Senate
3 December 1953

20th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 20th Parliament
  3. 1953

The President (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 299

SUPERANNUATION ACT

Petition

Senator ANDERSON presented a petitionsigned by 29 citizens who are either contributors or pensioners under the Commonwealth Superannuation Act praying that the Parliament will consider the need for a new Superannuation Act and take action to remedy an alleged injustice.

Petition received.

page 299

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– On Monday night last an Australian Broadcasting Commission short-wave broadcast directed to North America described a grasshopper plague in New South Wales, a dingo plague in. Queensland, and a plague of wild donkeys in the Kimberleys in “Western Australia. Apparently, there was a complete absence of plagues in South Australia. Does the Minister representing the Postmaster-General agree with the columnist who states in this morning’s issue of the Sydney Morning Herald that such broadcasts may be exceedingly discouraging to potential American tourists who may come to this country? In the light of the Government’s achievement in continuing to attract overseas capital to Australia and stimulating, in recent years, the interest of the people of other lands in this country, will the Minister discuss with the PostmasterGeneral the use of some of the abundant factual news of progress that is available instead of scare stories of plagues?

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

– The Senate is indebted to the honorable senator for drawing its attention to this matter. Such broadcasts can only be most damaging to this country and I assure the honorable senator that I shall tate the first opportunity to confer with the PostmasterGeneral to obtain the facts and to see whether appropriate action can be taken to stop this nonsense

page 300

QUESTION

ALUMINIUM

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– On the 19th November, Senator Guy asked a question concerning the availability of electric power to the Australian Aluminium Commission’s plant in Tasmania. The Minister for Supply has furnished the following answer to the honorable senator’s question: - lt is true that there is anxiety lest the Tasmanian Hydro-electric Commission may not bc. able to supply electric power when the aluminium plant in Tasmania is ready to commence production. Discussions are taking place between the Australian and Tasmanian Governments on this matter, al present.

page 300

QUESTION

UNDESIRABLE LITERATURE

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– On the 1st December, (Senator Brown asked the following question : -

Can the Attorney-General, in the absence nf the Minister for Trade and Customs, say whether or not it is the sole prerogative of the Minister for Trade and. Customs to ban a book? Can the Minister ban a book on his own initiative, without consulting any other member of the Cabinet or officers of his department!

I now furnish the following answer to the honorable senator’s question : -

The Minister for Trade and Customs is responsible for administering the Customs Act and regulations in terms of which the impor tation of any publication may be prohibited if it 16 considered by the Minister to contravene the relevant provisions of that legislation. In considering the prohibition of any particular publication the Minister is assisted by members of the literature Censorship Board and officers of the Department of Trade and Customs.

In view of misunderstandings about this matter, I should like to amplify that prepared reply by making two comments. First, let me emphasize that the authority of the Commonwealth in relation to publications extends only to imports. It is derived from the exercise of the power over trade and commerce with other countries. The Minister for Trade and Customs is not in a position to prohibit the importation of any book. I emphasize cbe word “ any “. He is authorized by legislation to prohibit the importation of certain classes of books. They are indecent and obscene works; works of n blasphemous nature; works that unduly emphasize matters of sex, horror or crime; and works that are likely to encourage depravity. The authority of the Minister does not extend to publications produced in Australia. At a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers held last year, some reference was made to this matter and a method of control of publications produced within Australia was suggested by the Prime Minister. The right honorable gentleman expressed the opinion that the volume of undesirable literature in this country could best be reduced by concerted legislative action by the States to prohibit the publication or sale of such literature. I understand that certain States are giving consideration to the introduction of legislation to restrict the publication of that class of literature.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– The sale and distribution of salacious and immoral literature in this country is causing great concern. Will the Attorney-General inform the Senate of the powers nf the Commonwealth in relation to the sale and production pf such literature in the Australian Capital Territory?

Senator SPICER:

– I think that the power of the Commonwealth in the Australian Capital Territory is the same as the power that is possessed by the State governments in relation to material produced and sold within the States.

However, there would probably be some difficulty in dealing satisfactorily with til is problem only in the Australian Capital Territory, largely because of the fact that very little, if any, of the literature of the kind to which the honorable senator has referred would be produced within the Territory, but it may be that sash literature is sold here. The Commonwealth has jurisdiction, in relation to literature sold iti the Australian Capial Territory.

page 301

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA

– I preface my question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, with the statement that there are a number of breed societies in Tasmania that exist for the promotion and improvement of certain breeds of stock on the island. They contribute prizes in the form of cups, ribbons and certificates to various show societies. Under the present sales tax legislation, show societies are not required to pay sales tax on such prizes, but th” breed societies, which, in effect, are show societies, are forced to do so. The present legislation precludes the Treasurer from exempting breed societies from the payment of sales tax on these a rticles. In view of the facts that I have mentioned, will the Minister representing t lie Treasurer ask his colleague to give sympathetic consideration when the next budget is being prepared to the exemption from sales tax of prizes donated by breed societies ?

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

– I shall place the honorable senator’s representation’ before the Treasurer, and I shall let bini know the result.

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I have received a request from an organization known as Alcoholics Anonymous which, as honorable senators may be aware, is doing much good work to rehabilitate men and women who are suffering from alcoholism. This organization is importing literature from overseas, and distributing it free to its members. Nevertheless:, the literature is taxed- “Will the Minister say whether this tax can be removed from the literature, which is purchased out of the contribu tions of members of the organization, and is used by them in an endeavour to rehabilitate themselves?

Senator SPOONER:

– I shall speak to my colleague the Treasurer, and ascertain whether he can do anything to assist the organization in the way that the honorable senator has indicated.

page 301

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister acting for the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture inform the Senate of the stage that has been reached in the negotiations between the Commonwealth, the State governments, and the Australian Wheat Growers Federation in connexion with the stabilization of the wheat industry? If proposals have been formulated for submission to the wheatgrowers, can the Minister say whether the States will conduct the ballot? Is’ it likely that legislation, to authorize the holding of ballots will be introduced during the current sittings of the State parliaments?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– I conferred with the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture about this matter before he left Canberra. The Commonwealth is now awaiting advice from the State governments in connexion with the proposed ballot. It will be appreciated that the six State governments will have to overcome some difficulties before they agree upon a uniform policy in relation to the stabilization of the wheat industry. The State governments will be responsible for conducting the ballot. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has already indicated the Commonwealth’s attitude towards this matter, and he has impressed upon the State governments the necessity to conduct the ballot promptly. He indicated that it would be necessary to do so before the 31st. March next. That means that the rOlls must be checked, ballot-papers issued, and the voting completed before that date. I think that the States are having some difficulty in deciding amongst themselves1 on a uniform policy, mainly in connexion with one or two matters, and I doubt whether they will achieve unanimity before some of the State parliaments- conclude their present sittings. However, I understand that if a State parliament goes into recess before unanimity has been reached, arrangements will be made for the ballot to be conducted in that State. The Standing Committee on Agriculture, which is composed of representatives of the Commonwealth and the six States, met in Melbourne last Monday to consider the form of the ballot-paper and related details. I think that the date for the holding of the next meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council has been fixed for the 27th January. That will not prevent the States from conducting the ballot. I make it clear to honorable senators that the responsibility now rests with the States-

Senator Ashley:

– To pass the buck!

Senator McLEAY:

– There is no question of passing the buck. It is foolish for the honorable senator to make such an interjection. Agreement in relation to the home-consumption price of wheat is entirely a matter for the States.

page 302

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator AMOUR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– On Tuesday last, I asked the Minister for Repatriation whether he would extend a helping hand to the Hiscocks family by having one of its members admitted to the Concord Military Hospital. Will the Minister inform me whether he has taken any action to give effect to my request?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I have nothing to report to the honorable senator at the present time, although I have raised the matter with the relevant repatriation authority.

page 302

QUESTION

PAPUA AND KEW GUINEA

Senator WEDGWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I understand that the Minister representing the Minister for Health is now able to give an answer to a question I asked of him on the 25th November?

Senator SPICER:
LP

– I believe that there has been some confusion about this matter. The question, which was asked in relation to our expenditure in New Guinea on health services for natives, was directed to the Minister for Health, but the answer has been supplied by the Minister for Territories.

On the 25th November, 1953, Senator Wedgwood asked the following question : -

Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health been directed to a statement by Dr. J. Gruther (Gunther) to the effect that Australia’s expenditure in New Guinea upon health services for natives is the lowest of any nation with a colony in the Pacific, excluding Dutch New Guinea? Will the Minister inform the Senate whether the statement is correct?

At the time I replied that I would refer the question to the Minister for Health. This is a matter which comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Territories who has supplied me with the following information : -

The statement is broadly correct, but some allowance should be made for the fact that, as compared with other territories, a much larger proportion of the native population of Papua and New Guinea is still living in primitive conditions remote from the centres of administration. A comparison between Papua and New Guinea and other territories is as follows: -

The Government is aware of the great need and is attempting to make better provision.

page 302

QUESTION

KENYA

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. A couple of weeks ago a statement appeared in the press about the shooting of Mau Mau terrorists by British forces in Africa, and I understand that the report astounded most freedom-loving people throughout the British Empire. I believe that a further inquiry into the matter is now taking place. In view of the tremendous amount of propaganda about this matter that is sure to be disseminated through Asia and Africa, and because of its possible effect on. Australia, will the Minister take steps to ascertain whether the British Government intends to make an official statement about the matter and will the Australian Government dissociate itself from the alleged shootings, so that the British people and other people will then be assured that if the outrages did occur we do not subscribe to them?

Senator SPICER:
VICTORIA · LP

– I shall direct the honorable member’s question to the Minister for External Affairs.

page 303

QUESTION

GALVANIZED IRON

Senator LAUGHT:

-In explanation of my question which is directed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport, I point out that in the rural districts of South Australia the shortage of galvanized iron, particularly tank iron. is pronounced at the present time. Indeed, with summer approaching, the position is becoming critical. About ten minutes ago i received a telegram from the Millicent Agricultural Bureau in Millicent, South Australia, which read -

Practically no tank iron in Millicent past six months stop Water problems of settlercritical.

Can the Minister indicate the latest position with regard to the importation of galvanized iron into South Australia from the Eastern States?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– I am sorry to have to report that there is considerable congestion still at Port Kembla and Newcastle and that galvanized iron is lipid up, mostly at Newcastle.

Senator Ashley:

– What is the Government doing about it?

Senator McLEAY:

– Some of Senator Ashley’s friends at Newcastle are not helping us, and continual strikes and hold-ups at Newcastle and Port Kembla can only be described as disgusting. Those delays are causing considerable anxiety in all parts of Australia because of the general shortage of steel, galvanized iron and other products. The industrial aspect of the honorable senator’s question is a matter for attention by the Minister for Labour and National

Service. I can assure the Senate that the Minister is doing his best to prevent the continued strikes and delays. Senator Ashley should be the last person to crow over this matter because he knows that the Communists are causing the trouble.

page 303

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator MATTNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Has the Minister read or considered the published reports in the Adelaide press of the recent court prosecutions of national service trainees at Renmark, South Australia? 2.Dues the letter published in the Adelaide

Advertiser, signed by an officer of the 10th Battalion, reflect the views of the Minister?

  1. Is it the practice of the Army to have motor vehicles and members of the Provost Corps waiting in the precincts of the court to take trainees into custody, thus anticipating the verdict of the court?
  2. Will he make a statement to the Senate dealing with all aspects of this most unusual case, including the statement that students were prevented from sitting for university and other educational examinations?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The letter written by Captain B. W. Lott, O.C., B Company, 10 Battalion, expresses the views of that officer, with which I am in general agreement.
  3. It is incumbent upon the Army authorities to have transport and provost ready to take into custody such national servicemen as may be committed.
  4. Under the National Service Act, which is administered by the Department of Labour and National Service, a national serviceman, who fails to render service, is liable to a fine of up to £50 and/or committal to the Army to carry out the balance of his training obligation. Though the average fine in these eases appears to have been heavier than usual, the matter is entirely one for the magistrate to decide, after consideration of all the circumstances. The magistrate who administered the law was acting well within his jurisdiction and I do not intend to remark upon the sentences awarded. The existing act and regulations provide that when a national serviceman is committed to the Army for training by a magistrate, this training will be carried out continuously to the full extent of the balance of the national serviceman’s obligation. The part played by the Army, therefore, was to implement a sentence awarded by a magistrate in accordance with the law of the Commonwealth. In regard to the question of students being prevented from sitting for examinations, I would point out that all these national servicemen were in a position to know of the consequence of their being absent ‘from parades. That some may have been prevented from sitting for university and other examinations is the result of their own actions, particularly in view of the fact that their company commander circularized nil members on two occasions during the current training year as a result of the prevalence of absence without leave. However, in order to obviate any undue hardship, all have been advised that emergency leave may be granted in special circumstances where investigation reveals that such leave is necessary. Similar consideration is being given to the granting of emergency leave in cases where national servicemen who are employed on irrigation blocks have been awarded detention.

page 304

QUESTION

POSTAL DE PARTMENT

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Will the Minister representing the PostmasterGem -al inform the Senate of the cost of providing a resilience for the postmaster at Margaret River, Western Australia? I should like to know the cost of thu prefabricated house, the cost of transporting materials to Margaret River, the cost of construction, and any other costs that have been incurred.

Senator COOPER:
CP

– The PostmasterGeneral has furnished the following reply to the honorable senator’s question : -

The costs associated with the provision of a prefabricated residence for the postmaster at Margaret River were as follows: - ‘Building components. £1,700: transport and storage, £345; erection, £1,850.

page 304

QUESTION

HONOUR’S AND AWARDS

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What method or system is adopted by the Government when recommending the conferring of honours on Australian citizens by the Sovereign? Has the Prime Minister the sole right to make such recommendations?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has furnished the following answer to the honorable senator’s question : -

The governments of the six States and the Commonwealth Government are asked to submit to Her Majesty recommendations for honours. So far as the Commonwealth only is concerned, it is the sole prerogative of the Prime Minister to submit such recommendations. The governments of the States make recommendations according to their own practice. Allocations are made by the Palace authorities within th” various categories of honours, but I do not think it would be appropriate to disclose the details of arrangements of this nature.

page 304

QUESTION

COMMEMORATIVE SERVICES

Senator KENDALL:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. In connexion with the arranging of federal representation by senators and members at various church remembrance services, will the Government make inquiries as to the reason for the existing practice of making these arrangements by telegram?
  2. As those services are held on fixed dates which are the same each year, would there not be ample time to make the necessary arrangements by letter at a cost of 3-£<l. instead of the customary telegram costing from fis. to 10s. for each member, plus COSt of reply ?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has furnished the following answer : - ft is the custom of the Commonwealth Government to seek the advice of the State Government as to ceremonies being held in thu capital cities of the respective States on Anzac Day and Armistice Day, especially as the time ami date of the remembrance, &e., services vary from year to year in certain instances. Final arrangements may not be known until a short time before the ceremonies are due to be held. Again, it is not always convenient for the first senator or member approached to represent the Commonwealth Government at a particular service and it may hu necessary for a number of senators and members to be approached before representation at such service, &c, can be arranged. It is desirable, of course, that where possible, arrangements should be made by letter, but as a general rule this means of communication 1ms proved impracticable.

page 304

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has the Government made a decision on whether or not cost-of-living adjustments will he suspended or abolished in relation to the Commonwealth Public Service?
  2. If so, what is the decision?
  3. If the decision should bc made to so suspend or abolish, will the Government table in the Senate the necessary regulation before the Senate adjourns for the Christmas recess?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has furnished the following replies to the honorable senator’s questions: -

  1. Yes.
  2. Regulations were gazetted on the 12th November fixing the cost of living for th«

Commonwealth Public Service at its existing level- and eliminating the machinery provisions for quarterly variations.

  1. The regulations were tabled in the Senate on the 19th November.

page 305

COMMONWEALTH ADMINISTRATION CENTRE, MELBOURNE

REPORT of Public Works Committee.

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I present the report of the Public Works Committee on the following subject : - 1’rupoaed erection of a Commonwealth Administration Centre (First Stage), at Melbourne, Victoria.

page 305

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1953

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 305

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1953 [No. 2]

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

page 305

RE-ESTABLISHMENT AND EMPLOYMENT BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

.- I move-

That the bill he now road a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to rectify the position which arises as a result of a recent High Court decision affecting section 28 of the Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945-1953. Sub-section (1.) of section 28 of that act provides that where any person who considers he is entitled to preference in employment has been refused employment, he may apply to a court of summary jurisdiction constituted by a police, stipendiary or special magistrate for an order directing his employment.

The High Court held recently, for the first time in the history of the Common wealth, that it is not within the power of the Commonwealth to invest State courts with an administrative function. Inasmuch as section 2S (1.) attempts to invest State courts of summary jurisdiction with non-judicial power, therefore, the section is invalid. It will be appreciated by honorable senators that the effect of this judgment is to render nugatory to a considerable extent the preference in employment provisions contained in section 27 of the act, as there is now no tribunal to which a person who has been refused employment in breach of section 27 may apply for an order directing his employment.

The High Court, in the course of its judgment, indicated, however, that nonjudicial power may, with the consent of a State, be conferred upon State officers as designated persons. The States were accordingly asked whether they are willing for their magistrates to be designated as persons who may hear applications and make orders under section 28, and consent to certain of their magistrates being so designated has been obtained.

This bill, accordingly, repeals the existing section 28 and inserts a new section which will enable formal arrangements to be made by the Governor-General with the Governors of the several States for certain approved magistrates to be proclaimed prescribed authorities for the purpose of applications under this section. The prescribed authorities will have similar powers to make orders directing employment as the courts of summary jurisdiction purported to have under the repealed section. I commend this bill to honorable senators.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition does not oppose the measure. As the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) has indicated, the need for the hill was provided by a decision of the Australian High Court of Australia in the case Queen Victoria. Memorial Hospital versus Thornton which was decided in April last. The decision came as quite a surprise and unquestionably it will throw somewhat additional strains upon the ingenuity of the parliamentary draftsmen in the future.

Senator Spicer:

– They have had plenty of practice.

Senator McKENNA:

– I notice that the Attorney-General smiles at my comment, but 1 believe that he agrees that the draftsmen will be equal to the occasion as they have been previously. They show by the contents of this bill that they have encountered the problem only to find some way, even if a more circuitous one, of overcoming the difficulty. In effect, the amendment of the act restores the original intentions of the Reestablishment and Employment Act and makes no substantative alterations of the law. It merely substitutes new machinery to achieve the same purpose as the principal act. In the circumstances, the Opposition offers no opposition to the passage of the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 306

LIFE INSURANCE BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPICER (Victoria - Attorney-

General) [11.39].-I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Life Insurance Act 1945-1950. The original act, which came into force on the 20th June, 1946. set up in Australia, for the first time, an up-to-date and comprehensive code of laws for the conduct of life insurance business and provided a measure of protection for policyholders. It replaced six different State acts. The administration of the act during the last seven and a half years has revealed a number of anomalies, imperfections and minor practical difficulties. Some of them have been pointed out by the life offices themselves while others have been brought to the notice of the Government by tbe insurance commissioner. The Government is satisfied that all the proposed amendments are desirable for purposes of clarity. None of them weakens the act or prejudicially affects the rights of policy-holders in any way. Many of them are of a technical nature and have been carefully examined by the insurance commissioner and the parliamentary draftsmen. They deal in particular with the purposes of the statutory fund which all companies are required to maintain, a simplification of the arrangements for the assignment of policies and a modification of the arrangements for the assignment of policies and the payment of the sums assured. In addition to the amendments to which I have referredthe bill removes those sections of the main act which provide for the establishment of n government insurance office to which the Government has always been opposed. I commend the bill for the favorable consideration of the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 306

FLAGS BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

.-I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is the first attempt to embody in legislative form what has come to be regarded by Australians as the established practice in rplation to the Australian national flag. It is indeed true that some authorities to-day would say that the national- flag of the Commonwealth of Australia, and of other Commonwealth countries, is the Union Jack, but that each Common wealth country has its distinctive blue and red ensigns.

At the time of federation, the Colonial Office invited the attention of the Commonwealth to the necessity for the adoption of a Commonwealth flag, and as n result, a competition was held which attracted some 30,000 entries. The competition was arranged by a newspaper, The Review of Reviews, in conjunction with the Commonwealth Government, and entrants were invited to submit two designs, one for naval and official purposes and the other for a mercantile marine flag. The judges recommended that the prize for the winning design should be divided equally amongst five persons and no special recognition was given to any one of them. They were - Mrs. Annie Dorrington, of Perth; Mr. “William Stevens, of Auckland; Mi-. Leslie J. Hawkins, of Melbourne ; Mr. Ivor Evans, of Melbourne; and Mr. E. J. Nuttall, of Melbourne. Honorable senators will be interested in the following comment of the judges on the design: -

It is apparent that the Commonwealth flag to be representative should contain the Union lack on a blue or red ground, a six-pointed star representing the six federated States of Australia immediately under the Union Jack and pointing- direct to the centre of St. George’s Cross; and, of a size to occupy the major portion of one flag, the Southern Cross, as being indicative of the sentiment of the Australian nation.

The designs which were accepted by the judges and which conformed substantially to the opinions expressed by the judges have been varied only to a very slight degree. In fact, the major variation has been the substitution of a sevenpointed star in lieu of the original star of federation. The seventh point, representing Commonwealth territories, was included in 190S. Thus, to-day wherever the Australian flag, the symbol of our nationhood, flies we have with us the constant reminders of our firm and close ties with the Mother Country, the great Federal Commonwealth of Australia, and the Southern Cross, which has long been a living symbol of the spirit of freedom of our people. It has been only in the last fifteen or twenty years of the Commonwealth that Australians everywhere have been encouraged to fly the Australian national flag, which is depicted in Part I. of the Second Schedule to the bill. During the first twenty years of federation it was the practice to regard the flag as a defaced Blue Ensign, the use of which in modified form required the administrative warrant of the Admiralty. Moreover, during that period, the Australian Blue Ensign was regarded as a flag which should be flown only by Commonwealth Government de partments and agencies whilst the Australian Bed Ensign or the Union Jack was flown by Australian citizens. That practice is still observed in some places, but it is hoped that with the passing of this bill the Australian national flag will be acknowledged by all Australian citizens and will be flown by them whenever practicable.

Honorable senators will agree that the present status of Australia both in the British Commonwealth and in the international field makes it desirable that we should formally designate a flag to he the Australian flag. The flag which has been so designated is rich in the tradition of the Australian nation over the years since 1901. It has witnessed the growth of the federation in the arts and industry, commerce and the professions and also our fortunes in the two greatest wars in history in which Australians fought and laid down their lives under it. That banner is now being dedicated as the permanent living symbol of our Australian nation. The bill, therefore, does five things: First, it declares the Australian Blue Ensign In be the Australian national flag; secondly, it redesignates the Australian Bed Ensign to be the Australian merchant marine flag; thirdly, it gives the Governor-General power by proclamation to appoint other flags and ensigns of Australia and to authorize, by warrant, persons to use any flag or ensign devised in a manner specified in the warrant; fourthly, it empowers the Governor-General to makes rules for the guidance of persons in connexion with the flying of any flag appointed under the act; and fifthly, it preserves the right of any person to fly the Union Jack.

The Government is most anxious that all Australians who fly the Australian national flag should do so in a manner befitting this symbol of Australian nationhood. Should the bill receive the approval of the Parliament the Government proposes to invite the Governor-General to promulgate rules for the guidance of persons in connexion with the flying of the flag. Action along those lines will be taken as soon as possible. For some time, the Government has been conscious of the need to declare an Australian national flag and to make it better known. It was for this reason that the Government provided every school in the Commonwealth of Australia with a flag during the recent jubilee celebrations. Furthermore, all schools which have been opened since that date have been provided with a flag. Long may it wave in freedom over the present and future generation of Australians ! It is the fervent hope of the Government and, I am sure, of all honorable senators, that all coming generations of Australians will cherish and respect their’ flag, which is hallowed not only by 53 glorious years of Australian history but also by the memory of those who in two world wars paid the supreme sacrifice for all that it represents.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I assure the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) that this measure has the most cordial support of every member of the Opposition. The Minister was fully justified in speaking at length on the bill. I express my personal thanks to him for having reviewed the history of the development of the flag so that the story will be placed permanently on record. Every member of the Opposition joins with the honorable gentleman in the sentiments that he has expressed concerning this symbol of our nationhood, which is a focal point upon which we centre our thoughts when we think of our country. It is proper for a flag of this nature to be given parliamentary recognition. I notice that the Minister is looking at the attachment to the bill, which embodies pictures of the two flags with which the measure deals. I compliment whoever was responsible for the printing of such excellent reproductions of the flags.

I speak briefly because the Senate will be required to consider a large number of bills during the present sitting, and I do not want my brevity to be misinterpreted as an indication of any lack of consciousness of the importance of the bill and the significance of the Australian flag. I content myself at this stage by according the complete support of the Opposition to the measure.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I noticed that the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) referred to the Australians who had given their lives in two world wars. I suggest that his comments could appropriately be extended to include the many Australians who have paid the supreme sacrifice in Korea.

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

– I do not wish to delay the Senate, but I consider that such an important bill, even though it be a small measure, should not be allowed to pass unnoticed. After all, it is 52 years since the occasion first arose for this Parliament to enact a bill to give official recognition to the Australian flag. Successive governments of various political complexions have been negligent in this matter. Flags, banners and standards of all sorts have been rallying points throughout history, not only in times of war but also in times of peace. Patriotism is such an intangible quality that the average person needs some symbol on which to focus his affection. In Australia, the flag is that symbol. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) mentioned the Union Jack. That flag has a most interesting history. Most honorable senators know the story of the gradual amalgamation nf the crosses of St. George, St. Andrew and St. Patrick to form the Union Jack, which has become the symbol of certain virtues throughout the world. Even some foreign countries have adopted it. Foi’ example, I refer to Hawaii, which, although an American territory, still includes the Union Jack in the left-hand top comer of its flag. The Union Jack was incorporated in that flag originally at the direction of King Kamehameha, and it has been retained as a sign of regret for the fact that Captain Cook was killed there.

The origin of the red, the white and the blue ensigns, two of which are dealt with in the bill, is of interest. In the early days, when British fleets were composed of many hundreds of ships, it was impracticable to place them under one command. Therefore, they were divided into three commands - the van, the centre and the rear - with an admiral in charge of each. The admiral in command was in the centre, the rear admiral, of course, was at the rear, and the vice admiral was in the van. Each fleet flew the white, red, or blue ensign according to its position. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that the term “ flag rank “ to-day is used to denote a man who has reached the rank of admiral. “We also have the term “ yellow admiral “. Probably most people to-day have not heard that term. A ‘”’ yellow admiral “ was an admiral who had been promoted to flag rank, but had never held active command of a fleet. The word “ yellow “ did not, as one might suppose, denote cowardice, but the fact that the parchment on which the admiral’s commission was written had become yellow with age before he assumed command of a fleet. I was rather amused to read in the Minister’s second-reading speech that the Australian merchant service is now permitted officially to fly the Red Ensign by act of Parliament. Nearly 250 years ago, in 1707, during the reign of Queen Anne, legislation was passed by the British Parliament granting to the merchant service the right to fly the Red Ensign. So, long before the actual division of the flags into the “White Ensign for the Navy, the Blue Ensign for government, and the Red Ensign for the merchant service, which took place in 1862, the merchant service had been given the Red Ensign although at that time there was no Union Jack as we know it to-day, but merely the cross of St. George.

It is also interesting to note that one of the winners of the competition for an Australian flag, Ivor Evans, then a schoolboy of fourteen or fifteen, later went into the business of making flags and I understand he is still doing so somewhere in Victoria. I have mentioned those matters merely because I thought they might be of interest to honorable senators and because I believed that this measure should not be allowed to pass -without some appropriate comment. I support, the hill.

Senator ROBERTSON:
“Western Australia

– I am happy to support this measure. There is a need in this country for the promotion of education in the use of flags. As members of this chamber we are, of course, called upon to attend many functions, and it is surprising how frequently we see irregular uses of flags. It is only when one has travelled widely that one realizes what a flag means to a country and understands the great reverence with which most national flags are held. I believe, therefore, that instruction in the use of flags should be incorporated into our educational system. I am happy to say that, in many schools, such instruction is already given, and respect for our flag is taught. N ow we are officially adopting the Australian flag which bears in one corner the Union Jack, and I think that much could be done by members of Parliament to encourage an understanding of the meaning of the flag and a reverence for it. I, too, pay a tribute to Mr. Ivor Evans, the Melbourne schoolboy of 50 years ago who won the competition. As Senator Kendall has pointed out, not only did Mr. Evans win the competition, but also he has continued his interest in flags throughout his life. I have always admired his work in making flags, and in encouraging knowledge of the meaning of flags. Se has given a lifetime of service to publications telling the history of Hags and he has made the study of flags most interesting. I was fortunate enough to obtain a copy of his latest publication, which gives the whole history of the competition for the Australian flag. It makes very interesting reading indeed. Therefore, I pay a tribute to the man who, as a schoolboy, won the competition with his design of the Australian flag and has continued to educate us in the correct use of flags and of their meaning. I support the bill.

Senator ANDERSON (South Australia) 1 12.3] . - I, too, support the measure. This official declaration of th’d Australian national flag is a timely move. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) said in his secondreading speech that an effort was to ha made to promulgate information about our national flag. That is most commendable. It is not uncommon to hear some people spea’k in derogatory terms about “flag-wagging”. I think that a little bit of flag-wagging is. very good at times. There have been many times in our history when, the flag has inspired men and given them hope for the future. I shall give one example of that from my own personal experience. A group of prisoners of war who were behind barbed wire, and had little prospect of early release, continued throughout the years of their captivity to fashion a flag out of odd scraps of cloth so that when the great day of their release came they would be able to raise their flag. That desire was simply an expression of the faith of these men in their country and their pride in their national flag. Food supplies were inadequate and men were dying, but these lads - I am happy to say that they were of my own unit - kept their spirits buoyant by fashioning a Union Jack. “When the war ended and their release drew near they hoisted the flag. It is wonderful that we should have an Australian ensign incorporating as it does the Union Jack, the symbol of our British descent, and the Southern Cross, the constellation for which every Australian serviceman looks in the sky when he is approaching the land of his birth.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 310

ROYAL TOWERS BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaMinister for Shipping and Transport · LP

– I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Powers conferred by this Parliament on the Executive are almost invariably expressed to be exerciseable by the Governor-General, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council. By section 61 of the Constitution, the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen, and the Sovereign quite often exercises that power, acting on the advice of her Australian Ministers. I cite as examples appointments of Australian Ambassadors and the declaration of war against Japan. But I am advised that, notwithstanding section 61 of the Constitution, Her Majesty cannot, as a matter of strict law, exercise any power conferred on the Executive by a statute of this Parliament.

This bill, therefore, provides that any power under a statute which is exerciseable by the Governor-General may be exercised by the Queen when Her Majesty is personally present in Australia. An exercise of the executive power by Her Majesty would then take its place among the executive acts of the Commonwealth alongside those performed by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative. A similar measure has been passed by the New Zealand Parliament. The object of the bill is to ensure that Her Majesty, when present in Australia, will be clothed with the complete executive power of the Commonwealth, whether derived from the common law or statutes.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition supports the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 310

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL ]953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second READING

Senator McLEAY (South Australia -

Minister for Shipping and Transport) [12.9]. - I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The States Grants (Universities) Act, 1951, introduced for the first time a system of direct Commonwealth grants to universities. Under the act, a basic grant is provided for each university on the condition that it draws revenue from other sources - that is, State grants and fees - equal to the amount necessary to balance its budget in 1950. This provision was intended to enable universities to expand their functions over the 1950 level. In addition, what is known as a second -level grant is provided as a means of assisting universities to meet rising costs. For every £3 by which State grants and fees exceed the amount necessary to attract the basic Commonwealth grant, the Commonwealth provides an extra £1, up to a given .maximum. Under the 195.1 act, there has been made available to State universities for the three years 1951-2-3 a total of almost £1,000,000 per annum in the form of Commonwealth grants. This bill proposes that that amount be increased to more than £1,500,000 by doubling the maximum Commonwealth second-level grant in 1953. Grants at the new level will be extended to cover also the year 1954.

Honorable senators will recall that the entry of the Commonwealth into the field of direct aid to universities in 1951 was an entirely new departure. It followed an inquiry into university finances by a committee appointed by this Government, which viewed with concern the difficult financial position in which the universities found themselves as Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme subsidies came to an end and the universities had to contend with too many students, inadequate staff and poor facilities. The Commonwealth, because of its recognition of the important part played in the community by the universities, accepted the committee’s recommendations that it should come to the aid of the universities. In doing so, however, the Government insisted that the principle that the States were primarily responsible for education generally and for universities in particular should be observed. That principle is enshrined in this legislation in several ways. The grants are made to the States under section 96 of the Constitution on the condition, first, that State Governments shall make grants of equal amounts to the universities within their boundaries; secondly, that the university revenue from State grants and fees shall be an amount equal to three times the total Commonwealth grant; and lastly, that the Commonwealth grants shall be made for current expenditure on university purposes only. There is a sensible definition of current expenditure in clause 4 of the bill which will give the universities a good deal of latitude. Honorable senators will see that, for the purposes of the bill, expenditure on any item not exceeding £500 may be classed as current expenditure.

Within these expressed limits, the 1951 act has been a distinct success. The requirement that Commonwealth grants shall be matched by State grants and fees three times the amount of the Commonwealth grant has encouraged State governments, in some instances, to give more gneerously to their universities. Although the Government does not claim to have solved all the financial problems of the universities by its legislation, it may be said that the universities can regard the position in 1953 with a good deal more equanimity than was possible in 1950.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

, - The Opposition does not oppose this measure. It recognizes the increasing importance of universities to the national life of a young country such as Australia. Great advances in technology have taken place throughout the world. There is an increasing demand in every field of national activity for technologists, whether at the level of ordinary technical education or at the level of academic education. Until some years ago, education in the primary, secondary and university spheres was considered to be the prerogative of the States, but the reorientation of financial control in Au s.tralia has altered the position considerably. We are witnessing an increasing degree of incursion by the Commonwealth into the field of education and almost every other field of activity formerly occupied solely by the States. This incursion is on a most friendly and cooperative basis. It shows that the Commonwealth appreciates the importance of the universities, and that it is prepared to assist them reasonably within the limits of available finance. From my association with the university of Queensland, I know of the difficulties under which the universities have laboured for years. In recent years there has been a considerable extension of the availability of university education to all sections of the community. I commend all those who have helped to bring university education within the practical reach of every one. I commend both the State governments and the private benefactors who assisted the universities financially until the Common wealth was able and willing to accept a degree of responsibility in that connexion. Amongst the members of this Parliament are many men who undertook study in the faculty of Arts in their own time, at their own expense. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) is one member of this chamber who did so. Great credit is due to persons who have graduated by attending lectures at night after their day’s work, and by studying during the week-ends.

Until recent years the universities were the exclusive preserve of the plutocrats. Generally speaking, because of the expense involved, university education, particularly in certain faculties, was beyond the reach of the children of the working section of the community. Only one pupil of the secondary school that I attended in Queensland subsequently graduated in medicine. In those days there was not a medical school in Brisbane, and the majority of parents could not afford to spud their children to the Medical School of the University of Sydney. That state of affairs was socially unfair and discriminatory. Furthermore, there were not always attracted to the medical profession the keenest students. Continuance on those lines would have resulted ultimately in a lowering of the standard of the medical profession. As I have said, in recent years there has developed a new approach to university education. Under the scholarship system, education in all faculties is now within the reach of all students who have matriculated. 1 should like to see more money made available by the Commonwealth to the universities of this country. The formula that has been in operation, and which has been retained substantially in the bill, is somewhat complex. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) did not explain the operation of the formula fully in his second-reading speech. However, suffice it for me to remind the Senate that, as the formula was evolved with the concurrence of the State governments, which have themselves subsidized universities, doubtless it is quite equitable. But T point out that, the Government, by retaining the formula, has accepted the principle that the degree of financial assistance should be varied in accordance with fluctuations of the cost of living. The bill provides for Commonwealth financial assistance to the universities to be increased in accordance with increases of grants by the State governments. The Government has resisted the continued application of that principle in the industrial sphere. I welcome a temporary suspension of the Government’s policy. The Minister has assured us that the fact that the Commonwealth now makes financial assistance available to the State universities does not mean that the Commonwealth contemplates exercising any control over the universities. The independence of the universities should be preserved. We know of other instances in. which the provision of financial assistance has led, ultimately, to the body supplying that assistance assuming a degree of control. However, I have been impressed by the Government’s sincerity in this connexion, and I am sure that a similar assurance by a ‘government of a different political colour from that of the present Government would be equally sincere. I think that honorable senators will concede that the exercise of financial control could lead, ultimately, to various forms of compulsion and coercion. We should resist any departure from the principle that has been recognized in this legislation, and endeavour at all times to preserve the independent administration of the universities.

Many secondary school students are unaware of the opportunities for advancement that exist in the technological field. There has been a tendency for such students to be attracted towards the lucrative medical and legal professions. The continued security of this country can bc assured only by the development of our natural resources. Accordingly, we need irrigation engineers and other technicians. During the debate on the National Health Bill it was evident to honorable senators that the present high standard of the medical profession must be maintained. However, I consider that the ambition of graduates in medicine should be based on the Hippocratic oath, in order to ensure that they will provide an equal degree of service to all sections of the community. Boys who have completed their secondary education and ave about to proceed to the various universities should be informed of the opportunities for advancement that exist in the technological field. I am convinced that many boys elect to study medicine and law because they are unaware of the attractions of other professions. It may be practicable to arrange for members of old boys’ associations to address boys in secondary schools who are about to sit for the Matriculation and Leaving Certificate examinations, and explain to them the advantages and attractions of the various professions. Many young nien who have qualified as lawyers and doctors have subsequently realized that other professions offer equally attractive opportunities. Senior secondary school students should be fully informed about all faculties. This important bill could be the subject of a most, interesting and prolonged debate, but as this chamber must attend to a considerable volume of business during the last few remaining hours of the session, I shall conclude by saying that the Opposition supports the bill. I sincerely hope that, as a result of the financial assistance that the Commonwealth is providing to the State universities, there will not develop a system of Commonwealth control over those universities. I hope that the number of Australian technological institutions will increase, although they are not primarily of an academic character. It has been wisely said that a university should be restricted in its faculties. It is doubtful whether highly technical faculties, such as mechanical engineering, are of ai academic nature, and their place is perhaps more properly in a technological institute. The decline of interest in the classics is to be deplored, not merely because the classics are cultural subjects, but also because many of them embody clear and original ideas of liberty and good government. Even the word “ democracy “, and its correlatives and derivatives, spring from the philosophy of ancient classical writers such as Aristotle and Plato. Indeed, much of our Christian philosophy as studied by Christian philosophers at present, arose as a reconciled form, of Aristotelian philosophy. Therefore, honorable senators will agree that the old philosophers still live and exert a profound influence in modern life; and when people study the classics they are caught up in a stream of thought which has flowed broadly and strongly for a great part of the history of civilization.

I hope that the utilitarian purpose of study will not be stressed all the time, and I hope that young people may be induced to take up the study of, at least, one classical subject during their school careers - such as Greek or Latin - and carry through that study for not less than one year at the university. Having made those observations on behalf of the Opposition, I merely desire to say that we support the measure, and trust that as the years go by an even more generous grants formula will be adopted for the financing of the universities of Australia which, although so few, so scattered and so relatively humble, might then become flourishing internationally recognized institutions like those of Europe.

Senator MCCALLUM:
New South Wales

– I agree generally with most of the remarks of Senator Byrne, and I agree completely with his contention that universities should remain autonomous organizations and should not be controlled by whoever supplies finance for them. A university cannot be a university in the true sense of the word if it is responsible to pressures from outside, whether they be pressures from government or private donors. Senator Byrne has said that until recently the universities were the exclusive preserve of plutocrats. As far as I know, during the life of the oldest person in this Senate it has been possible for people who were quite poor to obtain a university education. I was one such myself, and I began my university career as an evening student. Later I obtained a bursary, and was consequently able to continue my course as a day student, which made my study much easier.

There have been some very generous private donations to the University of Sydney, and the name of the donors should be gratefully remembered. I instance, for example, Challis and Nicol Russell, while Hackett, of Western Australia, is a conspicuous example of university benefactors. I agree with Senator Byrne that the full implications of a university course should be put before a prospective student, and that the two professions which have the greatest prestige should not absorb all the bright students. Engineering, agriculture and other professions should be studied. However, we must preserve the standing of a liberal education, which can be defined as an education for its own. sake. It is hard to get many pupils or parents in Australia who understand what that means, although for 250 years the people of Scotland have had no difficulty in understanding it. It is understood then in every variety of school, and I myself have never found any difficulty in understanding that viewpoint. A famous Oxford don once proposed the toast, “ Here’s to higher mathematics, and may they never be the slightest use to anybody “. That, of course, embodys a paradox, because higher mathematics are of the greatest use to everybody. He meant that a person who undertakes to study with the idea that he will be able to make use of every single thing that he learns, will never master his subject. It is the approach to education, and the subjects studied, that affords a liberal education; that is, an education for a free man who is interested in knowledge, and the wisdom and power that flows from it, for its own sake. I agree with Senator Byrne that the classics, and subjects such as literature and modern languages, should be encouraged, because they all have very great cultural value. Their value cannot be measured in money, but it flows back to the community. I compliment Senator Byrne on his admirable speech, which so fully expressed my own sentiments that it is difficult for me to find any more to say.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I support the bill, and compliment both Senator Byrne and Senator McCallum on the speeches that they have made in support of this very important measure. In .1946, a Labour government was the first Australian government to legislate to assist university education in Australia. The same government also established the Australian National University, a most important institution which will ultimately follow the pattern of the universities of Western Europe, and become the leader of our academic community. In 1949 the Chifley Government, for the first time in the history of the Australian Parliament, helped university students by granting £1,000,000 for scholarships. That policy was continued by the present Government, but in fairness to the Chifley Government I must say that it was fully cognizant of the value of increasing university education in the community, because it realize.,! that, throughout a long period of time the Australian universities were regarded a? the preserve of the few. Indeed, until recently, only about 4 per cent, of primary school children ever attended a university.

I was a member of a committee of the University of Western Australia in the 1930’s which reviewed the incomes of parents of university students. The conclusions that we arrived at were similar to those stated by Senator Byrne, that is, that attendance at the majority of the Australian universities was the prerogative of a small proportion of the population, and was limited by the means of the parents. Fewer than 10 per cent, of university students came from homes in which the breadwinner was on the basic wage, and even so, most of those were evening students. I was an evening student myself, and I found it impossible to enter into the full life of the university. Indeed, mine was a bread and butter education obtained at night after working during the day. It was very fortunate that these considerations weighed with those who introduced the legislation which originally established the University of Western Australia. It was made the only free university in Australia, and it has enabled many students from the humbler walks of life to receive a university education.

The University of Western Australia has also been fortunate in the extent of grants that have been made to it such as the Gledden Bequest and the Hackett bequests. The university buildings are a new departure in university architecture in Australia and Stand as a living memorial to those people who foresaw the importance of a university in the community life of Western Australia. The fact that the University of Western Australia was originally a free university has restricted the sources from which it is able to obtain finance and the amount of the grant that it can receive under this bill is limited in that it receives no fees from its students, whose numbers multiplied tenfold in the last few years. The University of Western Australia may he called an international university because it has many students from Asian countries, and, in common with other Australian universities with Asian students it has become a very important focal point in our international relations, in all our universities it is very necessary to have some form of international house where the students from overseas can mingle with Australian students and become conversant with our way of life so that they can best be fitted to return to their countries as ambassadors from the democracy that we are proud of in Australia. Quite recently a Singapore business man made a grant to the University of Melbourne for the establishment of a university house. In Western Australia the university is trying to have an international house built but it is confronted with a shortage of money. The grant that our university will receive from the Commonwealth will not permit the construction of any extra buildings.

The motto of the University of Western Australia is “ Seek wisdom “, which is a very excellent motto for a university. If has not been taken from the classics. It is a new departure in that most university mottoes are in Latin but because the University of Western Australia was a new university in a new part of a new country it was decided that its approach to many problems should be completely new. One of the greatest difficulties of the university has been the obtaining of finance, particularly for the establishment of a new school. One school that is particularly necessary in a State the size of Western Australia is a medical school. At present, the students of our university can do the first-year science course which leads to a medical course in Western Australia, but then they have to go to Adelaide, Melbourne or Sydney in order to complete their course. Western Australian students have done very well in the University of Adelaide and other universities. But they have been so good, in some cases, that they have been retained on the staff of the universities to which they have gone and have been lost to Western Australia for some time, although eventually they have come back to work in their own State. But the University of Western Australia is in need of a medical school. Western Australia is a huge State with au enormous industrial potential. The eyes of Australia are fixed on the industrial development of Western Australia. We have huge developmental projects in train. The newspapers of the eastern States say “ Go west young man “, using the expression in a different sense from that in which it was originally used. The possibilities of the various industrial enterprises that are being developed in the west are unbounded. Oil companies and governmental bodies are spending huge sums of money on works which will ultimately result in more population coming to Western Australia. But the greatest difficulty is being experienced in the outback parts in finding doctors to service the communities.

Wittenoom Gorge, a few years ago, was a pastoral property which employed only eight men, but now, with the advent of mining, 800 people live there, and they are well housed. The population has brought the necessity for a doctor and hospital. Expectant mothers had to travel to Port Hedland in order to go into hospital. There was no accommodation for them at Port Hedland, except at the hotel, while they were waiting to go into hospital. In addition, they had to travel over rough roads in order to reach Port Hedland. A cousin of mine who is a trained nurse, undertook the duties of nurse in the district, but she had to do that work without the assistance of a doctor, except when the flying doctor was available. Although advertisements for a doctor were inserted in the paper, and large salaries offered, until very recently, no doctor was available to service this district. It is difficult to get medical men for the isolated districts of northern Western Australia. Because of the limited number of students in Western Australia who can afford to go to universities in other States for the purpose of studying medicine the shortage of doctors in Western Australia has become worse in recent years. The University of Western Australia was depending upon a grant of £125,000 which the Chifley Government had promised it for the purpose of starting a medical school, but the present Government has decided not to give effect to that promise of the Chifley Government. It costs a lot of money to establish a medical school. With the modern rapid development of medical techniques it is necessary to attract the best teachers to a medical school. Because of the increase in living costs and building costs, £400,000 would now be required from the Australian Government to establish a medical school. However, when the Government of Western Australia asked the Australian Government to increase the proposed .:.;rant of £125,000 to £400,000 it received the shattering news that the Australian Government would not even provide the original amount of £125,000 which had been offered. The population of Western Australia is only a third of the population of the metropolitan areas of Sydney or Melbourne. T hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) will give further attention to the needs of the University of Western Australia. I do not wish to appear parochial. I appreciate what the Government is doing for Australian universities generally. But I should like the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to give a little more attention to the peculiar problems of the University of Western Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Sitting suspended from 12-Ifi to 2.15 p.m.

page 316

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 1st December (vide page 179), on motion by Senator Spicer -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– The Opposition offers no objection to this measure. The bill is designed to cover tariff amendments which were introduced at various times during the year and have been in operation for some months. The slightly amended duties will relate to a comprehensive range of goods and commodities. The Government has adopted the recommendation of the Tariff Board in connexion with these proposals.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 316

CUSTOMS TARIFF (NEW ZEALAND PREFERENCE) BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 1st December (vide page 180), on motion by Senator Spicer -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COURTICE (Queensland) 2.17]. - This is a very simple measure, and the Opposition offers no objection to its passage. It provides for a reciprocal arrangement between the New Zealand Government and the Australian Government. The very slight amendment which is proposed to be made has already been accepted by both countries and is in operation in New Zealand. This measure will ratify that arrangement. The Opposition supports the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 316

EXCISE TARIFF BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 1st December (vide page 180), on motion by Senator SPICER -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– This measure is slightly different from those with which the Senate has just dealt, in that it refers to the 1951-52 proposals, when the Government increased the exise and customs duty on spirits of all kinds by 31s. a gallon. This bill provides for the reduction of the duty by 21s. a gallon.

In 1951-52 the Government introduced drastic taxation measures and excise and customs tariff duties. I considered that the increased duty on spirits was unwarranted, and I objected to it at the time. It is apparent that the Government has found that the imposition of those rates of duty had a detrimental effect on the industries associated with the production of spirits and has now decided to reduce the rate of duty by 21s. a gallon, which still leaves the duty 10s. a gallon more than it was in 1951-52. However, I am sure that the Government has acted with a full appreciation of the situation. For that reason, the Opposition will not oppose the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 317

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL 1953

In committee: Consideration resumed from the 1st December (vide page 169).

The bill.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I draw attention to clause 3, which reads -

  1. After section thirty-nine of the Principal Act the following section is inserted in Part VI.:- “ 39a. - (1.) Where a member of theDefence Force who is on service outside Australia is not an elector but -

    1. is not less than twenty-one yearsof age;

I move -

That inparagraph (a) of proposed new section 39a, the words “ twenty-one “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ eighteen “.

This bill proposes an amendment of what was known as the Commonwealth Electoral (War-time) Act which provided the right of franchise for every person over the age of eighteen years who was serving in the defence services. I do not see why the Government now proposes to amend the legislation. Many young men aged between eighteen and 21 years served their country in Korea, where, fortunately, the fighting has ended, and also in Japan. It is strange that the Government should propose to deny those men the franchise although they were able to exercise it as recently as the Senate election this year. What is the reason? Does the Government believe that the services of those men are less valuable than they were, or is the danger past? In World War II. the franchise was given to men in the forces between the ages that I have mentioned. Surely there is no reason why it should be taken from them now. I am perfectly satisfied with the other provisions of this clause, including the method of voting and the method by which serving personnel are to be informed of the party affiliations of the candidates. According to press reports, the men who are serving in Korea will be retained there for some time. It ill-behoves the Government to take away the franchise from those in the relative age group because the fighting has ceased there. Once they have had the privilege, it should not be taken away from them. Men who serve in the naval forces may be outside Australian territorial waters and they may not be engaged in active combat, but I believe that they also should have the right to vote.

If we want the youth of the nation to volunteer for defence and to train themselves in peace-time, they should be encouraged to exercise the franchise wherever they are serving. During the Korean war, the highest praise was accorded the Australian troops who were engaged in that struggle. This Government, as a member of the United Nations, is keeping large numbers of men in Korea and they should not be denied the right to vote. A general election for the House of Representatives will be held within a few months and I cannot understand why the Government should refuse the men concerned the right to vote at that election when they were able to vote in the Senate election only a few months ago. I hope that the Government will seriously consider the amendment even if it means postponing further consideration of the measure in the Parliament until the next session in 1954.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– I rise to second the amendment. I remind honorable senators that there is a difference in the ways in which the age of a man can be considered. Age can be divided into physiological and chronological categories. I believe that age can be judged better on physiological principles. A youth of eighteen years of age performs useful service in the armed services and in industry. He is much more vh luable to the community than thousands of non-workers. Youth is essential in industry. It has been calculated that from ten to twenty men are needed in production to maintain one fighting man in the armed forces. I do not believe that the Government can justly deny them the rights that older members of the community enjoy. In fact, the young men give more valuable service to the country, both in production and in the armed forces than do some honorable senators I might mention who are paid for services but do not render them. The position is not open to much argument. The setting of the age limit at 21 years is due principally to prejudice. I recall, in the course of my long and varied experience, that persons had to pay at one period for the right to vote. Workers in industry were not considered to be qualified to vote. In 1854, people had to fight at the Eureka Stockade for the right to vote.

Senator Wedgwood:

– Please deal with the position in- 1953 !

Senator CAMERON:

– It is just as well to remind honorable senators that in the past people had to fight for the right to vote and that, apparently, young people have still to fight for that right. Honorable senators opposite have the minds of troglodytes, and if they had their way, the workers would not have the right to vote now. I regret that many persons in the twentieth century have minds that were common in medieval times.

Senator Wedgwood:

– The mind of the honorable senator, for example.

Senator CAMERON:

– I express my sympathy for Senator Wedgwood, and I make no apology for reminding her of those facts. I have much pleasure in seconding the amendment. If the Government considers that the matter is worthy of consideration, there is no immediate hurry to take the necessary action. The position can be discussed next year. For my part, the position is plain. It cannot be denied that the men who are now under consideration have been rendering valuable service in production and in the armed forces. Why does not the Government recognize their right to vote? Why does the Government compel them to make a sacrifice economically and militarily? Such an attitude cannot be justified by any process of reasoning. If a rational and intelligent view is taken of this matter, it will be all the better for the country. When all is said and done, no government can go any farther than the understanding and goodwill of the majority of the people. A government which lags behind the understanding and goodwill of the majority is doomed to defeat. The preceding Labour Government went too far ahead of the understanding and goodwill of the people when it proposed that our banking system should be nationalized, and, accordingly, was defeated. The Labour party considers that the young men on whom we depend so greatly in production and in the armed forces should have the right to vote. In wartime, we depend on the well-trained, young men, and not on elderly men who have readied their physical limits and, in some instances, their mental limits. The country depends in. war-time on the young people to maintain production and to keep our enemies at bay. I trust that the amendment will receive the consideration to which it is entitled. If it does not, more dissatisfaction will be caused among the working people than exists at the present time.

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

– I desire to reply to two matters that have been raised in this discussion. The first was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) in relation to proposed new section 39a (2.). I express my appreciation to Senator Kennelly, who afforded me an opportunity to confer with the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Kent Hughes), who is responsible for this bill. The Government is not prepared to accept the amendment, for reasons that I shall explain. I also direct attention to the fact that if the bill is not passed, even the persons who have attained the age of 21 year3 will be denied the right to vote. I am informed that there are very few persons who will be under the age of 21 years and will miss the opportunity to vote.

Reference has been made to the phrase, “ A person who accompanies a part of the Defence Force “ in proposed section 39a (2.). A similar phrase is used in section 117a of the Defence Act, which provides that a person, not being a member of the defence force, who accompanies any part of the military forces, shall he subject to the Defence Act in the manner specified in the section. That provision has been in the Defence Act since 1917, and one of its effects is to subject civilians, in some measure, to military discipline. I mention, in passing, that Senator McCallum also raised this point. So far as I am aware, no difficulty has been experienced in the administration of the section, or in determining whether or not it applies to a particular person. The classes of person to whom the provision in the Defence Act applies are the same as those who, itis intended under the amendment of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, shall be deemed to be members of the defence force. These will include such persons as accredited war correspondents, persons who provide welfare services for members of the forces, and so on. Honorable senators, when they examine proposed new section 39a (2.), should not forget that even though an enrolled civilian falls within the sub-section, he must also have the qualifications set out in subsection (1.) before he will be entitled to vote at an election.

T shall deal now specifically with the amendment submitted by Senator Kennelly. Tt is interesting to refresh our memories about the position, because it was possible for anybody who served outside Australia to vote at an election. I do not think that any specific limit was set on the ages of such persons. The Minister for the Interior informs me that the Commonwealth Electoral (“War-time) Act 1943, which has since been repealed, contained the provision that any member of the defence force serving outside Australia was entitled to vote. There may have been justification for that provision in 1943, because a considerable proportion of the Australian forces on active service in battle areas overseas at that time were young men who had not attained the age of 21 years. But conditions are different to-day. Comparatively few of the men in what might be regarded as combatant units are under the age of 21 years. However, a percentage of the intake into the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force perform a part of their training service outside Australia. It would be an invidious distinction to give the latter the right to vote while similar personnel who were training in Australia had no such right. The intention of the bill is to ensure that no one who possesses the normal franchise qualifications shall be deprived of the right to vote at a Commonwealth election because, through service overseas, he is unable to enrol. I am not prepared to accept the amendment. The farther that F can go to meet the honorable senator’s request is to assure him that I shall take the opportunity at the appropriate time to direct the attention of the Government to the matters that he has raised.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– Having regard to the reply that the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) has just given, I suggest that the Government should postpone further consideration of this measure in order to enable it to consider more fully the points that have been raised by the Opposition.

Senator McLEAY:

– T should not be prepared to take the honorable senator’s advice.

Senator AYLETT:

– The Minister does not surprise me, because it is obvious that he does not believe in democratic principles. Every now and again, the Parliament is put to a test in which it must declare where it stands on democracy. Right now. we again face that test. A government that refuses to give the right to vote to members of the defence forces, regardless of age, does not believe in democracy. The Minister said that he would not accept the amendment, first, because very few men in the defence forces would he under the age of 21 years; and, secondly, because the proposed amendment, if it were agreed to, would not be fully effective without a complementary amendment of the Defence Act. When I suggested that further consideration of the bill should be postponed, I had in mind the second point that the Minister raised.

If the Government really believed in democracy it would give the right to vote to every number of the defence forces in peace-time as well as in a time of war. It would be prepared to accept the amendment even if it could be said that it would affect only one member of the forces, because the principle that should be observed in this matter would apply regardless of whether one man or ten thousand men would be affected. There are many lads under the age of 21 years in each branch of the forces. The Minister has stated that some of them are obliged to do much of their training outside Australian waters. If a war broke out those lads would be among the first to go into action in defence of this country. I doubt whether any member of the Senate would be capable of taking their places if such an emergency arose. These lads are sufficiently developed physically and mentally, to meet the high standard observed in training in the forces, and, therefore, they would be capable of voting intelligently at elections. Their right to be given a voice in determining who shall govern their country is strengthened by the fact that in an emergency they would be obliged to shoulder equal responsibility with persons who are over the age of 21. Some time ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) informed the people that it was probable that war would occur within a period of three years, and the right honorable gentleman is still harping upon the danger of aggression. Apparently, that danger still exists. If war actually broke out these lads would be given the right to vote, but the Government denies that right to them simply because at the moment there is no hot shooting. All of us remember the promises that members of the present Government parties made to young lads of this country who joined the forces during World War II. Now, because there is no hot shooting, the Government deprives them of a fundamental democratic right which apparently it will be prepared to give to them if the shooting starts again. There is not one iota of democracy in the Govern- ment’s attitude in this matter. It cannot possibly justify its action in disfranchising young men who are now in the defence forces and are doing a job much better than thousands, much senior to them in years, could do. At present, the Government is conscripting our young manhood and, in effect, is socializing the youth of this country.

Senator Hannaford:

– The honorable senator supported the present defence laws.

Senator AYLETT:

– I shall qualify my statement by saying that the Parliament is conscripting these young men for military service. If the shooting starts again they will be among the first to go into the firing line. Yet, at the same time, the Government says, in effect, that because they are under the age of 21 years, they are not qualified to exercise a vote and have a voice in deciding who shall sit in the White House at Canberra. How can it be said that the Government believes in democracy when it is regimenting the youth of this country and, at the same time, disfranchising them? Conditions in the Navy are such that trainees are denied ordinary civilian amenities. If a flare-up occurred anywhere in the world, they would be among the first to risk their lives in defence of Australia. They would immediately be thrown into the thick of the struggle. I urge the committee to realize the importance of the test to which the Parliament is now being put. We must safeguard the democratic rights of all members of the defence forces. Of course, Government supporters do not believe in democracy or in real patriotism, but merely resort to flag waving. I say, without any reservation, that a government that refuses to give a vote to members of the forces over eighteen years of age. especially those who are on duty outside Australia, does not believe in democracy. Surely everybody must agree that, if it is good enough for these boys to have the right to vote when the shooting is on - and the shooting may start at any minute - it is good enough for them, to have that right now. Anybody who deprives them of tha, right defies one of the fundamental principles for which this nation stands.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I am not satisfied with the explanation given by the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) in support of the Government’s refusal to accept the amendment. Such excuses have been used through the years whenever advanced thinkers have urged an extension of the franchise. It is not long since they were employed in opposition to proposals for the extension of voting rights to other sections of the community. I heard with great regret the interjection of Senator Wedgwood when Senator Cameron referred to the fact that, as recently as 1854, in terms of historical chronology, many citizens had to fight bitterly in order to win” the right to vote. It ill became Senator Wedgwood to ask Senator Cameron to come up to date when, not many years ago, members of her sex were deemed to be mentally inferior to men and unfitted to vote. I hope that Senator Wedgwood has not forgotten that members of her sex gave their lives in order to make it possible for her to occupy a position in this Parliament. Unfortunately, whenever proposals are made for the extension of privileges to citizens, large sections of the community forget that the privileges wo already enjoy have been won as a result of the sacrifices of earlier pioneers.

On this occasion, the Opposition merely proposes that the franchise shall be extended to the young men “who are offering their lives in order that Australia, may remain a free country. The proposal is not novel, but the Government, like its predecessors through the ages, objects strongly to it. Sometimes it is suggested that youthful members of the armed forces lack a sense of responsibility. It is also suggested that the extension of the franchise for which the amendment provides would be acceptable if voting were not compulsory because, in that event, only those persons who were politically inclined or who, because of their intelligence, were able to appreciate the value of their votes, would exercise their rights. According to that argument, the system of compulsory voting forces into the polling booths an army of young men and women who know nothing of the political issues of the day. There may be some force in that argument. However, the amendment refers to a specific group of young Australians who have been conscripted to serve abroad in order thai Australia’s freedom may be maintained. Do we ask for too much if we propose that these young men, who are forced to obey the laws made by this Parliament, should at least have the right to express their will in relation to the selection of the persons who make those laws? For the life of me I cannot understand why the Government has refused to accept the amendment. I regret that, in this modern age of progress, the voices of conservatives who died long since still echo in the Senate. I thought that we had escaped from the influence of those reactionaries. I hope that the Government will reconsider its decision and decide to accept the amendment.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– Every person in the community is endowed with certain rights and responsibilities, which are divisible roughly into two groups. In the first group are our rights as private citizens, and they extend to the protection and disposition of private property. In the second group are our rights as nationals, and they include the right to vote for the election of representatives to govern our country. Each of these rights has a relevant responsibility. I cannot see that the rights and responsibilities of an individual as a private citizen are either more important or less important than the rights of the same individual as a national. Yet, under the law, particular preference is given to men who serve in the armed forces, and to mariners at sea, in relation to the disposition of their private property. I have not the Commonwealth law on this subject at hand, but the law is more or less standard in all States, and I have no doubt that the provisions embodied in Commonwealth legislation are similar to the English statute law.

Under the Succession Act, which dates back to the reign, of William IV., a minor cannot legally make a will. However, special provision is made for mariners and for soldiers who are actually engaged on military service. I presume that this provision arises from the recognition, first, of the dangers and hazards to which such people are exposed, and, secondly, of what I shall call the rapid maturing of individuals who have accepted such responsibilities. The Succession Act of Queensland, which is typical of the general statute law on this subject, provides that no will made by any person under the age of 21 years shall be valid. Nevertheless, section 43 of the same statute, which is a re-enactment of Statute No. 1 of the reign of “William IV. and Statute No. 1 of the reign of Queen Victoria, provides that any soldier on actual military service, or any mariner at sea, may dispose of his personal estate as he thinks fit.

Senator Anderson:

– That affects only personalty.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– It refers to the distribution of property, even though it be personalty, as if it were realty. The judicial interpretations of that section that have been given from time to time disclose that such persons may validly dispose of property by will even if they are under 21 years of age. That is a recognition by statute of the tradition and custom which give to those individuals the right to discharge their responsibilities as citizens. I do not think that the same persons should be prejudiced in relation to the acceptance and discharge of their responsibilities and. rights as nationals.

Therefore, I suggest that we are cer- tain ly putting a man’s national responsibilities at a low level compared with his private responsibilities. That is something that we should correct at the first opportunity, and that is why I strongly support this amendment. I am disanpointed that the Minister has not seen his way clear on behalf of the Government to accept the amendment. We should bring the national into the same position as the private citizen in consonance with the old statute law and constitutional and legal tradition. In these days when armies are mobilized on a gigantic basis and boys of eighteen are conscripted and ultimately serve overseas as they did in World War II., our present attitude to the discharging of national responsibilities is a relic of other days. It is a political anachronism that we on this side of the chamber are trying to remove, and in that endeavour we solicit the co-operation of the Government.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

.- I suggest that even at this late stage, the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) should consider adjourning the debate on this measure sothat ex-servicemen on the Government side of the chamber may be convinced of the fairness of the proposal that members of the forces now serving in danger zones overseas should have the same privilege as they themselves enjoyed if they happened to be fighting abroad when under 21 years of age. I am sure that no exserviceman on the Government benches wishes to deprive present members of the fighting forces of the privilege that he himself enjoyed. If the Minister refuses to reconsider this matter he will be showing disrespect not only for members of the forces but also for his own supporters who are ex-servicemen.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Kennelly’s amendment) be left out.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator B. Courtice.)

AYES: 27

NOES: 28

Majority . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 323

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Senator .-.HANNAFORD. - I present the first report of the Printing Committee.

Report read, aud - hy leave - adopted.

page 323

WOOL STORES BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 2nd December, (vide page 229), on motion by Senator McLeay -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– The Opposition does not oppose the bill. It is proposed that the control and operation of wool stores which, over the years, have been the responsibility of what is called the joint organization shall be transferred to the Australian Wool Bureau. The joint organization went into liquidation, in, I think, 1952. It has been estimated that the value of the stores concerned is between £4,000,000 and £6,000,000. I should like an assurance from the Government that, if the stores are rented, fair rents will be charged for them. The Minister for the Interior (Mr. Kent Hughes) revealed two or three months ago that a number of properties owned by the Commonwealth had been let to private interests and, in some instances, the Commonwealth was receiving very small rent for. them. There is an obligation on the Government to secure fair rents for any Commonwealth-owned buildings that are let to outside interests.

These wool stores will be under the control of the Australian Wool Bureau. The majority of the members of the bureau are wool-growers. Therefore, the woolgrowers will be, in effect, responsible for the control of the stores. I doubt whether that would be a good thing. I think at least one of the men controlling the stores should have some knowledge of real estate, so that he could ensure that a reasonable return was received from them. Wool-growers have expert know ledge of the quality of wool, but it is doubtful whether they have expert knowledge of the rental value of wool stores. I suggest to the Government that steps be taken to ensure that fair rents are charged for any of these stores that are let. I hope we shall be supplied with information about receipts from them in twelve months time. I do not know how many of the stores will be rented for commercial purposes, but I assume that a substantial number of them, will lie rented. As the stores are worth between £4,000,000 and £6,000,000, that will be big business. A competent person should be appointed to ensure that the bureau will receive a fair return from these properties.

As a. result of the transfer of the stores to the Australian Wool Bureau, the Commonwealth will receive over £629,000. The money will be used to promote wool research, the importance of which cannot be overstated. We may laugh at synthetic fibres, but there is no doubt that eventually they will move into some of the fields now occupied by wool. As wool is pushed out of one field by synthetic fibres, research and development work will enable it to move into a new field. Personally, I have no fear about the future of wool. I believe that as the standard of living of the people of the world improves, the demand for wool will grow. I think we shall continue to find a ready market, for all the wool that we can produce, but that is no reason why we should relax our efforts to find new markets, because the Australian economy would be dealt a dreadful blow if wool were ousted from the markets of the world to a substantial degree. We must find new uses for wool, and, by helping to raise the standard of living of the people of the world, develop more and bigger markets for our wool.

Under the joint organization agreement, a half of the proceeds of the sale of these wool stores to the Australian Wool Bureau “will go to Great Britain. I have never been able to understand why we made an agreement with Great Britain under which a part of the profit realized on the 3ale of our wool went to that country. I cannot understand why, with our resources and marketing experience, we did not ourselves handle the disposal of our wool during the- last war. I cannot understand why we should not get all of the legitimate profit made on our wool.

Senator Hannaford:

– The Joint Organization was necessary in war-time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

-.- There was no reason why Australia should not have handled’ its own wool in war-time, as it had done in peace-time. We entered into an arrangement with Great Britain under which we became part owners of Australian wool sold at a basic price, and we agreed that if the wool were sold at a higher price, Great Britain should have a half of the profit made on the sale. How can that bc justified ? Great Britain gained millions of pounds from the sale of Australian wool. Because that country was a half-owner of the wool stores, it will now receive one-half of the proceeds of the sale of those stores. It is as though Great Britain were the father and Australia the small son who was incapable of running his own business. The lessons that wc have learned from our experiences in both world wars should enable us to prevent a recurrence of this state of affairs should another world war materialize in future. Inevitably, wars cause inflation. Why should Great Britain be able to sit back and reap a reward from the sale of Australian wool at inflated prices? It would be a different matter if if, was necessary for Great Britain to find markets for our wool.

Senator Hannaford:

– At the time that the arrangement was entered into, Great Britain was fighting for its life.

Senator Willesee:

– That is irrelevant.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Australia, also, was fighting for its existence. Government back-benchers are supposed to support the Ministers. The tenor of Senator Hannaford’s interjection reveals why there is serious unrest in the Government parties. Why should not Australia receive the benefit of legitimate profits from the sale of commodities grown in this country? In addition to paying insurance and freight charges, Australia has had to forgo 50 per cent, of the profits on the sale of its wool.

Senator Pearson:

– Did not Great Britain provide shipping to transport the wool overseas?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– The honorable senator should know that our wool was transported overseas by American liberty ships and by British ships. We paid dearly for that service. It will be recalled that during World War I. the then Prime Minister, the late Mr. W. M. Hughes, found it necessary to arrange for the Commonwealth Shipping Lines to transport our wool overseas. The combine then exploited this country. I point out that “ exploited “ is a very mild term to describe what the shipping companies did, and are doing, to Australia.

As we approach national manhood, the Government must accept responsibility to protect Australia’s interests. I cannot understand why we should have to ask Great Britain to help us to market our wool during war-time. As I have mentioned, Great Britain has benefited to the order of half of the profits that were made from the sale of Australian wool, and now we have to pay that country a further £629,000 out of the proceeds from the sale of the wool stores. The Opposition does not oppose the passage of the bill, but I urge the Government to take steps which will prevent a recurrence of this state of affairs.

Senator HANNAFORD:
South Australia

– Senator Armstrong has presented a completely fallacious argument. The honorable senator knows as well as I know that, following the outbreak of war, a commercial arrangement for the sale of wool was made between Great Britain, South Africa and Australia. Under the agreement, Great Britain bought our wool on an appraisal basis, and the agreement provided that the profits made by Great Britain on the sale of the wool were to be divided by the contracting countries. That was a war-time necessity. Had a Labour government been in office in this country at the time that the arrangement was made I am sure that it would have done what the Menzies Government did. As I interjected during the honorable senator’s speech, the British Commonwealth countries were at that time fighting for their lives. There was no alternative hut to agree to a scheme under which Great Britain would handle the sale of our wool. We did remarkably well out of the arrangement. Senator

Armstrong advanced a contemptible argument. The wool-growers of this country have not lost one penny as a result of the arrangement. It will be recalled that the sale of the wool stores realized about £1,259,000. That was a bargain price, when we remember that there are 334 such stores. They were erected during war-time for the purpose of storing vast quantities of wool until shipping was available to transport it to the countries that needed it. The purpose of the bill is to transfer the control of the stores to the Australian Wool Bureau. It was decided to retain the stores so that should another war occur we shall have accommodation again for our wool. The amount of £1,259,000 tha.t was paid to the Joint Organization for the stores was drawn from the Wool (Contributory Charge) Trust Account, which was. built up by the contributions of the growers. The bill transfers control over the wool stores to the Australian Wool Bureau, and their operation will be supervised by a committee of growers. Since the transaction was effected control has been exercised by the Australian Wool Realization Commission, and the income of the commissioner has been used for various purposes. No doubt the income will continue to be used in the future as it has been used in the past, and some of it will continue to be expended upon a statistical wool service which was commenced during the war years. Wool is a vital war material, and consequently it is necessary for any government to know as accurately as possible our actual and potential production, and how much wool we have stored in the country. The statistical service was established to obtain that information, and is carrying on at the present time. Now, I suggest that the Government could save a fairly large expenditure on the statistical service, by allowing wool-selling firms in Australia to obtain for the Government the information that is now obtained by that service. The statistical service is financed partly from Consolidated Revenue, and partly from money received by the Government in respect of wool sales. If the wool-selling brokers were to take over the activities of the statistical service, that money could perhaps be devoted to more important purposes. We are all well aware of the grave challenge to wool presented by synthetics. I need not elaborate on that matter, but honorable senators know that it is only because synthetics cost much more than wool at present, that Australian wool has not been threatened more seriously. However, as time goes on synthetic fabrics will be improved, and their competition with wool will become more dangerous. Therefore, it is important that we should concentrate upon research into new and improved ways of using wool, and upon publicity to inform the people of Australia, and those of our customer countries, of the superiority of wool over all forms of synthetic fibre. I support the bill.

Senator MATTNER (South Australia) “3.38], - The contributions of Senator Armstrong to debates in the Senate are always very illuminating when financial matters are before us, but we are dealing with wool at the present time, and, if I may say so, many of his remarks were rather woolly, and were directed to matters that are by no means within the scope of the debate. I join issue with the honorable senator about the marketing of our wool. I believe that our best customer is Great Britain, and that we should send as much wool there as possible, and also increase as greatly as possible our home manufactures of woollen fabrics. However, I strongly disagree with Senator Armstrong’s statement that our wool should be sent to Asiatic countries to be made into fabrics, and then brought back to Australia and sold here as manufactured articles.

Senator Armstrong:

– I said nothing of the sort.

Senator MATTNER:

– I believe that I have given a fair interpretation of the honorable senator’s rather staggering words, and I must join issue with him on that matter. T am sure that Senator Armstrong will always abide by any contract that he makes. That being so, he should sympathize with the parties to the British contracts to buy wool. The Australian wool-grower entered into a contract with Britain. He received no subsidy or help of any kind from any body, but entered into an agreement with the .British Government on the price of wool sold to Great Britain. Therefore, it ill behoves any body to advocate a departure from that agreement, and, indeed, I do not consider that Senator Armstrong would expect any body to break his agreement. Britain, gets 50 per cent, of the profit over the agreed price, and honours its side of the agreement, so surely the Australian wool-growers should honour their side. Moreover, in time of war we would have no chance of getting our wool to England without British help, even if we had the necessary merchant ships. We had our own merchant ships during the last war, but did we have the warships to protect them?

Senator Armstrong:

– Certainly wc did.

Senator MATTNER:

– I suggest that, mainly British warships protected our wool ships during the last war. Perhaps I have misconstrued some of the statements made by Senator Armstrong to-day, because I have no doubt that he is just as anxious as I am to ensure the well being of the whole British Empire. Perhaps one or two of his words were ill chosen, and did not reflect his true o pillion.

Senator Armstrong:

– I just believe in Australia first, that is all.

Senator MATTNER:

– That may be so, but the honorable senator’s speech to-day was rather wild and woolly. 1 support the bill.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I have been forced to rise because Senator Armstrong’s remarks have been deliberately misinterpreted by Senator Hannaford and Senator Mattner, our two wool-growing - or should I say wool-gathering friends - who have just spoken. When any body mentions Great Britain-

Senator Pearson:

– You are trying to be humorous.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I am not. You bucked out of your seat the moment England was mentioned.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator will direct his remarks to the Chair, and not to Senator Pearson. Furthermore, the honorable senator should discuss the bill.

Senator WILLESEE:

– Thank you for the rebuke, Mr. President. I had hoped that you would rebuke the person who interjected, too. I have always understood that interjections are unseemly. 1 want to refer to the caricature of Senator Armstrong’s remarks that was made by Senator Mattner and Senator Hannaford. Senator Hannaford described Senator Armstrong’s remarks as contemptible. Senator Mattner misquoted what Senator Armstrong said, and accused Senator Armstrong of trying to break an agreement. What Senator Armstrong said was that a certain state of affairs should not be permitted to arise in future. That remark was not directed to the present agreement. He said that commodities that had been produced by Australian workmen on Australian soil should be marketed by Australians. What is wrong with that statement ? Senator Hannaford said that as wool was a vital war material we could not withhold it from our allies during war-time. The fact of the matter is that the supply of wool, and other commodities such as uranium, to our allies in time of war would have to be considered when war broke out. Nobody wants to break the present agreement. But why should the marketing of this produce not be handled by Australians, so that legitimate profits may come back to Australians?

Senator Pearson:

– The Old Country took the risk.

Senator WILLESEE:

– This material had to be transported to the United Kingdom for the purposes of war just as our soldiers had to be transported overseas. I whole-heartedly support the sentiments that were expressed by Senator Armstrong. The produce of Australia should be handled by Australian workmen. No question of disloyalty arises. Does not a country become a better partner by helping itself instead of relying entirely on the country with which it is in partnership? I am astonished that Senator Mattner, an ex-President, should, have deliberately misquoted Senator Armstrong, as I accuse him of having done this afternoon.

Senator Mattner:

– I wish to make a personal explanation. I take strong exception to the honorable senator’s statement that I deliberately misquoted Senator Armstrong. I think that my reputation in this chamber is such that honorable senators will realize that 1 would not deliberately misquote another honorable senator. I take strong exception to the statement by Senator Willesee that I deliberately misquoted Senator Armstrong.

The PRESIDENT:

– Senator Mattner has taken exception to the use of the words “ deliberately misquoted “ by Senator Willesee, and. has asked that those words be withdrawn. I call upon Senator Willesee to withdraw the words “ deliberately misquoted “.

Senator Willesee:

– I think my statement was factual.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator will withdraw thewords to which I have referred.

Senator Willesee:

– I do not think that I will, Mr. President.

The PRESIDENT:

-I name Senator Willesee. In accordance with Standing Order No. 440, I report Senator Willesee to the Senate. Senator Willesee has an opportunity to make an explanation.

Senator McLeay:

– I appeal to Senator Willesee to withdraw the words that are offensive to Senator Mattner. It would be a painful duty to move, at the end of this session, that the honorable senator be removed from the Senate.

Senator Mckenna:

– When Senator Mattner spoke just now I may not have heard all that he said, but I did not hear him ask that the words “ deliberately misquoted “ be withdrawn.

Senator McLeay:

– He did.

Senator McKenna:

– Then I am entirely mistaken. I did not hear him make that request. I thought that the proceedings that had originated from that point were not well-founded. If Senator Mattner made that request I can say no more on the point.

Senator Willesee:

– The only explanation that I can make is that I was amazed when Senator Mattner disregarded the utterances that Senator Armstrong had actually made fourteen months ago in this chamber, and alleged that he had advocated the use of Asiatic workmen in order to manufacture wool into material. That statement led me to believe that he had deliberately misquoted Senator Armstrong.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator is aggravating the position.

Senator Willesee:

– Am I to be permitted to make my explanation? Senator Mattner wants to appear as the “ clean potato “, but when Senator Armstrong leaned across the table and assured Senator Mattner that he had not made any such statement, I did not hear Senator Mattner withdraw his statement or make an apology. He did not suggest that because the incident was fourteen months old his memory might have failed him. Everybody knows that Senator Armstrong did not say what Senator Mattner alleged that he said fourteen months ago. I have a great personal affection for Senator Mattner, but I considered that he had made this statement for purposes of party politics. I felt that it was my duty to point that out to the Senate.

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

– I regret that Senator Willesee has not seen fit to withdraw his offensive words. I move -

That Senator Willesee be suspended from the service of the Senate.

The question having been put to the voices,

The PRESIDENT:

– I think the “Ayes “ have it. I call on the Usher of the Black Rod

Senator Armstrong:

– The “ Noes “ have it. I call for a division.

Senator SPOONER:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Opposition did not call for a division before.

The PRESIDENT:

– Do honorable senators want a division ?

Senator Armstrong:

– Yes.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Senate will divide.

Question put -

That Senator Willesee bo suspended front the service of the Senate.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin.)

AYES: 25

NOES: 26

Majority . . . . 1

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 328

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE VETERANS’ RESIDENCES BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 2nd December (vide page 231), on motion by Senator McLeay -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

– The purpose of this bill is to authorize the expenditure, for the benefit of members of the Royal Australian Air Force, of a portion of the money derived from the sale of prizes captured during the war that commenced on the 3rd September, 1939. The objectives of the bill are most praiseworthy, and the Opposition does not intend to oppose the passage of the measure. However, there are certain aspects which I would like the Senate and the Minister in charge of the bill to consider. If the Minister will give an assurance that he will consider what I believe to be grievous omissions and anomalies in connexion with the bill, honorable senators on this side of the chamber will agree to its passage without amendment. The sum of £229,000 is involved.

It has been decided that distribution to individual members of the Royal Australian Air Force would be so complex as to make such a method virtually impossible. After examining the position, I believe that that would be so. Consequently, those who were entrusted with the task of determining the best method of dealing with the money in the interests of the veterans decided to establish institutions in the capital cities to accommodate veterans and their wives and dependants.

It is at this point that the Opposition becomes critical of the measure. Clause 4 provides that the purpose of the fund is to establish a residence or residences in which former male members of the Royal Australian Air Force who are in necessitous circumstances and, if the trust so approves, the wives of those members, may be accommodated or supported. That is a very laudable objective. However, I am sure that all honorable senators will agree that it does not go far enough. I know a lady who lost both her sons in action during World War II. She was a widow at the time her boys enlisted, and she was totally dependent on them. In my opinion, the provisions of this bill should be sufficiently wide to cover such a. case as that. I also know of an instance in which a young serviceman was killed in an accident shortly after he had reached the age of 21 years. From the day that he had left school he had supported an invalid sister, who is still alive. She is now without living relatives. Of course, she is entitled to, and receives, an invalid pension under the social services provisions, but in my opinion her case also should be covered by this bill. I appreciate that the sum of money available is not inexhaustible. Nevertheless, I think that cases such as those I have mentioned should receive sympathetic consideration. We should not lose sight df the fact that as time goes on the number of people who will seek the advantages offered by such institutions will increase.

I hope that the Minister will not content himself by saying that other provision is made to cover cases such as those I have mentioned. This bill is designed for a specific purpose and should be sufficiently wide to cover that purpose completely. If the Minister will give the assurance that I seek, the Opposition will support the bill.

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

– in reply - As the honorable senator is aware, I am not in a position to agree to any amendment of the bill at this stage, but I assure him that the matters he has raised will be discussed by me with the Minister for Air (Mr. McMahon) in order to ascertain whether anything can be done along the lines indicated by the honorable senator.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Western Australia

– I wish to put the views of Western Australian Air Force veterans before this bill is passed. They have no quarrel with the method of distributing these funds, and they appreciate that it would be almost impossible to make an impartial distribution to individuals. The second-reading speech of the Minister indicates that residences will be provided in which veterans of the Royal Australian Air Force may be accommodated in their old age or in ill health. However, the wording of the bill indicates that a residence will be established in New South Wales or Victoria, although the relevant clause also refers to the plural and speaks of “ residences “. The Western Australian veterans hope that such a residence will be built in their State. The Western Australian Air Force Association has suggested that an air force wing should be attached to the soldiers’ home known as “ Faversham “, at York. I think it would be unfair to require incapacitated exservicemen to travel perhaps 2,000 miles from their homes in Western Australia in order to take up residence in an institution in one of the eastern States of the Commonwealth. In order to do so, they would have to leave their relatives behind, which would not be desirable. With the proviso that I hope the Minister will consider the wishes of Western Australian veterans in this matter, I have pleasure in supporting the bill.

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

– I can put Senator Roberston’s mind at ease upon the matter to which she has referred. Senator Paltridge spoke to me about the same matter earlier to-day and other honorable senators have mentioned it, also. There is nothing in the bill to suggest that the residences should be limited to two States. The trustees have the power to erect the residences in any of the States. I hope that honorable senators will not delay the passage of the billbecause of uncertainty in their minds over that matter. I assure them that it is proper for the trustees to consider the establishment of residences in any of the States.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 329

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILIZATION (REFUND OF CHARGE) BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 1st December. (vide page 178), on motion by Senator McLeay -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– As the title of the bill suggests, its purpose is to provide for a refund to wheat-growers of an amount that was collected during the operation of the wheat stabilization plan that was introduced by the Chifley Government in 1948. It relates to No. 14 pool, which operated during the 1950-51 harvest period. No doubt honorable senators are aware that since 1948, it has been the practice to levy certain charges upon wheat-growers. The money that was collected was paid into a pool which was used for the stabilization of the price of wheat should the overseas market price fall below the cost of production. In ordinary circumstances, the Senate might pass this bill without much discussion, but to-day honorable senators have before them a measure which might have a very important effect upon the future prosperity of the wheat industry. Honorable senators will remember that during the secondreading speech of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay), he indicated that while the Government proposes to distribute £11,000,000 from the 1950-51 pool, it will retain £9,000,000 that was collected from the 1951-52 harvest. No collection was made in connexion with the last harvest because of the amount of money that remained in the pool. For the present, stabilization has disappeared because the period for which the enabling legislation gave effect to stabilization of wheat has elapsed. Whether there will be a further wheat stabilization plan lies in the lap of the gods or of the wheat-growers themselves.

In reply to a question that, was asked in this chamber, the Minister for Shipping and Transport said that activities were in hand that might lead to a vote of wheat-growers in the various States early next year upon the question of evolving a new stabilization plan. In that regard, the fact that the Government is retaining £9,000,000 is having a detrimental effect upon the minds of the wheat-growers, in my opinion. If that fact were to result in the wheat-growers voting against a new stabilization scheme in a fit of pique, it would be disastrous for the wheat industry. The price of wheat overseas has fallen and further reductions are possible because of the bountiful harvest in various parts of the world and the fact that Great Britain, one of our best customers in the past, lias not become a party to the International “Wheat Agreement. Therefore, there is likely to be a considerable reduction in the quantity of wheat exported from Australia, from the harvest that is now being gathered. As a result, the Australian industry may find itself in a rather precarious position. The situation must be handled very carefully by the Australian Government, the State governments concerned and all who wish to see the Australian wheat industry maintain the position that it has occupied in recent years.

Honorable senators who have been members of the Parliament for a long period will remember the interesting debates that have taken place in both Houses of the Parliament upon the stabilization of wheat marketing. A long struggle took place before the wheatgrowers could be induced to agree to a stabilization plan. When the matter was being discussed in 1947, the price of wheat, overseas increased slightly and there was a grave danger that the stabilization plan would collapse. As stabilization has now ceased, I would have been pleased if the Government had decided to distribute to growers the £9,000,000 that it holds as well as the £11,000,000 to which I have referred. I believe that such a distribution would have encouraged the wheat-growers to continue the system that has been of great advantage to them. I regret that the Senate would get nowhere at this stage of the parliamentary session if it asked the Government to act differently in this matter. Therefore, the Opposition has no alternative but to vote for the bill. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber believe that the Government has treated the Senate in cavalier fashion. The Senate, under other circumstances, could have agreed to a request to the House of Representatives that the sum of £9,000,000 should be distributed at an early date. “What is the position at the present time? The House of Representatives adjourned early this morning to a date and hour to be fixed by Mr. Speaker. Therefore, it would not matter whether the Senate exercised its constitutional right to return this bill to the House of Representatives with a request, because the House would not be in session to consider the matter. Obviously, the Government is treating the Senate in a most cavalier fashion. Stabilization is a matter of vital importance to the wheat industry at the present time. Early next year, wheat-growers may be invited to express their opinion, at a ballot, on whether or not a new stabilization plan should be introduced. This Parliament, in the final analysis, will be required to give effect to an affirmative decision reached by the wheat-growers and the States, but the Senate is not able to convey ii j views on stabilization to the House of Representatives. I hope that Ministers in this chamber will discuss the situation with their colleagues. The Senate, which is the Upper House, is not able to fulfil its constitutional function in this respect. I believe that in the long history of this Parliament, and every other parliament with the bicameral system, no chamber has been treated by a government in such a cavalier manner as the Senate has been treated on this occasion by the Menzies Government. We have no alternative but to accept the bill. It would be futile for the Senate, in view of the circumstances, to pass the legislation subject to a request. Our only course is to direct attention to the position that has arisen.

The Labour party does not object to the proposed refund of £11,000,000 collected on exports of wheat from the 1.950-51 crop placed in No. 14 pool. Indeed, we should be particularly gratified if the amount of £9,000,000 collected on the 1951-52 crop placed in. No. 15 pool were refunded to growers at the same time. That money belongs to the wheatgrowers. It was collected from them by way of an export tax on wheat sold and shipped overseas by the Australian Wheat Board from the 1950-51 crop, together with the interest that such moneys have earned in the meantime. The wheatgrowers, had the two amounts been refunded to them, might have been more favorably disposed to vote for a new stabilization scheme. The stabilization plan which expired recently has been of great value, because of the encouragement that it has given to growers to increase production. I hope that the farmers will unhesitatingly vote for the reintroduction of stabilization.

Senator PEARSON:
South Australia

– This bill has the support of honorable senators on both sides of the chamber, and I shall not weary them by discussing its provisions. However, I wish to put a view to Senator Sheehan, who has expressed the opinion that the sum of approximately £9,000,000 collected from the 1951-52 crop placed in No. 15 pool should be returned to the growers simultaneously with the refund of the amount of £11,000,000 collected on exports from the 1950-51 crop placed in No. 14 pool. I am indebted to Senator Sheehan for his forecast of the future of the wheat industry. I am not a pessimist by any means, but any one who has a knowledge of that industry cannot fail to feel some doubt about its prospects.

Senator Sheehan has expressed the view that the refund to wheat-growers of the £9,000,000 collected on the 1951-52 crop might influence them in favour of a new stabilization plan. I hope that such would not be the case. It certainly should not be so. Wheat-growers who advocate the refund of the £9,000,000 should remember that if that money were distributed now in addition to the sum. of £11,000,000 a considerable part of it would be returned to the Treasury by way of taxation. The refund itself would be subject to tax, and would increase the taxable incomes of the wheat-growers, so that they would, be taxed at a higher rate in the pound. Another factor should also be kept in mind. If the nucleus of a fund were not in existence at the beginning of a new stabilization scheme, the wheatgrowers would be obliged to make a bigger contribution in the earlier years than would otherwise be necessary in order to establish a fund of £20,000,000, which is considered to be adequate for a stabilization scheme.

When I make those statements, I am not expressing my personal views about the wisdom of the reintroduction of a stabilization scheme. I am a wheatgrower, and I have definite opinions on that matter, but this is neither the time noi- the place for me to express then). T have merely risen to direct the attention of Senator Sheehan to those two matters, and I believe that he, as a reasonable man, will recognize the merit of my contentions. I support the bill, and in doing so I pay a tribute to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. M’cEwen) for the excellent manner in which he has conducted the negotiations for a stabilization scheme during the last few months. The Minister has been confronted with a most difficult problem, which has not been made any lighter by the attitude of certain States. One of those States is well known to Senator Sheehan. Certain States have delayed the progress of the negotiations and, so far, the Minister has been able to introduce only an orderly marketing scheme. I hope that his efforts to obtain an agreement on a new stabilization scheme will be crowned with success.

I think that Senator Sheehan will agree that the obstacle to the introduction of such a scheme has been the failure on the part of some States to agree to any proposal, particularly for the home consumption price for wheat. We lost an opportunity recently to submit to the growers a proposal for the reintroduction of stabilization, and it is unfortunate that the consideration of that matter has to be deferred until the new year. The State parliaments will then be in recess, and it will be most difficult to get complementary legislation passed by the Commonwealth and the States. I hope that the growers will be given an opportunity to consider proposals for the continuance of stabilization, and that when they cast their votes at a ballot, they will recognize the wisdom of retaining the sum of £9,000,000 collected on the 1951-52 crop as the nucleus of the stabilization fund. If the growers decide upon a stabilization plan, the sum of £9,000,000 will be immediately refunded from the No. 15 pool.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 332

INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 1st December (vide page 176), on motion by Senator SPooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

.- The Opposition will not oppose this bill or the complementary measures which have been introduced to give full effect to the agreement that is embodied in it. It is unfortunate that a measure of this importance should be placed before the Senate in the dying hours of the session and in circumstances in which the majority of honorable senators are feeling the strain of late sittings during the last few days. Under those conditions, the measure will not be discussed as fully as its importance would warrant. This agreement with the United States of America in respect of double taxation has many virtues; but it has not all the virtues. Members of the

Opposition believe that in matters of this kind certain risks must be taken and that certain monetary losses cannot be avoided. The objective of the agreement is to attract greater investment of American capital in this country. At our present stage of development, with a population of only 8,000,000 and with a rapidly changing face of the world, it is obvious that we must accelerate our expansion as quickly as possible. It will not be sufficient for us to depend for that development solely upon our internal strength. We must attract more capital and acquire “ know-how “ in industry. We require also the driving force of courage. As an outpost of white civilization in the Pacific, Australia must accelerate its development before it can look with confidence to the future. We require many more millions of people in this country. I have not in mind a total population” of only 10,000,000 or 20,000,000. We require a population that will enable Australia to become one of the strongest nations in the world. Unless we achieve that objective there can be no doubt that any serious threat of aggression that may confront us in the future could overwhelm us. We must depend primarily upon population if we are to avoid disaster, and I believe that when we have a population of the order of 50,000,000 we shall be able to look after ourselves. In this process it is necessary for us to attract overseas capital.

In 1947, the Chifley Government entered into an agreement with the United Kingdom Government in respect of double taxation. Under that agreement, the investment of the United Kingdom capital in this country was encouraged. The next logical step for us to take, of course, was to enter into a somewhat similar agreement with the United States of America as the other great nation in the English-speaking world. The agreement embodied in this bill is more favorable to Australia than the agreement which we have with the United Kingdom Government. Furthermore, this agreement is much simpler. Indeed, the agreement with the United Kingdom Government is cumbersome. In passing, I suggest that the Government might examine that agreement with a view “to simplifying it along the lines of the agreement now before us. Under the agreement with the United Kingdom Government it is necessary for each Australian resident who receives a United Kingdom dividend to approach the taxation authorities in the United Kingdom and to furnish to those authorities full details of his own and his wife’s income and the amount that he or she has paid in respect of life insurance, &c. After these have been furnished, the United Kingdom authority determines the relief or refund to be granted from the standard rate of dividend tax already deducted, and will then furnish a certificate setting out the net rate of tax applicable to the particular year, ‘This must then be produced to the ‘Commissioner of Taxation in Australia for the purpose of determining the rebate that is allowable. The whole process is cumbersome and lengthy, and must be repeated each year. The agreement embodied in this bill is simpler than our agreement with the United Kingdom but it will operate less favorably upon the American investor in Australia than the United Kingdom agreement operates in relation to the United Kingdom investor in Australia. Under this agreement, American capital is not being treated as leniently or as generously as United Kingdom capital was treated under the agreement with that country. The great proportion of American investments in Australia is in subsidiary companies. The profits of those companies will continue to attract the full

Tate of Australian tax. In addition, dividends paid by those companies to their American parent bodies will be taxed in Australia up to 15 peT cent, of the amount of the dividend. Thus, whilst under the agreement, Australia is making substantial concessions to American investors, at the same time, those concessions are not as favorable as the concessions which Australia has granted to United Kingdom investors.

The whole problem of our progress is undoubtedly wrapped around “know how” in industry. Whilst many of our industries compare favorably with those in ‘Other countries, at the same time a large number of our important industries lack ‘the necessary practical background.

It is important that in the setting up of new industries in this country we must have available competent man-power, or “ know-how “, for that purpose. Otherwise, such industries will not be efficient. This aspect is considered to be so important in Great .Britain that teams of British industrialists make regular visits to the United States of America for the purpose of investigating American industrial methods. British industries ‘ have benefited considerably as a result of those investigations. The American industrialist is the most highly developed in the world. He has been able to establish the highest wage levels and the highest standard of living without surrendering his ability to compete with the industrialists of other countries. This is due to his intense application to the technical problems of production. Two characteristics of American industrialists must command our respect. One is their technical ability, and the second is their great industrial courage. Anybody who walks along the streets of New York must surely reflect upon the outlook of the men who were responsible for the erection of the towering buildings of that city and must .give them credit ;6or their great courage and enterprise. Such courage and enterprise will play an important part in the future development of Australia. The inventive genius, the technical .skill and knowledge, and the industrial -courage that are evident throughout the United States of America will be of the utmost value to us because we must move quickly to develop Australia. If the bill does not produce the desired influx of American capital and the industrial development -that we need, we can take advantage of a safeguarding provision in the agreement which permits it to be terminated at six months’ notice. We shall watch events closely during the next two or three years in order to see whether the application of .the agreement will promote the introduction of new American capital to Australia, as I hope and believe it will. Should it be unsuccessful, we can cancel it without difficulty.

A survey made by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics, the results of “which were published only last month, disclosed some interesting information on the amount of United Kingdom and American investments in Australia. I was astonished to learn of the volume of American capital invested here. Previously I had been under the impression that it represented only a small percentage of British capital in Australia, but that is not so. The report issued by the bureau includes a table that shows the paid-up capital in Australian companies held by overseas companies or individuals. At the 30th June, 1952, the United Kingdom investments under that heading amounted to £107,000,000 and United States investments amounted to £33,000,000. The survey also revealed the net increase of investment between Australia and overseas countries from 1947-48 to 1951-52 inclusive. The followingtable shows the amount for each of those years : -

Of this total of £229,000,000 for the five years, £169,000,000 came from the United Kingdom and £46,000,000 came from the United States of America. We hope that this substantial rate of investment of American capital in Australia will increase, and that the new money will be used to develop industries that will strengthen our basic economy.

One might attack General MotorsHolden’s Limited for the great profits that it makes. However, that company has given Australia the knowledge and skill necessary for the manufacture of a complete Australian motor car, and, if the worst came to the worst and we were cut off from other countries, we should have a virile and efficient industry capable of producing motor vehicles. The history of this company is typical of the history of all United States manufacturing industries in Australia. Such American companies in this country continue to put their profits back into their undertakings in order to expand their activities. This does not apply, of course, to such industries as the American motion picture industry, which is not productive in the normal sense. The owners of capital invested in the motion picture industry are always eager to transfer as much of their profits as possible to the United States of America because they need the money in order to finance the production of new films. I believe that American manufacturing industries in this country will continue to pursue the policy that I have described and will apply most of their profits to the development of industries in this country.

We cannot possibly support the population that we need with our primary industries alone. We must have vigorous secondary industries in order to provide employment for our growing population. Full employment must go hand in hand with the development of the community. Without full employment there will be an unfortunate, but natural, resistance to immigration. That is reasonable, because Australians who are out of work are entitled to protest against the entry of immigrants. If we have full employment, Australians will welcome newarrivals, which we badly need. Therefore, on all grounds, it is essential for us to develop our secondary industries. Any money that we may lose to the United States of America under the operation of the agreement - and the agreement will be more advantageous financially to the United States of America than to Australia - will be more than counterbalanced by our gains because, in the long run, we shall acquire American skill; and knowledge that will more than offset our monetary losses. Let us, therefore, accept cheerfully any risks inherent in the agreement. I again emphasize the importance of strong secondary industries to this country. Secondary industries provide us with the sinews of war. Without them we could not hold this country against attack. Therefore, we must endeavour to encourage by all means the investment of American capital for the purpose of strengthening our industrial economy. The Opposition doesnot oppose the bill.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– I support the bill. I agree entirely with Senator Armstrong, who led the debate for the Opposition, that the United States of America has made tremendous contributions of technical ability and industrial courage to the world’s economy. It was most refreshing to hear oke honorable senator’s tribute to General Motors-Holden’s Limited, which, as honorable senators know, is firmly established in South Australia, the State that i represent. The honorable senator’s remarks were diametrically opposed to the remarks of the honorable member for Hindmarsh in the House of Representatives, Air. Clyde Cameron, as reported in the Adelaide press. Mr. Cameron, in a bitter attack on the company, castigated it for the profits that it made. The suggestion was made that the company should no longer be permitted to make profits but should be nationalized, for die common good. Therefore, I listened with great interest to Senator Armstrong’s speech. As he rightly pointed out, the great American nation is perhaps the most industrially advanced country in the world. One reason for its progress is that in America profit is not regarded as something of which one should be ashamed. There is a tendency amongst the socialists on the Opposition benches of this chamber to believe that in industry and in life generally the profit motive is wrong; but the great American nation has shown to the world the great contribution that can be made to progress and development by the encouragement of the profit motive.

The Government hopes, as the Minister said in his second-reading speech that the agreement on double taxation will do much to encourage the investment in Australia of American capital which, of course, would materially assist the promotion of industry in this country. Our industrial development has had three phases. First there was a pre-federation industrial development of the colonies. An important factor that influenced the decision of the colonies to federate was the belief that federation would enhance development. The second phase occurred between 20 and 30 years ago when Australia, as a member country of the British Empire as it was then called, subscribed to the principles of imperial preference which were ultimately expressed in the Ottawa Agreement. We are now in the third phase of industrial development. Australia is a full partner in the British Commonwealth of Nations. In Canberra we have many embassies and legations of other countries. We have taken a step forward. We no longer rely on imperial preference as such. We make independent trade arrangements. The agreement with the United States of America embodied in this bill was made by Australia, as an independent nation. As Senator Armstrong rightly said, the agreement follows in the wake of a similar arrangement made with the United Kingdom in 1947. The point that I wish to stress is that, internationally, Australia has reached full nationhood.

I have had an opportunity to peruse the proceedings of the sub-committee of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate of the United States of America when the agreement that we are now being asked to approve was under consideration. So far as I can make out, there was very little debate on these proposals in the American Senate itself, but the sub-committee to which I have referred examined the matter thoroughly. It is interesting to note that Australia is the last of the major British Commonwealth countries to make a double taxation agreement with the United States of America. Even our sister dominion of New Zealand made such an agreement some time ago. The proceedings of the United States Senate sub-committee were of interest to me because I believe that the Australian Senate may be able, at some future date, to work as the American Senate does. In that country, important matters such as this are referred to subcommittees for preliminary hearings, so that they may be fully investigated before they are considered by the Senate proper. The sub-committees hear the testimony of representatives of the Foreign Office, chambers of commerce, the banking profession, the legal profession, and so on. In that way, the President of the United States of America is able to gauge public opinion. The President’s terms of reference to the Senate in connexion with the double taxation, agreement are rather interesting. In a short letter dated the 3rd June of this year, he said -

With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, t. transmit herewith the convention between the United States of America, and the Commonwealth of Australia, signed at Washington on May 14, 1053, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income. f also; transmit for the information of; theSenate the report by. the Acting. Secretary of State with respect to the convention. The convention, has the approval of the Department of State and the Department of the Treasury..

In- that simple and business-like, manner the proposed taxation arrangements with Australia were placed before1 the limited States legislature. I have- very, little to add to what Senator Armstrong has; said about the commendable provisions’, o£ the agreement. I merely point out to- the Senate that the agreement, is further evidence of this Government’s interest in the United States of America and! itsdesire to transact business with, that country. Honorable- senators will recall that last year we. had before: us the Anzus pact. In 195,0j, we had an opportunity to discuss the 10.0,00,0,000, dollar loan from the International. Bank of Reconstruction, and Development; and. in 1952’ we; considered a further loan. of. 5.0,0 0.0,.0 00- dollars.. Now, we. have before- us thisvery important agreement, relating, to the avoidance of double: taxation, of companies of American origin- operating iri. Australia and the few Australian companies that, operate in the United States of America. I hope, that the bill will be. given a speedy passage. If. the agreement, iff found to be unsatisfactory when it is in operation’, it may be revoked.; hut I hope that whatever government may be in power in the years to come, the- need to revoke the agreement will not arise.. I consider the agreement to be. in the best interest of trade and commerce in. the free world.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia.

-51 - The pUrpose of the conventions1 that we are discussing is; to avoid double taxation of company profits- and the earnings of individuals-, as’ well as the: payment of gift duties- and estate duties in each of two countries. From the. comparatively meagre statistical information that is available, I gather that,. in> round figures, £3,000..,000. a year is being sent to the United States of America! from this country in respect- of earnings of American companies established here and royalties on American goods manufactured in Australia under Licence. That means that we; have to exchange £A3,000,000 for its dollar equivalent in order to discharge that de:bt to- the United1 States, of America. During the1 last four’ or five years, the American’ dollar investment in this country, which was* originally worth approximately £A33,000,000, has’ increased by approximately £A46,000,000. That does- not mean that more dollars have been invested in this country. American companies established1’ here have re-invested, some of the profits they have made on- their original investment of £33,000;000. During the last four or five years, only a. small percentage of tha earnings of those, companies have been transmitted’ to the United States of America. A large proportion1 has- been re-invested here.

When these conventions, become, operatiara, a bigger percentage, of the, income earned in, this country by American companies will: be transmitted to- the United States of. America. Our trade with the Americans is- no*, of such a. nature as- to enable us to sell enough goods to them to.- cover that, exchange of money.. In order to, pay/ the interest on- the. American investment iw Australia, we shall have to. sell- goods to other countries- and, with the proceeds, buy dollars, from either the sterling pool or some other source. At present,, we have to. pay £A125 for £100 sterling,, plus certain charges. In some transactions, we pay £12,5 12s. 6d. in Australian currency for £100, sterling, and in, others,, when telegraphic transfers ara made, we pay £126 10s.. in. Australian currency. The point that I want to, make. is. that, in order to buy sterling,, we: must sell some of o.ur goods overseas or borrow- overseas. Similar considerations apply to tha purchase of dollars. At the present exchange rate, dollars to, the value of £10,0 sterling would cost approximately £15.0 in Australian currency. The Australian- £1 is worth 2.33 dollars, and the £1. sterling is worth 2.S. dollars. I have already said that our export: trade to tha United States of America is not. very large. Therefore,, in order to obtain dollars to pay interest on tha- American, investment in- this country we- shall have, to sell to other countries goods to the value of the. interest payable.

That brings me. to a matter that is highly explosive, politically speaking. 1 think it would be as well for the Treasurer(Sir Arthur Fadden) and the Government to give very serious consideration to appreciating the value of the Australian £1.

Senator Gorton:

– Appreciating or depreciating?

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– I want the Governmentto give serious consideration to an appreciation of the value of the Australiain £1. I do not want it to be depreciated further . I understand that, under international monetary agreements, acountrycannot appreciate or depreciate itscurrencyby more than l0 per cent, without permission from the appropriate international authority. I suggest it might be desirable to appreciate the Australian £1 tothevalue of the £1 sterling. Ifthat were done, we should be able to buy £1.00 sterling with £100 in Australian currency. In that way, our loss on dollartransactions would be reduced. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to this aspect of the matter. I know of course, ‘as I have already mentioned, that this is a highly explosive subject, and that the primary producing interests,but not necessarily the producers themselves, would probably contend that the adoption of my proposal wouldbeto th eir detriment. Other sections ofthe community would doubtless contend thatsuch an arrangement would have a material effect on the basic wage. However, those considerations should not deter the Government from appreciating the Australian£1 up to the value of the English £1.Ofcourse, there are intricate factors to he kept in mind in that proposition, as well ‘as in relation to conventions. American companies that have invested dollar capital in thisCountry during the last four or fiveyears are now demanding an adequate return on their investments. To comply with their wishes would necessitate aconsiderableoutflow of money, or goods of equivalentvalue, to the UnitedStates of America. A saving worth while to Australia wouldbe effected if the Australian £1were appreciated to pa rty withsterling. I urge the Government to giveserious consideration to my suggestion at an early date.

Senator WEDGWOOD:
Victoria

– I consider that the Government and the people of this country are deserving of congratulationon the strides that havebeen made towards nationhood. As Senator Armstrong has said, we are growing into national manhood, and therefore we must be prepared to accept the consequential responsibilities. That was a truthful summary of the position. I congratulate the honorable senator on the speech that he delivered a few minutes ago;; it was one of thebest-balanced speeches that I have heard in this chamber. He deserves great credit for it. By ratifying the agreement we shall prove to the other countries of the world that this nation is growing up. We are taking a great step forward towards international status. For that reason, if for no other, w.e should support this bill, which will have far-reaching effects.

Previous speakers have directed their attention to the probable economic effects of the agreement, I believe that it will also have , a tremendous psychological effect. Several honorable senators have referred to the fact that the agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom was given the force of law in 1946. The agreement that we are now considering was signed in the United States of America on the 14th May. This bill seeks to ratify that agreement, in order to give it the forceof law . The agreement with the United States of America containspro vis ions similarto those in the agreement that was concluded with Great Britain. It wasrealized that Australia should not be expected to concede more to the United States of America than had beenconceded tothe United Kingdom. Both Senator Armstrong and Senator Laught have stated that the agreement will (encourage the investment of additional American capital in this country. I support that contention. I believe, also, that it will encourage investment here by private companies. In the long run it is better for a country to attract capital investment than to obtain loans from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Senator Armstrong has stated that Australia will derive a greatbenefit from persons possessing special skills and knowledge, who will come to Australia to look after American investments. I consider that we have already benefited considerably in that way. Senator Laught has pointed out that the great expansion of production that has been achieved in Australia will result in an improved standard of living for our people. It is obvious, therefore, that transfers of money from Australia to the United States of America for the payment of dividends will be offset in the way that I have described. However, I believe that the psychological effect of the agreement will be even more important than the effect that it will have on trade. The bill acknowledges that Australia depends for its very existence on the assistance of the two great democracies, Great Britain and the United States of America. That fact was acknowledged when we signed the agreement with the United Kingdom in 1946. The ratification of the agreement that has been entered into with the United States of America will show that_ we acknowledge that we owe a great debt to that country. Honorable senators will recall that when the safety of this country was threatened during World War .II., many members of this Parliament said that we were turning our eyes towards’ America for assistance. Although the British Commonwealth countries traditionally owe allegiance to Great Britain, we must be realistic. In view of the geographical location of Australia it is necessary for us to have strong and powerful friends. The United States of America has at all times been a true friend to Australia. The agreement is much more than a trade agreement. Admittedly great capital benefits will flow to Australia as a result of the agreement, but I believe that its psychological effect, also, will be of great importance. I have very much pleasure in supporting the bill.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– Senator O’Flaherty has urged the Government to consider appreciating the Australian £1 up to parity with sterling. I shall deal with another facet of the matter. I agree whole-heartedly with Senator Armstrong’s contention that, in order to establish and maintain a balanced economy, we must develop our secondary industries. However, we should consider the terms upon which we will take American capital to do so. The terms for the supply of capital to Australia up to the present time have operated disastrously against our interests. Capital in the United States of America is accumulating, and must be invested in other countries. Unless it is so invested the economy of the United States of America will show down and widespread unemployment will result. It is quite obvious that if overseas capital flows to Australia, then Australia is a more profitable field for investment than the investing countries themselves. Therefore, those who invest their money in Australia make a virtue out of necessity by requiring more favorable conditions than exist at present, well knowing all the time that the present conditions of investment are sufficiently attractive to bring in money from overseas. The capital used in the building of the Sydney Harbour Bridge amounted to about £10’,000,000. To the present time we have paid about £3,000,000 in interest on that money, and we shall continue to pay interest on the capital sum as far ahead as we can see. Obviously, under such circumstances we must reach the stage “when we can pay no more interest.. About £90,000,000 of English capital was in vested in the Victorian railways, and to the present time we have paid about £152,000,000 interest on that sum. If we continue to pay vast sums of interest, we shall not be able to build up our secondary industries so that they will increase our own capital potential. Most of the Australian railways to-day are obsolete compared with American railways, but we have no chance of getting new capital to modernize them.

The driving force of the necessity to invest accumulating capital is responsible for all progress. But investment, of Amercian capital does not benefit the people of America as a whole, because many of them are underfed, and there are possibly 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 unemployed in that country to-day. It is possible to see palatial offices and residences in New York and Washington, while not far away millions of people are living under primitive conditions. If we exempt invested capital from some taxation, the benefit of the remission will go, not to the ordinary people of America, but to those who are already wealthy. Last year the profit of General Motors-Holden’s Limited was about £4,000,000. Obviously that large sum of money has been obtained by overcharging the company’s customers, and such overcharging militates against the well-being of our own economy. If we reduce taxation on invested capital, inn- social services and other measures designed to help the people will lose to the value of the taxes remitted.

From my reading of official records such as banking and finance reports, I have come to the conclusion that American capital is accumulating at such a rate that unless something spectacular happens America may ultimately obtain economic domination of the world. As a strong economic base is necessary for a strong political super-structure, America’s economic domination may bring about its political domination of the world. In view of the development of American capitalism, America should realize that it ought to institute a system of international trade similar to the system of lend-lease that operated during World War LT. Such a system would be far more advantageous to both Australia and America than the present trading system. If lend-lease had been continued, .America would have lost nothing and would have stabilized its economy. At present American companies are making enormous profits and gradually monopolizing whole fields of business activities, and of course, honorable senators know that monopolies can dictate and enforce their own economic terms. There is no doubt that American industrial technique is unexcelled, but that is certainly no justification for imposing unjust terms upon Australia in respect of the investment of American capital here. In my opinion American profits should be limited, because once a monopoly system has grown up business interests control the country. Perhaps that would not be. so bad if it did not adversely affect the interests of the working people.

In America, an automatic reduction of the purchasing power of wages is going on all the time, because America’s economy is unbalanced. I believe that Australia’s economy is also unbalanced at present, and the outlook for the future is not as bright as many people seem to think. I consider that it is the responsibility of the Opposition, as well as of the Government, to take a more intelligent view of the economic processes that are operating in America which are playing a large part in the present economic disturbance of the world. To-day, American capital is building up West Germany and Japan, and it seems to most people that that is a right and proper thing to do. However, the time will come when America will not be able to dispose of its surplus capital and products, as it is now doing, and will be forced to attempt to halt its expanding economy. If it should do that, widespread unemployment and distress will follow. Even now America is restricting imports, although it is bending every effort to expand its exports. That tendency may also be seen in Canada and other countries, and indicates that one of the most important factors in the modern world to-day is the lack of economic balance. Of course that is very bad, but few people attempt to examine our economic problems thoroughly, and fewer still can make an assessment of our present position. As American capital establishes itself in a country it lays down its own terms. In the 1930’s, Australia accepted the Premiers’ plan on orders from London. The Bank of England sent out Sir Otto Niemeyer and others to tell the Australian Government what to do. I do not mind Washington making representations to Australia, but I object to the Government’s automatic acceptance of all such representations. Australia should be a hard bargainer and demand a quid pro quo. The Government will eventually find that it will have to take a firm stand. I make these few remarks because I should not like it to be thought that, as a representative of the people, I allowed this bill to go through the Senate without expressing the views that I have expressed again and again in this chamber and outside.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 340

ESTATE DUTY CONVENTION (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 1st December (vide page 177), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– I have no intention to add to the general remarks that I passed on the Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill 1953, which also apply to this bill. The Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 340

GIFT DUTY CONVENTION (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 1st December (vide page 177), on motion by Senator SPOONER -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– The Opposition does not oppose this bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 340

INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 3) 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 1st December (vide page 178-), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– The Opposition does not oppose this bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 340

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 1st December (vide page 194), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a. second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– This bill is designed to give members of the permanent naval forces the opportunity to become contributors under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act. In 1948, when the original legislation was passed, officers and ratings were given the option of taking their deferred pay instead of becoming contributors to this benefit scheme. With the effluxion of time,, many officers and ratings have found that considerable benefits are available to them under the act and they wish to join the scheme. The main purpose of this bill is to allow such officers and ratings to become contributors to the benefits fund. The bill provides that officers and ratings shall be medically fit before they are accepted as contributors. The bill provides also that they shall pay arrears of contributions back to 194S and that they shall repay their deferred, pay. That requirement might be rather harsh on some of the members who wish to join the scheme. I hope that the authorities who administer the fund will treat the new contributors as generously as possible so that the repayment of their deferred pay will not become a hardship and that they will spread the payment of arrears over a period of time in order to avoid too great an inroad on the ordinary pay of the new contributors. The bill is a good bill. The Opposition supports it. Other minor provisions have been included in order to provide machinery for the purpose of administering the act more efficiently. The Opposition thinks that the bill will be of benefit to officers and ratings of the Royal Australian Navy.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 341

QUESTION

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION

Senator SEWARD:
Western Australia

..- I move-

  1. ’ That, in the light of the experience gained during the 53 years of federation, the Senate is of the opinion that the time has arrived for a review of the Federal Constitution with particular reference to those sections which deal with - fa) the financial relationship between the Federal and State Governments; and
  2. the composition and method of election of the Senate which the framers of the Constitution intended to be a States house.
  3. That the Government convene at the earliest possible moment a convention consisting of the leaders of all political parties in the State parliaments, and not more than an equal number of delegates (including the leaders of the political parties) from the Federal Parliament, together with an independent chairman, for the purpose of framing” such alterations to the Federal Constitution as are- regarded desirable.
  4. That all decisions of the convention should be carried by an absolute majority of the convention.

I commend this motion to the Senate because I think it the most important question which faces Australia to-day. I simply bring forward the matter as a private member’s motion, mainly to drawattention to the present position. Admittedly, of course, the summoning of such a convention will be the duty of the Government, but the task that will face the convention, if summoned, will be so vast and so difficult that I think it is necessary that a frank and fulldiscussion of the matter should take place before the time arrives for the calling of the convention. After all, who are better qualified to discuss this matter than the members of the Senate? Unless we avail ourselves of the opportunity to discuss it now, a considerable time will elapse before we have another opportunity to do so. The business which will confront the convention will be so comprehensive, and there- will be so many matters to be discussed, that there is every reason for bringing up the matter at this time.

Honorable senators no doubt appreciate that- a convention cannot be summoned’ in the space of a few weeks or even a few months: Once the decision is taken to call- a convention it will- be necessary for th’6^ States and the Commonwealth to appoint the technical officers to collate the information necessary before the delegates come together. We must- bear that fact in mind and also the fact that during the next six months We shall be occupied with the Royal visit, general elections- for the House of Representatives, and elections for some of the State legislative councils, so that if can readily be seen that there is no hope of holding a convention on the lines suggested by me before next July at the earliest.

When referring to the question of a convention recently, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) said that such a convention might occupy a period of years. I think he also said that the original convention lasted for approximately ten years. It must be remembered, however, that the task which would face the kind of convention I have in mind would be’ vastly different from, that which faced the previous convention. There’ is a big difference between drafting a new Constitution and revising an existing one. However, if the convention would occupy such, a long period, I suggest that tha-t is further justification for discussing the matter at an early date, so that the questions involved may be thoroughly aired and the best information made available to those who have to undertake the task.

That brings me to a consideration of the composition of the convention. In my opinion, the people who are best qualified to- take part are the leaders of the various State governments, men- who have had to carry on in the past under the existing Constitution. Of course, I do not know the intentions of the Government in this matter, but I have read recent press reports of statement’s made by. delegates to a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers concerning the return of taxing powers to the States. With due deference’ to the State Premiers, I subscribe to the opinion that it does not ne’cessarily follow that because a man happens to be Premier of a State at the moment- all political wisdom is locked up in him. There’ are those’ who have held ministerial office iri the’ pastand are’ now leaders- of the’ opposition1 or leaders of other political parties. In addition to the Premiers1,, f atn of the opinion that the leaders of the parties in the Status should also be asked to represent thu States at the convention, and I think the same thing should apply in the Commonwealth sphere. We have in this chamber honorable senators who have held ministerial rank in the past, and the same comment can be made of the members of the House of Representatives. Surely those men who have carried on under the Constitution in the past are best qualified to undertake this very important task. It has been said that outside assistance should be sought, but I cannot subscribe to that opinion. I appreciate that we have men at our universities who have made a study of this matter, but I suggest that, whilst they have theoretical knowledge, they have little practical knowledge of the workings of government under the Constitution. For that reason, I maintain that the men best qualified to carry om this duty are the leaders of the various parties in the Federal and State sphere.

Of course, merely to elect the leaders of the parties in the federal Parliament would leave the federal delegation in a position of hopeless numerical inferiority at the convention. .Therefore, I suggest that the federal delegation should consist of a number of representatives equal to the total number chosen by the State parliaments. I understand that that principle was followed in .1942, when the Leaders of the Opposition accompanied the Premiers to a conference which was held at that time to discuss certain powers. If honorable senators read the report of that conference, I think they will admit that some leaders of the opposition made valuable contributions to the discussions That fact strengthens my contention that all leaders of parties should be summoned to the convention. I also suggest. that the chairmanship of the convention should be held by an independent person and not by the Prime Minister. I imagine that the Prime Minister would be the leader of the Commonwealth delegation and that his time would be devoted almost entirely to the work of that delegation. Therefore, I suggest that the position of chairman should be allotted to an independent man. A name that comes immediately to mind is that of an ex-Chief Justice, Sir John Latham, or, if he were not available, the present occupant of that high office, Sir Owen Dixon.

In my opinion we should be extremely fortunate to have such a convention, because it would most likely arrive at a satisfactory decision concerning the parts of the Constitution that should be revised or altered. Of course, the people would have an opportunity to express their opinion of the proposals put forward by the convention at a referendum, which would have to be held before the Constitution could be altered.

It is worthwhile to examine the reasons why I think such a convention is necessary. It will be seen that, in the motion which I have moved, I express the opinion that the convention should have particular reference to those sections of the Constitution which deal with the financial relationship between the Federal and State governments, and also the composition and method of election of thu Senate, which the framers of the Constitution intended to be a States house. In stating those as the reasons why I advocate this convention, I emphasize that, they are my own reasons entirely. I have no doubt that others who consider this matter may have different reasons for the holding of a convention. The position regarding section 92 of the Constitution immediately springs to mind. However, I shall leave it to other honorable senators who desire to take part in this debate. I have emphasized the financial relationship between the Federal and State governments because, in my opinion, that is the big question which must be resolved in the near future. We are all familiar with the wrangle that occurs each year after the conference of the Commonwealth and State Ministers and the meetings of the Australian Loan Council. That wrangle among the political leaders does not do credit to those who participate in it nor does it redound to the credit of the Australian nation. Some of the State Premiers criticize the Australian Government because it has not given them enough money for the works that they consider to he essential. If we could obviate that situation, it would be a great advantage to us. I am conscious of the fact that in recent years the States have received considerably larger sums than they did in preceding years. In advocating this revision of the financial relationships between the Commonwealth and the States, I do not want it to be inferred that I am criticizing the Commonwealth Grants Commission. It has performed useful and valuable work and has shown sympathy towards the States. Et has allocated to them large sums of money by way of grants, and that reflects creditably upon it. 1 refer to the matter because I believe that the financial rela- tions of the Commonwealth and the States should ito scrutinized closely with a view to a better distribution of the money that is available. In speaking of the matter, I am looking at it from the viewpoint of Western Australia. If any other honorable senators wish to participate in this debate they can view the matter from the point of view of the States that they represent.

Western Australia is getting into a desperate financial position. I remind honorable senators that it has an area almost equal to the combined areas of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. It occupies about onethird of Australia and has a population of only 600,000. Many disabilities place Western Australia in a much different position from that of the other States. Grants to Western Australia have increased from £16.000,000 in 1949-50 to £25,000,000 in 1952-53. The sum of money that has been allotted to Western Australia has not doubled, but all government costs have not only doubled, but increased three-fold. While Western Australia appreciates increased financial assistance that it has received through the Commonwealth Grants Commission, there is still a great shortage of money available for the amount of urgent work that remains to be done. Honorable senators should remember that the Commonwealth has received from taxation large amounts of money and the States have received back a certain amount. The rest of the funds required by the States have been obtained from loans. The result is that the Commonwealth is undertaking large works which will be of great assistance to some States, but no assistance whatever to the others. I have in mind the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme. That will be very valuable to Victoria and New South Wales, and, to some degree, to South Australia, but that work could never have been undertaken by those States alone. Consequently through the ill-balance of the loan money and the revenue that is available to the States and the Commonwealth, some States are benefiting while others are not getting any benefit in that way.

During the war years all efforts and finance were directed towards winning the war. All new public works were practically stopped and the maintenance of existing public works had to be postponed. At the end of the war Western Australia had a liability in the way of delayed .maintenance and urgently needed new works which had grown beyond the financial resources of the State. The prime problem in Western Australia is the supply of water. So far as I know that problem does not, trouble the eastern States materially. I am filled with envy when I travel in the eastern part of Australia and see the rivers of fresh water. Generally the towns in the eastern States have no difficulty in getting water, but I do not recall one inland town in Western Australia that has a supply of potable water. The only solution of the problem is the piping of water from reservoirs situated in the hills along the coast. Practically all the rivers - and they are few - are salty. Kalgoorlie has a supply, but to the north and south of Perth all the towns - and there are many of them - are short of water every year-. Residents have to fill their baths with water on Sunday to carry them through the week. Garden? cannot be kept growing .during the summer because of the shortage of water. A scheme was introduced in 1947 under which the Commonwealth and the State were to co-operate in a comprehensive water scheme. The first pipe was laid in 1947 and up to the end of 194S, approximately 40 miles of pipes had been laid. That is all. that we have now. It is a pipe-line that runs from nowhere to nowhere. Altogether SO miles of pipe will be needed to convey the water to the nearest town and 200 miles more of piping must be laid to supply the towns that the scheme is destined to serve. Costs have increased since the scheme was undertaken. Originally the Australian Government undertook to bear half the cost bf the work, but indications are that the Western Australian Government will have to bear at least two-thirdsof the cost. Additional expenditure, therefore, will be required ofthe State Government.

The Kwinana oil refinery will place an added burden of £1,000,000 oh the State finances this year. The dredging of Cockburn Sound banks will cost £400,000 and other works include a water supply estimated to cost £320,000, as well as the development of the area and a railway.

I direct the attention of honorable senators to a recent press report that a suggestion had been made to the Minister for Supply and Transport (Senator McLeay) that the Commonwealth Should standardize the railways from Brisbane in Perth. I hope that the Australian Government will hot entertain anything of that sort so far as the section between Kalgoorlie and Perth is concerned without exhaustive consultation with the State Government. I readily agree thatthe standardization of the railway gauge would be a valuable work in the eastern States, which are separated only by an imaginary line, but there is a desert 1,000 miles wide between Kalgoorlie and Port Augusta. The last exhaustive investigation into this matter was ‘undertaken in 1949 and it was estimated that anew railway from Kalgoorlie to Perth would cost £10,000,000. Costs have increased considerably since then. If the Australian government has £10,000,000to spend upon thatwork, the money could be put to better use if it were made available to Western Australia for pressing rehabilitationwork. The railwaysare in a desperate position in Western Australia. Derailment’s are frequent. The State could spend £5,000,000 uponthe railways if it had the finance. I suggest,for the consideration ‘of the Senate that ‘there should be a betterdistribution ofrevenue. At present, the Commonwealth collects themajor part of the revenue,and allocates some of it to the States. The States areobliged to raise ontheloan market any moneys thatthey require inexcess of the amountsthat they receive from the Commonwealth. Inmyopinion,thetotal revenue should bedistributed according totheneeds of theCommonwealthand the States, and they should obtain from the loan market their financial requirements in excess of revenue receipts. In that way, theCommonwealth and the States would share any disadvantage arising from a shortage of loan moneys.

The second matter to which I refer in the motion is the composition and election of the Senate, which the framers of the Constitution intended to be a States’ House. Thismatter should receive immediate attention by a convention. The people should remember that the representatives of the less populous States were greatly concerned, during the debates on the framing of the Federal Constitution, lesttheir interests in the National Parliament should besubject to the will of the more populous States. In o reder to protect the less populous States from such a danger, each State had equal representation in the Senate, regardless of its population. But conditions have changed in the 53 years of federation. The inert who drafted the Constitution have departed this life long since, And their places have been taken by a new generation. Political ideas also have undergone change. Party politics is greatly intensified. The Senate is now practically a replica of the HouseofRepresentatives. In my limited experience as a member of this chamber, the Senate appears to give its approval almost automatically to legislation passed by the House of Representatives.

Under those conditions, theSenate does not fulfil its function as ahouse of review. That fact has been brought home tous particularly in the last few days. I knowthat some people “will Say, in replyto thatstatement, “ Well, abolish the Senate “. To such a proposal, I reply, “God forbid!” Theabolition of the Senate, inmy opinion,would be a great calamity. Queensland abolished the Legislative Council many years ago,but I venture to say that thatconstitutional change was not made, with the object of improvingthe legislation of that State. However. Ishall not pursue that matter. Ido not wishto intrudeinto the politics ofQueensland, because Ihaveno knowledgeof them. I merely express my opinion that legislation should be reviewedby a second chamber ; and that a secondchamber is a guarantee ‘of ‘better legislation than would emanate from a single chamber system. While I am discussing this matter, I should like to read a passage from Modern Democracies, by the late Lord Bryce-

When legislation is introduced into the originating Chamber it reflects the viewpoint of the Ministry or the person responsible for it. The measures then receive the considerationand criticism of the opposing sides of the House. Amendments are of course made in many instances, but they are generally speaking of minor importance and do not alter the general principles of the Bill. . . . The Second Chamber must carefully consider the Billclause by clause, line by line, and rectify mistakes in the drafting in order to ensure so far as it is possible for any legislative body to ensure that the intention is expressed by the words used. The Second Chamber must make such amendments as shall be necessary without destroying the principle of the Bill to uphold the rights of minorities disturbed by it.

In those words, Lord Bryce lucidly described the functions of a second Ch amber.

I also advocate an alteration of the system by which honorablesenators are elected, because the Senate has become a party House. My proposal is made entirely “ off my ownbat “. In my opinion, the Senate should bo more closely linked with the State parliaments. I suggest that five honorable senators from a State should be selected by the State Parliament, and the remaining five by the electors, as at the present time. Ifmy proposal went no furtherthan that, we should not be ally better off, because a political party which had a majority in the State Parliament would select senators from among its own supporters. Therefore,we must go further. I suggest that the fivesenators to be elected by ‘a State parliament should be chosen from parti cular groups in the State - the pro- fessional group, which would include lawyers,doctors, educationists and rep- resentatives of finance, the manufacturing and commercial group, the local government group, the primacy production group, and industrial interest- each of which would be invited to submit alistofthreenames, marked in order of preference. TheState Par- liament would select one name from each list, and the personso chosen would become amember of the Senateforsix years. Idonotconsider thatsenators selected from those groups should be appointed for life, because that would free them from any responsibility to those whom they represented. If five honorable senators from a State were chosen by that method, the Senate would have a closer relationship with the States. and the various groups in the community would be represented here. The Senate, being a chamber of review, would greatly benefit under such a system.

I realize that my proposal is somewhat drastic, but I submit it to the Senate for earnest consideration. If my proposal were given effect, it would preserve the close relation between a section of the Senate and each State Parliament and would ensure a wider representation of interests in the Senate than is possible under any other system.

I do not wish to delay the Senate any longer with this matter at the present time. I thank the Government for having afforded me the opportunity to submit this motion, and I hope that it will receive attention. I urge that special consideration be given to my request for the summoning of a convention.

Senator Guy:

-.- I second the motion.

Motion (by SenatorCooper) put -

That the debate benow adjourned.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin.)

AYES: 26

NOES: 21

Majority 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 346

LIFE INSURANCE BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 306).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

.- This bill proposes to amend the measure that was passed in 1946 during the regime of the Chifley Government. That measure constituted the first attempt by the National Parliament since federation to exercise its power over insurance, and for the first time, and with the general approval of all parties in the Parliament, the Australian Government then stepped into the field of insurance and produced uniformity in that vastly important field which directly affects the majority of the people of this country. I understand that approximately 5,000,000 policies are in force in Australia at present. That fact gives some idea of the extent of the operations of insurance in its various aspects. It is business of a very important order and of vast financial magnitude. Unquestionably, as was shown by the act that was passed in 1946 with the approval of all members of the Parliament, there is a need for parliamentary control and regulation in this field.

The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) introduced this measure with a speech that consisted of only a few words. Although the bill is extensive and makes quite a large number of machinery alterations to the principal act, one might say with complete truth that it was thrown almost with contempt on the table of the Senate for discussion by members of this chamber. The main provision of the bill from the viewpoint of the Opposition is the proposal to abolish the power granted to the Governor-General under the 1946 act to set up a Commonwealth insurance office. The Attorney-General, in his second-reading speech in relation to this point, said -

In addition to the amendments to which I have referred, the bill removes those sections of the main act which provide for the establishment of a government insurance office to which the Government has always been opposed.

Whilst that statement may, or may not, be true in relation to the Government, it is certainly not accurate in relation to the parties that comprised the Opposition in 1946 and which now comprise the present Government. As a matter of fact, the 1.946 act incorporating the provision for the setting up of a Commonwealth insurance office had the express approval in the Parliament of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), who was then Leader of the Opposition, and, far from opposing that particular provision, the Opposition of that day, now the Government parties, actually moved an amendment to one of the clauses dealing with this office. The effect of that amendment was that the Commonwealth Insurance Office might carry on life insurance business and such other kinds of insurance business as are prescribed or approved by resolution of the Parliament.

Senator Guy:

– Who moved that amendment ?

Senator McKENNA:

– Sir Percy Spender, who was then member for Warringah. He moved that amendment on behalf of the Liberal Opposition of that day. That fact indicates that there was no objection to the principle of empowering the Governor-General, in other words the government of the day. to set np such an office if the Parliament voted in that direction. So one must view the statement of the AttorneyGeneral that the Government has always been, opposed to this provision in the light of the comments that I have just made.

There were, of course, reasons for the inclusion of that provision in the 1946 measure. In Australia, at that time, there were quite a number of insurance offices whose policy-holders might at any time be in jeopardy ‘because of insufficient assets to protect their policies as well as in respect of other matters. It was rather necessary to have this reserve provision to set up a Commonwealth insurance office to take over the affairs, if need be, of those companies. It is also advisable, for another reason, that this power should be retained in the bill, although it may never he exercised.

The thought that the Australian Government might one day enter the field had a sobering and steadying influence upon all insurance companies in Australia. The mere presence of that power was a good thing and, although quietly lying there, nevertheless it exercised a very useful influence upon those organizations. If the Government claims - the claim has not yet been made, but it probably will be made before this debate is concluded - that it is deleting thi? provision from the legislation in pursuance of what it is pleased to call its de-socialization policy, with all the facets of that policy that have been apparent over the years, I direct attention to the terms in which power is granted to the National Parliament over insurance.. Placitum (xiv) of section 51 of the Constitution gives power to the Parliament to make laws with respect to -

Insurance, other than State insurance; a IA State insurance extending- beyond the limits of die Shite concerned. [ invite the Senate to listen carefully while I read the terms of the preceding placitum in relation to another matter. Under placitum (xiii.), the Parliament is given power to make laws with respect, to -

Banking, other than State hanking; also State banking extending beyond the limits ot the State concerned.

Those two p’lacita are in exactly identical terms with the substitution of the word “ banking “ for the word “ insurance I think that every honorable senator knows that in relation to the banking power it has been made completely clear, not only by the decision of the courts of Australia but also by the highest appellate tribunal to which au appeal may lie, that it is impossible for the Australian Government, under the Constitution as it now stands, to nationalize banking. That is completely established. The same words are used in the Constitution in relation to insurance. Therefore, I say it is completely impossible for this Parliament, no matter what government may be in power, to nationalize insurance while the Constitution remains as it is.

Senator GORTON:

– By direct legislation.

Senator McKENNA:

– I shall deal with that point immediately. The Com monwealth, of course, may enter into the field of insurance just as it has, in fact, entered into the field of banking by means of the Commonwealth Bank. However, because of the decisions in the banking case and the airways case, it is completely clear that the Commonwealth cannot move into the field of insurance, either directly or indirectly, to the exclusion of other bodies in that field. I put to Senator Gorton a proposition which, I am sure, his mind will intellectually accept whatever his political reaction to it may be. It is certain that the High Court of Australia would never permit the Commonwealth to achieve by indirect means anything that it was prevented, under the Constitution, from achieving by direct means. I submit that that proposition cannot be controverted. That is the main issue between the Opposition and the Government on this bill. The bill provides for important machinery alterations of the principal act. In fact, the proposed alterations cover sixteen printed pages. Therefore, the bill is not, from any viewpoint, a mere minor contribution to the legislation of this Parliament. However, having regard to many considerations, I shall not raise at this time issues that might arise from a detailed consideration of the numerous clauses.

The Opposition focuses its attention on clause 27, which purports to abolish Part VI. of the principal act. It is a very innocent, simple-looking clause, which reads in full -

Part VI. of the Principal Act is repealed.

The effect of that, of course, will be to remove from the law of this country the power conferred by sections 132 to 137 of the act of 1946.

Senator Guy:

– Which give the Commonwealth power to enter into insurance.

Senator McKENNA:

– They give the Commonwealth power to establish an insurance office, which is then authorized to enter into the insurance business. When that legislation was introduced, the Chifley Labour Government was pressed very heavily in the House of Representatives to indicate whether it intended to establish such an office. The answer was a clear “No”. I happened to be in the gallery of the House of Representatives on that occasion, and I heard the very firm assurance that was given that no such step would be taken except pursuant to legislation. That meant that the powers taken under the 1946- act would not be exercised under its provisions but that, if anything of the kind- was contemplated, additional legislation to give effect to the proposal would lie presented to the Parliament. That undertaking, of course, was honoured-. Circumstances during, the remainder of the regime of the Chifley Government, which continued for a further three years, did not stimulate it to take advantage of the sections I have mentioned.

The Opposition considers that a vital point of principle is involved here. Part VI. has had a very salutary effect upon the insurance world at large, even though it has not been implemented1. The knowledge that the Commonwealth might enter the field of insurance at any time under the provisions of that part has tended to keep the- companies on straight and safe lines.

Senator LAUGHT:

– “Would not competition keep them on straight lines ?

Senator McKENNA:

– Competition might do so to a degree, but a great deal depends’ on the asset backing and the managements of individual companies. Managements and their effectiveness can be so- diverse that one insurance company might accumulate assets and reserves that provided wonderful backing for its policies whereas another, with a similar volume of business, might well destroy, by unwise investments and wasteful expenditure on administration, the financial backing that it should provide for the security of its policy-holders.

Senator Henty:

– That could happen to a government insurance office.

Senator McKENNA:

– It can happen everywhere, and it does happen wherever there are divergencies of honesty, effectiveness and wisdom of management. Competition, I say to Senator Henty, would not. keep the insurance companies completely healthy. After all is said and done, competition often leads to- wasteful expenditure upon pressure salesmanship,extravagant advertising; and rash- and risky investments.

There is another element in this field, too-the element of monopolies;, trusts and’ combines. Competition need not be the only factor that operates. A cartel of insurance Companies might so arrange the whole field of business between them as to have a very pretty preserve. I maintain that the mere presence of Part VI. of the existing act would make the insurance companies of Australia hesitate about embarking on cartel arrangements to exploit policy-holders. Thus, the honorable senator has given me an- opportunity to pin-point one other reason for the retention of Part VI. of the principal act. The need to exercise the power contained in that part is dependent upon the conditions that operate in the insurance field. I regret that the Government wishes- to abolish the power to establish a Commonwealth insurance office. ‘

Senator Scott:

– But the honorable gentleman said that the Labour Government did not intend to establish such an office.

Senator McKENNA:

– I have not advocated the establishment of such an organization. Had the honorable senator listened- attentively to my earlier remarks’, he would- have heard the reasons- that I advanced in- favour of the retention of the power. I- repeat, for his benefit, that Part VI. of the act is of value if only as a threat to the establishment of a monopoly in the whole field of insurance. On* that basis alone it serves a most useful community purpose.

Senator Henty:

– There are State government insurance offices throughout Australia.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is so. Why, therefore, does the Government view with such apparent horror the possibility of the establishment of a Commonwealth insurance office? Every State in Australia has a government insurance office, and those organizations have operated under governments of all political colours. Is that not true ?

Senator Scott:

– Yes.

Senator Henty:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that there’ should be the duplication and wasteful expenditure that would result from the establishment’ of a Commonwealth insurance office when government insurance’ offices already exist, in all States?

Senator McKENNA:

– I have said that I do not at this moment advocate the setting up of a Commonwealth insurance office;. If the honorable senator thinks that State governments can prevent Australiawide monopolies, he has no understanding of the constitutional position. It is an elementary proposition, but I state it for the benefit of Senator Henty, that the jurisdiction of a State government is. confined strictly within the borders of the State. The honorable senator knows that nearly every insurance company that functions in Australia to-day has interstate ramifications. None of the six. States, could possibly control the interstate, activities of those companies. When the honorable senator remembers that section 92 of the Constitution, which provides that interstate trade, commerce and intercourse shall be absolutely free, binds the States as well as the Commonwealth, he will, see the impossibility of the proposition that a monopoly could be prevented by governmental control.

Senator Henty:

– There would be competition.

Senator McKENNA:

– Competition might easily be eliminated by agreement. The only answer to that situation would be for somebody representing thepolicyholders, the people of Australia, to move into the field and ensure, the return, of competition.

Senator Gorton:

– Surely the States themselves provide competition inside each State.

S’entaor McKENNA. - The honorable senator knows that a State can legislate only within its own borders. It cannot deal with interstate aspects of trade conducted by insurance companies. I merely put this proposition to the Senate : Under section 92, the States are prohibited from restricting the interstate aspects of insurance, and in these circumstances’ section 92 becomes a. bolt hole f or racketeers as it has done in the past. Senator Henty’s solution, “Leave thematter to the six State governments “, would, mean, in. effect, making that bolt hole very much larger.

Senator Henty:

– There is no area not’ covered by the State governments.

Senator McKENNA:

– There is. They cannot touch the interstate activities, of insurance companies. The Commonwealth could move into that field on an Australiawide basis, at least to regulate the interstate activities of insurance companies.

Senator Gorton:

– By prohibition by law?

Senator McKENNA:

– No. I was very careful to use the word “ regulate “. J did not say “ prohibit “ or “ restrict “.

Senator Gorton:

– To regulate by law ?

Senator McKENNA:

– To regulate by law. That is the one thing that can be done in the field of interstate activity whether that activity is in insurance or any other field.

Senator Gorton:

– But surely not so a:?to prevent interstate trade-, or to stop itfrom being completely free?

Senator McKENNA:

– That is’ the very proposition I enunciated to thehonorable senator. I said that the Commonwealth Government could more in to regulate but not to restrict or prohibit the interstate activities of insurance companies. I have said that twice now, and I hope it has penetrated the honorable senator’s mind. What I cannot understand is the honorable senator putting to me the proposition, “ You say the Commonwealth can regulate, but cannot prohibit or restrict interstate trade. It has to be left absolutely free “. Let me for a moment comment on the words “ absolutely free “. I have commented upon them before. One would think they were written into the Constitution for one specific purpose, namely, to remove customs barriers at State borders. That was the object and the framers of the Constitution wrote in section 92 in what they regarded as the simplest, clearest and most powerful terms. But let us have a look at the confusion that has been caused in Australia by section 92. We find the highly delightful position that, even in the banking case, the Privy Council has said, in effect, “ The Constitution provides that interstate trade, commerce and intercourse shall be absolutely free, but that provision does not mean what it says. If it did, there could be slave traffic and narcotic drug traffic over the borders. Therefore section 92 does not mean that interstate activity is beyond all law “.

What a delightfully confused position to put before the people of Australia! The Senate might be interested to hear what Sir John Latham thinks about section 92.

I have already read one brief passage from a very brilliant article which I Iia ve commended to the Senate on many occasions, and which I shall continue to commend. I refer to the article ! Changing the Constitution “, published in the Sydney Law Review last April. Everybody in Australia should read that article. It is a magnificent article and it shows just how urgently our Constitution requires an overhaul.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Pearson) .-Order ! Can the honorable senator relate his remarks to the bill under discussion?

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. We are discussing the Life Insurance Bill. Under the Constitution, of course, the Commonwealth has power over insurance. The question of the ambit of that power has arisen, and I have been provoked into a discussion of that matter by honorable senators opposite. My quotations from Sir John Latham’s article will be brief. Some of the thoughts that arise out of this matter are interesting, and may perhaps be startling from the point of view of representative’s of the Treasury. Sir John Latham said -

Section 92 has made uncertain all pooling legislation (not merely State pooling legislation), all compulsory marketing schemes and stabilization of prices, some other laws affectin;? the sale of goods and all legislation controlling (whether by fees and taxation or by licensing) transport of goods or persons. The possibilities of Section 5)2 have by no means been exhausted.

I invite the attention of Treasury representatives to the next passage -

An endeavour may be made to invalidate taxation laws which apply to interstate businesses and price-fixing laws - in whole or in part.

Interstate business would, of course, include insurance. And listen to the next passage -

It may bc that industrial awards which “ impose burdens “ upon industrial enterprise which operate in the State will be attacked. Even if the ordinary compulsory liquidation of a company with interstate business would, on some views of Section 92, demonstrate that the law under which it took place infringed the section. Such attacks might be met by decisions that the law in question was not a law upon trade and commerce and that therefore section 92 had no relevance to it. But such decisions would not be obviously consistent with past decisions that section 92 applies to all legislation, whatever its subject matter - that all laws, whatever the power under which they are made, must leave interstate trade and commerce “ absolutely free “, those words being properly understood.

I do not propose to pursue that theme any further. As with many other matters, it might have been dealt with more adequately on the motion that was before the Senate immediately prior to this motion. For the reasons that I have given, the Opposition will vote against the motion for the second reading of this measure. That vote will not imply disapproval of any clause other than clause 27. In committee, we shall vote against that clause again.

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

.- If I understood the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) correctly, his objection to the repeal of Part VI. of the act was that if it remained in the act the insurance companies of Australia would be deterred from forming a monopoly - he did not claim that they had already formed a monopoly - because a government insurance office could be established to compete with them. If the Commonwealth has power to establish a government insurance office, the repeal of Part VI. will not take that power from it. If it became necessary to do so, the provision could be re-inserted in the act. I think there is good reason for seeking to repeal the provision. I believe the members of the Opposition desire to nationalize everything in Australia that could be nationalized. I believe also that they would give the people of Australia as little warning as possible of any action they proposed to take for that purpose. If they were in office again, they would have to indicate to the people what they intended to do by putting back into the act a provision such as this. That is why I believe it is an excellent idea that Part VI. should be repealed. I do not think there is any force in the argument of the Leader of the Opposition that its repeal would deprive the Commonwealth of some power.

Senator Benn:

– The Government is repealing it at the request of the insurance companies.

Senator GORTON:

– It has been admitted by the Leader of the Opposition that if the State insurance offices, which, as he has said, have operated under State governments of all political colours, do compete with the private insurance companies, they provide competition of a kind which could not be removed by drawing them into a cartel or monpoly. But we have been told that that competition is not real competition, because of the provisions of section 92 of the Constitution. It has been argued that, although a State insurance office can provide competition with private insurance companies within the State concerned, and although it can offer to insure the lives and property of citizens of that State, it does not provide effective competition with the private companies because section 92 prevents such a State instrumentality from dealing with interstate insurance. I am not quite sure what that is. I have always believed that if I insured, say, a truck with a State insurance office and the truck were damaged in another State, my claim would he paid in the State in which I had insured the truck. But I shall assume there is some form of interstate insurance. If that is so, section 92 of the Constitution, which applies to the Commonwealth just as it applies to the States, must prevent a Commonwealth insurance office from providing better coinpetition with private insurance companies than that now provided by the State insurance offices. I am told by the Leader of the Opposition that that is not quite so. He says the Commonwealth cannot regulate or prohibit, but it can restrict. I suggest we are wandering in a lawyers’ labyrinth.

Senator Critchley:

– I do not think the Leader of the Opposition said that.

Senator GORTON:

– If I have misquoted the honorable senator, I apologize, but I think he said the Commonwealth could regulate but not restrict.

Senator McKenna:

– The honorable senator is right now.

Senator GORTON:

– If the Commonwealth regulates, surely it is restricting. However, I do not wish to be drawn into an argument about the meaning of words, or about whether section 92 should be in the Constitution. I say it is incontrovertible that the State insurance offices do provide competition with private insurance companies, and that a Commonwealth insurance office could not provide greater competition. When Part VI. of the act has been repealed, the Commonwealth will still have power to establish a Commonwealth insurance office, but any future Labour government that tried to nationalize insurance in this country would have to telegraph its punch - and so it should.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– The Opposition is in agreement with most of the proposed amendments of the act. The amendments are necessary to improve the legislation and, in some instances, have been requested by the insurance companies for that purpose. The Opposition object* to the clause designed to repeal Part, VI. of the act, which, deals with the establishment of a Commonwealth insurance office. This Government is not in favour of nationalization. By seeking to repeal Part VI. of the act, which deals, in effect, with the nationalization of insurance, the Government is acting in accordance with its policy. Senator Benn, in an interjection, alleged that the private insurance companies had asked for the repeal of Part VI., and that we were seeking to repeal it in order to please them. I have been informed by a very senior officer of the Public Service who took part in the discussions with the insurance companies that the question of the repeal of Part VI. was never at any time raised by the insurance companies. It did not matter to them whether that provision, was in the act or not. They were quite willing to carry on their business, irrespective of whether we established a government insurance office. If honorable senators opposite care to refer to the Hansard report of the proceedings in the Parliament in 1945, when the existing legislation was considered, they will see that members of the Liberal and Australian Country parties, who were then in Opposition, severely criticized that provision. The present Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden), and other members of the then Opposition, voted against the section because it gave the

Government power to establish a government insurance office.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senatorthe Hon. A. M. McMullin.)

N oes . . . . . . 21

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a secondtime.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 (Repealof Part VI.).

Question put -

That the clause standas printed.

The committee divided. (THECHAIRMAN -senator A.D. REID.)

AYES: 0

NOES: 21

Majority … . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreedto.

Clauses 28 to . 33 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported withoutamendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 352

QUESTION

SECOND PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER

Retirement of Mr.H. H. S. Temperly

The PRESIDENT:
Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin

-I have to announce to the Senate that Mr.H. H. S. Temperly, Second Reporter on the Parliamentary ReportingStaff, will reach the ageof 65 years shortly afterthe present sittings of (the Senateend. Mr. Temperly,under thegeneral direction of the Principal Parliamentary Reporter, has been in charge of the SenateHansard report since 1948.He had previously filled the position of Third Reporter. Tie joined the Parliamentary ‘Reporting Staff early in 1924, and sohas had nearly 30 yearsof continuous service as reporter and editor in this Parliament. Previously, he hadan enviablerecord in the Public Service ofSouthAustralia, mainlyin theLands and Survey Department, and later in association with the Public Service Commissioner. His first appointment as a Hansard reporter was in the South AustralianParliament prior to Mis- transfer- to the. National Parliament.. Mr. Temperly is one of the rapidly shrinking .band of officers: who served this Parliament in Melbourne before the. transfer of the Seat of Government to Canberra. It has so happened that the major part of his service to the Parliament, has been rendered in. the Senate-, where,, for many years, he has been a familiar figure. Throughout his career in the service of the, Parliament his work has been marked by the-, highest degree of diligence^, accuracy and efficiency^ and! has, retire^ ment will be; a distinct: loss- to; the parliamentary service- and, in particular, to his colleagues, on the: Hansard staff.. Mr. Temperly will carry with, him into, has retirement the cordial wishes, of all w<ho, have: been associated’ with- him for longlife;, good, health andi happiness1..

HONORABLE Senators-. - -Hear; hear!-‘

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

- by leave-. - Mr: President,, on behalf of the; Government, and its: supporters, in the Senate I desire to express my appreciation of your references, to- the. retirement of. our esteemed friend, Mr. H.. H. S. Temperly/. Having in. mind his meritorious service to the. Parliament,, I express to, him.., on behalf of the Go.vernment, our- thanks for the work that he. has done, over a long period of time. We. also appreciate> the efforts of his. staff.,, and know; that both, he- and they display very great courage; and ability in times of stress and. strain. I should- like our friend to. feel that after having served so long, as. he: now approaches retirement, he has the. best wishes of every honorable senator on this side of. the, chamber,; and also of those, on the. opposite side. I wish him well and hope, that, he will have a. long and happy future. On behalf of Government, senators. I say, xt Thank you. very much for what, you have done- in your capacity as. an important part of our parliamentary system. We all- honour and respect, you,, and wish yo,u much, happiness, in, the, years. to come “.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– by Heave - On behalf of the- Opposition I very cordially endorse the remarks of Senator McLeay, the Acting Leader of the Go vernment,, in relation! to Mr. Temperly,. I am pleased that, you, Mr.. President., have put on. record hia long and. meritorious’ service, in the. Australian Parliament For some years. I have; sad; with Mr.. Temperly at. this, table, and through you I should like- to say to him that I shall really miss. him. I shall very much, miss the greetings, that we exchanged each time: we. met for the. day,, and the. little, asides that we had’ from time, to time, on events current in the. Senate. I regard Mr. Temperly as one- of. the living phenomena of the world. Being in an. advantageous position, I. am able to. watch his activities, and. I. have come to. the conclusion that. he. is a man who has three, eyes and’ three ears. I have- not been able to. see. the. third eye or ear, although. I have looked’ very hard. I hase seen him busily editing speeches’ made in the- Senate, with his mind’ and” two. eyes concentrated forward, while, he has apparently not been; noticing any of the activities around him. But I am quite certain that he does not miss a thing and does not fail to see everything, that is happening, all around” him, and even immediately behind him.

Senator McLEAY:

– I also, asc watchingthe. Leader of the- Opposition all the. time.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, and E know, that Mr. Temperly, besides: watching the- Government, side, is doing exactly what the Minister is; always; doing, that is, watching the- Opposition-. Hem,ever, it, is very clear to me1, because .1 have sat. so, close- to- Mr.. Temperly, that, he has applied himself most efficiently and industriously to his very responsible task. I know- that, he, is in, a favoured position for observation of events and people; in this chamber, and I express the- hope that m his- retirement he- will find time to write his memoirs-. I am sure that if he should do so. we- should find, them most interesting. Because, of the little asides I ha,ve heard from him from time to. time, I am prepared to certify that his memoirs would be most interesting. If he should decide to write: such a book, I will be his first advance subscriber at whatever figure he likes to name, because I will be particularly interested in his impressions formed during his many years in this place. I am delighted’, as I am sure every honorable senator is, to, find that Mr.

Temperly is a very young 65 years of age. I should say that, in addition to the attributes that he obviously has, and which were praised by the President, he must also have very great endurance. That has been proved by the fact that for nearly 30 years he has been able to tolerate the millions of words that have been poured forth here, and which at times have driven even honorable senators from the chamber. But Mr. Temperly has seen it through, and after having suffered that ordeal for so many years it is a tribute to his hardihood that he is still hale and hearty.

When he begins to grow old, in about ten or fifteen years’ time, I invite him to read Cicero’s De senectute - concerning old age - and I assure Mr. Temperly that that old Roman praised old age as the best of all ages. That may have been because he was old himself when he wrote his book; nevertheless I suggest that Mr. Temperly should take up the work in the original, or in a translated version, if he ever feels that he is getting old - which I doubt - and he will find much to interest him in it. I hope that we shall see a good deal of Mr. Temperly in this chamber after his retirement. He will not be far away, and I hope that we shall also have an opportunity to meet outside the chamber from time to time. I assure him of our great respect, our admiration and, indeed, our affection. We shall miss him very much in this chamber. If he were permitted a voice here I am sure that he would say thanks for the very nice things that have been said about him. T am sure that he would thank Senator McLeay, who spoke on behalf of Government senators, and that he would appreciate also what was said on behalf of the Opposition in relation to his retirement. I join with the Minister for Shipping and Transport in wishing him every good thing that he could possibly wish for himself.

page 354

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL SENATORS

Motion (by Senator McLeay) - by

Ica pe - agreed to -

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

page 354

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator McLeay) 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 bo notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 354

RETIREMENT OF COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMEN T PRINTER

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin). - I wish to refer to the retirement of the Commonwealth Government Printer, Mr. L. F. Johnston. Mr. Johnston reached the retiring age on the 1st December, but at the request of the Government he will continue, in office until the appointment of a successor. Mr. Johnston was the first Commonwealth Government Printer; in fact, he has been the only Commonwealth Government Printer. When the Commonwealth Parliament met in Melbourne, and for the first two years following the transfer of the Parliament to Canberra, in 1927, the printing for the Commonwealth was undertaken by the Victorian State Government Printer. With the transfer of the Parliament to Canberra, steps were taken to establish a Commonwealth Government printing office. Mr. Johnston was appointed Commonwealth Government Printer on the 22nd July. 1929, with the responsibility of organizing the engagement of staff and the purchase of printing machines. In the years which followed, Mr. Johnston continued that work and built up the huge printing office which is now well established al Kingston. Mr. Johnston is a returned soldier of World War I. He was at the landing at Gallipoli. I feel sure that T speak for all honorable senators when I congratulate Mr. Johnston on the splendid work which he has done over the years to establish and develop the Commonwealth Government Printing Office. His work has been no small contribution to the successful establishment of Canberra as the seat of government of the Commonwealth. I extend to Mr. Johnston the thanks of the Senate for his meritorious work, and our very bast wishes for the future to him and his wife.

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear !

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

. - by leave - I am sure that all honorable senators appreciate the words that you have spoken, Mr. President, in recognition of the meritorious service of Mr. Johnston over a long period of years. On behalf of the Government and all honorable senators on this side of the chamber I join with you in extending to him our sincere thanks for his meritorious service and our best wishes for a long and happy retirement.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– by leave - I join with you, Mr. President, and the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) in acknowledging the grand service that Mr. Johnston has rendered as Commonwealth Government Printer. I think that I should advert to the fact that in all the long period during which Mr. Johnston has held that office, despite all the vastly confidential matters that have, from time to time, been in his keeping, I have never heard of any flaw in the control of that confidential information. That fact in itself is a high tribute to the man in charge of the Government Printing Office. In my experience of institutions of this nature, the character and capacity of the man in charge permeates the institution, and when one meets the head one generally knows what the rest of the organization is like. Mr. Johnston will leave behind him a highly efficient and competent organization which has an honorable and excellent record. On behalf of the Opposition, I extend to him the best wishes for his future, and I trust that he will have a happy, healthy and lengthy retirement. I am sure that his work in the Public Service of the Commonwealth will long be remembered.

page 355

QUESTION

LOTTERIES

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

In view of the proposed transfer of Tattersalls from Hobart to Melbourne, has the Commonwealth Grants Commission stated any special views as to its outlook upon lottery revenue?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– No.

page 355

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES

Senator CAMERON:

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

  1. Is it a fact that private medical practitioners are not allowed to prescribe life-saving or expensive drugs for aged pensioners, who previously, as inmates of public hospitals, were treated with such drugs and who subsequently were discharged uncured owing to the lack of accommodation ?
  2. Were these pensioners still in need of the drugs in question and were they referred to private medical practitioners for further treatment?
Senator COOPER:
CP

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

Pensioners are entitled to receive the same benefits, under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act, when discharged as they do while inmates of a public hospital. Furthermore, after discharge, they are entitled to all benefits under the Medicines for Pensioners Regulations.

page 355

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory

Senator McLEAY (South Australia -

Minister for Shipping and Transport) [9.35]. - I move-

That the Senate do now adjourn.

In moving this motion, I should like to take the opportunity to express to you, Mr. President, appreciation of your hospitality and courtesy and the work that you have done since you have occupied the high office of the President of this Senate. At the close of every year there is a very genuine appreciation of the men who have done so much to help make our parliamentary system work. Looking back over the twenty years of service in the Senate which I shall have completed next year, I have the greatest appreciation of the work that our esteemed friend, Mr. Edwards, has done in his office as Clerk of the Senate. His has been an outstanding performance. I should like to say on behalf of all members on both sides of the Senate how much we appreciate the ability, courtesy and efficiency with which he has guided us in our important work. These remarks also apply to Mr. Loof, Mr. Emerton, Mr. Odgers, and all persons associated with the work of the Senate and this Parliament. Prom the highest office to the lowest office, we have here a spirit of cooperation and the desire to help others which is appreciated very much by all honorable senators. It i3 fitting also on this occasion that I should say that we regret very much that the Minister for Trade and Customs’ (Senator O’sullivan) has not been with us in the closing weeks of this session. I am sure that I express the desire of every honorable senator when I say that we hope that he will be restored to health speedily and will be with us at our next meeting.

I think that honorable senators on the Government side of the chamber would also like me to say that since my distinguished friend, Senator McKenna, lias occupied the position of Leader of the Opposition he has displayed a spirit of courtesy, co-operation and efficiency, and has lifted the standard of debate in the Senate to a level that I have not experienced since I have been a member of this Parliament. I should like to pay a tribute also to my South Australian friend, Senator Critchley. He is a good Whip, when it suits him. He is at all times courteous and has done very well in association with the distinguished Whip on our side of the House. In conclusion, as the deputy leader of the Government at the close of the year 1953, I wish Government senators and Opposition senators and you, Mr. President, the compliments of the season and happiness in the year that lies ahead. We are, perhaps, on the eve of the most eventful year in our history, when we are to be blessed and graced by a visit from Her Majesty the Queen. Let us all hope and pray that 1954 will be one of the best years in our history. I am sure that during Her Majesty’s stay in this country the expressions of loyalty of her people will be spontaneous and genuine, and that Her Majesty will treasure them in her memories of her visit to us.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am in receipt of the following telegram: -

Please accept yourself and convey to Acting Leader, Leader of the Opposition and senators, also ifr. Edwards, and Senate staff, Hansard staff and press my appreciation of the many courtesies extended me during the session and my best wishes for Christmas and the New Year. Regards.

Neil O’sullivan

I should like to add to that message from the Minister for Trade and Customs my personal appreciation of the kindness and co-operation that honorable senators haveextended to me during my occupancy of the chair. I think that we have got along very well together. I wish honorablesenators a happy Christmas and a pleasant new year. I express the same wish to the clerks and the staff of the Senate with whom we are so closely associated and on whom we are so directly dependent. I express similar wishes to the Hansard staff, to the refreshmentroom staff and to the boiler-room staff, who keep things going at night when the Senate is in session. That staff is on duty all the time, although we do not see its members. Those people in their small jobs and their big jobs makeit possible for members of this chamber to do their work in the Parliament of which they are so proud. I know that they will accept these wishes in the samespirit of sincerity in which they areextended.

I agree with the acting leader of the Senate (Senator McLeay) that next year will be a momentous year for Australia. I am looking forward to> seeing all honorable senators in their places on the 15th February. I hope that they will be accompanied by their wives or next-of-kin on the occasion of one of the greatest ceremonies that have everbeen performed in this chamber. I am sure that the 15th February will be a very wonderful day for the Senate. I extend my cordial good wishes for the festive season to all honorable senators, to all those with whom we are associated” and to the members of the press gallery.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

, - I wish to extend to you, Mr. President, on behalf of the Opposition, best wishes for the festive season and to compliment you upon the dignity and efficiency with which you have discharged your duties since your recent election to the very important office of President. The Opposition extends to you its best wishes for the future. I also extend to the Leader of the Government (Senator O’Sullivan), who unfortunately is absent, the very best wishes of the Opposition for a speedy restoration to health.

Members of the Opposition, deplore his absence. It is only when an opponent becomes ill that one discovers how fond one becomes of his opponents. I discovered, when the honorable senator became ill, just how badly I felt about the misfortune that had overtaken him. I trust that he will be restored speedily to health. To the remaining members of the Ministry, including the very tough deputy leader of the Government (Senator McLeay), who is regarded highly by honorable senators on this side of the chamber, I extend the sincerest good wishes of the Opposition for the festive season. I extend the same wishes to their colleagues on the Government benches.

My own supporters know that they have my immediate personal regards, but I take this opportunity to thank them for their loyal help and co-operation during the year, and I thank them for tolerating me. I extend to the Senate staff, from Mr. Edwards down, a staff of a calibre that we are fortunate to have, the very best wishes of the Opposition. I extend to all other members of the Senate staff, and to our worthy friends, the members of the Hansard, staff, the very best wishes of the Opposition for the- festive season. I include also the representatives of the press who are with us on some occasions and not on other occasions, about which comment was made last night, the very best wishes for success in their careers and for the festive season. I look forward to meeting everybody in the Senate on the 15th February, on that very auspicious and signal occasion to which reference has been made.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

.- I wish to thank the acting leader of the Government (Senator McLeay) for his courteous reference to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) and the Opposition Whip (Senator Critchley). However, I rise to speak not on behalf of the Government, but on behalf of the rank and file of the Opposition. I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to express to Senator McKenna, on behalf of members of the Opposition, their deen appreciation of his leadership. He has done an outstanding job with a conscientiousness and devotion to duty that I have rarely seen equalled. Rarely do honorable senators have such an opportunity to let their leaders know publicly what they think of them. The members of the Opposition express to Senator McKenna their thanks and best wishes to himself and his family for the Christmas season. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber wish to thank their Whip for his work during the year. They are very pleased that it ended in a blaze of glory this afternoon when he was able to muster the extra votes on such an important occasion. It is rarely that the rank and file of an Opposition have the opportunity to place on record their appreciation of the men who have helped them and led them during the year. I am pleased that that opportunity has now presented itself.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

– I do not wish to delay honorable senators, but I must reply to the kindly references to me that have been made by the acting leader of the Government (Senator McLeay), by my own leader (Senator McKenna), and by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Armstrong). I was interested particularly in the remarks of the acting leader of the Government. We have known each other for a long time, and if I receive praise from him for any work that I have done in this National Parliament, particularly in view of the fact that he has been here for approximately twenty years, I am vain enough to think that I have earned it. Let me say quite deliberately that there is not a trick on the political board about which the acting leader of the Government does not know. One must ascertain just when and how often he is prepared to use them. I do appreciate his kind references. Let me say also, but not in a jocular vein, that I appreciate the assistance that has been given to me by the Government Whip, Senator Annabelle Rankin. I say without fear of contradiction that, during the time that we have been associated as whips in different camps, there has never been a semblance of ill-feeling and that every action of the honorable senator has been of the highest standard. I thought that, as I was singled out for commendation for whatever effort I may have made, I would have been lacking in my duty if in all sincerity I did not speak as I have spoken, because without her co-operation my task would have been more difficult.

I conclude by saying that I hope that, when the occasion arises next year, her services may not be lost to honorable senators when they sit in Opposition and that whoever may be the Government Whip will receive the same co-operation as I have received.

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I rise to thank the Opposition Whip, Senator Critchley, most sincerely for his kind remarks about rae and the work that I have done in the Senate. I also thank my leader for his remarks. Most of all, I wish to thank honorable senators who have worked together as a team. As the Opposition Whip and I know, however much we may co-operate and work happily together, we still need the support of the team of men and women who comprise the group of honorable senators in this chamber. Senator Critchley and I have worked together very happily, and I know that we shall continue to do so. When such a spirit of friendship and co-operation exists, the tasks that must be done are made much more simple. I tender my sincere good wishes to you, Mr. President, the members of the Government and honorable senators opposite and, indeed, to all those who take part in the proceedings of the Senate, including the Senate staff and the press. I hope that this will be a very happy Christmas for all of us and that the new year will be a very good one for all Australians.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 358

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Bankruptcy Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1953, No. 101.

Hospital Benefits Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1953, No. 90.

International Monetary Agreements Act - Annual Report on operations of the Ag and, in so far as they relate to Australia, of the International Monetary Fund Agreement and the International Bank Agreement, for year 1952-53.

National Health Service Act - Regulation* - Statutory Rules 1953, Nos. 97, 98, 99.

Northern Territory (Administration) Act - Crown Lands Ordinance - Reasons for resumption of recreation reserve, Alice Springs.

Public Service Act - Appointments - Department of Health - I. D. Carter, A. L. Ware.

Taxation Acts - Thirty-second Report of the Commissioner of Taxation, dated 1st November, 1953, together with Statistical Appendices.

Senate adjourned at 9.51 p.m. to a date and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 3 December 1953, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1953/19531203_senate_20_s2/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant