention to move an amendment to try to rectify some of its deficiencies. The Opposition is not wedded to the idea of the pension rates being dependent upon the basic wage or related to it by any specific amount, but because the great majority of the pensioners have no united voice to use in bargaining such as that possessed by those who have recourse to wage tribunals, the Opposition has to plead their cause. We can only take the basic wage as fixed by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration as the measuring stick to apply to the purchasing power of the pension. Upon that basis, honorable senators on the Opposition side have to form a judgment whether the rates of pension that are provided in the bill are adequate for the needs of those who receive them, compared with the basic wage that has been approved by the court. In the past when an arbitrary relationship has been declared between the basic wage and pension rates there has been trouble if the basic wage has declined. In such cases, 6d. or ls. has been taken off the pensions rate. Therefore, I say clearly at the outset that I do not believe that the pension rate should be arbitrarily attached to the basic wage, but I use the basic wage figures as a. yardstick and as a basis of comparison. Judged by those standards, the new pension rates are not in conformity with the pledges that this Government gave when it assumed office in 1949. It promised not only that the level of pension rates would be maintained but also that it would be lifted. The actual words used in the policy speech of- the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), were -

We will, much more importantly, increase their true value by increasing their purchasing power.

That is a very important factor in the consideration of this matter because it is true that the money value of pensions has increased considerably since this Government was returned to office. The age pension has increased from £2 2s. 6d. to £3 10s., which is the rate envisaged in this bill, but the mere monetary amount cannot be taken as an arbitrary measure of improvement in the rates of pension. The only true test is the purchasing power of the pension now compared with 1949 when the Government was first elected to office. Based on the figures of 1939-49, the percentage of the pension to the basic wage was 37 per cent., but because of the increases of the basic wage granted by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, the rate of pensions to the basic wage had been reduced to 29 per cent, in 1952. The relationship between the pension and the basic wage has been maintained at 29 per cent, by the provisions of this bill. I base that figure upon the proposal to fix the pension rate at £3 10s. If the Government fulfilled the promise that it made during the 1949 election campaign the rate of pension, based upon a basic wage of £11 16s. to-day, should be at least £4 a week. Therefore, that is one of the points that will be mentioned in the amendment that I shall move at the conclusion of my analysis of this bill.

A pension rate of £4 a week would involve additional expenditure of £12,000.000. At first glance that appears to be a large sum of money, but it should be considered alongside the substantial benefits that have been given through remissions of income tax, the removal of Federal entertainment tax and. land tax and reductions in excise and sales tax upon luxuries. The increase of pensions that I have suggested could have been effected quite easily without causing the Government severe difficulties. Supporters of the Government in the Senate and in another place said frequently during the debate upon the budget that the Government’s proposals, in effect, go beyond a mere increase of the pension rate by 2s. 6d. a week. They have claimed that because of the liberalization of the means test, many persons will receive additional benefits of up to 12s. 6d. a week. The Minister has estimated that 120,000 pensioners will be affected. The Opposition is not quarrelling with that statement. Not one member of the Opposition would criticize any benefit that the Minister for Social Services proposes to give under this bill. Our only complaint is that the bill does not go far enough. We are grateful for the benefits that are proposed. But the Minister himself has admitted that only 120,000 of the pensioners, of whom there are 496,000, will benefit to the extent that I have mentioned, so that 376,000 pensioners will remain on the basic rate of pension. Those are the people for whom honorable senators on this side of the chamber are concerned.

It is all very well to claim that thrift will be penalized if everything is given to those who have nothing and to suggest that the pensioners should have provided for their old age and for a rainy day. It is all very well for honorable senators to express those sentiments in the comfort and security of this chamber, but there are many persons who have reared families and who through sickness, unemployment, misfortune and other factors beyond their control have been unable to make provision for their old age. They are thrown upon the resources of the country which recognizes their right . to a living. Therefore the basic contention of the Opposition is that pensioners who have nothing but the pension should have greater consideration. Their claim is particularly valid in the present state of the country’s economy. Every supporter of the Government who spoke in the debate on the budget declared that the economy has never been on a higher level.

This is not a catch cry on the part of the Opposition. Recently an honorable senator stated in this chamber that I had let my heart run away with my head and that I spoke irresponsibly of the pensioners’ needs. However, I repeat the remarks I made in a previous debate on this matter. Surveys have been made by various religious bodies, and prelates from the different churches have given evidence upon needs of pensioners. The West Australian newspaper has carried out a survey among the aged poor in Western Australia. The articles in the newspaper roused the whole community to some kind of understanding of the needs of the people who have only the pension upon which to live. They have to pay for rent, light, fuel and clothing and feed themselves out of a proposed pension of £3 10s. a week. They have the greatest difficulty in making ends meet. It is not so hard for those who have homes or who live with relatives, but I have visited pensioners, most of whose pension goes to pay rent for a back room in a slum. They are hard put to it to secure enough food and warmth to keep body and soul together.

The Opposition maintains that although the means test is to be liberalized under the provisions of this bill, it has not been liberalized enough. The main contention of the Opposition is that the basic pension rate is insufficient. There has been much loose talk about the effect of the elimination of the means test in the peculiar conditions that exist in the community. Each day it is becoming more apparent that the ratio of aged persons to young people in the community is a big problem. For a yoting country, Australia has a high ratio of aged people compared with the productive members of the community in the lower age groups and it is increasing rapidly. I regret that honorable senators have to discuss these matters in such a hurried manner. These are problems which could easily occupy the attention of honorable senators for some time. They are not problems to which any one political party holds the solution. They are problems upon which all people should work together in order to find a solution. They are problems which are growing more rapidly than any other social problem.

The complete elimination of the means test would impose a very great strain on the community. The aim and the policy of the Labour party is the progressive liberalization of the means test with a view to its ultimate abolition. When the means test was originally introduced in 1909 the permissible income that was allowed pensioners was equal to about 20 per cent, of the basic wage. Under the proposal of the Government to increase the permissible income by 10s. a week, the permissible income will represent 17 per cent, of the basic wage. Although the permissible income has been raised, it is still lower, proportionately, than it was when the Chifley Government was in office. A great deal of loose thinking takes place in regard to pensions. This bill is quite generous to people who receive the maximum benefit, who earn their own property, and who can earn the permissible income. But a basic pension of £3 10s. a week is still insufficient because about - 83 per cent, of all pensioners have no other income. As part of a plan for tho giadual amelioration of the means test, the Opposition suggests that the Government should fix the amount of permissible income and the property qualifications at the level which obtained when the Government took office.

Honorable senators opposite may say that the Government is justified in refusing to make increases in pensions retrospective because the Labour Government did not make penison increases retrospective when it was in office. But why should these people have to wait for this small increase until’ after this bill has received the Royal assent? In view of the increases that have occurred in living costs, age and invalid pensioners should receive the proposed increases retrospectively to the 1st July. The racing clubs in New South “Wales will benefit by an amount of £1,250,000 from the abolition of entertainments tax and the Government has also reduced the amount of sales tax on whisky. Surely it could spend a little more on making pension increases retrospective.

Honorable senators opposite have contended that the Government has given the greatest monetary increase to pensioners that they have ever received. I admit that. But honorable senators opposite should take into account the purchasing power of the increase. Let us compare the amount of the age and invalid pension with the national income. Such a comparison will provide a better overall picture than the basic wage comparison. In 1938-39 age and invalid pensions represented 2.2 per cent, of the national income. Tn 1948-49, despite the huge war-time and post-war commitments of the Government, age and invalid pensions still represented 2.2 per cent, of the national income. Those pensions now represent only 2.1 per cent, of the national income. It can be appreciated, therefore, that the Government has not given more to this section of the community than previous governments have given. Now let us compare pension rates with the total Commonwealth budget. The total estimated expenditure of the budget that has just been presented to the Parliament is about £1,000,000,000. The amount provided for age and invalid pensioners represents 7.4 per cent, of the total budget expenditure compared with 7.8 per cent, in 1948-49 and 16.9 per cent, in the pre-war budget. Those facts are indisputable evidence that the Government has, in fact, given the pensioners less than the Labour Government and pre-war governments gave them.

The civilian widows who are in receipt of class A widows’ pensions and who have no income apart from their pension have been badly treated in this budget. The permissible income of these people has been increased, but if a woman has young children she must remain in her home in order to bring them up properly. In any case, the amount of permissible income that a woman can receive limits the type of work in which she can obtain employment. It behoves this Parliament to ensure that such women do not suffer because they are engaged in the national work of caring for their children. I should like a domestic allowance such as is given to war widows, or a special allowance of some kind to be given to these widows in order to enable them to bring up their children decently in the confines of their homes. Some children never taste butter in their homes because their mothers . cannot afford it. They have margarine instead. I know that the child welfare departments in the various States help these people as much as they can, but the amount of help given varies from State to State. “Various restrictions are placed on that help and in many cases it represents only the amount of the child welfare allowance. In New South Wales, for instance, a widow with three dependent children may receive in State aid the equivalent of her child endowment allowance, that is £1 5s. a week. This payment normally decreases at the rate of 10s. a week as each child attains the age of fifteen years. Unless a widow is left a home by her husband she is placed in a desperate position. She cannot obtain a home to rent. Nobody wants her. She is regarded more or less as a criminal outcast.

I should like the Government to do more for civilian widows, whose treatment should be in keeping with the national task that they perform and the benefits that are given to other members of the community. Last week, a day nursery in Sydney which looks after children for a part of each day on five days a week announced that it cost £2 6s. 3d. to look after each child. How can mothers be expected to keep a child on less than £1 5s. a week ? We have gone a long way along the road to social security, but we have not done as much as we should have done. Figures that were issued last March reveal that Australia ranked eighteenth among 24 countries in per capita expenditure on social services. We had a higher figure than Greece and Iceland and Turkey, but a number of other countries had spent a great deal more than we had spent on social services. We cannot be complacent in this matter. I know that the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley) is very human. I do not doubt that he regrets that he has not been able to increase benefits to a greater extent. The medical and pharmaceutical benefits are very good. These were originally introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) when he was Minister for Health, but very little credit has been given to him on that account.

Another class of woman who has been completely forgotten in our social services legislation is the wife of an age pensioner who herself has not reached pensionable age. This bill provides that the husband may earn £5 a week instead of £4 a week. But this provision will only benefit pensioners if they can obtain work, or if their wives can earn £5 a week. If they have no other income the two of them have to live on a pension which is only intended for one. It is true that the wife can receive hospital and medical benefits, but I suggest that the wives of aged pensioners should also receive a pension. Once a pensioner has reached the age of’ 70 years his wife can receive an allowance. The liberalizations of social services which I have suggested would not place any great strain on the finances of this nation. They are projects very dear to my heart. We cannot be complacent about the welfare of the under-privileged sections of the community including particularly basic pensioners who are unable to work, and widows who are bringing up children. The housing of pensioners is another matter to which early attention must be given. It is a national responsibility. It is not enough to leave this matter to the States or to charitable organizations such as church societies, praiseworthy though their work may be. Surelythe fact that lotteries have to be conducted to help less fortunate members of the community is an indictment of our social system. I should like to see a determined effort made to overcome the serious problem of housing for pensioners. Quite obviously if we compel a pensioner to provide shelter as well as food and clothing out of his £3 10s. a week we are only expediting his passage into the . next world. Whilst we are all grateful for the benefits that this bill will confer on many people in the community I should have been much happier if more had been done, particularly for those who have only a pension to live on, and for widows to whom liberalized property qualifications do not mean a thing. I move -

That all words after “ bill “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the’ following words: - “be withdrawn and re-drafted to provide for -

1 ) the new pension rates to operate from the 1st July, 1953;

the rates set out in the Bill to be further increased to the same percentage of the basic wage as before this Government took office;

the amounts of permissible income and permissible property under the means test to be further increased in accord with the change in money values ;

similarly appropriate increases to be made in those social service rates which have not been so increased “.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Tangney’s amendment)be left out.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 20

NOES: 29

Majority…… 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 904

STATES GRANTS BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 851).

Senator McKENNA (Tasmania- Leader of the Opposition [11.7]. - This bill provides for unconditional grants under- section 96 of the Constitution to South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. The measure gives effect to the latest report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I regret that the twentieth report of the commission was not available before to-day. In my opinion the commission’s reports make an invaluable contribution to Commonwealth and State financial relations, and to a study and understanding of State budgets. I pay a tribute to the commission for having got away from the ad hoc approach to the problem of dealing with the applications of the claimant States. Starting with the third report of the commission, there has been evolved a well defined set of principles and methods which are clearly understood and enable the State governments to work out for themselves in advance their likely grants from year to year. I pay a tribute to the late Professor Gordon Leslie Wood, chairman of the commission who died on the 29th June this year after a very long association with the commission, first as a member and then, after the retirement of Professor Mills, as chairman. I was privileged to have many lengthy discussions with the late Professor Wood, and Imust say that I obtained a liberal education at his hands, and found my interest in Commonwealth and State financial relations very much stimulated. He made a powerful contribution to the thought of the commission and to the evolution of its methods. Professor Wood’s colleagues pay him the following tribute in their latest report : -

His great qualities of character, his charm of manner and his warm-hearted friendliness endeared him to all with whom he came in contact.

To that I would add that his patience in the face of uninformed criticism was a notable characteristic. One could not help but be struck by the bright and very original approach that Professor Wood made to life generally and to all the problems that he encountered on his daily round. The methods of the commission, which I think are now pretty well understood in this chamber, are very well outlined in broad terms in the Minister’s second-reading speech, and I do not propose to discuss them, worthy as they are, at this stage.I conclude by expressing the Opposition’s support of this measure and thanking the representatives of the principal States for their ever-ready concurrence in accepting the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The Opposition cordially supports the measure.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I take an interest in the subject-matter of this bill because, with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), I hold the view that the mutual financial relations between the Commonwealth and “the States are fundamental to the proper progress of this Commonwealth. [ believe that the entire picture has become lop-sided and obscure, to the great detriment of the seven communities that make up the Commonwealth. I can see no more important subject that demands the consideration of those who deal with public questions. Before I embark on such immature remarks as I propose to make, I pause to observe that the bill which has been presented to us gives effect to the latest report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, in which the late lamented Professor Gordon “Wood took part. Professor Wood was a man of humanity and great practical and technical understanding. I preface my remarks on this measure, therefore, by paying a tribute to the late1 Professor Gordon Wood. As is said in the foreword to the twentieth report of the commission, the principles that the commission has adhered to consistently since 1936 are, in no small measure, the product of Professor Wood’s understanding of these matters and his assiduous attention to the purposes of the commission. I shall not be misunderstood, I hope, if 1 express regret that the Tasmanian element which has played such an important part in the work of the commission since its inception has not been maintained. I am pleased to say that it was the late Joseph Lyons who established the commission under the late Professor Giblin, who was succeeded by Professor Wood. I do not cast any reflection on the Professor of Economics from the Melbourne University who has been chosen to replace Professor Wood, but I consider that in Tasmania there are eminent professors who have given signal service to the federal aspects of Australian life and who could have been chosen to carry on this work. I do not propose to detain the Senate, although no apology would be called for if the Senate occupied its time for the remainder of the afternoon on a matter so germane to the Senate’s purpose and functions as is this bill.

As I have said, the Commonwealth Grants Commission had its origins in the work of the late Joseph Lyons. Its establishment was based on the assumption that there is a degree of responsi bility amongst the States and the Commonwealth which, I think, is essential for the successful functioning of federation. During the last four or five years we have noticed a deterioration in that situation. Unless a greater sense of responsibility can be invoked from those responsible for the government of the States and also of the Commonwealth, very much harm will be done to the continued existence of federation.

I wish now to comment upon a trend which has been obvious in relation to the amounts recommended by the commission, particularly in relation to my State, Tasmania. In my opinion that is a trend which, even at this late hour, it is important for honorable senators to consider, in view of the very serious financial position in which recent manoeuvres of the Victorian Labour Government have placed the Tasmanian Government. Again, I speak without the slightest vestige of party political spirit. The financial position of the Tasmanian Government which is led by Mr. Cosgrove, is deteriorating to such a degree that it behoves every Tasmanian to . put both shoulders to the wheel in an effort to improve Tasmania’s finances. If honorable senators turn to Appendix No. 11 of the twentieth report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission they will see that in 1948-49 the Tasmanian grant was £1,000,000. At the same time the Western Australian grant was £3,600,000, and that of South Australia £2,800,000. If reference is made to the grants that were recommended last year, it will be seen that Tasmania’s grant was £1,500,000, that of Western Australia £8,000,000, and that of South Australia £6,300.000. Therefore, during that period of four years the South Australian and Western Australian grants have more than doubled, whereas the Tasmanian grant has increased by only 50 per cent. If honorable senators turn to chapter 7 of the report, they will see the considerations which the commission invoked to justify those increases. In my opinion, a consideration of items (a) to (e) is of the greatest interest: The first consideration which justified different treatment for Tasmania was the fact that the increase of railway costs in the two mainland States has been infinitely greater than in

Tasmania. Secondly, Western Australia has greatly increased its expenditure on social services; thirdly, Tasmania has apparently adopted an improved economic practice whereby sinking fund contributions are recouped to the benefit of revenue instead of loan funds ; and fourthly, .State taxation in Tasmania has increased more, on a percentage basis, than was the case in any other State. This was entirely the result of an increase in collections from lottery taxation.

The fifth, but by no means the least significant consideration, was the degree to- which the commission incorporates in its consideration the reimbursement that is made to the various States under the uniform tax arrangements. I do not propose to-night to do other than enumerate those matters and invite attention to them. I hope that at some early future occasion this matter will again be taken up with a view to examining the question whether all those considerations referred to by the commission really justify the doubling of the grants to South Australia and Western Australia during the last four years and increasing the Tasmanian grant by only 50 per cent. I believe that these matters are well worthy of debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 906

LOAN (WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT) BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 705).

Senator COLE:
Tasmania

.- The purpose of this bill is to authorize the provision of £7,000,000 for financial assistance to the agent States, which are South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia, under the States Grants (War Service Land Settlement) Act 1945. It also proposes two minor amendments of the principal act, with which the Opposition has no quarrel. The measure affords honorable senators ,an opportunity to discuss the ramifications of war service land settlement. It is well known that the first attempts at war service land settlement, after World War I., were not wholly successful. Many projects failed because the properties selected were unsuitable. It was with knowledge of those failures that in 1945 a Labour Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, introduced a bill which dealt with war service land settlement. That became the- 1945 act. Whether that act is perfect or not, is debatable. My own thoughts on. the subject are that, by comparison with the attempt made after World War I.,, the 1945 legislation attempted too much. In my opinion, greater scope should beleft for the initiative of ex-servicemen.. Perhaps the initial mistake was made in. the 1945 act when provision for perpetual leasehold was included. Under that, system, the Government was the landlord, and the ex-servicemen merely tenants.. The Government, as a most benevolent landlord, naturally wished to do all itpossibly could for the ex-service land settlers. Now, however, the settlers havethe right to acquire their holdings. An effort should be made to prevent overcapitalization so that the burden on them will not be too heavy, and so that the hard’ work which they put into their holdingswill add to their equity. This is a very important point. The meagre financewhich is made available by the Commonwealth to the States for war service land’ settlement purposes is insufficient topurchase many holdings which should bemade available to such settlers. After all, intensive settlement and increased food:production are vital to Australia’s futurewelfare.

The 1945 act contained two schedules,, the first of which dealt with the principal States, Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales, and the second withthe agent States, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. The schedules were almost identical, except that the financial commitments varied.. In respect of war service land settlement projects undertaken, by the principal’ States, the States themselves carried out work which was. financed by the Commonwealth. In my opinion, a mistake w asmade when all States were not regarded’ as agent States. In those circumstances, the Australian Government would provide the requisite funds and’ the financing of the scheme would1 not depend upon the whims of the States which, now that their loan moneys have been curtailed, make available only the bare minimum requirements for war service land settlement. This should be the responsibility of the Australian Government, because these men, when they were soldiers, were the responsibility of the National Government. The Opposition’s quarrel is that too little is being done in too long a period. The overcapitalization of holdings places a great burden, not only upon the Government but also upon the settler. There must be a greater awakening to the importance of this problem. Since 1939, although our population has increased by approximately 1,500,000, the number of farms in Australia has decreased by 10,000. It cannot be said that farmers have left the land because of low prices. The fact is that during that period prices have risen by from 1,200 to 1,600 per cent.

More men must be persuaded to go on the land, and this is primarily the responsibility of the National Government. Thousands of civilians as well as ex-servicemen are eager and qualified to develop the land. Since 1945, a total of. 37,000 qualified ex-servicemen have applied for blocks under the war service land settlement scheme but blocks have been made available to only 9,000 applicants. In New South “Wales, of 18,938 eligible applicants, only 2,002 have been allotted holdings. In Victoria, the number of applicants totals 10,792 and only 1,847 have been allotted holdings ; whilst the corresponding figures for Queensland are 1,739 and 442, for South Australia 2,796 and 536, for “Western Australia 1,593 and 836 and for Tasmania 232 and 136. Those figures prove the point that I made earlier, that too little is being done in too long a period in settling ex-servicemen on the land. The main cause of this state of affairs is that the funds that are made available for this purpose are totally insufficient. Soldier settlement should not be restricted by financial considerations. This principle is enunciated in paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule of the War Service Land Settlement Agreements Act, which reads -

The Commonwealth shall provide capital moneys required for the purpose of acquiring, developing and improving land for settlement under and in accordance with the terms of this agreement.

The second point that I desire to make relates to the over-capitalization of holdings. In Western Australia,836 ex-servicemen have been settled on the land at a total cost of £15,000,000, that is an average cost of £17,000 for each settler. In South Australia, 536 ex-servicemen have been settled on the land at a total cost of £10,000,000, that is an average cost of £18,000 for each settler; and in Tasmania, 136 ex-servicemen have been, settled on the land at a total cost of £5,000,000, that is an average cost of £30,000 for each settler. Varying factors account for the discrepancy between the costs incurred in the different; States. For instance, in Tasmania a great deal of developmental work is undertaken on many holdings.

The scheme as a whole has been too narrowly conceived. Under this measure a further sum of £7,000,000 is to be provided; but having regard to present inflated land values, for which this Government is mainly responsible, that sum will be only sufficient to pay the difference between the economic price and the actual purchase price in respect of 1,000 farms. If adequate allowance is made for proper development that number of farms can be halved. On the basis of settlement of 9,000 applicants during the last eight, years, another 30 years will elapse before the remaining 27,000 applicants will be allotted holdings. Soldier land settlement should be given priority with a view to finishing the task as quickly as possible so that we can press forward with the major job of civilian land settlement. Thousands of civilians are eagerly waiting to be given the opportunity to go on the land. The size of holdings for civilians need not be nearly so large, or costly,’ as those that are being provided for ex-servicemen. It has been estimated that six civilians could be settled on the land for the cost of settling one ex-serviceman. That is the tragedy of delaying the settlement of ex-servicemen on the land. If we are to increase production and raise our standard of living, the slogan, “Unlock the land “, must become a reality. Many thousands of fertile acres in Australia are owned by only a few men. That land must be acquired for intensified closer settlement. An example has already been cited. In Victoria there are 700,000 acres of land on which 1,200 exservicemen could be settled without depriving the present owners of an adequate economic unit. Our need is so great that, in my opinion, any man who fails to work his farm to the best advantage should be forced to surrender it.

Another cause of low production arises from the failure of the Government to check inflation. I have in mind farmers who, after many years of hard work, wish to retire to some suburban area. However, when they consider the prices of suburban blocks at current inflated values, they realize that, if they settle in such an area, they will not have sufficient money left to enable them to maintain a reasonable standard of comfort. The average farmer in such circumstances modernizes his farmhouse and remains there.From then on, having virtually retired, he produces only a token proportion of the potential production capacity of his farm. The land settlement of ex-servicemen, I repeat, is too slow and too costly. If we, as a nation, desire to develop and hold Australia for ourselves, we must complete the land settlement of ex-servicemen as soon as possible so that we can then proceed to satisfy the needs of many thousands of prospective civilian farmers and immigrant farmers and so fill up this land.

Senator Laught:

– Would the honorable senator take land away from farmers in order to make it available for immigrants ?

Senator COLE:

– Certainly I should do so if they were not using the land to the best advantage. The only way to fill up our country and develop it properly is to intensify land settlement. Otherwise we may as well surrender all hope because, in 50 years’ time, the Australian way of life that we know to-day will have ceased to exist. This Government should proceed as rapidly as possible with the settlement of ex-servicemen on the land and then continue land settlement with civilians and immigrants. That is the only way to make Australia the great country that we want it to be, and to save it from invasion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 908

REPATRIATION BILL 1953

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 908

QUESTION

UNESCO

Senator COOKE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Australian Teachers Federation submitted to the Prime Minister’s Department the nomination of an elected representative to attend the Paris conference of Unesco in 1952?
  2. Did the Prime Minister decline to approve of the sending of a direct representative of this federation to the conference?
  3. Is it a fact that governments prior to 1952 have permitted a representative of the Australian Teachers Federation to he included among the Australian representatives?
  4. If so, will he give consideration to reverting back to the previous policy of permitting the Australian Teachers Federation to place before important meetings of world educationalists, matters considered important by the Australian teaching profession, and to bring back to the Australian teachers reports which would be of great value to the teaching profession and generally assist the advancement of education in Australia?
Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

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

  1. The Australian Teachers Federation did make representations to the Prime Minister’s Department that the Australian delegation to the Unesco Conference in 1952 should include a person nominated by the federation. 2 and 3. The Australian delegation to the Unesco Conference in 1952 was fixed at a smaller size than in previous years in view of the business to be dealt with at the conference and the need to reduce as far as possible government expenditure overseas. The Director of Education in South Australia, who was going overseas on business for his Government, was included in the Australian delegation and as the honorable senator will appreciate his presence would be valuable to the teaching profession.
  2. I would point out that- Australian teachers have attended as Australian representatives at other conferences and meetings held under the aegis of Unesco. In considering the composition of the Australian delegation to the next Unesco conference in 1954, the claims of interested persons will be considered in the light of all the circumstances existing at the time.

page 909

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator COLE:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Is any action contemplated to transfer the west coast of Tasmania from B to A zone for taxation purposes, in view of the rigorous climate and the high , cost of living in that a rea?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question: -

The general question of regional taxation concessions, including zone allowances, is constantly under consideration. There is no intention at present to transfer the west coast of Tasmania from zone B to zone A.

page 909

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PROPERTY

Senator PEARSON:

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

  1. Will the Minister furnish a list of properties owned and leased by the Commonwealth Government, and used by it, or by bodies set up by the Commonwealth Government, in the State of South Australia?
  2. What ex gratia payments have been made to local government bodies in lieu of rates in respect of such premises?
Senator SPICER:
LP

– The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s ques-‘ tions : -

  1. It is regretted that in view of the work which would be entailed in preparing a list of the large number of properties owned and leased by the Commonwealth (there are several hundred post office premises alone and many service installations), it is not proposed to comply with the honorable senator’s request.
  2. The Commonwealth is not liable for the payment of local government rates; but in recent years it has been the Government’s policy to make act of grace payments of sums equivalent to municipal rates to local authorities in certain circumstances, e.g. where government-owned property is rented to a private tenant; where a Commonwealth instrumentality is engaged in commercial enterprise in competition with private businesses, &c. In some instances the non-government lessee of government property pays rates direct to the rating authority. Last financial year ex-gratia payments amounting to £4,653 were made to local authorities in South Australia by the Commonwealth. This sum included payments for water and sewerage. The amount mentioned does not include payments made by tenants of government-owned premises direct to the municipal authorities.
Senator HENTY:

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

  1. Will the Minister review the rentalsof all business undertakings of the Government which occupy Commonwealth-owned premises under his department’s jurisdiction with a view to increasing these rentals tocover municipal rates?
  2. If not, will he then see that these amounts are paid to the local government authorities?
Senator SPICER:

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

As the honorable senator is aware, the Commonwealth is not liable for the payment of municipal rates. However, in recent years it has been government policy to make exgratia payments to local authorities of sums equivalent to rates in some circumstances, e.g. where Commonwealth-owned property is let to a private tenant; where a Commonwealth instrumentality is engaged in commercial enterprise in competition with private concerns, &c. The tenancies of business undertakings of the Government will be examined to see whether any come within the terms of the Government’s decision. If so, action will be taken for the payment of the equivalent of municipal rates as an act of grace.

page 909

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

Senator LAUGHT:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. How many persons are employed at the Government Printing Office, Canberra?
  2. Is the Government Printer’s staff up to full strength at the present time?
  3. Is the Government Printer in arrears with his work at the present time; if so, to what extent?
  4. On what date was the manuscript of the consolidation of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act 1936- 1952 submitted to the Government Printer for printing; and on what date did he complete the printing and publication of this important statute ?
  5. If there was delay in printing and publication, what was the reason for such delay?
  6. If delays are inevitable in the future, will the Treasurer consider letting to private printing firms the printing of consolidated statutes urgently . needed by the community, such as the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions: -

  1. Two hundred and seventy-six.
  2. No.

  3. The Government Printer reports that he is reasonably up to date with current work. 4 and 5. The reprinting of- acts as amended is a function of the Attorney-General’s Department. The Attorney-General has supplied me with the following information : -

    1. The whole of the main portion of the manuscript of the reprint of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act 1936- 1952 was sent to the Government Printer at the end of December, 1.952, and the balance, comprising the Table of Sections and Index, was forwarded during April and May, 1953.
    2. ) First proofs of the work were received in batches at intervals during March and April, 1953.
    3. Imposed proofs of the various batches were ordered at intervals during April and May, 1953, and were received in batches during the same months.
    4. Portion of the work was sent to the Government Printer “ Correct for Press “ on the 5th May. 1953, and the remainder on the 9th June, 1 953.
    5. The publication was ready for issue on the 29th July, 1953.
    6. The reprint, including the index, comprises 282 pages. It will be appreciated that the compilation and checking of the proofs of a publication of this size takes some considerable time. I am not aware of any means by which the time taken in compilation and checking in this case could have been substantially reduced.
  4. At present work is allotted to private firms when found to be necessary. The practice will continue to be followed as the necessity arises.

page 910

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH ECONOMIC CONFERENCE

Senator LAUGHT:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. . What are the details of the proposed Commonwealth Economic Conference to be held in Australia early in 1954?
  2. Will the Prime Minister consider making provision for honorable senators to attend any part of the conference as observers should they so desire? In particular, will facilities be made available for honorable senators to meet formally and informally the great Commonwealth and Empire figures expected to attend this momentous gathering?
Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The Prime Ministerhas supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions : -

  1. . The Prime Minister’s statement to the House of . Representatives on the 30th September,1953, on the forthcoming Commonwealth finance ministers’ conference, contains all the details available at this juncture.
  2. It has never been the practice, nor can it be the practice, for members of Parliament of the countries represented to be present at the actual meetings of delegates. These must necessarily be held in camera, since by their very nature they are meetings between representatives of the Cabinets of the Commonwealth. The Government will keep in mind: the honorable senator’s wish to meet our distinguished visitors when it is discussing arrangement!! with those visitors.

page 910

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH ACTS

Senator WRIGHT:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the annual volume of Commonwealth acts for 1951 was distributed’ only within the last two months?
  2. Has the volume for 1952 been distributed yet?
  3. Can arrangements be made to ensure that the distribution of acts will be made not later than the end of January in each year?
Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The printing of the annual volumes of Commonwealth acts is a matter dealt with by the Attorney-General’s Department. ‘ TheAttorneyGeneral has supplied the following information: -

  1. . The annual volume of Commonwealth acts for 1951 was published during last August.
  2. The volume for 1952 was published this month and is now being distributed.
  3. Every possible step, that can be taken by my department to ensure printing as soon as possible is taken. The manuscript of each annual volume, including the tables and index, is compiled during the year to which it relates and is sent to the Government Printer either just before or just after the end of that year. The . proofs received from the Printer are read’ as they come to hand. I understand that shortages of staff in the Government Printing Office prevent the printing and binding of the work being completed as quickly as desired,, although it will he seen from the answers to questions ! and 2 that it was possible to publish the volume for 1952 more quickly than the volume for 1951. Nevertheless, I shall’ ask my colleague, the Treasurer, under whose department the administration of the Government Printing Office comes, whether some steps can bo taken to bring about earlier publication for future volumes. Even under the most favorable conditions, as, for example, those prevailing before the recent war, it would not be possible to publish the annual volume for a particular year not later than the end of January of the ensuing year.

page 911

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 8th October, Senator “Wedgwood asked the following questions: -

  1. Can the Minister representing the Postmaster-General say whether there is any justification for the claim that since the Aus- tralian Broadcasting Commission has widened its activities by entering into the concert management field, private enterprise has almost completely withdrawn from the field?
  2. Will the Minister inform the Senate of the cost of the concert department of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the losses that have been incurred during the past two years on solo recitals by visiting artiste?

The Postmaster-General has furnished one with the following information: -

  1. No.

  2. The net cost of the whole of the commission’s concert activities during the past two years, after allowing for concert income, was £208. This represents the cost of 989 paid concerts, all of which were broadcast and many were given by celebrity artists of world fame. These figures do not take into account twofactors -

    1. That the commission’s orchestras are maintained by the commission with the assistance of subsidies by State governments and city councils; and
    2. That the commission has the benefit of a large number of concert broadcasts, the value of which is difficult to assess.

page 911

QUESTION

CANCER RESEARCH

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 20th October, Senator “Wedgwood asked the following questions : -

Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health been directed to a. report issued recently by the United States Atomic . Energy Commission which states that atomic energy is certain to aid in the solution of many problems associated with cancer? Is he aware that the United States Atomic Energy Commission has established a programme of cancer research, that this programme is being conducted in four major government cancer research centres and in co-operating universities, medical schools and private laboratories? Is he in a position to inform the Senate whether the Australian Atomic Energy Commission is directing any of its activities towards research into the multiple problems of cancer and its allied diseases?

The Minister for Health has furnished me with the following reply: -

The Department of Health is aware of the activities of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in regard to cancer research. At the present time, the Australian Atomic

Energy Commission is not in a position to produce the materials required for a programme of cancer treatment and research. However, radio-active isotopes became available from the United States Atomic Energy Commission after the war, for use in the treatment of cancer and allied conditions. They were channelled through one Australian medium, the Commonwealth X-ray and Radium Laboratory, and their use in medical treatment was under the supervision of the Committee on Radio-active Isotopes of the National Health and Medical Research Council. England is now the source of supply and the supervision of distribution remains the same.

page 911

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 da)’ to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 911

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator O’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 911

ADJOURNMENT

Sittings of the Senate.

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

.- I move-

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I express onbehalf of all senators our concern at the strain that our protracted sittings have imposed, in particular on members of the Senate staff and the Hansard staff, and also upon members of the Public Service whose attendance has been necessary.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 911

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Commonwealth Committee on Taxation - Reports -

Collection by instalments.

Entertainments Tax - conditional exemption.

Pay-roll Tax - exemptions and anomalies.

Pay-roll Tax - local governing bodies.

Penal provisions and prosecutions.

Provisional tax.

Returns and assessments.

Sales Tax - freight charges.

Sales Tax exemptions - private hospitals and similar institutions.

Taxation of abnormal income receipts.

Dairy Produce Export Control Act - Twenty-eighth Annual Report of the Australian Dairy Produce Board, for year 1952-53.

Egg Export Control Act - Sixth Annual Report of the Australian Egg Board, for year 1952-53.

Judiciary Act - Rule of Court, dated 9th October, 1953.

Public Service Act - . Appointments - Department -

National Development-M. F. Wall.

Supply-A. N. H. Cope.

Public Service Arbitration Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator, &c. - 1953 -

No. 68 - Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association.

No. 70 - Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association; Printing Industry Employees’ Union; and Others.

No. 71 - Meat Inspectors’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service.

No. 72 - Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association.

No. 73 - Amalgamated Workers’ Union of Australia.

No. 74 - Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen.

No. 75 - Federated Ironworkers’ Association of Australia; and Others.

No. 76 - Electrical Trades Union of Australia.

No. 77 - Professional Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service.

Senate adjourned at 11.48 p.m. (Thursday), to a date and hour to be fixed by the President.

page 913

PROCLAMATION

Commonwealth of Australia to wit.

W. J. Slim

Governor-General

By His Excellency the Governor-General in and over the Commonwealth of Australia.

WHEREAS by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia it is amongst other things provided that the Governor-General may appoint such times for holding the . Sessions of the Parliament as he thinks fit, and may also, from time to time, by Proclamation or otherwise, prorogue the Parliament: Now therefore, I, SirWilliam JosephSiim, the Governor-General aforesaid, in exercise of the power conferred by the said Constitution, do by this my Proclamation prorogue the Parliament until Tuesday, the Tenth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-three, or (in the event of circumstances arising, at present unforeseen, which render it expedient that the Parliament should be summoned to assemble at a date earlier than the said Tuesday, the Tenth day of November, One thousand nine hundredand fifty-three) to such earlier date as fixed by a Proclamation summoning the Parliament to assemble and be . holden for the despatch of business: furthermore I do appoint the said Tuesday, the Tenth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-three, or such earlier date (if any) as is fixed by Proclamation, as the day for the Parliament to assemble and he holden for the despatch of business. And all Senators and Members of the House of Representatives are hereby required to give their attendance accordingly inthe building known as Parliament House, Canberra, at the hour of three o'clock in the afternoon, on the said Tuesday, the Tenth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and fifty- three, or, in the event of an earlier date being fixed by Proclamation, at three o'clock in the afternoon on the date so fixed. Given under my Hand and the Seal of the Commonwealth of Australia at Canberra, this thirtieth day of October, in the year of our Lord (l.s.) . One thousand nine hundred and fifty-three and in the second year of Her Majesty's reign. {:#subdebate-50-2} #### By His Excellency's Command, {: .page-start } page 913 {:#debate-51} ### ROBERT G. MENZIES {:#subdebate-51-0} #### Prime Minister

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 October 1953, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1953/19531021_senate_20_s1/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant