Senate
27 October 1955

21st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 753

QUESTION

TRANSPORT CHARGES

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Shipping and Transport been drawn to a statement in the press that the inefficiency of the transport system is one of the most important causes of the high cost of living in Australia? [s it a fact, as stated by Mr. A. C. Poster, the director of the Tasmanian Potato Marketing Board, that in 1939 the freight on potatoes from Tasmania to Sydney was 19s. 6d. a ton, to Brisbane, 34s. a ton, and to Cairns, 60s. a ton, and that to-day the freight to Sydney is £6 18s. 6d. a ton, and to Brisbane £7 15s. a ton, but, because there are no ships to take them to Brisbane, they are shipped to Sydney and thence forwarded by rail at a cost of £15 9s. a ton?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have not seen the newspaper report to which the honorable senator has referred, but 1 agree that transport charges do add to the cost of living. I point out to the honorable senator that the efforts of this Government have consistently been directed towards the lowering of transport costs and, indeed, of all costs which are reflected in the cost of living. The Government has consistently urged all sections of the community to recognize their responsibility to co-operate in bringing down costs, so that we may be able to maintain our place in the trading world. T trust that the Labour party will accept its share of responsibility in this connexion.

page 753

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD REPORT

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for Trade and Customs inform the Senate why only six of the seven members of the Tariff Board signed the report that he tabled in this chamber recently? Did the Minister deliberately fail to table the report of the seventh member because of the criticism by that member of the Government’s economic policy?

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

– The honorable senator’s question has no foundation in fact. All members of the Tariff Board have the opportunity of signing the report, but it is necessary, in fact and in law, for only one member to sign it. The report that was tabled by me was submitted in full compliance with the law.

page 753

QUESTION

REHABILITATION SERVICE

Senator WEDGWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services regarding the rehabilitation service, which is provided by the Department of Social Services. I believe that 8,000 persons have been returned to employment through that service. Does the Government intend to widen the scope of the service so that its facilities can be given to other members of the community? Why is it necessary to confine eligibility to persons who are expected to be unable to work for six months or more? If any extension of the scheme is proposed, will the Government consider including other valuable members of the community, such as housewives and aged people ?

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

– I know that the honorable senator takes a great interest in the rehabilitation service. It is difficult to answer offhand, all of the questions she has asked, but they can be answered in general terms. Most people will agree that the rehabilitation service is bound to be extended as the years pass, because its record has proved its worth to the community. The nature of the specialized attention that is given makes it difficult to provide such a service other than as a whole community effort. Only in the last session of the Parliament, the service was extended to persons fourteen to sixteen years of age. Another significant extension made it available to persons who could pay for it. It was thus taken out of the realm of ordinary social services and put into the category of a community service to people who had need of it, but were not eligible under the Social Services Act. Against that background, the honorable senator has asked whether the scheme could be extended to cover those who might be incapacitated for a period of less than six months, and to other persons, such as housewives. I should not like to answer that question definitely off-hand. That is the sort of proposal which, on the face of it, has considerable merit, but must be examined by the department to ensure that our resources are not over-strained. It is the kind of thing that, unless it is done properly, is better not done at all. Whether we have the resources that specialists could expand, I do not know, nor do I know what the demand might be in those two categories. I give a general answer by saying that I am sure the honorable senator will see the rehabilitation service increasing its activities and expanding as the years go on.

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Following the question asked by Senator Wedgwood, will the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services consider extending the benefits of this rehabilitation scheme to A class widows whose pensions expire when they attain the age of 45 years, if their dependent children have reached the age of 16 years? Such action would enable those widows to bridge the hiatus of five years before they become eligible for further pensions.

Senator SPOONER:

– I do not see the relevance of the honorable senator’s question, ‘because those widows, being social service beneficiaries already, would be eligible to benefit from the rehabilitation service, if their physical circumstances so warranted. In the course of the ordinary departmental administration, a widow, with children, who needed rehabilitation would receive a priority. It is not a question of extending the service to them, because they are already getting the benefit of it under most favorable conditions.

page 754

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD REPORT

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for Trade and Customs say whether one member of the Tariff Board dissented from the report of the board recently tabled in the Senate? If so, was that dissent in writing? If it were, will the Minister table the dissent? If he is not prepared to do that, and if the report were in writing, will he indicate to the Senate the general nature of the dissent?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I have very little to add to what I have said previously. There is no provision at all in the Tariff Board Act for the submission of minority reports. The report tabled in the Parliament was strictly in accordance with the law.

page 754

QUESTION

POSTAL BUILDING, LAUNCESTON

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister representing the Postmaster - General advise me when a start is to be made on the erection of the new postal building in St. John-street, Launceston? Have the original plans for this building been altered since the purchase of another building to house the telephone and mail branches ?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– I shall be pleased to obtain the information requested bv the honorable senator and let him have a full report as early as possible.

page 754

QUESTION

OVERSEAS TRADE BALANCES

Senator COURTICE:
QUEENSLAND

– Before the Parliament rises, could the Minister for Trade and Customs intimate to the Senate the state of our overseas trade balances to the end of September last?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– Do I understand that the honorable senator wishes to know the state of the overseas balance? to the latest available date?

Senator Courtice:

– Yes.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I shall endeavour to obtain that information for the honorable senator before the Senate adjourns.

page 754

QUESTION

BUTTER

Senator RYAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– In view of the recent increase of the retail price of Australian butter on our export markets, will the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture examine the possibility of making a corresponding reduction of the retail price of butter to the Australian housewife?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I shall refer the honorable senator’s question to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture.

page 755

QUESTION

HOG CASINGS

Senator HENTY:

– On the 21st September, I asked the Minister for Trade and Customs a question in relation to the grave shortage of hog casings in Tasmania, and he undertook to investigate the position and supply me with an answer. As I have not yet received any information about the matter, will the Minister say whether he is yet able to reply to my question?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I have no derailed information to give to the honorable senator. Considerations as to the quantity of hog casings available, and the method of distribution arose out of a Tariff Board inquiry into the matter. An assessment was made of Australia’s requirements of hog casings, and our capacity to produce an adequate quantity. 1 .iii port allocations, in order to make up the deficiency, are made to the distributors, in proportion to their imports for the year ended the 31st March, 1955. As far as I am aware, no alteration of that system of distribution has been made.

page 755

QUESTION

REHABILITATION SERVICE

Senator TANGNEY:

– Having regard to the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services to my previous question, I now ask him whether rehabilitation facilities are made available to widows who are not physically handicapped in the ordinary sense of the term, but who are unable to pursue their former avocations because of their lack of experience in those fields since they were last employed in industry, and who for that reason are unable to compete in to-day’s labour market. Could they be given refresher courses of training at the rehabilitation depots? If these facilities are available to such widows at the present time, can the Minister give a more precise answer, so that the position will be clear to them? According to my information on the subject, the arrangement that was outlined by the Minister is not being carried into effect.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– Apparently, I misunderstood the honorable senator’s earlier question. I thought she asked me whether I considered the rehabilitation services should be made available to widows, and I replied that those services are already available to them. As I understand the honorable senator now, she asks whether training for certain kinds of employment could be provided for widows at the rehabilitation centres.

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, to bridge the five years or so since they were actively employed in certain avocations.

Senator SPOONER:

– I can only answer as a layman. I may be wrong, but for the sake of clarity it is best for me to make an attempt. I do not think that the rehabilitation establishments would be at all suitable for the purpose that the honorable senator has in mind, because the training that they provide - I am speaking from memory, in the light of my experience when I was the Minister for Social Services - is specialized training, such as for the use or employment of muscles, and to correct certain mental conditions. But it is specialized training rather than general training in relation to a particular avocation. I do not think that the honorable senator’s suggestion is practicable. Were this not probably the last sitting day of this Parliament, I should ask the honorable senator to place her question on the noticepaper.

Senator Tangney:

– I refer to typing and other commercial courses.

Senator SPOONER:

– I do not think we should put the rehabilitation service in that position. Whatever merit there might be in the honorable senator’s suggestion should be considered apart from the general rehabilitation question.

page 755

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for Shipping and Transport inform the Senate of the present shipbuilding programme at Whyalla, in South Australia, and indicate any contemplated expansion of that programme? I do not expect the Minister to have this information at hand, but I should be glad if he would make inquiries and supply me with this information as soon as possible during the forthcoming recess.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The shipbuilding programme being undertaken by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company

Limited at Whyalla includes the construction of four bulk-carrier vessels for the Australian Shipping Board, each of 10,000 tons capacity. That programme will keep the yards fully employed until, I think, 1962. In addition to the ships which are being built for the Australian Shipping Board, the company has its own shipbuilding programme, of the extent of which I am not quite sure. I shall have a look at the honorable senator’s question and advise him as to the actual details during the recess.

page 756

QUESTION

BURWOOD POST OFFICE, VICTORIA

Senator SANDFORD:

– I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General if he will bring to the notice of his colleague the urgent necessity for increased accommodation at the Burwood post office in Victoria. At the present time, the accommodation at that post office is totally inadequate for legitimate minimum requirements.

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I shall be pleased to bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Postmaster-General.

page 756

AUSTRALIAN SHIPPING BOARD

Senator ASHLEY:

– I have been supplied this morning with a copy of the supplementary report to the annual report of the Auditor-General. I notice in regard to the Department of Shipping and Transport-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! What is the honorable senator’s question?

Senator ASHLEY:

– It is in reference to this report, or rather to information which is not contained in the report. “ 1 preface my question by quoting a portion of the report under the heading, “Department of Shipping and Transport “, which reads -

In compliance with regulation 44 (7) of the National Security (Shipping Co-ordination) Regulations, which have been continued in force by the Defence Transition (Residual Provisions) Act 1952, the Board’s accounts have been audited.

The Board controlled 30 Commonwealthowned and five chartered vessels at the 3] st March, 1955, compared with 30 and six vessels respectively at the 31st March, .1954.

The Board’s balance-sheet as at the 31st March, 1955, was submitted for audit on the 22nd September, 1955, and at the time of compiling this report, audit examination had not been completed.

Can the Minister for Shipping and Transport inform me why that information is not available? Does it indicate that the probable disposal of the Commonwealth shipping line is one of the reasons for the information not being supplied ? Will the Minister make available to me, and to other honorable senators, information in regard to that audit?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I am not in a position to say why there has been a delay in the presentation of the account? for audit. I shall find out and inform th, honorable senator of the reason for it.

page 756

QUESTION

CANBERRA BRICKWORKS

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a que» tion to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. I refer the Minister to the supplementary report of the annual report of the Auditor-General. On page 10 of that report, I note with concern that there is shown for the Canberra brickworks a net loss of £20,159. It appears from the report that the loss is understated for the reason that provisions for repairs and maintenance of plant and equipment are inadequate and do not cover actual costs, and also because there is no charge against operations for depreciation of plant and equipment. 1 ask the Minister what justification is there for that state of affairs, having regard to the current results of brickwork? trading in the community.

Question not answered.

page 756

QUESTION

PRIMARY PRODUCTION

Senator WARDLAW:
TASMANIA

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

  1. Is it a fact that the United State* Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Ezra Benson, recently made a statement to the effect that agricultural surpluses could be an asset if some way could be found crf distributing these surpluses and obtaining payment for them, and that the real trouble to-day was not pro auction but distribution?
  2. Could the Minister say to what extent, if any, this matter has engaged the serious attention of our own government and its advisers?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has supplied the following information in reply to the honorable senator’s questions : -

  1. I have not been the statement referred to.

    1. The Government has followed very closely the various surplus disposal programmes developed by the United States Government. The implications of these measures :or Australian commodity exports are of front rank’ importance, and have been so regarded by the Government. Unfortunately, the United States authorities arc trying to solve the problem of disposal of their surpluses by method? such as subsidies or concessional sales which imperil the trade of Australia and of other countries. The Commonwealth Government fully recognizes that surpluses should be utilized for the good of mankind, for example, by being made available in needy areas of the world. However it rejects the idea that they should be disposed of at the expense of normal commercial trade. It has been examining ways in which those surpluses might be brought into consumption without prejudice to normal trade. Clearly the onus rests upon the United States to ensure that her policies are consistent with a responsible attitude towards the interests and trade of others. The Commonwealth Government has nevertheless sought continually to make constructive proposals on particular issues. The Government is continuing to press its point of view vigorously with the United States authorities and in the appropriate international agencies.

page 757

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator HANNAFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. What amount of money has been collected up to the present time, and is standing to the credit of the Wheat Stabilization Fund, under the terms of the present scheme?
  2. What individual amounts have been contributed by the pools already participating in the scheme?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has supplied the following information: - 1 and 2. Under the present wheat stabilization plan contributions to the Wheat Prices Stabilization Fund have amounted to f (1,850,038. All this has come from No. 17 pool (the 1953-54 harvest) from which exports are still being made.

Senator PEARSON:

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

  1. What payments have been made to growers of wheat in respect of No. 17 wheat pool on (a) bulk, and (6) bagged basis?
  2. What further payments may be expected on wheat in this pool, and when is it expected these payments will be made?
  3. What amount has been, or may he, contributed to the stabilization fund in respect of sales of wheat for export from this pool?
  4. Is it expected that the stabilization fun.t will be drawn upon to bring returns from sales of wheat from this pool up to the guaranteed level and, if so, to what extent?
Senator PALTRIDGE:

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has supplied the following information in reply to the honorable senator’s questions: -

  1. The following payments have been made to growers in respect of wheat of No. 17 pool: - First payment, bulk 10s., bagged 10s. 4d.; second payment, bulk ls., bagged ls. 2d.; total to date/bulk lis., bagged lis. 6d.
  2. The second payment was made in September last, and it is not at this early stage possible to foretell when a further payment will become possible.
  3. The most recent payment into the fund from the pool was made on the 14th October. To date this pool has paid £8,252,547 into the fund.
  4. It is not expected that the fund will be drawn upon on account of No. 17 pool.

page 757

QUESTION

MEAT

Senator SHEEHAN:
VICTORIA

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

  1. Is it a fact, as reported in the Melbourne Argus of 11th October, that Mr. J. Rymill, owner of a grazing property in South Australia, has just returned to Australia after spending seven months in the United Kingdom investigating the standard and marketing of Australian meat?
  2. Is it a fact that Mr. Rymill criticized the lack of advertising of Australian meat in comparison with the advertising of New Zealand meat?
  3. Is it also a fact that Mr. Rymill stated that the United Kingdom housewife was averse to purchasing Australian meat?
  4. If the allegations are true, what steps does the Australian Government propose to take to bring under the notice of the public of the United Kingdom the quality of Australian meat, and thereby increase sales and help to alleviate the adverse balance of trade?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has supplied the following information in reply to the honorable senator’s questions : -

  1. I do not know whether it is a tact that Mr. Rymill has been overseas for seven months in the United Kingdom investigating the standard and marketing of Australian meat but I have read the report in the paper referred to in the question.
  2. The article states that Mr. Rymill did criticize the lack of advertising of Australian meat in comparison with the advertising of New Zealand meat.
  3. It is also a fact that Mr. Rymill is reported to have stated that the United Kingdom housewife was averse to purchasing Australian meat. On the other hand I noticed n report in the press attributed to Messrs. Woolley and Clarfelt, who are visitors from the United Kingdom representing the United Kingdom Fatstock Marketing Corporation, that the United Kingdom housewife was not concerned with the origin of the meat or whether it has been frozen or chilled as long as the meat was of good quality. The responsibility for the quality of the meat is of course primarily that of the producer.
  4. The Australian Meat Board has the necessary power under the Meat Export Control Act to publicize the quality of Australian meat. It also has funds at its disposal which it could use for this purpose. However, the board has decided that for the time being the answer to this problem does not lie in spending money on advertising but rather in encouraging Australian producers to supply the class of meat demanded by the United Kingdom housewife. To this end the board is spending considerable sums of money each year on carcass competitions amongst producers which are destined to demonstrate the type of meat required in the United Kingdom. The board is also spending considerable sums of money on pasture and genetics research for the purpose of raising the quality of Australian meat.

page 758

QUESTION

ROAD SAFETY

Senator TANGNEY:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice -

  1. In the interest of public safety on the roads, what- steps are being taken to ensure that drivers of large transports on interstate runs are physically fit to undertake such long journeys ?
  2. Can anything be done to ensure that sufficient relief drivers a.re provided and that schedules are not so unduly speeded up as to render necessary the taking of “ pep “ drugs by drivers in order to avoid excessive weariness at the wheel, which is a menace not only to the physical well-being of such drivers but also a danger to other road users?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The following answers are now supplied : -

  1. Matters relating to the administration of road transport come within the jurisdiction of the State governments. As far as is known the States do not require drivers of large transports on interstate runs to undergo a medical examination as to their physical fitness. However, all States have provision in their legislation that the licensing authority may request any applicant for a driver’s licence, or the holder of a licence, to obtain a certificate as to his physical fitness. The scope of this question is such that the matter might well be raised with the States at the next meeting of the Australian Road Traffic Code Committee scheduled to bc held in Mel bourne in December next and I have asked that the item be listed for discussion. Aris ing from these deliberations it is hoped that some uniform system of control might be recommended by the committee which would overcome the present unsatisfactory situation 2. See answer to 1 above.

page 758

QUESTION

A [,STRALIAN NATIONAL AIRWAYS

Senator SANDFORD:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Has any money been made available to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, through the Commonwealth Bank, under the guarantee of the present Government to make money available to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited?
  2. If so, how much has been advanced to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, and on what terms?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answer: - 1 and 2. Under the authority of section 4. of the Civil Aviation Agreement Act 1052, and in accordance with clause 3 of the agreement with Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited approved by such act, the Commonwealth has issued guarantees to the Commonwealth Bank covering the total amount of £3,000,000 provided for in clause 3(1.) for the purchase of aircraft and spares. Other aspects of the question concern a banker/customer relationship which is, of course, confidential.

page 758

QUESTION

DEFENCE EXPENDITURE

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Bow much of the £200,000,000 defence vote allocated for last year was spent in Western Australia?
  2. Was any money disbursed to Western Australia for strategic roads, airfields or berthing facilities?
  3. What is the strength of Air Force personnel stationed in Western Australia?
Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

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

  1. The total expenditure last year in Western Australia out of the £200,000,000 allocated for defence was £5,640,000.

    1. The above amount includes £151,000 spent on aerodrome works. There was no expenditure from the defence vote on strategic roads or berthing facilities, but the above total also includes £234,000 which was spent on other capital buildings and works.
    2. The strength of Royal Australian Air force personnel stationed in Western Australia is: - Permanent Air Force personnel, 4 SIS; Citizen Air Force personnel, 125.

page 759

QUESTION

REPATRIATION GENERAL HOSPITAL, HEIDELBERG

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 11th October, 1955, Senator Sandford asked the following question: -

I ask the Minister for Repatriation whether a certain number of wards in the Heidelberg Military Hospital are to he closed down, and, if so, whether it is because of a shortage of staff. If shortage of staff is not the reason, is the Minister aware, or does he agree, that the main contributing factor to stall’ shortages at Heidelberg is the recent withdrawal of the free bus service from Heidelberg to Melbourne?

On the 20th October, 1955, he asked the following question : -

Some time ago I asked the Minister for Repatriation if he was aware of the closing down of some wards in the Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital, and if so whether that was due to a shortage of staff, which, in turn, was mainly attributable to the discontinuance of the bus service from Heidelberg to Melbourne. In reply the Minister said that he was not aware that wards had been closed down. Since then I have learned from authoritative sources that wards have been closed because of a shortage of staff and that that shortage of staff is due entirely to the discontinuance of the bus service. I now ask whether the Minister will take steps to have the position rectified with a view to the re-opening of those wards.

I gave brief answers to those questions when they were asked, and said that I would get more complete information for the honorable senator. I have now received the following statement from the department : -

The only ward closed at Heidelberg during the last six months is ward 12, which was recently closed, and the patients from that ward transferred to ward east 1. Both these wards are used exclusively for treatment of female patients, and as both wards were not fully occupied, the closure of ward 12 was made in the interests of economy, both from the point of view of staff and of finance. The overall treatment of female patients has not been affected by the closure of ward 12.

As I previously advised the honorable senator, I consider that the present shortage of nursing staff at Heidelberg cannot be attri buted to the cessation of the free bus service from the hospital to Princes Bridge, City. The present shortage is not peculiar to that institution; rather it is part of a Commonwealthwide shortage of trained nursing staff which is causing concern to other government departments and hospital managements.

page 759

QUESTION

OVERSEAS TRADE MISSIONS

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– On the 28th September, Senator Willessee asked the following question : -

As the Prime Minister has announced that the Government will subscribe money liberally to send missions overseas with the object of developing new markets, will the Government consider including sonic members of this Parliament in those missions? Does he consider that in that way members could render valuable service to the missions and the nation?

The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer : -

In my recent statement on the economy I made mention of the Government’s intention to send strong trade missions overseas to develop new markets for Australian goods. Such missions would comprise practical men who know their goods and are experienced in salesmanship. Should an opportunity arise in which it would appear to be advantageous to include any members of the Parliament in these missions the Government will give consideration to the matter.

page 759

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator HANNAFORD:

– As there appears to be some discrepancy between the answers given to questions asked by me and Senator Pearson relating to the amount that has been paid into the Wheat Stabilization Fund, I should like to have the position made clear. In answer to my question the Minister stated that the amount outstanding in the fund associated with No. 17 pool was £6,856,038, whereas in answer to Senator Pearson the amount was given as £8,252,547. It may be that the apparent discrepancy is due to the figures not being brought up to the same date. I should be glad if the Minister could explain the difference.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I cannot give an explanation of the discrepancy offhand, but I shall refer the question to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture and let the honorable senator have the correct figures.

page 760

MEAT

Senator SEWARD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Arising out of an answer just given by the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, I now ask him whether it is not a fact that meat has to be graded by government graders before it is exported, and that it is the responsibility of those graders to see that only meat that is of acceptable quality is exported.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I shall refer the honorable senator’s question to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, and let him have a reply later.

page 760

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I lay on the table, on behalf of the Minister for Labour and National Service, the following paper: -

International Labour Organization - Thirtyeighth Session, Geneva, June, 1955 - Report of the Australian Government, employers’ and workers’ delegates.

In the interests of economy, I do not propose to move that the report be printed, but copies will be available to honorable senators from the parliamentary officers. Following recent practice, at a later date I shall inform the Senate of the action taken, or proposed to be taken, with reference to the recommendations and conventions adopted by the conference.

page 760

ADJUSTABLE WRENCHES

Tariff Board Report

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I lay on the table the report of the Tariff Board on the following subject: -

Adjustable wrenches.

Ordered to he printed.

page 760

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AVIATION

Report of Public Accounts Committee

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

– As deputy chairman, I lay on the table the following progress report of the Public Accounts Committee : -

Twenty-third Report - Department of Civil Aviation - Progress report.

Ordered to be printed.

page 760

LOAN (WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT) BILL 1955

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to provide for the raising of loan moneys amounting to £8,500,000, of which £4,600,000 is required for the acquisition, development and improvement of properties and for advances to settlers for stock, plant and working expenses in the States of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. The moneys will be advanced to those States under conditions determined by the Minister for the Interior in accordance with the provisions of the States Grants (War Service Land Settlement) Act 1952-1953.

The remainder, £3,900,000, is to cover for the current year the estimated requirements of New South Wales and Victoria under the Commonwealth’s offer to advance to these States for three years from the 1st July, 1955, £1 for each £2 spent by the State on war service land settlement with a maximum of £2,000,000 per annum for each State. The amount advanced will be repayable by the State over 53 years with interest at33/4 per cent. On this basis, about £6,000,000 per annum could be available for soldier settlement in each of these States for the next few years and with this money much could be done to satisfy the demand of existing classified applicants.

A similar offer, but with a ceiling of £1,000,000 per annum, was made to Queensland, but it was refused by the State Government. As a result, no further war service land settlement is being undertaken in Queensland.

The proposed appropriation for South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania is required to meet an estimated expenditure, this financial year, on war service land settlement, of £7,136,000, of which it is estimated £2,536,000 will be met by repayments of advances, &c., by settlers, which will become available during the year.

In 1953-54, total Commonwealth expenditure of a capital nature on war service land settlement in these three States was £5,471,000, of which £4,025,000 represented new money. From the inception of the scheme to the 30th June, 1955, total Commonwealth expenditure of this kind has amounted to £22,890,000, and during this period 1,586 holdings have been allotted to eligible ex-servicemen, of which 104 were allotted during the last financial year. In addition, subdivisional proposals have been approved to provide a further 442 blocks, many of which are under occupation by lesseesdesignate on a temporary basis, pending their development to the stage at which they can be formally allotted. There are also a number of large projects which are undergoing initial development, but on which final sub-division has not yet been decided.

In addition to the proposed expenditure of £11,036,000 during 1955-56 for the purposes I have mentioned, an amount of £1,750,000 will be made available from Consolidated Revenue in respect of all States, to provide mainly for Commonwealth contributions to writing off excess costs of acquisition and development, payment of living allowances and remission of settlers’ rent and interest during their assistance period.

Debate (on motion by Senator CRITCHLEY) adjourned.

page 761

MEAT EXPORT CONTROL BILL 1955

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · “Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to provide for the shortening of the term of office of certain members of the Australian Meat Board in the event of the board being reconstituted within the next three years. Under the Meat Export Control Act 1935-1953, the term of office of members representing meat producers, meat exporting companies and meatworks employees is three years. Their present term of office will expire on the 6th November next. New appointments will be made to take effect as from the 7th November.

There is a growing feeling that the membership of the board, which was determined early in the post-war period, should be revised to take account of more recent developments in the meat export trade, particularly in the light of the great increase in beef exports. Certain primary producer organizations have expressed their views on industry representation, and the Graziers Federal Council has appointed a committee which, I understand, will report soon on this matter.

It is not the intention of the Government to move in the matter until the industry’s views are fully known. However, in view of the possibility of a reconstruction of the board during the next three years, the Government wishes to give notice that the period of office of the new appointees may be shortened. The present bill, accordingly, provides that if the board’s membership is reconstituted during the next three years, the period of office of all members other than the chairman, will be automatically terminated. The present appointment of the chairman was for a firm period of five years, which does not expire until the 6th November, 1956.

The bill, in fact, foreshadows the Government’s intention to examine carefully the representations of the industry organizations. Honorable senators should, therefore, note that it is quite likely that the Meat Export Control Act 1935-1953, will be amended in the near future. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Courtice) adjourned.

page 761

STATES GRANTS (MENTAL INSTITUTIONS) BILL 1955

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Beading.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

[11.57 j. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

To appreciate the necessity and wisdom of the Federal Government’s approach, by a substantial contribution to capital buildings and equipment; in attacking the Australian mental disease problem, it is necessary to recapitulate the history of mental treatment by governments. Early in our history, it was recognized that mental treatment needed ample space, reasonable privacy for treatment, and opportunities for occupational employment. The same three main features of successful treatment were applied in those days as obtain to-day - (i) They aimed at accurate diagnosis and investigations; (ii) relaxation of the patient by hospital treatment or sedatives; and (iii) occupational therapy. All of these required ample space, both in hospital buildings and grounds, as well as modern equipment.

A measure of privacy for the sick patient is indispensable, as is room for occupational therapy. If you can keep the hands of the mental patients busy, you can keep their heads cool. At first, all these desiderata were available at Callan Park and Gladesville in Sydney, Kew, in Melbourne, and so on. As well, quite a number of extensive private hospitals were established, like Bayview, with 30 or 40 acres of ground to permit these facilities. The growth of population, especially the metropolitan population, with the intense congestion of the urban areas, not only brought in more patients, but also interfered with these essential conditions. The congestion of the city tended to jam the mental treatment areas and, as well, increased numbers were crowded into hospitals which were designed to carry 600 patients properly, but were forced to carry 1,600. This meant the destruction of all the essentials of treatment.

First, there was invasion of the recreation space in the hospitals for bedrooms, then the dayrooms were taken over, then the verandahs, and even the kitchens and pantries. Finally, numbers increased so greatly that the patients were literally jammed into even these wards, where there was scarcely standing room and not enough space for ample beds, so that many were forced to sleep on mattresses on the floor. With all this, very little extra lavatory and other amenity accommodation could be provided. It was found impossible any longer to give the doctor a special room to examine his sick patient and to find out, by gaining the confidence of the patient, the complexes which started his nervous disorder. This overcrowding limited the chances of obtaining single rooms for patients. Even general patients, of all sorts, in all stages of mental disease, were crammed into common-rooms, which became both dayrooms and bedrooms. Some even slept on the floor. There was no room for segregating patients into their different classes, nor room to provide appropriate occupations for all.

It was obvious, therefore, that the first and most important and indispensable step to remedy this condition of affairs was to provide accommodation to overcome the overcrowding. The provision of this accommodation will substantially help the maintenance costs of the hospital, but, more important, it may easily restore to normal civil life many patients who otherwise would simply be absorbed into the whirlpool of the permanently mentally disordered. Existing hospitals can give quite good service for the numbers for which they were originally built, and dayrooms and recreation space, &c, will again be available in those hospitals for the diminished numbers. The important thing is to get the excess siphoned off into new buildings.

If the acute cases could be diagnosed accurately, at the beginning of their sickness, many would be cured and never have to go into general mental hospitals at all. If there is room for individual examination and diagnosis, many others would be found to be able to be trained for jobs in which they could stay in hostels at night and earn ordinary wages during the day. Others might be housed at night at home and treated in hospitals during the day. Thousands of others would be found able to carry out a curriculum of work which prevented their further mental degeneration, gave them a great deal of enjoyment in life and enabled them to help to maintain themselves by useful work in properly provided hospitals.

The Australian Government, therefore, decided to have a complete examination of the whole position and ascertain, first of all, what shortage of accommodation existed. That examination has been made by Dr. Stoller and Mr. Arscott. From this, it is obvious that at least 10,000 beds are necessary immediately, which, at the cost of £3,000 each, would mean a total cost of £30,000,000. The Commonwealth will find one-third of this amount, or £10,000,000, which is more than twenty times as much as was ever given in any one year to the States by the Commonwealth for mental treatment, and five times as much as has been given in the whole history of the Commonwealth. This amount will bo available just as quickly as the States get on with their job of providing the 10,000 indispensable beds, and will be divided on a per capita basis.

The purpose of this bill is to authorize grants totalling £10,000,000 to the State governments for the provision of additional beds in mental institutions throughout Australia. For some time, there has been widespread public concern regarding conditions in State mental institutions. Mental health is a matter for the States, and the Commonwealth is responsible neither for the conditions which have developed nor for any action which must be taken to improve those conditions. But because the problem has reached such serious dimensions, the Government believes that it is proper that the Commonwealth should make a financial contribution towards expediting building for the alleviation of overcrowding and the improvement of treatment facilities, which is really the indispensable starting point of bringing modern conditions of mental care into operation.

This is the second occasion on which legislation has been introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament for the purpose of assisting the States in the field of mental health. The first Commonwealth legislation in this field was the Mental Institution Benefits Act’ 1948. This act authorized the government of the day to make a five-year agreement with each of the States. The main provisions of the agreement, as authorized by the act, were -

  1. The Commonwealth would pay the States a benefit equal to the amount then being collected by the States from the relatives and estates of mental patients by way of charges for maintenance ; and
  2. The States (would cease making charges for the maintenance of mental patients.

The agreements authorized by the Mental Institution Benefits Act were made with all States in 1949. The amounts paid by the Commonwealth to the States under the agreements were about1s. per patient per day. The cost to the Commonwealth was less than £500,000 a year. The agreements expired in the latter half of 1954. The present Commonwealth proposal is for a sum twenty times the annual amount provided, and is in addition to State resources.

Quite early in the life of the present Government, the attention of the State governments was drawn to the defects of the agreement, and an offer was made to cancel the agreements and establish a fresh approach to the whole problem. However, none of the States took advantage of the Commonwealth’s offer and the 1949 agreements therefore ran for the full five years.

The principal weakness in the 1949 agreements, from the State governments’ viewpoint, was that the States received no extra money for the maintenance of mental patients but merely a Commonwealth benefit in substitution for their existing fees. One effect of this arrangement has been that mental institutions have been starved of the funds necessary for their development. The present Government believes that a stipulation which interferes with the right of a State to determine its own policy in relation to charges should not be made a condition of Commonwealth assistance.

Early in 1954, as the termination of the 1949 agreements became imminent, the present Government decided that a prerequisite of any new offer of Commonwealth assistance in this field should be an expert Australia-wide survey of the needs of mental institutions. The State governments agreed with the Commonwealth proposal that this survey should be made. The task was entrusted to Dr. Alan Stoller, formerly Consultant (Psychological Medicine), Repatriation Commission Head-quarters, Consultant, World Health Organization, Corresponding Fellow, American Psychiatric Association, and now Chief Clinical Officer, Mental Hygiene Department, Victoria, whose services were made available by the Victorian Government, and to Mr. K. W. Arscott, Administrative Officer, Commonwealth Department of Health.

Their survey covered the whole field of mental health in Australia. The report was released in May of this year. It represents the first statement on the problem of mental disease on an Australian basis. The outstanding revelation in the report is an appalling state of overcrowding and treatment conditions.

The report makes it clear that the remedy of overcrowding is the first step to be taken for the relief of the existing uphappy conditions, and for better treatment. Dr. Stoller estimates that the immediate accommodation required to meet the existing shortage is 10,000 beds, estimated to cost approximately £3,000 each -a total cost of £30,000,000. The Commonwealth offered to supply £10,000,000 towards this cost, on the basis of £1 for every £2 spent by the States.

The report was discussed at the conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers which was held in Canberra in June of this year. It was made clear by Commonwealth representatives at the conference that each .State government has to decide for itself what it is going to do about the conditions revealed in the report, but that extraordinary efforts are clearly called for. All authorities are agreed that no real progress can be made in overcoming the present conditions and improving standards of treatment without a costly building programme running into many millions of pounds.

The Government’s view is that, because of the urgency of the matter and because of the great financial problem which is confronting the States in this matter, the Commonwealth should contribute to a £30,000,000 capital expenditure pro gramme on the basis of £1 for each £2 of capital expenditure on mental institutions by the States. It is a grant on these terms that is provided for in this bill. The Commonwealth’s grant will come out of its own budgetary resources and will be paid to the States as their funds are expended. The States’ expenditure may come out of loan funds or any other sources they have available.

Overcrowding defeats the three main features of successful mental treatment, which are, first, accurate diagnosis and investigation; secondly, relaxation of the patient by hospital treatment or by sedatives - whichever of these is adopted the mental patient must have ample room to minimize noise; thirdly, occupational therapy, such as farming, carpentering, dressmaking - things to do with the hands to do away with mental tension, recreation and room for the patients. Each one of these necessitates ample space combined with efficient organization so that the available accommodation may be wisely used. Suggestions for improved treatment of mental disease all depend for their success on more accommodation for facilities needed. For instance, accurate diagnosis and investigation of the patient must be the very base of any improvement. This can be secured only if separate rooms are available for every doctor to examine his patients. No mental patient can be diagnosed unless he is examined in a separate room. No mentally disturbed patient will talk frankly, or with confidence except in a separate room with his doctor. How could the disturbed patient tell about himself with others listening. Relief of overcrowding must be the first step taken both in the provision of more humane conditions and better treatment, and is indispensable in all other recommendations for improvement.

The actual cost of maintenance of the whole system may very easily be reduced as the result of increased accommodation, with provision of diagnostic and therapeutic facilities, and improved conditions will be accompanied by a lessened load on the community. Many patients, who would otherwise become chronic mental cases, may be cured. in the early stages and return to active, normal life and full working capacity. The aged could be specially provided for and related to general geriatric treatment.

The mentally deficient and chronic mental cases may well be able to be placed in a position of largely maintaining themselves by their vocational activities, as illustrated at the Convalescent Hostel, Tomaree, Nelson Bay, in relation to which Dr. Stoller reported -

This centre was very cheap to run. We understand that many of the patients became good workers after arrival. The population certainly contained many chronic psychotics, who could easily deteriorate and bc useless as workers. They seemed to be very happy, and were creatively participative in physical developments. Review of such a centre makes one wonder whether similar small centres might not enable a State to handle many of its patients in this cheap and satisfactory way, with a minimum of medical attention.

It. will be evident that this capital works programme is not the whole solution to the problem of the mentally ill. It still rests with the States to lift the standards of care and treatment. But without large capital expenditure such care and treatment will be grievously handicapped and many curable cases will suffer fatal neglect.

Debate (on motion by Senator Tangney) adjourned.

page 765

INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION BILL 1955

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

It is the purpose of the bill to obtain the approval of the Parliament to Australian membership of the International Finance Corporation. Proposals for the establishment of an International Finance Corporation have been under discussion in the Economic and Social Council and in the United Nations General Assembly since 1951. The proposals have always had the strong support of the under-developed countries but there was an important development in November, 1954, when the United States Administration announced that Congress would be asked to approve United States participation in the proposed corporation. In December, 1954, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution supporting the concept of an International Finance Corporation and requesting the International Bank to prepare and secure agreement on a suitable charter. There followed some months of intensive examination of the proposal by the International Bank and after consultation with representatives of member countries, including Australia, the bank drew up and submitted to governments for acceptance the articles ‘of agreement which are reproduced as a schedule to this bill.

The main purpose of the corporation is defined in its articles of agreement in the following terms : -

To further economic development by encouraging the growth of productive private enterprise in member countries, particularly in the less developed areas. . . .

We all know that the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development has been highly successful in channelling public and private funds into development projects in different parts of the world. Australia is not only a member of the bank, but is also the largest recipient of International Bank loans. It may be asked, therefore, why it is necessary to establish a new international institution in the foreign loans field. Briefly, the answer is that there are two important limitations to the scope of International Bank activities. In the first place, the bank is not permitted to’ lend direct to a private enterprise unless the member government in question guarantees repayment of the loan. I understand this proviso has severely inhibited direct lending by the bank to private enterprise. In some cases firms have been reluctant to borrow on such terms from the bank because of a fear that a government guarantee would lead to government interference in business operations. In other cases, governments have been unwilling to single out individual business undertakings and favour them with a government guarantee. In the second place the International Bank can only make loans bearing fixed rates of interest with agreed schedules of amortization. In other words the bank does not advance risk capital. But in many cases it is risk capital which is required to establish or expand a particular project. For example, though the long-term prospects of an investment may be favorable, there may be no possibility of immediate returns on the investment and the financial position of the firm may not permit it to carry interest and amortization payments in the meantime.

From what I have said it will be obvious that many promising projects may not be pursued because of the guarantee requirement in the bank’s articles, and because of the bank’s inability to make risk capital available. The International Finance Corporation has been specifically designed to fill this gap in the foreign lending field. Honorable senators will have before them a copy of the articles of agreement which are attached as a schedule to the bill but it may be helpful at this point if I summarize briefly’ some of the more important features of the articles.

Firstly, I would emphasize that the corporation will be supplementary to and will not compete with the International Bank. As already mentioned, the corporation will concentrate on making risk capital available to private enterprise without government guarantee - a field in which the bank cannot operate. But at the same time the corporation will be closely affiliated with the bank. Indeed, membership of the corporation is to be confined to countries which are also members of the bank. The president of the bank will be the chairman of the corporation’s board of directors and the board itself will be composed of executive directors of the bank. These arrangements will ensure that the corporation will have the benefit of the bank’s experience and that the two institutions will operate in harmony. While I am on the subject of the corporation’s relations with private enterprise I should also draw your attention to the fact that in normal circumstances the corporation would be prohibited from assuming responsibility for taking part in the management of enterprises in which it invests. It is, therefore, prevented from investing in common stock carrying voting rights. Investments by the corporation may take various forms and will be adjusted to meet the needs of particular projects. In particular it will be able to invest in securities which could be converted into common stock carrying voting rights on disposal by the corporation to private investors. But it was the general view of the countries participating in the drafting of the articles that it would be wrong for an international institution to become involved in the managerial responsibilities of private firms and the Government shares this view.

The authorized capital stock of the corporation is 100,000.000 dollars, and members will subscribe to this capital stock in the proportions in which they subscribe to the International Bank. Under certain circumstances the corporation may increase its capital stock but this requires a three-fourths majority and no member’ is obliged to subscribe to such an increase in capital. Accordingly, the bill before the Senate does not authorize expenditure beyond the initial subscription of 2,215,000 dollars. If the corporation were to expand its activities it would normally be expected to do so in large part by attracting funds from private investors. For this reason it has been given wide powers to borrow funds, to guarantee securities . in which it has invested and to sell securities which it has issued or guaranteed.

With regard to privileges and immunities, I might mention that the articles do not exempt the corporation from foreign exchange restrictions. There is also a provision whereby the corporation may waive its privileges in certain circumstances. Apart from that, the privileges and immunities are the same as those currently accorded to the International Bank. It will be appreciated that the taxation immunities granted to the corporation under the articles are in some respects in conflict with current Australian practice. In particular, the exemption from tax of income derived from the corporation’s investment activities in Australia would be contrary to the Australian policy of taxing all profits originating in .this country. The implications of this taxation immunity were pointed out to the board of the International Bank by our director there. The board recognized the difficulties the taxation clause was likely to present to some member countries and a special waiver clause - not included in the International Bank articles - was inserted. The effect of this clause is to allow the corporation in its discretion to waive any privileges conferred under the articles to such an extent and upon such conditions as it may determine. The possibility that we might have to call on the corporation to exercise this power of waiver has been fully emphasized and placed on record during the drafting of the articles. In the last resort, the Government could fall back on its power to refuse investments in Australia by the corporation if it were dissatisfied with the conditions required by the corporation.

Finally, perhaps I should make it clear that Australia, by virtue of its having a director on the board of the International Bank, would also be on the board of the corporation, if it became a member. That is necessarily a brief summary of the articles, but it does, I think, bring out the main points. The Government has given careful consideration to the articles and an Australian representative participated in their drafting. It is the Government’s opinion that the articles provide a reasonable framework for the operation of the corporation.

I turn now to the more particular question of Australian interests in the corporation. It will be clear from what lias been said earlier that in the first instance the corporation will concentrate its activities on the under-developed countries of the world - such as those in South-East Asia. These are the countries where the disparity between the demand and the supply for capital on reasonable terms is greatest. Australia has always recognized its responsibilities towards such countries and if the corporation can speed up their economic development it will bo working towards the same objective as Australia and other donor countries in the Colombo plan. The corporation can be regarded as an additional agency for channelling the flow of investment from the older industrial countries to those in the early stage of development. For this reason alone it might well be argued that the corporation deserves our support.

It should also be noted that the corporation would impose no conditions as to the territories in which any moneys it provides should be spent. A somewhat similar situation obtains in the case of the International Bank and the last report of the bank indicates that in the year 1954-55, over 50 per cent, of bank loans was spent outside the United States. There can be little doubt that the activities of the corporation also will add directly to the demand for exports from the non-dollar world. It is not likely that Australia would benefit immediately from any such increase in demand, but the United Kingdom would undoubtedly do so and she, of course, is our- largest market.

We would not be human, however, if we did not centre our attention on the possibility of direct investment by the corporation in Australian industry. Australia has always encouraged investment from overseas which will contribute to the development of the economy and a general interest by the corporation in Australian industry would most certainly be welcomed by this Government. On the other hand, we must be careful not to raise false hopes. The corporation is to some extent experimental and it is to be established in the first instance on a very moderate scale. The funds available will, therefore,- be limited and the under-developed countries will have first priority on their use. I must also make it clear that the corporation will be operated on a business-like basis. It will be no give-away source of funds. All projects submitted to it will be carefully examined and where it does offer financial support it will expect to be reimbursed for the money it makes available and for the risks it assumes. In the short term it would be unwise to expect too much in the way of direct investment in Australia by the corporation.

Taking the longer view, the advantages of membership may well be direct and real nevertheless. Given good management - and I think this is assured by its- affiliation with, that successful institution, the International Bank - and a little luck, the corporation will grow in size and influence. It will be able to raise funds in much the same way as the International Bank has done by issuing securities and selling investments, and this could lead to a flow of capital well in excess of its original stock. In such circumstances, Australian industry could very well be a substantial recipient of corporation investments.

I would also direct the attention of the Senate to Article 1, sections (ii) and (iii) of the articles of agreement. These sections provide for the corporation to act as a sort of clearing-house in bringing together investment projects and investors and to help create conditions which will encourage the flow of capital between member countries. These “nonfinancial “ activities pf the corporation could be most important from our point of view. There has been some disappointment with the flow of private American capital abroad since the war, but nevertheless new private American capital is going abroad and earnings are being re-invested at about twice the rate of loans made by the International Bank and the American Export-Import Bank. If the corporation can tap new sources of private American capital and if it can encourage investment of that capital in countries outside Canada and Latin America it will contribute significantly to the economic development of the rest of the world, including Australia.

I now wish to refer briefly to the clauses of the bill. Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 are self-explanatory. Clause 5 provides for an appropriation to cover the Australian subscription of 2,215,000 dollars. If any additional subscription were to be contemplated, and I can see no early prospect of this, the sum would be included in the Estimates and submitted to the Senate in the normal way. Clause 6 is necessitated by the fact that each Government which accepts the articles of agreement must deposit an instrument to the effect that it has accepted the agreement without reservation in accordance with its law and has taken all steps necessary to enable it to carry out all its obligations under this agreement. The latter assurance could not be given under our existing law. The purpose of the clause in the bill is to enable the Government to give the necessary assurance without altering the law in detail at the present time. The clause is similar in intention to clause- 11 of the International Monetary Agreements Aci 1947.

The articles of agreement will enter into force when they have been accepted by not less than 30 governments whose subscriptions comprise not less than 75 per cent, of the total. Original members of the corporation will be those which accept the Agreement by the 31st December, 1956. The United States, United Kingdom and Canadian governments have already passed the legislation necessary for acceptance of membership and over 40 other governments have announced that they are taking the necessary legislative action. Our advice is that the entry into force of the articles is assured and that the corporation is likely to commence operations early in 1956. The Government is of the opinion that Australia should be an original member of the corporation, and I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Arnold) adjourned.

page 768

LOAN (HOUSING) BILL 1955

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to authorize loan raisings totalling £33,200,000 to finance advances to the States for housing. In June, 1955, Loan Council approved a borrowing programme for 1955-56 that included an allocation to the Commonwealth of £33,200,000 for housing under the agreement. It is proposed that this amount will be advanced to the States on the following basis : -

The ten-year period of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement expires at different dates in the different States in 1955-56, but the Prime Minister and the Premiers agreed at the Premiers conference to extend the expiry date to the 30th June, 1956, in each State now operating under the agreement. This decision will in due course be ratified by the respective Parliaments.

From the inception of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, until the 30th June, 1955, a total of £207,359,000 had been made available to the States under the agreement. Of this, £29,150,000 was advanced during the 1954-55 financial year. The allocation of £33,200,000 for 1955-56 is £4,050,000 greater than actual advances during 1954-55. To the 30th June, 1955, 84,221 dwellings had been completed under the agreement, and at that date a further 7,630 were under construction. During 1954-55, 14,318 dwellings were completed. This was the highest number of completions for any year since the inception of the agreement. Completions under the agreement represent 14 per cent, of the total number of dwelling units built since the war.

As at the 30th June, 1955, 3,787 housing agreement homes had been sold to tenants in occupation. Until this year the sale of homes was limited considerably by a provision requiring the States to repay to the Commonwealth the full purchase price at the time of sale. In accordance with legislation which passed through this Parliament in May last, however, houses may now be sold to tenants on terms. Moneys to be made available to the States in 1955-56 should make it possible for the total dwellings erected throughout the ten-year period of the agreement to reach nearly 100,000.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

page 769

STATES GRANTS BILL 1955

Bill received from, the House of Repre- . sentatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator SPOONER read a first time.

Second Reading

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

.- I move-

That the hill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to authorize the payment during the current financial year, of special grants amounting to £1S,500,000 to South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. The payment of these grants has been recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in its twenty-second report, which was tabled recently.

In its twenty-second report the commission has continued to base its recommendations upon the general principle of financial need. The commission has interpreted this principle to mean that, provided a claimant State makes an effort to raise revenue and control its expenditure which is reasonable by comparison with the efforts of the nonclaimant States, its special grant should be sufficient to enable it to provide services at a level not appreciably below those provided in the non-claimant States.

The chief method used by the commission in applying this principle is to make a detailed comparison of the budget results of the claimant States with those of the non-claimant States. In the course of. this comparison, particular account is taken of differences in levels of expenditure and in efforts to raise revenue. Although the commission has used the same general approach for many years, changes in detail are made from time to time. This year, for example, the commission has further increased the allowances which it makes for the greater difficulties in providing social services in the claimant States. The greater difficulties arise from such factors as, sparsity of population, age distribution and overhead costs. The allowances for greater difficulties which were increased last year, have been increased by the commission again this year in the light of the latest census figures.

The special grants recommended each year are divided into two parts. One part represents the commission’s estimate of the States’ financial needs for the current financial year. This part is regarded by the commission as an advance payment which will be the subject of an adjustment two years later when the commission has examined in detail the audited budget results of the States for that year. The other part of the grant represents a final adjustment of the special grant paid two years earlier. In arriving at the final adjustment to the special grants paid in 1.953-54 the commission decided, once again, that a balanced budget was the appropriate budget standard.

The following grants have been recommended by the commission for payment in 1955-56:-

These special grants recommended for payment in 1955-56 are substantially larger than the special grants paid to the claimant States in 1954-55. The increases involved are as follows: -

In chapter VII. of the commission’s twenty-second report, honorable senators will find an outline of the reasons given by the commission for the above increases. Briefly, the commission gives as the main causes the apparent insufficiency of the grants paid in 1954-55, which were £3.100,000 less than those paid in 1953-54, together with the increases in salary and wage margins, State debt charges and in population which are expected to increase the States’ expenditure in 1955-56.

The largest increase recommended is in the grant to South Australia. The special grant paid to South Australia in 1954-55 amounted to £2,250,000, compared with a grant of £6,100,000 in 1953- 54. When deciding the amount to be recommended for payment to South Australia in 1954-55, the commission was aware that. the amount required to balance the State’s budget in that year would probably be of the order of £4,500,000. The amount recommended was substantially less than this figure because the commission took into account the exceptionally large accumulated surplus available to that State as at the 30th June 1954. The commission now regards £2,234,000 of this accumulated surplus as having been used to meet South Australia’s published deficit for 1954-55. This has left an accumulated surplus of only £540,000 available, to meet the States’ needs in 1955-56. To a substantial extent, therefore, the increase in the grant recommended for payment to South Australia in 1955-56 reflects the fact that the accumulated surplus available to meet the financial needs of the State in 1955-56 is very much smaller than that available in 1954- 55. The balance of the increase provides for higher expenditure due, in particular, to marginal increases of salaries and wages and enlarged public debt charges.

The increases of the grants recommended for payment to Western Australia and Tasmania arise in part from the commission’s revision of the allowances for greater difficulties in providing social services. This revision, as I explained earlier in my speech, was made in the light of the latest census figures. The balance provides for increased expenditure on account of such factors as increases of salaries and wages. On the basis of the preliminary budget estimates submitted to the commission by the claimant States, the effect of the commission’s recommendations would be to leave each of them with a small deficit in 1955-56. Honorable senators are reminded, however, that these Estimates are tentative only. In two years’ time, when the States’ audited budget results for 1955-56 are available, the commission will recommend whatever adjustments it considers necessary.

The special grants recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission have been adopted each year by the Australian government of the day, and the Government considers that the commissions recommendations should be adopted again this year. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator ARMSTRONG ) adjourned .

page 771

APPROPRIATION BILL 1955-56

In committer,: Consideration resumed from the 26th October (vide page 751).

War and Repatriation Services.

Proposed vote. . £15,977,000 - agreed to

Postmaster-G e nera l ‘ s Depar t men t .

Proposed vote, £79,265,000.

Broadcasting Services.

Proposed vote, £5,352,000.

Senator SEWARD:
Western Australia

. - There are one or two matters to which I wish to refer, but before doing so I desire to make some observations regarding the profits and losses of the various branches of the department during the last couple of years. According to the annual report of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department for this year, the postal section made a loss of £1,189,631 last year. The telephone branch, on the other hand, made a profit of £3,221,100. The telegraph branch, like the postal branch, worked at a loss, the loss being £1,218,796. In other words, the telephone branch alone made a profit, but that profit was greater than the combined losses of the postal and telegraph sections. The reasons why I accentuate that aspect of the department’s activities are twofold. Recently, the PostmasterGeneral announced that 3d., instead of 2d., would be charged for each public telephone call. The only conclusion I can reach is that the unfortunate telephone users will be called upon to meet the losses of the other two branches of the department’s activities. That is unjust, particularly because it affects most the people who use telephone boxes which, after all, are erected for their convenience, and to enable them to call for help when it is required. There is no excuse for an increase of telephone charges, in view of the fact that the department made a profit of over £3,000.000 last year. I therefore, take exception to the proposed increase.

On a number of occasions I have submitted applications from intending subscribers and have application from at least a dozen districts for telephones to be installed, but the invariable reply of the department has ‘been that there is a shortage of material, or of labour, or of something else. Such a reply can be of no possiblecomfort to the applicants, particularly if they reside in country districts. For a person situated from 7 miles to 20 miles from the nearest business centre, inability to obtain a telephone amounts to a great hardship. Let us take the case of a married man with a family, whose child becomes sick in the night. If he has a telephone in the house, he can put through a call to the district nurse, or the nearest doctor, and get advice about the child’s treatment; but if he has not access to a telephone, it may mean a journey of twenty miles in a truck, over bad roads, to get medical help. Such conditions are detrimental to settlement on the land.

Or, take the case of a farmer who is without a telephone at seeding or harvesting time. At seeding time he needs superphosphate. If he has ordered superphosphate, the supplier usually sends it by rail and informs the farmer by postcard that it has been sent. The postcard usually reaches him in the course of a few days after it has been posted. The farmer then has to go to the railway station to inquire whether the superphosphate has arrived. He may do so on three or four successive days, only to find that it has not come to hand. He may then decide to wait a day or two before making further inquiries at the railway station, but in all probability the superphosphate will arrive on the first day that he fails to call, in which event he is told that he must pay demurrage on the truck because it was not unloaded within 24 hours of its arrival at the railway station. That is the kind of tiling that can happen when a man is without a telephone. I have suggested to the Minister that, if the department is short of labour, it might allow applicants for telephones to dig the holes and erect the posts, instead of the department doing so. Of course, in such circumstances the applicants should be paid similar rates to those paid by the department for such work.

People in country districts who cannot get telephones are not helped when they read in their newspapers, as I did in the West Australian of the 12th August, a heading to the effect that new telephones had gone into action in city betting shops. Those betting shops were opened on the 4th August, only eight days earlier. The photograph which appeared in the newspaper showed six telephone instruments in one betting shop. “What is the use of asking people in country districts to produce more exportable goods, when a city betting shop can get telephones quickly, whereas they cannot get them at all? Another case that comes to my mind is that of a leading member of the Country Women’s Association in Western Australia who transferred her home to Albany, and has been trying for six months to get a telephone installed. The department says that the reason a telephone has not been installed is that it is short of cables. Seeing that the telephone branch made a profit of over £3,000,000 last year, that excuse is not good enough. The appropriation for the telephone branch should be increased so that the necessary materials can be obtained. I have in mind particularly materials and equipment for automatic exchanges in country districts. Before automatic exchanges were provided, country districts had to rely on manually operated exchanges. In small districts these exchanges were usually in charge of a farmer or his wife, who had to be in attendance for certain specified hours each day, generally from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., with a further hour at night. The necessity to be in attendance tied them down. If there were, for instance, some social function which they desired to attend, one of them had to stay at home to attend to telephone calls. Fortunately, the installation of automatic exchanges has altered that situation, and, therefore, it is only reasonable that every effort should be made to provide more automatic exchanges so that people in country districts may have the benefit of them.

The delay in providing much needed telephones to people in country districts is one reason why I am opposed to the introduction of television at this stage. We were told that this year the expenditure in connexion with television will be between £200,000 and £300,000, but according to a measure which will come in later, £1,000,000 is to be made available to provide television facilities. This matter is wrapped up with the trend in population, which is moving towards the cities. Even the immigrants are congregating in the cities, and they cannot be blamed for going where they can have the advantage of the latest inventions and amenities. Unless we make more amenities available to the residents in the country areas it will be a bad show for Australia.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has announced that expenditure on capital works will be curtailed by £10,000,000 this year. I sincerely hope that any curtailment of activity by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department will be restricted to television. The. telephone branch should be the last to suffer. In fact, I ask for greater provision for telephones, so that that necessary facility will be available to much greater numbers than has been the case in recent years.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Reid).Order ! I inform honorable senators that the committee will consider the proposed vote for Broadcasting Services, £5,352,000 in association with the PostmasterGeneral’s Department.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– I direct attention to what has happened in the Postal Department in the case of the older employees. There is a shortage of trained men in the Postal Department which, as a rule, trains its own craftsmen. Men are being retired from the department on reaching the age of 65 years, although they are quite capable of doing their work. In fact, they are more capable than many of the young men who are entering the service. Whenever the opportunity has occurred,

I have always tried to place in employment men who have been retired if they are capable of doing the work. In Melbourne, Sydney and other places, there are numbers of former employees of the Postal Department aged 65 years and over who are walking about the streets. They are just as capable as ever they were. During the war years, we called on men in that group to return to work. They did wonderful work for the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, in aircraft production and other essential jobs but, since the war, we have dispensed with the services of men of 65 years and over. It is time we reconsidered this matter. A sea pilot is not retired on reaching the age of 65 years if he is capable of doing his work. “Why should we retire experienced men and women who have grown up with their jobs and can do them thoroughly? We are told there is a shortage of trained labour and for that reason we cannot get telephone services.

Senator Hannaford:

– The honorable senator is speaking against the policy of the Australian Labour party to which he belongs.

Senator CAMERON:

– If we had another war, the men we are discarding and pushing into the streets would be recalled to maintain essential services. It is inhuman and unjust to force them into unemployment. Any competent medical practitioner knows that to do so is demoralizing, and that fit men who are pushed into retirement deteriorate rapidly. When members of Parliament try to get new telephone services, they are informed that trained men are not available. Because the Government has allowed itself to be shackled by acts of Parliament, we have to put up with the position that exists to-day. I agree with Senator Seward on the matter of television. Several propositions were submitted to me.

Sitting suspended from 1.0 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator CAMERON:

– Before the sitting was suspended, I had been directing attention to the position of retired postal workers, and I had stated that, in view of the present shortage of labour, workers such as those should not be retired. In Melbourne and Sydney, and in other places where work is available, they are able to do odd jobs, but the average employer is not really interested in employing anybody who is over the age of 40 years. Labour’s policy is full employment for all who are capable of working and willing to work, and that is as it should be. No country can claim to be organized as it should be organized when there are many of its citizens, quite capable of doing excellent work, not being employed. Some of the best technicians and engineers whom I know are men over the age of 65 years.

As we all know, most public servants who retire at 65 have contributed, during their working years, to the superannuation fund many pounds worth 20s. in terms of gold. When they retire, each £1 they receive is worth only about 5s. in terms of gold, so that they are being robbed in effect. When people are in employment, they are able, by means of cost of living adjustments and margins, more or less to hold their own, but when they retire on a pension or on superannuation, they find that their purchasing power is reduced.

The economy of this country was never in a worse state than it is to-day. Consider, for instance, the report of the Tariff Board that was tabled in the Parliament recently. In that report, the Government has been challenged because of its economic policy, a policy under which the people who suffer most are pensioners and superannuitants. If the Government really wished to do the best it possibly could for those people, it would consider this question of the loss of value of their pensions. Although there are approximately sixteen employees’ organizations in the Postal Department, it amazes me that not one of those organizations is attacking the economic policy of the Government as it should be attacked from the point of view of the workers. Their failure to do so is because of reasons that I have cited on other occasions in this chamber, and to which I shall not refer now.

With regard to television, I believe that first things should come first. There is a shortage of telephone services, particularly in the country areas, and for those who need them most, such as doctors and other professional men. For that reason.

I think that telephones should come before television. In 1948, I think it was, an offer was made to supply Australia with television equipment. As PostmasterGeneral at the time, I made a few inquiries abroad and found that the proposal was to dump obsolete equipment in Australia. That, of course, would have been nothing new. Obsolete trams have been dumped in Sydney, and obsolete cable cars in Melbourne. I was determined that there would be no dumping of obsolete television equipment in this country, and when I handed over to the present Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony), I gave him an idea of my policy in that connexion. I informed him that, in my opinion, telephone services should come first, and that if he were committed to the introduction of television, he should make certain that the department was not loaded with a lot of obsolete equipment. Since then, I have been convinced that the advice T received at that time was based on fact, and I think that what I said then has since been fully justified.

I trust that the Government will take cognizance of what I have said about the scarcity of labour in the Postal Department and other government departments. E do not think anybody would take the Government to task for continuing to 1’inploy men after they reached the age of 65 years, having regard to the shortage of skilled labour and the unsatisfied demand for telephones. If and when we are privileged to meet here again next year, I hope that we shall be told that there has been a big improvement in this position.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– I wish to refer to two matters concerning the Australian Broadcasting Commission ‘ radio services in Western Australia. The first matter relates to the services which are provided, T suggest purely in the imagination of the commission, for the benefit of people who live in the area north of Geraldton, nr. area seme 1.500 miles north of Perth, and comprising about one quarter of the total area of the Commonwealth. The Australian Broadcasting Commission, apparently is under the impression that it cater? for that area of Australia by radio services from Perth and Geraldton, but that, of course, is not true. No one living in the north-west of Western Australia, or in the Kimberleys region, a very vast area, oan receive any programmes from those stations.

Senator Kendall:

– Can they receive programmes on short wave ?

Senator VINCENT:

– I am grateful for the interjection. The inhabitants of Port Hedland, for instance, can receive the short wave programmes of Radio Australia, but. because those programmes are usually about subjects such as the internal position of Siam, or how to grow beans in Peru, they are not of much topical interest to the settlers in that part of Australia.

When one objects to the nature of the service in this area, one is stupidly reminded by the Australian Broadcasting Commission that, after all, there are not very many people there and that, in any case, even though they may be isolated and only about 100 miles apart, they can listen to Radio Australia. I emphasize the point that no one in the north of Australia listens to Radio Australia, which broadcasts programmes to which no one could listen because they are not topical and have no interest for Australians living in that part of the world. I appeal to the Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony) to give some. personal attention to this matter. For years, I and my fellow senators, as well as other people, have been appealing to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and to the Minister, with absolutely no results. Sometimes we receive almost rude rebuffs of our appeals on behalf of the most isolated people in this country. I have even been informed, by one authority on behalf of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, that it could not possibly consider doing anything about radio services to that part of the world because, after all, not many people live there. That is not a reason for not supplying services. There is every reason why a proper broadcasting service should be provided for the people who are living in that area. They are just as entitled to a good radio service as are the people who live in the large capital cities.

Because of the taxes that they have paid, they are fully entitled to a good radio service. I make this last appeal - I shall take more direct action if I have to speak about the matter again - for a proper radio service to be provided for the people who live in the north-west of Western Australia and on the Kimberleys.

Having said that, I now wish to direct my remarks to the radio service that is provided to the Western Australian goldfields, which is another area that is completely isolated from the rest of Western Australia. For many years past, only one regional radio service has operated there. For most of the time, the regional station broadcasts to the 50,000 people who live in the goldfields area nothing but racing information. On Saturdays, unless a person happens to be a starting price bookmaker, or one who indulges in the sport of horse racing, he cannot bring himself to listen to the broadcasts by the Australian Broadcasting Commission from this regional station. When this matter was raised previously, the commission made the naive reply that horse racing was the most popular form of recreation on the gold-fields. That is untrue. The residents of the gold-fields area want to be able to listen to varied programmes. As matters stand, the only people on the gold-fields who listen to radio broadcasts during week-ends are starting price bookmakers and those who transact business with them. In other words, the Australian Broadcasting Commission is really only an agent for the starting price bookmakers, as far as that area is concerned. On Wednesdays and Saturdays - including Saturday nights - and during the week-ends, the announcers on the regional station travel up and down the geographical scale giving racing previews and reviews in relation to race meetings at Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and elsewhere. Apparently, the commission assumes that every person in the gold-fields area makes bis living from either betting or starting price bookmaking. It is perfectly obvious to me that somebody in the Australian Broadcasting Commission ha3 a very vital interest in starting price bookmaking. That is the only inference that one can draw.

Senator Laught:

– I do not think that that is right.

Senator VINCENT:

– Well, why is it that only racing news is broadcast to 10 per cent, of the population of Western Australia ?

Senator Grant:

– Has the honorable senator made any representations to the commission ?

Senator VINCENT:

– Residents of the gold-fields area have been making representations about the matter for years.

Senator Grant:

– To whom?

Senator VINCENT:

– To both the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and the Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony). Apparently, the Australian Broadcasting Commission considers that the people who live on the gold-fields area should listen to betting news and nothing else; that that is the form of entertainment that they enjoy most. That is not so. As the greater majority of the people in that area do not want to listen to race results, they just do not listen at all to broadcasts from the national regional station, but prefer broadcasts from the B class stations. I appeal to the Minister to ask the PostmasterGeneral to direct the Australian Broadcasting Commission to give immediate consideration to this matter. There is no reason why we should foster a government instrumentality that devotes its time, as far as the gold-field - area is concerned, almost entirely, to racing broadcasts. I should be glad if the Minister would give this matter his personal attention.

Senator SANDFORD:
Victoria

– I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony) to assure the committee that the proposed curtailment of expenditure on capital works will not be applied to the works programme of the Postal Department. This morning, I asked the Minister a question in relation to the extension if the post office at Burwood in Victoria. I know of many other places also in Victoria where new post offices are badly needed. The money that it is proposed to provide to the Postal Department for capital works is totally inadequate. I hope that the Minister will assure honorable senators that there will not be any cutting down of expenditure by the Postal Department on new post offices, which are urgently needed in many areas, and that action will be taken to modernize many of the old post office buildings.

After listening to Senator Vincent’s remarks about the Australian Broadcasting Commission, I wish to say a few words on the subject of broadcasting. The honorable senator complained about the continual broadcast of race results in the gold-fields area of Western Australia. I do not make any complaint about the broadcast of race results; although I am not a racing person, I am not greatly concerned about this aspect of broadcasting. I am one of those who believe that racing can reduce a person to wearing odd boots. What I want to bring particularly to the notice of the Minister is that, as far as broadcasts from national stations are concerned, we in Victoria have a very grave complaint to make. In Victoria, we play a game of football known as Australian rules; it is the finest football game played in Australia.

Senator Grant:

– Why is it played only in Victoria?

Senator SANDFORD:

– In case Senator Grant ‘and other honorable senators from other States do not realize the popularity of Australian rules, I should mention that the final games attract from 60,000 to 90,000 spectators. Many thousands of intelligent people living in South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, and quite a number in northern States, as well as the majority of people who live in Victoria, are very greatly interested in the results of Australian rules football matches, particularly the final series. Yet we repeatedly get broadcasts from the Australian Broadcasting Commission giving more prominence and publicity to the result, perhaps, of a soccer match between the Eskimos and somebody else, than to Australian rules football matches.

Senator Grant:

– Obviously, the honorable senator does not know anything about soccer.

Senator SANDFORD:

– The Australian Broadcasting Commission should give greater publicity to Australian rules football matches and the results of those matches. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to use his undoubted influence to see what can be done to give greater publicity to this fine sport that is played down south, particularly by means of broadcasting commentaries and results of the final series of matches. It is Australia’s national game, and the finest sport in the world for both players and spectators. With those few words, I leave the matter in the Minister’s capable hands, and hope that he will give my suggestion favorable consideration.

Senator MATTNER:
South Australia

– There are two or three matters concerning the Postmaster-General’s Department which I should like to mention. The first is that staff for the post office at Darwin is generally drawn from South Australia. Darwin, to-day, is regarded as the gateway or doorway to Australia. The first thing that strikes any one who pays a visit to Darwin, and who as usual wishes to send a message, is the lack of facilities at the post office. 1 know that the Public Works Committee has inquired into the erection of a new post office and the provision of better amenities and conditions for the staff, and has made recommendations in that direction. If one thing is needed in Darwin, it is a hew post office so that the staff can enjoy reasonable working conditions.

Another matter, which may perhaps be of only minor importance, but nevertheless would assist in the more economic working of the post office at Darwin, would be the supplying of a motor car for the use of the postmaster. Strangely enough he is probably the only person in charge of a department in Darwin who has not had this facility granted to him. He lives a considerable distance from the office and a car would provide him with transport to and from his office and also to public functions to which it is vital for him to go. I am sure that other honorable senators who have visited Darwin will agree with me when I say that at the doorway, or entrance, to Australia we should have decent postal facilities. One of the first things a visitor does is to go to the post office and his first impression of our post offices is the glimpse of an old ramshackle building.

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

– How long is it since the honorable senator has been there?

Senator MATTNER:

– I was there two or three months ago.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Is there not a new post office there now?

Senator MATTNER:

– I should be delighted if there were. In dealing with thu post office at Darwin I differ, perhaps, from those honorable senators whose interjections show that they are against the building of a new post office there. 1 assume that they are against it. Although perhaps, not having all the knowledge and the opportunity which some of them have to visit these places, my humble opinion is that this is a job that should be put into operation as soon as possible. 1 repeat that the staff working there are chiefly drawn from South Australia, and we in South Australia owe a duty to these men and women to see that they have at least some of the amenities and decent conditions to which they are entitled. I certainly join issue with interjectors who are against this proposal and ask them to prove that what I have said is wrong.

The other matter about which I desire to speak concerns television in Australia. I am- not going to argue the pros and cons except to say that as far as I am concerned, this is one of the luxuries that we in Australia, at this particular time could do without. I do not know from where the pressure for the establishment of television is coining. Television is an extraordinarily expensive luxury, and in these times when we are told that it is necessary to economize, we should think of first things first. This is one of the things we could very well defer for a year or two. My chief objection to it at the present moment is that nearly every one of our trained technicians, not only in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department but also in the Defence Department, will be attracted to the television field because of advantages in employment. Television will compete most unfairly with the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and the

Army for these technicians. I know the matter is causing a great deal of concern. These technicians have been trained over many years and are valuable members of the Public Service, but it is only natural that, if better terms and conditions of employment are held out to them, they will be attracted to outside private industries. I am not attacking private industry; I am in favour of it. All I wish to say is that before we go too far in introducing television, the relationship between the Postmaster-General’s Department, the Army, the Navy and Air Force. and these private industries should receive the closest scrutiny to ensure that we do not lose from our services these technicians who are so urgently needed.

Another matter concerns the purchase of television sets. I have seen a few types of sets in various parts of the world and if figures given to me as to the number of sets required and their cost price are anywhere near accurate, the majority of these sets will be purchased under hire-purchase agreement That is another important objection to the introduction of television at this particular time.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I desire to raise one matter, but before doing so, I should like to comment on television. With great respect to Senator Mattner, the question is not whether or not we are going to have television; we decided that when a bill was passed for that purpose some eighteen months ago. The matter was then fully canvassed by people with all sorts of views on the subject. The point now is not whether we are going to have it, because it is on the threshold. It is such a fascinating form of entertainment that the moment it reaches Australia it will spread throughout the length and breadth of the country as it has done in other parts of the world. However, it has a great potentiality for either evil or good - for evil if it is not properly controlled. If one speaks to anybody who has had anything to do with television he learns that the first danger arises from the type of programme to be shown. This is something vital to the nation, particularly to our youth.

The matter I rose to speak on is a hardy annual with me. I should like information from the Minister on the progress that has been made in the engineering branch of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department with automatic recording devices. I have raised this matter several times but the view of the Minister or the department seems to be’ that there is no demand for automatic recording devices. In other countries it is quite common to have a simple taperecording device attached to the telephone, and if the subscriber is not present to receive a call a voice makes known that fact to the caller who can then record his message on the machine. When the subscriber returns to his office he sees that a message has been received, and can play the recording and deal with the matter. These appliances are of inestimable value to one-man businesses or offices such as those of lawyers. They would not appeal to a large corporation which employs adequate staff to handle telephone falls.

At a time in the development of Australia when all man-power and womanpower is valuable and none of it can be allowed to be idle, devices like this would be an enormous boon. There is nothing experimental or difficult about them, but when I have suggested to the department that they should be installed I have always received the stock reply, “ There is no demand for them”. It is elementary logic that if a man has not an apple tree he cannot expect to have apples to sell. Of course there will be no demand if no one knows about these appliances or that they are available for purchase. It has been suggested to me - not by the department - that these attachments might be a competitor with telephones, but I am convinced that that would not be the case. The department is now busy installing a colossal number of telephones - an all-time record, and still has an all-time record number of applicants waiting for service.

Since 1900, there has been a traditional clamour to the Postmaster-General to provide new post offices. Honorable senators may be aware that the type of post office business is shifting to-day. The average businessman is not greatly con cerned whether an elaborate post office is established near his premises. What he requires is an efficient telephone service because this is the means he uses to do most of his work. Why does he visit the post office? He sends his telegrams through his telephone, and his postage stamps are purchased in bulk. The main purpose of the post office is that of an efficient distributing centre, and to supply the requirements of those who use it. Obviously, the telephone is the answer to the demand of Australian commerce for efficiency. Telephones are good money spinners, and from the moment a service is connected to a home or a business it begins to return revenue. I should like to know what is the department’s view of these automatic tape-recording devices that can be attached to telephones, and what progress is being made towards introducing them into Australian commercial life.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– The Postmaster-General’s Department is one of the most important government undertakings, and merits far more consideration than can be allowed under the Standing Orders. It deserves also much greater attention and encouragement than it is receiving from the Government. This department, in the past few1 years, has made great strides, but it has been under a grave handicap through lack of Government initiative to place it on a sound business basis. Two years ago, soon after I was elected to the Senate, the Estimates for this department was debated between 3 o’clock and 4 o’clock in the morning, and I protested because of that fact. Now, on the last day of this Parliament, it is being considered between 3 o’clock and 4 o’clock in the afternoon, and I feel that there is not sufficient opportunity, particularly in the present political atmosphere, to make worth-while suggestions.

I rose to defend the Australian Broadcasting Commission against a misapplied slur by a colleague earlier in the debate, who referred to the amount of time it devotes to racing broadcasts. I do not object to the criticism, but he said he had the impression that some one in the Australian Broadcasting Commission had an interest in starting-price betting. That is a most unfair statement, and I challenge it with a little more sincerity than other honorable senators might do because twenty years ago I was employed by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and was closely associated with the gathering and broadcasting of sporting new3 in Melbourne. I agree that the Australian Broadcasting Commission could review and rationalize its sporting news service and reduce the amount of time devoted to racing. Like the press it panders to the public taste, and just as the press devotes most of its space on Mondays, Fridays and Saturdays to racing so, on those days, the Australian Broadcasting Commission gives consider- able time to racing news. The public would be better satisfied if a ‘better and more varied type of .programme were provided during some of that time.

I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General to urge that honorable gentleman and the Australian Broadcasting Commission to do something about providing premises such as a broadcasting house for the Australian Broadcasting Commission in Hobart. Soon after the end of the last Avar, I took up residence in Hobart and throughout the intervening period I have heard of promises to build adequate premises in that city for the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Blocks of land on which to build them have been purchased but sold again, and the commission is now housed in an insurance company building. The facilities are totally inadequate for the services of the commission, and it is being charged an exorbitant rent which must go on for at least three years, because it will not be possible for an adequate building to be erected and ready for use earlier. Whichever way the matter is considered, the Australian Broadcasting Commission has to continue to waste the taxpayers’ money. The commission has a suitable block of land in Hobart, and I believe that it has plans and specifications for a building which could be used for both broadcasting and television purposes, but either the dead hand of the Australian Broadcasting Commission itself or of the Government is preventing a start being made on the erection of that building. All that I ask is that the Government should make some statement as to whether or not the Australian Broadcasting Commission in Tasmania is to have for its own purposes an adequate and suitable building erected on the land that it now owns next to the telephone exchange in Hobart.

Senator COOKE:
“Western Australia

– I support the remarks that my colleagues from “Western Australia have made about the necessity to establish a broadcasting’ system in the north and north-western parts of Australia. Honorable senators who represent those areas have interviewed the Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony) on several occasions, and in his absence the Minister who was acting for him, Sir Philip McBride. Sir Philip gave us a definite promise that this matter would be carefully investigated. I suggest that there is no need to convince the Government or the Australian Broadcasting Commission, about the need for services in our north-west area, because it is quite apparent that there is a grave deficiency there in that regard.

The Parliament has heard time and time again speeches from members of the Government and from members of the Opposition to the effect that we must develop our north and north-west areas, and I suggest that the provision of adequate services is one way in which they can be developed. “Whenever I have approached a Minister, or the Australian Broadcasting Commission, about this matter, I have never been rebuffed. 1 have always been told that something should be done, but, nevertheless, for almost a decade nothing has been done. Now that it is said on all sides that we are going through a period of prosperity, it is to be hoped that the provision of broadcasting facilities in the north and north-west is one job that the Government will not neglect.

I have noticed that the proposed vote under review is about £8,000,000 more than was expended on the same services last financial year, and no doubt, much of this increased sum will be paid out in wages and salaries. “We are well aware that because of the inflationary condition of our economy, wages and salaries have to be increased in order to enable employees to cope with rising living costs. During debates on at least the last three budgets the Opposition has been trying to impress on the Government that if it cannot check inflation it should at least allow the wages and salaries of employees to be increased to cope with that inflation. If the Government adopted that policy it would not lose to private industry the large numbers of trained technicians and administrators that it is at present losing. I am not of the opinion that Commonwealth employees are overpaid, and I believe that after having received an adjustment in accordance with the two and a half times formula, their wages are now approaching a reasonable sum.

I now desire to refer to a legal matter which is designated No. 3 of 1955, Third Division Telegraphists and Postal Clerks and others v. The Commonwealth Public Service Board and others. The decision of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in that case, which was an appeal by the Government against a determination of the Public Service Arbitrator, gave some temporary satisfaction to those employees who had been underpaid for many years. However, the great majority of workers in the Postal Department are called unskilled workers, but any one who knows the position knows that there are really no unskilled men in that department. A number of employees known as conduit workers, have been employed in the Postal Department for about twenty years. They are assistants to trained technicians, I,ut they do not get any margin for skill, i f they were fitter’s assistants or the assistants of other types of skilled tradesmen, they would certainly receive something above an ordinary living wage because trained assistants are of much more value to tradesmen than untrained assistants.

I suggest that these conduit workers, and other lower-paid workers, should receive some of the fruits of our present prosperity. However, a most iniquitous position has arisen in regard to conduit workers in different States of the Commonwealth. In some of the eastern States, conduit workers and other trained labourers left the Postal Department and obtained higher-paid jobs in outside employment. In order to attract men into these positions in the eastern States, the

Postal Department paid a higher wage for that type of work. But the conduit workers and trained labourers in the western States who remained loyal to the department did not receive any increase of pay at all. Moreover, the basic wage in Western Australia is more than it is in the eastern States, and consequently margins are more valuable in the latter States. Therefore, the workers in the western States have suffered by the department’s action, even more than is apparent at first sight. I believe that the Postmaster-General, and the Public Service Board, fully realize the injustice that has been done to the men in the west, and when I asked a question in the Senate, about this matter I was informed that the Government would deal with it as soon as possible. The inference is that the Government would reduce the rates paid to workers in the eastern States, but the authorities will not do that because they cannot recruit labour in those States at low bargain prices. The Minister should see that trained and efficient workers in Western Australia who are doing similar work, and whose employment is in the interests of the department, should be treated as well as workers in the eastern States are treated and be given the same rates of pay for the same classes of work. That would be only fair. I should like the Minister to say that the claims of workers in the department in Western Australia will be given consideration. They are trained men, who are spoken of highly by the technical officers with whom they work.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I shall endeavour to reply to the many questions that have been asked about the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. Senator Seward referred to outstanding applications for telephones. It is true that a good many applications are outstanding, but that is because the prosperity of Australia during the last six years has induced more people to apply for them. During the year 1954-55, applications for telephones numbered 35,694, compared with about 114,000 in 1953-54 and 90,670 in 1952-53. At the moment, about 10,000 applications for telephones are outstanding.

Senator Ashley:

– The number outstanding is much greater than that.

Senator COOPER:

– The number of applicants awaiting telephone installations increased by nearly 10,000 during the year. The total number of applications is about 150,000 a year. The number is increasing every year. Since 1949 over . 400,000 telephones have been installed.

Senator Sandfordreferred to the broadcasting of football matches and similar events. His remarks will be brought to the notice of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I do not know what proportion of listeners agree with Senator Sandford.

Inreply to Senator Mattner, who spoke of the provision of facilities for the postmaster at Darwin, I can only say that it is impossible to provide all the improvements asked for. I shall bring his remarks to the notice of my colleague.

At the moment, I have no information to give to Senator Willesee about automatic recording attachments for telephones, but I shall ask the PostmasterGeneral to give him a direct reply.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

asked when the proposed broadcasting station for Hobart would be built. My information is that the building will be constructed when money and materials are available.

The building of broadcasting stations in the north-west of Western Australia was raised by Senator Vincent. At the present time, there is Station 6GN at Gerald ton and another at Kalgoorlie - 6GF- which serves the gold-fields district. I admit that people living in the distant parts of Australia are at a disadvantage. I lived in the outback for many years, and I know that that is so. The Minister and the Australian Broadcasting Commission are also well aware of that fact. I can only tell the honorable senator that stations will be built in outback areas as soon as possible. I move -

That the question be now put.

Question put. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed votes agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 781

TRADESMEN’S RIGHTS REGULATION BILL 1955

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a bill for an act to amend the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act 1946- 1952. Its provisions are quite simple. It merely extends the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act for another three years. That act embodied arrangements which the present Minister for Labour and National Service negotiated in 1940, in the early part of World War II. with representatives of certain unions and employers’ organizations, for the dilution of skilled labour. These arrangements were covered during the war years by regulations under the National Security Act. In 1946, discussions took place with employers’ organizations and the unions concerned regarding the continuance of the arrangements. The Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act was the result.

Section 52 of the act dealt with its period of operation, and provided that it would cease to operate when the preference provisions of the Re-establishment and Employment Act of 1945 ceased to operate. The Re-establishment and Employment Act of 1945 was directed to the rehabilitation of ex-service men and women, and the preference provisions were originally stated to expire at the end of seven years after the cessation of hostilities. Some time before that prospective date, which was due to occur in September, 1952, discussions were undertaken with representatives of employers and unions. As a consequence, it was decided by the Government to modify the restrictive character of some of the provisions of the original legislation, particularly as they affected the normal rights of employers to engage and dismiss. Another amending provision was the award of tradesmen’s status to dilutees of seven years’ standing who had entered the trades under the dilution’ agreements. Opportunities to enter trades were provided for Korea and Malaya veterans. Another important provision was designed to facilitate the acceptance as tradesmen of the growing number of migrant tradesmen arriving in Australia. It was decided that the act should be extended for three years to September, 1955, a period of extension which had also been decided upon for the preference provisions of the Re-establishment and Employment Act.

The 1952 amendments have been most notable for the contribution made to the assimilation of tradesmen migrants. Local committees were empowered to grant a certificate of recognition as a tradesman to a migrant, where they were satisfied that that person had qualified in accordance with the laws and customs of his country of origin, for employment there as a tradesmen in one of our dilution trades, and that he possessed the skill necessary for the performance here in Australia of work ordinarily performed by a recognized tradesman.

Since 1952, the central committees established under the act have, in consultation with the Department of Labour and National Service, settled the criteria for selection abroad of migrant trades men, including trade testing, upon satisfaction of which a certificate of recognition under the act will be issued. I am able to say that these arrangements went far to removing the concern of governments of countries of emigration and prospective migrants as to whether they would be accepted as tradesmen when they reached Australia. Our desire to keep the arrangements running smoothly is one of the reasons for this present bill.

There have, in recent months, been a series of discussions at the Ministry of Labour Advisory Council and between the Department of Labour and National Service and the metal trades employers’ organizations and the trade unions. These discussions have been directed to the future of the act, and to trying to develop some generally acceptable scheme for adult training which would supplement the supply of tradesmen from apprenticeship in trades in which there are shortages of tradesmen. It is generally recognized that shortages exist, and that they seriously impede our economic progress. There is nothing novel in the idea of an adult training scheme, in these circumstances. Indeed, the committee of inquiry into apprenticeship foresaw that such a scheme might well become necessary.

It is a matter of common knowledge that views differ on the need for continuance of the act and for an adult training scheme. All I need to say here is that, after weighing carefully the views put to it, the Government has decided to extend the act for a further three years. It has also decided to extend the preference provisions of the Re-establishment and Employment Act for a like period. It is my hope that, with this period of extension, just as the unions and the employers were able to find agreement with the Government on a scheme to provide skilled workers to meet the needs of war, so also will they again be able to find agreement with the Government on an adult training scheme to add to our skilled labour force to meet the important needs of our peace-time economy. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 783

RE-ESTABLISHMENT AND EMPLOYMENT BILL 1955

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The major purpose of this bill is to extend for a further period of three years the entitlement to preference in employment, which ex-servicemen of “World War II. and others have enjoyed under the Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945-1953. The bill contains two other minor amendments. One relates to allowances for wives of unemployed exservicemen; the other, to lodgment of applications for certain business reestablishment allowances.

Honorable senators will recall that preference was originally granted for a period of seven years after the cessation of hostilities of World War II. This period ended on the 2nd September, 1952, but was extended in 1952 for a further three years in a bill introduced by this Government. Thus, the preference provisions expired on the 2nd September last. After very careful consideration of the present position, and bearing in mind the representations which have been made from time to time for an extension of the preference provisions, the Government has decided to extend preference for a further period of three years. Clause 3 of the bill provides for this.

The operation of this bill, as to the preference provisions, will be antedated to the 2nd September, 1955, but the attention of honorable senators is drawn to sub-clauses 2 to 4 of clause 3, which are designed to guard against any possible injustice arising out of the retroactive operation of this bill. As I have mentioned, advantage has been taken of this opportunity to amend the act in two other respects. Clause 4 increases the allowance, now provided in section 76 of the Principal Act, for wives of unemployed ex-servicemen, from £1 2s. to £1 15s. 6d. The allowance of £1 15s. 6d. has, in fact, been paid since the 5th November, 1953, and this amendment gives legislative sanction to the increased rate of payment.

The second amendment is contained in clause 5 and merely affects the regulation making power under the act. Honorable senators will recall that the act was amended in 1952 to extend certain of its provisions to members of the forces engaged in the Korea and Malaya operations. Because of a deficiency in the legislation, it is not possible to prescribe the period within which an application for an agricultural allowance, as opposed to other business reestablishment allowances, should be made by members and ex-members of the Korea and Malaya forces. It is desirable that there should be power to prescribe this period, and the purpose of clause 5 is to confer the necessary authority.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 783

COAL INDUSTRY BILL 1955

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Senator SPICER (Victoria - Attorney-

General) [3.31].- I moveThat the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to remove technical difficulties that arose from the appointment of the Coal Industry Tribunal, Mr. F. H. Gallagher, as a judge of the Industrial Commission of New South Wales. Section 30 of the principal act provides inter alia that the person appointed to constitute the tribunal shall be deemed to have vacated his office if he engages in any paid employment outside the duties of his office. The appointment of Mr. Gallagher to the New South Wales Industrial Commission could be deemed to be such an employment.

Section 30 also provides that the tribunal shall be deemed to have vacated his office if, except on leave, he absents himself from duty for fourteen consecutive days, or for 28 days in any twelve months. The bill before us avoids the need to secure that leave. In short, the only purpose of this bill is to remove any doubts that Mr. Justice Gallagher can remain as Coal Industry Tribunal while a member of the New South Wales Industrial Commission.

There is, I believe, general agreement that Mr. Justice Gallagher has done an excellent job as Coal Industry Tribunal, and that he has made a valuable contribution to improved industrial relations in the coal-mining industry. He has, I think it can be said, the confidence of all parties in the industry. I am also able to say that, like the Australian Government, the New South Wales Government desires to retain Mr. Justice Gallagher as the Coal Industry Tribunal. Indeed, in accordance with the arrangements that exist between the Australian and New South Wales governments in relation to the coal-mining industry, the New South Wales Government concurs in the bill now before the Senate, and the Commonwealth on its side has approved of a similar bill which is being submitted to the State Parliament. The New South Wales Government is also in agreement with us that first call on Mr. Justice Gallagher’s services shall continue to be given to the coal industry.I commend this bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 784

APPROPRIATION BILL 1955-56

Declaration of Urgency.

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

– I declare that the Appropriation Bill is an urgent bill.

Question put -

That the bill be considered an urgent bill.

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

AYES: 28

NOES: 22

Majority . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Allotmentof Time.

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) pro posed -

That the time allotted for the consideration of the remainder of the bill be as follows: - (ft) For the remainder of the committee stage of the bill- until 4.55 p.m. this day..

For the remaining stages of the bill - until 5 p.m. this day.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I am rather sorry that the Government has felt impelled to set such limited time for the concluding items in the committee stages of this measure. I think there are some seven items remaining. They are important ones. They include the Parliament, and the Minister’s own department, that of Trade and Customs, and they deal with the very important matters of bounties and subsidies. In the circumstances, there will not be adequate time for the discussion of those items. I am realist enough to recognize that it is intended that the life of this Parliament shall conclude after a sitting no doubt lasting all night and continuing well into to-morrow, and that there are some 26 measures, many of them contentious, to be disposed of. I recognize, too, that the Opposition does not want this particular debate to be prolonged unduly. I content myself with protesting - more or less formally, in view of the state of the notice-paper - against the Government’s hitherto good record in this matter being spoilt, and against the exceedingly limited time being given to discuss important departments.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

In committee: Consideration resumed (aidc page 781).

Parliament.

Proposed vote, £827,000.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I refer to item 1, “ Conveyance of Members of Parliament and others, f 17 5,000 “, and item 2, “ Maintenance of Ministers’ and members’ rooms, including salaries of staff, £193,000 “, under Division S - Miscellaneous. I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) a situation that has been created in this Parliament during the last week or so. Actually, it concerns the misuse of public funds, and borders on a scandal. I refer to the use of members’ facilities, which is legitimate in most cases, but in the case that I shall mention - the matter of the appointment of secretarial staff to Senator Cole, who has recently declared himself to be the leader in the Senate of a splinter party - is not legitimate. In the dying days of a Parliament, after an announcement has been made that a general election for the House of Representatives, and elections on half the number of the members of this chamber are to be held, the matter to which I refer should be fully explained. The committee should be informed what justification exists for the appointment of a full-time basis of a secretary to Senator Cole at the relatively high salary of £1,630 a year, which is equivalent to the salary paid to a deputy director of a department of the Public Service.

Senator Benn:

– Surely that is not correct.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– It- is true. In addition, the new full-time secretary to Senator Cole is to be provided with office accommodation in Hobart, where he will enjoy facilities equivalent to those provided for a Minister. He will also be provided, as leader of the splinter party, with another secretary and office accommodation in Devonport, and with office accommodation in Canberra, together with facilities equivalent to those provided for Ministers. All this for one week - which is likely to be the life of the ersatz party that Senator Cole claims to lead. The matter of recognition of parties in this chamber is one that has not been fully defined. I believe that if any one can stand up and declare himself to be the leader of a party, and so commit the Commonwealth to an expenditure of the order that the facilities I have mentioned will entail, including transport backwards and forwards to Hobart at a cost of £30 each week-

Senator O’sullivan:

– Is not the honorable senator himself provided with similar transport?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I am speaking about the secretary to a one-man band.

Senator Cole:

– A good band, too !

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I direct attention to other expenses such as the use of cars from pools and other facilities which are available as a result of this farcical situation. Senator Cole has declared himself to be the leader of a party which is a .remnant in another place, a party which, for the good of Australia, will soon be finished. Senator Cole made a statement during this week to the effect that he would support the Menzies party in the event of its being re-elected, but since then what he said has been contradicted by his counterpart in another place. The position is that this is not a genuine party at all, but something that has* been set up as a political ramp for which the Commonwealth Government is footing the bill by providing electoral facilities for a secretary for- Senator Cole. He himself is to be a Senate candidate.

Senator O’sullivan:

– When ?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– At the forthcoming elections Senator Cole’s secretary is to be a Senate candidate. This development shows that over a period of years this secretary has been able to use, not only the State Government of Tasmania but also the Federal Parliament for his own political purposes. He was a base grade clerk in Tasmania before he transferred to the permanent Public Service as secretary to the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council. From what I know of the Tasmanian Public Service that takes a tremendous amount of influence, because it necessitated the amendment of an act of Parliament. It meant that he displaced somebody in the permanent Public Service in order to get that seniority. This must have been recognized by the Minister because this man is now achieving permanent status in the Commonwealth Public Service, equivalent to that of a deputy director. When a position such as this arises, involving formal recognition of a party such as this, I should like to ask why Senator Robertson was not afforded similar facilities. Why has special consideration been given to Senator Cole? If the session were just commencing the position might be different, but the new secretary arrived here for the first time during the last 24 hours; and the life of the Parliament is about to expire. Yet, we are committed in this appropriation under discussion to the payment of his salary for an indefinite period. Senator Robertson declared just recently that she was no longer a member of the Liberal party but had joined some other party political organization in Western Australia. No similar facilities have been offered to her.

Why has this preference been given to Senator Cole? If he had any courage he would submit himself to the judgment of the people at the forthcoming election. He was selected as a member of the Labour party, pledged to support its platform and policy; but he has openly declared in the press that he does not intend to support that policy in the future. Therefore, he should go back to the people of Tasmania at the first opportunity, which will be next December. Instead of that, we have the scandalous situation in which the taxpayers of Australia are being asked to provide facilities for a cell of disruptors in Tasmania through the appointment to this one-man party of a full-time secretary with all the facilities that are available to the genuine leader of a genuine party, facilities which are desirous and needed in the course of their duties. Justice is being sidetracked and for that reason I ask the Minister how far we can stretch this farce of having one-man parties. A situation could arise in which each individual senator could declare himself to be the leader of some sub-branch or splinter party. Such a situation could reduce the Senate to a farce. We have been exhorted by the Prime Minister, and by Ministers in this chamber to-day, concerning the need for economy. How does this line up with economizing? This departmental expense is something which needs explanation.

Another thing is that this particular secretary resides in Hobart where these facilities for him are being provided, whereas Senator Cole resides in Devonport. He already has an office there, and a secretary who is doing his work. This thing cannot be justified. As I said before we should receive a full explanation, not only from Senator Cole himself, if he can justify this, but also as to the policy of the Government. We desire to know whether the Government has been hoodwinked or whether there has been any collusion on its part in setting up this splinter group. Another question 1 should like to ask the Minister is whether a guarantee has been given by the Commonwealth Public Service that Mr. Morgan, the gentleman who has been appointed secretary to Senator Cole, will be re-appointed to the Service if he is unsuccessful as a Senate candidate, or in the event of this splinter party being no longer represented in the Parliament.

I am given to understand that in the event of Mr. Morgan no longer remaining secretary to Senate Cole he will reenter the Commonwealth Public Service on a salary range with a minimum of £1,636. What has the Public Service Association to say about this ? There are men in the Public Service who have given a life-time of conscientious and efficient service to whichever department they have been attached. Is it fair to them that a person can leapfrog into the Public Service in this manner, more or less through the back door? Not only is the matter of justice to members of the Public Service Association involved but also the principle of seniority in the Service. I should like to hear the matter explained by the Minister. If Mr. Morgan had been in the Commonwealth Public Service for a long period it would be quite all right, but the fact is that he has been in the Tasmanian State Public Service, in which he displaced other senior officers to get on the highest level. Now lie lias conveniently dumped the State Public Service when he see3 an opportunity for his own personal advancement. This office is being created, and facilities being provided, for the purpose of running an election campaign.

Another question is whether the Government will make a searching inquiry into this matter. The Minister will assure me that the matter will be referred to the Public Service Association so that that body can close up the gaps in order to prevent designing people from taking advantage of probable loop-holes in the general Public Service set-up. It is necessary to make sure that in a case like this, on the eve of an election, in the dying days of the Parliament, the Commonwealth Government is saved the expense of a salary of £1,600 a year for the services of an extra secretary in Devonport. He receives, in addition, a full fare from Hobart to Canberra each week. I should like also to have cleared up the status of one man in the Senate who declares himself to be the leader of a party.

Senator COLE:
Leader of the Anti-Communist Labour party · Tasmania:

’ 8.56]. - I have been a member of the Senate for some considerable time, and have observed that if any subject is to be brought forward which reveals a narrow-minded attitude, Senator O’Byrne is the mouthpiece for it. To-day, he has indulged in his snivelling for political propaganda purposes. He has adopted that attitude ever since the Petrov affair began. I know that, electorally, he is frightened. He was happy to know that I. had enough principle to disassociate myself from him and his colleagues because he thought he would have a better chance at the next election. I assure the honorable senator that I am not at all worried about the prospect of having him and Senator Aylett as opponents at The forthcoming election.

To-day, Senator O’Byrne has attacked a person who has no opportunity to defend himself. That is exactly what I would expect from some one of the calibre of Senator O’Byrne. Honorable senators may be interested to know that it was only after considerable persuasion that Mr. Morgan accepted the position as my private secretary. He was chosen for his ability, and not for political purposes. Perhaps Senator O’Byrne would choose a secretary who could be of some assistance to him politically. Mr. Morgan was a public servant who for four years was chairman of the Tasmanian Regional Reconstruction Training Committee and acting Deputy Director of Reestablishin ent in Tasmania. He left that position to become private secretary to the Leader of the Legislative Council in Tasmania. Mr. Morgan is well versed in parliamentary affairs and in the running of a Commonwealth department, and he is also a man of integrity.

I wish to make it clear to honorable senators that he does not receive a salary of £1,636 for his present position. That may be the salary received by the private secretary to Senator McKenna. If Mr. Morgan were to re-enter the Commonwealth Public Service he would not be appointed over the heads of senior officers, but would begin service on the base grade.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Where did the guarantee come from concerning his reappointment?

Senator COLE:

– No guarantee was given. No public service could give one, as the honorable senator should know. Senator O’Byrne has suggested that Mr. Morgan was appointed for political purposes, but he is totally in error. I was hoping that Mr. Morgan would be a Senate candidate, but no one knows yet whether he will. Nominations for candidates will close next Monday, and whether he is chosen will not be known until later. If he is a successful candidate, he will be able to bring to this chamber his knowledge of politics in Tasmania. At present, there is only one representative of the Anti-Communist party in this chamber, but that number will be increased after the elections. That is no boast. The answer to Senator O’Byrne’s effort to make political capital out of this matter will be the retribution visited upon him at the forthcoming election on the 10th December.

There seems to be an argument whether or not I should have a secretary. I represent the Australian Anti-Communist Labour party, which is opposed to the Evatt Labour party. When Parliament meets next year it will be my duty to express in this chamber the views of my party on certain legislation. The Evatt party has a number of representatives to do that, and the Government considers that its leader is entitled to secretarial assistance. It is only right that I should be accorded a similar privilege.

Senator O’Byrne has said that my private secretary travels from Hobart to Canberra. Does not Senator McKenna’s secretary do the same, although he has an office in Hobart and Senator McKenna lives in Sydney? Surely what is good enough for one leader is good enough for another. Senator McKenna is leader in this chamber of a group consisting of one woman and several men, and he has plenty of support. Senator O’Byrne suggests that my secretary was appointed for political purposes. Probably he will be of assistance in political matters, as the secretary to any political leader must be.

Senator Henty:

– Is not Senator McKenna’s secretary a candidate for the Braddon seat in the House of Representatives ?

Senator COLE:

– I am glad to be reminded of that fact. It is not yet known whether Mr. Morgan will be a candidate for the Senate. He was not rung in for the occasion.

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

– He has been rung in ever since be has been here.

Senator COLE:

– If Senator McKenna’s secretary is defeated at the forthcoming general election, he will come back to his employment here. The same thing will happen with regard to Mr. Morgan if be is defeated. However, if Mr. Morgan does decide to offer himself as a candidate, I am sure that the people of Tasmania will show their appreciation of his qualities, and that he will become a senator and take his place here and be able personally to answer Senator O’Byrne.

Mr. Morgan’s qualities are of such a kind that it may interest the Senate to know that when he left his employment in Hobart the Legislative Council of Tasmania adjourned for a whole afternoon in order to farewell him and make a presentation to him. The Legislative

Council took that action because it appreciated the work that he had done for the State and the nation. He is an authority on industrial matters, and represents the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council on the Australian Council of Trades Unions. It should also be remarked that not so long ago he visited Geneva as a representative of the Australian Council of Trades Unions.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Apparently he knows all the lurks.

Senator COLE:

– I am sure that he would be able to learn a few lurks from Senator O’Byrne. In view of what I have said, I deplore this snivelling attack by Senator O’Byrne on a rna.n whose shoes he is not fit to clean.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I shall attempt to raise this debate from the low level to which it has recently fallen. I do not wish to refer personally to honorable senators; my remarks will be directed at the Government. It seems remarkable to me thai any honorable senator can get up in the Senate, or any honorable member can get up in another place and declare himself to be the leader of a party, and receive from the Government facilities similar to those that are given to leaders of the Opposition. To-day the Government stated that on the score of economy it. would not have an important report of the International Labour Office printed. Yet, it apparently does not consider economy when it allows the facilities of the leader of a party to any one who might stand up in the Parliament and say that he leads a party.

A person might be elected to this Senate who believes in Douglas Credit, or a person could be elected - although I hope not - as a Communist party member. If that should occur, the present Government would afford to such a person not. only the ordinary facilities due to a senator, but also the facilities that are granted to the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition in this chamber. Just where are we getting to? It would pain me to think that the Government has taken such action purely for party political purposes, and it would pain me to think that the Government is not only considering the present position but possibly considering what the position will be after next June. Indeed, I would not think along those lines at all, because I believe that the Government would be above such considerations. Nevertheless, the Government’s preaching of economy does not ring true when we realize that if any honorable senator decides to say that he is the leader of a party then, irrespective of the number of persons whom he leads, he will be afforded all the facilities of the leader of a party in this chamber, which are all the facilities given to the Leader of the Opposition.

Apparently, the position in the Commonwealth Parliament is different from the position in the Victorian Parliament, and even in the New South Wales Parliament. According to the Standing Orders of the Victorian Parliament, in order that a person shall obtain any rights as the leader of a party, he must lead at least twelve persons in the Legislative Assembly or at least six in the Legislative Council which consists of 34. I understand that in New South Wales the Leader of the Country party has no special privileges merely because of his position. In this speech, I am not dealing with Mr. Morgan or Mr. Smith; I am dealing with the principle of the matter that I have put before honorable senators. Being well aware of the methods by which the Senate is elected, it is hard for me to understand that the action was taken without any ulterior motive, and without any expectation of what may be given back after next June.

If the Government preaches economy to all the people and expects them to economize, surely the Government should practise what it preaches. I realize that there is an obligation on us, as citizens, to take notice of Government statements because the Government is the leader of the nation, and we should do so. But the Government should also take notice of its own statements. It is no form of economy for the Government to refuse to print an important report of the International Labour Office and then to extend the full facilities of the leader of a party to a person in this Senate irrespective of the number of senators that he leads. Not only is such a person to have the full facilities of the leader of a party, but he is also to have the right to take a motor car out of the government pool and use it wherever he wants to use it. Again I say that the Government’s protestations that we should economize do not ring true. In this instance, at least, I think that the Leader of the Government should explain the position. Under the present method of electing senators it is possible for a number of persons to be placed in a similar position. If the Standing Orders, or the rules governing such matters, need to be changed, let us change them, so that privileges shall be given to those who are entitled to them, but we should not give .privileges where we honestly believe that they should not be given. Some may say that there was a time when there was only one member of the Labour party in this Senate. That is true, but at that time there was no third party here. There was another time when three senators now on the Government side sat as the only members of the Opposition. I should be delighted to see them in that position again, but under the present system of electing senators that cannot happen. I say that honorable senators opposite should not preach to others, and tell them what they should do in this time of economic stress, and then practise something that is entirely different. I think that it will be hard for Government supporters to convince the people of their consistency; I am inclined to think that the people will attribute the action to purely party political motives.

Senator HENTY:
Tasmania

– I shall discuss this matter along the lines followed by Senator Kennelly. Of course, Senator O’Byrne would not raise this question, just before an election, merely to gain a political advantage for his party; we all fully understand that! All honorable senators will clear him of having any such motive, and will realize that he raises it from an altruistic motive as it affects the expenditure to be authorized by this Parliament! That is clear to all of us by the very nature of the honorable senator’s attack! When we realize that Senator O’Byrne has been a member of this Senate for a number of years, and has seen the secretary to the Leader of the Opposition travel to and from Hobart almost every week, that he is provided with a car, to take him to and from the aerodrome, sometimes without the company of honorable senators, and know that he has not raised his voice to protest against the practice, we can appreciate the high motive which actuates him to-day.

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

– The Leader of the Opposition is a genuine leader of a party.

Senator HENTY:

– Now, however, when an election is pending, and the division which exists in the Labour party means that an interesting situation will arise in Tasmania, the honorable senator thinks that he, can gain a little miserable political kudos by raising this matter just before an election. He remained completely silent for five years, in which period he saw the secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, who is to be a candidate for election to this Parliament at the forthcoming election, torpedoed as an endorsed candidate by one of his fellow candidates who failed to follow the Labour ticket, but he did not raise his voice on any occasion against the great waste of expenditure that now so greatly disturbs him.

I rather agree with Senator .Kennelly that this matter does need consideration. There should be standing orders, or regulations, to provide that a party shall contain a certain number of members before such privileges as have been mentioned can be granted to any of them. But those rules, or regulations, or standing orders, do not exist, and therefore I submit that, in the existing circumstances, the Government had no option but to treat Senator Cole as the leader in this chamber of a party whose members style themselves the Anti-Communist Labour party, and is opposed in many matters to the Evatt party, of which Senator O’Byrne is a member. I believe that, under existing conditions, there is no alternative to recognizing Senator Cole as a leader of a party. However, as I have said, I agree with Senator Kennelly that we should lay down that certain privileges shall not be available to any one who does not represent a certain number of members of this chamber. The decision to grant certain privileges to Senator Cole is a matter that goes beyond that honorable senator, because in similar circumstances, the same privileges would be granted to any other honorable senator. It is a miserable action indeed on the part of Senator O’Byrne to raise this matter when he knows of the privileges granted to Mr. Murray, the secretary to the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber, who is an endorsed candidate for thi1 electorate of Braddon in the forthcoming election, a district in which he does not even live.

Senator Benn:

– He will come back to this Parliament as a member.

Senator HENTY:

Senator Benn has been so often wrong that one more wrong prophecy does not detract from his reputation. If Mr. Murray returns to Canberra as the representative of the Braddon electorate, we will give it to him. I am amazed that Senator O’Byrne, who, I repeat, has known of the privileges granted, to the secretary of the leader of his party, even when that leader, who resides in Sydney, is not with him, should bring this matter up to-day. I could understand the matter being raised and dealt with as it was dealt with by Senator Kennelly. There is nothing of a party political nature about him, but for Senator O’Byrne to bring this miserable matter before the Parliament, just prior to an election, is sheer political hypocrisy and an attempt to get some party political advantage. He has brought it forward only to try to damage the Anti-Communist Labour party in Tasmania. If ever I was ashamed of a senator from Tasmania for raising a miserable matter in this chamber, I am ashamed of what I have seen to-day.

Senator ARNOLD:
New South “Wales

– I did not want to intervene in this internecine warfare among Tasmanian senators, but Senator Henty has put the discussion on a plane which I am sure most people will misunderstand, as I do. Senator Henty says that the rules governing the granting of privileges provide that if one man stands up in this chamber and declares that he is the leader of a party, certain privileges must flow to him. If that is the position, it is news to me. The Labour party merely asks why certain action has been taken. All the extraneous matters that have been mentioned, such as the Leader of the Opposition having a secretary who travels to and from Hobart, do not apply at all.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– Those things hurt the honorable senator.

Senator ARNOLD:

– The Leader of the Opposition in this chamber is the leader of a party which has a large number of members in this and the other legislative chamber. The facilities he enjoys are not sufficient for the work he has to do.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– He does not do it in Tasmania.

Senator ARNOLD:

– 1 do not care whether he does it in Tasmania or Timbuctoo. He does the work and he needs facilities to do it. If he wants his secretary in Tasmania, or if his duties require him to go there, that is his right.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– At, a cost of £4 a week to the taxpayers.

Senator ARNOLD:

Senator Marriott is always worrying about “ tiddlywinking” things. The question is not whether my leader in this chamber is entitled to facilities or not. No one is complaining about his use of them. Honorable senators on the Opposition side are asking the Leader of the Government in this chamber why one man, who belonged to a political party and then suddenly changed his mind and said he belonged now to some other party with a fancy title, should have the privileges that belong to the leader of a legitimate political party that controls a number of members of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

– Why does not the honorable senator write to Molotov and get an opinion?

Senator ARNOLD:

– That is a bright interjection to come from Senator George Rankin. We supporters of the Australian Labour party have a perfect right to ask the Minister or the President of the Senate, or whoever grants these privileges, to define to the Senate the grounds upon which these facilities are provided. Is the provision made under any rules? Is there some procedure or some precedent that establishes this right? In this time of great economy, one man who has suddenly assumed the importance of a party leader, has asked for all the facilities of the leader of a legitimate party. For some reason, those facilities have been granted. If the Leader of the Government will explain to the committee on what grounds those privileges have been given, I am sure the heat of the debate will depart.

Senator COLE:
Leader of the Anti-Communist Labour party · Tasmania

– Several points that have been advanced by Senator Kennelly and Senator Arnold should be clarified. The political party to which I belong - the AntiCommunist Labour party - has been recognized by the Parliament. That is the important point. It has been recognized as a party in the House of Representatives and, therefore, it is a legitimate party. The fact that I am the only Senator representing that party does not detract anything from the rights to which that party is entitled. The statements that have been made by Senator Arnold and Senator Kennelly fall to the ground. If they could point to me as the only member of a party that had not been recognized by the Parliament, their arguments would have some substance, but I am representing in this chamber a political party that has been recognized by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Senator O’Byrne:

Pro tem.

Senator COLE:

– Maybe. I know many others in the Parliament who are likely to be pro tem. The number of honorable senators in this chamber representing the Anti-Communist Labour party is immaterial. The question is whether the party has been recognized as a legitimate political party.- It has been recognized, and after the general election on the 10th December, I am sure that the results will endorse its standing in politics.

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

– I can quite understand - without approving - the feelings of malice, envy and fear that appear to actuate the fight by Senator O’Byrne against Senator Cole. However, that is not the concern of the Government, and I do not propose to elaborate on the underlying issues. Insofar as Senator O’Byrne’s statements were supposed to be factual, he was completely wrong. As Senator Cole has indicated, the salary that was alleged by Senator O’Byrne to be paid in this case is not the correct figure. Senator O’Byrne said also that Senator Cole’s secretary was appointed only a fortnight or so ago.

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

– Forty-eight hours ago.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

Senator O’Byrne suggested that, for some reasons of a sinister” character, the Government had more or less appointed a private secretary for Senator Cole. Approval was given for the appointment of a secretary for Senator Cole as far back as the 1st September last. The decision to hold an election on the 10th December was made only yesterday. When authority was given for a secretary to be appointed for Senator Cole, there was no thought of an election on the 10th December, although one might have been feared by Senator O’Byrne.

Senator O’Byrne said that Senator Agnes Robertson was not afforded the privileges of a private secretary, but again Senator O’Byrne misunderstands the position. Senator Robertson has informed the Senate that she is a member now of the Australian Country party. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) represents the Australian Country party in the Senate, and is the Leader of that party in this chamber.

Senator Ashley:

– Is there not a different breed of Country party in South Australia ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– It is the one party in South Australia. Senator Kennelly and Senator Arnold asked at what stage an honorable senator who announced himself as the representative of a political party would be entitled to the services of a secretary. So far as I am aware, there is no provision in our Standing Orders for any statutory enactment as to the numbers required before such a party is entitled to the services of a private secretary.

I have no doubt that when a decision was reached to make the services of a private secretary available to Senator

Cole, due consideration was given to the fact that he is the sole representative in this chamber of a political party that is recognized by the Parliament in another place. There are seven members of that party’ in the House of Representatives, and Senator Cole represents the party in this chamber. The decision was not mine, but it is one with which I entirely agree. When the decision was made, due consideration wa3 given to the fact that Senator Cole is the sole representative in this chamber of a recognized party. I can understand the members of the Australian Labour Party in Opposition being annoyed that the anti-Communist Labour party is recognized, but the fact is that it has been recognized.

There might be some merit in the views inherent in the statements of Senator Kennelly and Senator Arnold that some consideration should be given to the size of a party before it is entitled to separate recognition, but that could be dangerous. As Senator Kennelly has said, there was a time when the Australian Labour party was represented in this chamber by only one honorable senator. In my own time in this place, in 1946, there were only three honorable senators in Opposition - Senator Cooper, Senator Annabelle Rankin and myself. Therefore, I see the possibilities of grave danger resulting from a decision of this sort being determined merely by numbers. Frequently, the smaller the numbers representing a party the greater the work they have to do, and the more urgent their need for assistance. However, there is some inherent merit in the question that has been raised, and I have no doubt that consideration will be given to it in due course.

As far as the Government is concerned, I repeat that the decision was not made in the light of an. impending election, as Senator O’Byrne suggested. It was made on the 1st September last.

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

– Whose decision was it?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– It was the Government’s decision. Senator Cole cannot fairly be regarded as a one-man party. He is spokesman here of members of a political party. As, perhaps, honorable senators opposite may be aware, there is an Anti-Communist Labour party in the House of Representatives.

Senator O’Byrne:

– In the event of the Government not having a majority in the Senate after the forthcoming general election, will the party with the majority be committed to continue this arrangement?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I thought that the honorable senator knew that all private secretaries hold office on a temporary basis. A point that, perhaps, I should have made clear earlier - I did not do so because I thought everybody knew about it - is that private secretaries are chosen by the party leaders and Ministers themselves. Private secretaries are not wished on to the party leaders by the Government. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) and Senator Armstrong made their own choice, as I did, and as the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) and other Ministers did. I have no doubt that Senator Cole also made his choice. That would have been a perfectly correct and traditional thing to do.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

Senator Cole stated that, if it were not for the fact that the group to which he belongs is also represented in the House of Representatives, his case would be a very poor one, and he more or less admitted that, in those circumstances, he would not be entitled to the privilege which has been accorded him. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) said that the group which Senator Cole represents is recognized by the Parliament as a political party. I take it that, because that group has seven members in the House of Representatives at the moment, it is a recognized political party. However, I also take it, from the words of Senator Cole on the one hand and the Leader of the Government on the other, that should certain events happen on the 10th December next concerning those members in the House of Representatives-

Senator Gorton:

– We shall let Senator Kennelly . have a seat.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am getting on all right as I am.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– To which side will the honorable senator jump after the 10th December ?

Senator KENNELLY:

– There is no need to worry about the direction in which I shall jump, either in this Parliament or anywhere else. I prophesy that, after the 10th December, the party to which Senator Cole belongs will not be recognized in the House of Representatives. I admit that political prophecies can be dangerous in some circumstances, but I think that, in this instance, a prophecy can be made with certainty. After the 10th December, I think it is certain that Senator Cole will be the only representative of this party in the National Parliament. When that happens, I hope that steps will be taken, either to place all the members of the Senate on a footing similar to that of Senator Cole, or to restore the position that existed prior to the defection of certain individuals from a political party.

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

– I am not concerned about the privileges that are extended to certain people, or about whether private secretaries receive £30 a week or £10 a week, but I am concerned about the principle involved. I was rather disappointed with the evasive way in which the Leader of the Government (Senator O’Sullivan) dealt with this matter. To say that a Senate election was not in the mind of the Government when this decision was made is silly, because most of us have been highly conscious, for many months, that an election would be held, and that certain events would follow in consequence of it. However, that is a side issue. What I wish to know is whether there is a rule which governs this kind of thing. If there is no rule, who decides such a matter? Does the Minister decide, or does Cabinet? If the decision is taken by the Cabinet, is it not time that the Senate laid down, proper procedure under the Standing Orders? I should like the Minister to clarify the position, so that we may know where we stand.

Senator HENTY:
Tasmania

.- I wish to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Kennelly and Senator

Arnold. Although I think that the Minister for Trade and Customs (SenatorO’Sullivan) made the position quite clear, I am of the opinion that, when we come back after the election, we should look at this matter carefully. It is clear that, at the moment, there is no prescribed procedure, and I think that definite procedure should be laid down. The Minister referred to the fact that, at one time, there was only one member of the Australian Labour party in the Senate, and at another time, only three members of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party. That, of course, was before the advent of proportional representation, and such a state of affairs is not likely to arise again.

I noted Senator Kennelly’s alternative proposal that all honorable senators should be placed on the same basis as that of Senator Cole. I am sure Senator Kennelly did not mean what he said. After all, in Victoria he had the use of Dr. Evatt’s office, before he came to this Parliament, and I understand that he used Dr. Evatt’s telephone to send a number of telegrams. I am sure he does not need an office, other than Dr. Evatt’s, in Victoria. I think that what Senator Kennelly really wants, and what other honorable senators want also, is clarification of the position rather than extension of privileges to all members of the Senate.

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

– I rather resent the suggestion made by Senator Arnold that I was evasive in answering questions on this matter. I think that I have been perfectly explicit. The. position that now prevails in relation to the allocation of rooms in Parliament House and recognition of political parties is the same as that which has always prevailed. In the Senate, those matters are at the discretion of the President. I presume, although I do not know, that in respect of the House of Representatives, such discretion resides in the Speaker. Regarding Senator Arnold’s statement that the Government knew, as far back as the 1st September, that an election was to be held on the 10th December, all I can say is that, if the honorable senator knew that an election would be held, he was the only per son, in either House of the Parliament, who had such knowledge.

Senator Arnold:

– The Minister knew very well that an election was to be held.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Yes, but the elections for the Senate would have to take place by next May at the very latest.

Senator Arnold:

– Of course.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– That does not give any weight to the mean and miserable suggestion made by Senator O’Byrne that when Senator Cole was provided with a secretary on the 1st September last we had in mind some sinister idea of gaining a political advantage at the next Senate elections.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The Minister is himself being miserable over this matter.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I have dealt with the matter of the allocation of rooms by the President. As far as the allocation of a private secretary to Senator Cole is concerned, if honorable senators turn to page 138 of the schedule they will see that provision for the salaries of private secretaries to the leaders of parties is under the control of the Prime Minister’s Department. Therefore, I imagine that the decision in this connexion would rest with the ministerial head of that department - the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies). Is that clear?

Senator Arnold:

– It is near enough. I think I know what the Minister means.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed votes - Prime Minister’s Department, £2,486,000; Miscellaneous Services, Prime Minister’s Department, £3,143,000- agreed to.

Department of Trade and Customs.

Proposed vote, £3,905,000.

Miscellaneous Services., Department of Trade and Customs.

Proposed vote, £55,000.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

.- I refer to item 5, “ Consultative Committee on Import Policy, £250 “ under Division 194. I want only to ask a general question about this matter; the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) will not need to refer to detailed figures in order to supply rae with, an answer. I should like him to tell me to what extent import restrictions in relation to machinery replacement parts will affect industry. The Government has appealed to all branches of industry to reduce costs. Obviously, industry will not be able to reduce costs unless machinery replacement parts are available. I understand that certain applications for authority to import such parts have been summarily rejected. I do not know whether investigations were carried out at a high level before the applications were refused. I should like the Minister to inform me for how long it is expected this stern approach to the matter by the department will be maintained. The longer it is retained, the less will be the chances of reducing costs in industry.

Senator O’SULLIVAN (QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs) [4.48 J. - I should like to assure the honorable senator - if an assurance is necessary - that the import restrictions which have been imposed by the Government are only of a temporary nature. They are obnoxious to the Government. The Government parties do not like controls merely for the sake of exercising control. Import restrictions have been imposed in order to preserve our overseas balances. We hope that the very sharp decline of those balances will very shortly level off. As far as the granting of licences for the importation of machinery for replacement purposes is concerned, we have first to consider priorities. First things must come first, and if only a limited amount of money is available, priorities must be established. Whether or not licences are granted for the importation of machinery for replacement purposes depends very largely on the kind of production for which the machinery is required. Top priority is accorded in respect of machinery for the production of commodities of high essentiality. This policy, which has been consistently applied by the Department of Trade and Customs in respect of applications for import licences, will be continued. Of course, as I have said, when only a limited amount of money is available all applications cannot be granted. If applications are received for licences to import goods in excess of the permissable limit, unfortunately some applications must be refused. Applications are granted or rejected according to the order of priority and essentiality of the goods to which the applications refer.

Proposed votes agreed to.

Proposed votes - Department of Defence, £750,000; Bounties and Subsidies, £16,070,000- agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 795

LANDS ACQUISITION BILL 1955

In committee: Consideration resumed from the 11th October (vide page 426).

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– When consideration of this measure was adjourned on the 11th October, we were discussing my proposal to insert proposed new clause 8b., the purpose of which is to give a land-owner, whose property it is proposed compulsorily to acquire, the right, within 28 days of notice by the Crown of that intention, to have the question as to whether the proposed acquisition is in the public interest referred for consideration to a board of inquiry presided over by the chairman of the Valuation Board. The purpose was to elicit publicly any information which might constitute a grievance on the part of the land-owner. That proposal was put forward as a remedy on the part of the individual owner against the Government’s unqualified authority compulsorily to acquire a person’s land. I recognized that it had some procedural defects and the AttorneyGeneral has been good enough to convey to me that the Government felt that it would be impracticable. In deference to that view, I ask leave of the committee to withdraw my amendment.

The purpose I have in mind is that the proposed new clause being withdrawn 1 propose later to move an amendment to clause 11. If honorable senators will take their minds back to the last time the bill was being debated, they will remember that that clause gives to either House of the Parliament the right to disallow a proclamation for compulsory acquisition. It was pointed out that subclause (4.) of clause 11 very substantially qualifies that right and limits the type of proclamation over which either House of the Parliament has control. I foreshadow an amendment to expunge that clause, and if it is carried it will mean that, hereafter, either House of the Parliament will have the unqualified right to annul any proclamation for compulsory acquisition. When we come to that clause I propose to suggest other procedural alterations which I think are preferable to proposed new clause 8b, which I now ask leave to withdraw.

Leave granted.

Clause 5 - (1.) In this act unless the contrary intention appears - “mortgagor”, in relation to a mortgage, means the owner for the time being of the land which is subject to the mortgage; “ public purpose “ means a purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws:

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– I move -

That, after the definition of “mortgagor”, the following definition be inserted: - “ ‘ notice to treat ‘ means a notice to treat for the sale of land to the Commonwealth given under section eight a of this Act;

This amendment is consequential upon that agreed to when the matter was last before the committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the words “public purpose means a purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws; “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - “ ‘ public purpose ‘ means a purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws, and, in relation to land in a Territory of the Common wealth, includes any purpose in relation to that Territory; “,

The sole purpose of this new definition is to overcome any possibility of a somewhat technical legal argument that if “ public purpose “ is confined to a purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws it might be said it was limited to those purposes over which the Parliament has power to make federal laws under section 51 or section 52 of the Constitution and would not cover a purpose in the territory itself where the purpose in question was one in respect of which the Commonwealth could legislate in the territory because its powers to legislate in the Territories are the same as the powers vested in the States to legislate.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 - (1.) The Governor-General may authorize the acquisition by the Commonwealtli of land by compulsory process for a public purpose approved by him. (2.) The Minister may cause to be published in the Gazette notice of the authorization by the Governor-General and, in the notice, declare that the land is acquired under this Act for the public purpose approved by the GovernorGeneral. (3.) Upon the publication of the notice in the Gazette, the land to which the notice applies is, by force of this Act -

  1. vested in the Commonwealth; and
  2. freed and discharged from all interests, trusts, restrictions, dedications, reservations, obligations, contracts, licences, charges and rates, to the intent that the legal estate in the land and all rights and powers incident to that legal estate or conferred by this Act are vested in the Commonwealth. (4.) The land acquired under this section may be an easement, right, power, privilege or other interest, which did not previously exist as such, in, over or in connexion with land.
Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I move -

That sub-clause (1.) be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following new subclauses : - “ (1.) Without prejudice to the liability of the Commonwealth under any contract for the acquisition of land by agreement, where -

a period of twenty-eight days has expired after the service of a notice to treat, or of notices to treat, in relation to land; or

the Minister has given a certificate under sub-section (8.) of section eight A of this Act in relation to land, the Minister may recommend to the Governor-General that the land or any interest in the land (not including an interest in respect of which a notice to treat has been withdrawn) be acquired by the Commonwealth by compulsory process. (1a.) The Governor-General may, on the recommendation of the Minister under the last preceding sub-section, authorize the acquisition of land by compulsory process for a public purpose approved by the Governor-General.”.

All I need say is that that is simply a different form of words to accommodate the different procedure now that the committee has accepted the amendment requiring a “ notice to treat “. It is purely a formal amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Weight) agreed to -

That, in clause 9, after sub-clause (4.) the following new sub-clause be inserted: - “ (5.) An authorization by the GovernorGeneral under sub-section (1a.) of this section shall not be invalidated or called in question by reason of any failure to comply with any of the provisions of this Act.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause11 - (4.) Sub-section (2.) of this section does not apply in respect of a notice relating to land -

  1. where moneys have been appropriated by the Parliament for or towards the purpose for which the land was acquired;

    1. where the Governor-General has authorized the construction or carrying out of the work or undertaking in respect of which the land was acquired and moneys are legally available for the purpose; or
  2. where the Minister certifies under his hand that the estimated value of the land does not exceed One hundred pounds.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I move -

That sub-clause (4.) be left out.

That is the sub-clause which qualifies the right of either House of the Parliament to annul a proclamation. When the committee last sat, it was generally agreed that those qualifications were too wide. The effect of the amendment is that the Senate will have the right to annul any proclamation for acquisition. It is my intention in the next session of Parliament to propose an amendment to the Standing Orders to provide that these proclamations be referred to the Regulations and Ordinances Committee of this Parliament. If that were done, the committee, in addition to reviewing regulations and ordinances, would have the authority and the duty to consider these proclamations. The committee would be a useful piece of machinery for the hearing of any complaints about injustice arising from any particular proclamation.

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

– Does Senator Wright mean that under the proposed amendment, if a proclamation were referred to the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, that body mightbe empowered to take evidence, if necessary, and call persons before it and have papers produced, or will it make a decision merely on the record? Will the senator indicate specifically what he has in mind?

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– In recent years, a case that aroused considerable interest in Great Britain was one of compulsory acquisition of a property called Crichel Down. It was the subject of a parliamentary inquiry, which exposed to the public view real injustice and irregular procedure adopted by government departments. I have been greatly heartened since this matter was before the committee to find my intuition confirmed by comments by Professor Hamson, Professor of Comparative Law in the University of Cambridge. He said that the outstanding result or lesson to be learned from this case was - . . the desperate state in which the normal subject, the ordinary citizen, you and I, find ourselves to-day in England when confronted with the powers vested in a Minister, powers which actually are exercised by the delegate of the delegate of a delegate, or by a collective anonymity which has as little soul as it has human face. The capital revelation of the Crichel Down inquiry is how entirely defenceless the normal citizen is in England to-day against a Ministry acting within the ambit of its enormous powers: powers which give to a single Ministry a more arbitrary dominion over our liberties and our property than was ever claimed by any Stuart King.

The professor went on to say that the real problem was to find a remedy, and that is one of the challenges to the development of this branch of the law. The legal profession, over the next twenty years, will have to try to find a remedy against the use of administrative authority. In reply to the question asked by Senator Byrne, the Standing Committee of the Senate on Regulations and Ordinances has power, under existing Standing Orders, to call for persons and papers, and to examine evidence. In a case of genuine complaint by an expropriated landholder, that committee would be a piece of ready parliamentary machinery to deal with it; if the Standing Orders were amended. It could report to this House of Parliament, which would then have the information and the report of the committee as a basis for making a decision.

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

– The honorable senator did not contemplate that the committee should merely look at a record and make a decision?

Senator WRIGHT:

– No.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

. As chairman of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, I am confident that the amendment to the Standing Order which Senator Wright proposes to move during next session would serve a good purpose and I support it.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– At the second-reading stage, clause 11 was discussed, and I then said that some of the wording of subclause (4.) was ambiguous, and that it might well be that if it were strictly construed it could destroy the operative effects of the clause itself. In almost any case in which a House of Parliament might have power to disallow an acquisition, the exception would be in a case in which sub-clause (4.) could be brought into operation. In those circumstances, speaking for myself, I am not disposed to oppose the amendment which Senator Wright has moved. As for his reference to the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, I have not examined the relative Standing Orders recently, but at one time I was chairman of that committee and these matters were examined. My recollection is that unless some one makes a complaint, it is difficult for the committee to act. The honorable senator’s suggestion is worthy of consideration, and if it involved an amendment of the Standing Orders, that could be dealt with during the next session of Parliament.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 24 - by leave - taken together and agreed to.

New heading and clauses 24a and 24b.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I move -

That, after clause 24, the following new heading and clauses be inserted: - ” Division 3a. - Determinationof Compensation by Arbitration. “24a. - (1.) The Minister and a claimant may, instead of determining by agreement the amount of compensation to be paid in respect of the acquisition of any land by compulsory process, agree to submit the determination of that amount to arbitration in accordance with this section. “ (2.) Where an agreement for arbitration is so made, the law relating to arbitration (other than the law relating to the enforcementof awards made upon an arbitration) of such State or Territory of the Commonwealth as is specified for the purpose in the agreement applies, subject to the agreement, toand in relation to the agreement and to and in relation to the arbitration under the agreement. “ 24b. - ( ] . ) If, at any time after an agreement for arbitration is made in relation to a claim by a person in respect of an interest in land and before the award is made upon the arbitration in pursuance of that agreement another person makes a claim for compensation in relation to that interest or another interest in that land or the Minister learns of another person who may be entitled to make such a claim, the Minister may revoke the agreement. “ (2.) Where the Minister revokes an agree ment under the last preceding sub-section, the Commonwealth is liable to pay the reasonable costs of and incidental to the agreement and, if the arbitration has commenced, of and incidental to the arbitration.”.

The effect of these new clauses is to enable a land-owner to ask for his compensation claim to be determined by arbitration as an alternative to a suit at law. The Minister will also be enabled to agree to that course. Many people would prefer that less exacting procedure to a court hearing. In a previous debate the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) intimated that the Government had no objection to this proposal. It has operated successfully in Tasmania for many years.

New clauses agreed to.

Postponed clause 4, verbally amended and agreed to.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I now desire to place before the Senate a series of verbal amendments that it is necessary to make to this measure, which follow consequently on the amendments that the committee has already accepted. They are simple matters of a few words here and there, designed to turn a phrase here and there into the appropriate phrase which follows the amendments agreed to. May I, with the leave of the committee, move amendments 9 to 16 inclusive.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Pearson:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Order! I am of the opinion that it would be more appropriate for the honorable senator to move each amendment separately.

Clause 25 - (1.) Where, in the case of a claim for compensation which has been accepted by the Minister . . the claimant may institute proceedings against the Commonwealth . . .

Amendment (by Senator “Wright) agreed to -

That, in sub-clause (1.), after the word “may” the following words be inserted: - “, unless an agreement for the determination of the compensation by arbitration is in force,”.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26- (1.) Where-

  1. the Minister has made an offer in writing to the claimant of an amount of compensation in respect of an interest claimed by the claim ant in the land and -

    1. the compensation has not, within sixty days after the making of the offer or within such further time as the Minister, on the application of the claimant, has allowed, been determined by agreement or by a court ; and
    2. proceedings in which the claimant is a plaintiff for determination of compensation under the last preceding section are not pending,

Amendments (by Senator Weight) agreed to -

That, in paragraph (6) (i), after the word “agreement” the following words be inserted : - “, by arbitration “.

That, in paragraph (6) (ii), after the word “section” the following wordsbe inserted: - “ , or proceedings in an arbitration in respect of the claim,”.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27 consequentially amended, and, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 28 agreed to.

Clauses 29 to 31 - by leave - taken together and agreed to.

Clauses 32 and 33 consequentially amended, and as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 34 to 49 agreed to.

Clause 50 - (1.) Where land vested in the Commonwealth is no longer required by the Commonwealth, or is not required for immediate use by the Commonwealth -

  1. it may be disposed of in any case under the authority of the GovernorGeneral or, in a case where the Minister is satisfied that the value of the land does not exceed Five hundred pounds, under the authority of the Minister; or
  2. ) a lease of or licence to occupy the land may be granted in any case under the authority of the GovernorGeneral or, in a case where the lease or licence is for a term not exceeding three years at a rental, or for a periodical consideration, not exceeding Five hundred pounds per annum, under the authority of the Minister. (2.) The Minister may authorize the grant of easements, or other rights, powers or privileges (other than leases or occupation licences), over or in connexion with, land vested in the Commonwealth.
Senator SEWARD:
Western Australia

– I move-

That, after sub-clause (2.), the following new sub-clauses be inserted: - “ (3.) Where land has been acquired either by agreement or by compulsory process under this Act or the Acts repealed by this Act and, within seven years after the date of acquisition, it is proposed to dispose of the land in pursuance of paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) of this section, regard shall be had to the general principle that, in such cases, the land should, where practicable, be first offered for sale to the former owner at a price equal to the purchase money or compensation paid or payable in respect of the acquisition of the land, together with the amount of any expenditure incurred by the Commonwealth in connexion with the land since the date of acquisition. “ (4.) The last preceding sub-section does not apply where the Commonwealth has, since the date of acquisition, made substantial improvements to the land. “’ (o.) A person contracting or otherwise dealing with the Commonwealth is not concerned to inquire whether the requirements of this section have been complied with, and the title of such a person to land acquired from the Commonwealth is not affected by any failure to comply with those requirements. “ (6.) In this section ‘the former owner’, in relation to land, means -

  1. where only one person had an interest in the land at the date of acquisition and that person is still alive or, in the case of a company, in existence - that person; or

    1. in any other case - such person or persons (if any) as the Minister, in his absolute discretion, having regard to the interests that existed in the land at the date of acquisition, considers to be fairly entitled to the benefit of sub-section (3.) of this section in relation to the land.”.

Clause 50 concerns the power of the Government to dispose of land that it has acquired if, after the acquisition, it discovers that the land is no longer of use to it. My amendment is designed to ensure that if land has been acquired by the Commonwealth, whether by agreement or by compulsory .process under this legislation and the Commonwealth decides within seven years that it no longer requires the land and wishes to dispose of it, the land shall first be offered to the previous owner at a price equal to the purchase money, or the compensation, which has been paid in respect of the acquisition of the land. The purpose of the amendment is to give the previous owner the right to get his land back if the Commonwealth, after having acquired the land, discovers that it no longer needs it. “When this measure was before the House of Representatives the matter mentioned in my amendment was brought to the notice of the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Kent Hughes), who said that he would be inclined to accept an amendment on these lines but had not had time to examine it. He also said that if after he had examined the proposal, he agreed with it, the necessary amendment could be made in the Senate. From the Minister’s attitude it is apparent that there is considerable merit in this amendment. I have heard of many cases where land has been acquired by the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth has then discovered that it did not need the land and the land has been disposed of. One case cited in another place concerned a person whose land adjourned an hotel, was acquired by the State government. Subsequently, that Government found that it no longer required the land and offered it for sale. A third party who had more money than the previous owner, was determined that the owner should not get it back and bought it at an increased price.

In Western Australia a prominent civil servant retired, went to Albany and bought a property consisting of an old stone house and a fair- amount of land. He converted the house into a comfortable dwelling, but the government acquired the land to add to an area already set aside for a hospital. That man took the compensation the government gave him, and built another house for himself. Within two years the government altered its mind and the property was put up for sale. I suggest that that was a rank injustice to the retired civil servant, and to prevent such cases occurring in the future in regard to Commonwealth acquisitions, I have moved this amendment.

Honorable senators will notice a limit, of seven years in the amendment, and I suggest that that is reasonable from more than one viewpoint. If more time were allowed, say a time of 50 years, it would probably be impossible to find the previous owner, and all sorts of complications would arise. Seven years is neither too long nor too short a period because it might reasonably be supposed that a previous owner could be found in that time, and that the land would not increase very much in value.

I have suggested in the amendment that land in the category with which I am dealing, should be offered to the previous owner at the price paid to him for it. Some people may be inclined to consider that that is not quite fair, because the land may have increased in value. I agree that land does increase in value, but seven years is not a very long time, and, generally speaking, land does not appreciate much in that time. Of course I agree that the appreciation of value would depend on the location of the land.

I have in mind many examples of compulsory acquisitions of land which were placed before the Public Accounts Committee when we were examining the accounts of the Postal Department. Two such cases may be found in the report which the Public Accounts Committee furnished about that investigation. One case related to land at Clovelly which cost £750, but there are many such places. The result of the inquiry was that the department advertised the blocks for sale, as they were not required. In many cases, particularly if the land is situated in country areas, its value would not appreciate greatly in seven years. However, I am not adamant on that point. I am concerned that the owner who has been dispossessed of his land should have an opportunity to get it back, I commend the amendment to the committee.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– The purpose of the amendment is laudable. It means that where land, particularly land which has been compulsorily acquired by the Commonwealth, is found to be not required for Commonwealth purposes within a limited period of time, say seven years, and the Commonwealth, therefore, wishes to dispose of- it, the former owner should be given an option to repurchase it from the Commonwealth. That is the purpose of theamendment, but there are difficulties in giving effect to it. For instance, it may be difficult or impossible to trace the former owner. Moreover, land can be owned by a partnership, and a partnership may be dissolved, or it may have been owned by a company which has been wound up. All sorts of things like that can happen. Therefore, although it is easy enough to put forward this idea, it is not so easy to express it in a rigid form in a statute.

Nevertheless, the draftsman, in cooperation with Senator Seward, has drafted a clause which, while it avoids too much rigidity, does express the principle. If the amendment, as drafted, is accepted, it would then be the duty of the Minister of the day to give effect to the principle embodied in it. Insofar as the amendment deals with that problem, I am prepared to accept it, but I do contest the suggestion that the land should be resold to the former owner at the price at which it was acquired by the Commonwealth. I do not think that Senator Seward meetsthat objection by saying that it is only a period of seven years. Honorable senators have only to think in terms of the last seven years through which we have passed to realize that all over the Commonwealth land has changed in value very considerably. If land which was acquired by the Commonwealth seven years ago at the values then ruling were restored to the former owner at the money figure that the Commonwealth paid for it, that could mean giving it back to the owner for something far less than its present value. In those circumstances, I suggest that the proper way to deal with the matter is to provide that the former owner should be given an option to re-purchase it at a reasonable price. Therefore, I move -

That the amendment be amended by leaving out from the proposed new sub-clause (3.) all the words after “former owner” and inserting in lieu thereof the words, “ at a reasonable price “.

The sub-clause would then read -

The land should, where practicable, be first offered for sale to the former owner at a reasonable price.

That is clone almost every day, and it gives expression to the spirit of the Constitution which provides that when the Commonwealth acquires property it must, do so on just terms. In other words, it means that if the Commonwealth resells land to the former owner it must do so on just terms.

Senator Kendall:

– That would deprive the former owner of any profit that he might have made in the meantime.

Senator SPICER:

– The former owner would get the land back at the value of the land at the time of the re-sale. That is reasonable.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– I invite the attention of Senator Seward to sub-clause (4.), which is proposed to be inserted, and particularly to the words “ substantial improvements to the land “. I should like to hear his observations, and those of the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer), regarding the meaning of the word “ substantial “. Do chey think that the use of that word gives a proper definition of the improvements we have in mind?

Senator SEWARD:
Western Australia

– The case I had in mind was that in which the Commonwealth had acquired land, and had erected buildings on it not required by the previous owner, but which would increase the value of the property considerably.

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

– Is sub-clause (4.) now necessary, in view of the further amendment moved by the AttorneyGeneral ?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The committee has not yet agreed to any amendment.

Senator SEWARD:

– If the Commonwealth has erected buildings on the land the whole situation is changed.

Senator Laught:

– What test would the honorable senator apply to the word substantial “ ?

Senator SEWARD:

– I have in mind improvements which would raise the value of the property considerably above the purchase price, such as extensive buildings, or anything that obviously raises the value of the land. As to the difficulty of locating the former owner, which was mentioned by ‘ the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), I think that that position is met by the inclusion of the words “where practicable”. If attempts have been made to get in touch with the former owner in the normal way, such as by means of a letter or telegram, and there is no response from him, and if all ordinary and reasonable methods of reaching him have failed, I think that the requirements of the term “where practicable “ would be met.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I shall not undertake to give to Senator Laught a definition of the words “ substantial improvements “. This clause is a statement of a general principle. The words “substantial improvements” convey to our minds that something in the nature of the erection of buildings on the land by the Commonwealth has taken place. In other words, they cover action by the Commonwealth by which the property has so altered in character that the former owner would get back from the Commonwealth something quite different from the asset that he sold to the Commonwealth. I should not regard the erection of a fence around the property as being in the nature of substantial improvements.

Senator Vincent:

– What about temporary buildings on the land?

Senator SPICER:

– All sorts of variations can be thought of. As I have said, this is only a statement of a general principle which Ministers in the future would be expected to follow. They would be expected to exercise a sensible discretion in following the directions given by the legislature.

Amendment of amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 51 to 63 agreed to.

New clause 63a.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That, after clause 63, the following new clause be inserted: - “63a. - (I.) The Acts specified in the first column of the First Schedule to this Act are amended as respectively set out in the second column of that Schedule. “ (2.) An Act specified in the first column of the Second Schedule to this Act, as amended by this Act, may be cited in the manner specified in the second column of that Schedule opposite to the reference to that Act in the first column. “ (3.) Notwithstanding the amendments made by sub-section (1.) of this section, the provisions of the Acts amended by that subsection, as in force immediately before the date of commencement of this Act, continue to apply, as if this Act had not been passed, in relation to the acquisition of land acquired or agreed to be acquired before that date and in relation to compensation in respect of any such acquisition or in respect of any other thing done before that date.”.

The new clause is purely a formal amendment for the purpose of allowing the introduction of new schedules which I shall submit for incorporation in the bill if this motion is carried.

New clause agreed to.

Clause 64 agreed to.

Schedules.

Senator SPICER:
Attorney- General · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That, after clause 64, the following Schedules be added: -

page 803

THE SCHEDULES

page 803

FIRST SCHEDULE

Amendments of Acts

Citation of Acts Amended

First and Second Schedules agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 804

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL 1955

Secondreading.

Debate resumed from the 20th October (vide page 634), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– The Appropriation (Works and Services) Bill involves the expenditure - or did involve the expenditure of £101,245,000 in this financial year. When the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) delivered his second-reading speech on the measure, he took the opportunity to inform honorable senators that a Cabinet sub-committee at the direction of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), had closely investigated a proposal to cut expenditure by £10,000,000, and the Government decided to reduce capital works in the next twelve months by that amount. I remember reading with interest the second-reading speech of the Minister in which he stated that the Cabinet subcommittee, of which the Minister for Defence (Sir Philip McBride) was chairman, had gone to work with a will and, as a result, had found that it was not able to cut expenditure by £10,000,000 as it had been directed to do. It could cut expenditure by only £4,000,000. Apparently, the subcommittee had to go back to work with a will - and I do not know how many more times it will have to do so in order to reduce expenditure by £10,000,000 as the Prime Minister has promised.

The whole situation is quite unsatisfactory. I should have thought that the Government would have known the serious position of the Australian economy when the budget was being framed. I cannot understand why the Government had to wait until some time after it had submitted the budget to the House of Renresentatives before it could discover suddenly that it would be in the national interest to spend £10,000,000 less on works and services. It is a sad commentary on the efficiency of the Government that it could present a budget to the nation and then, within 28 days, make a special announcement painting a horrible picture of prosperity throttling the nation and forcing the Government to do something drastic. Among other things, it decided to reduce expenditure on national works and services by £10,000,000 in the current financial year.

No information was withheld from the Government. It had all the information available at its fingertips. When a budget is being prepared, the most exhaustive surveys are taken before the final figure for each department are submitted to Cabinet. They are looked over by Ministers individually, and then they are examined collectively by other Ministers before the figures are accepted and included in the budget. Then there are the watchdogs of the Treasury who come upon the scene with pruning shears even after the Minister in charge of a department has decided what shall be spent. That is the background. After all the preparatory work by junior officers and senior officers, who have a full knowledge of the departments, is completed, a final survey is made by Cabinet itself, and the. figures are incorporated in the budget, which is presented to the Parliament as a national balance-sheet of revenue and expenditure for the ensuing twelve months. Despite all that background to the investigation, and although the decision had been made , and announced publicly, the Government was obliged to say, 28 days afterwards, “Look, that is all wrong “.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– It is not all wrong !

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Is it only wrong to the extent of 10 per cent.? Of course, not. As I say, it is all wrong. Eirst, the Government tells the people that it proposes to expend more than £100,000,000 on works and services, and then it says that it is not able to spend as much as that. What new information did the Government receive within 28 days of the introduction of the budget?

Senator Vincent:

– Apparently, the honorable senator has not read the Minister’s second-reading speech.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– On the contrary, I have read it very closely, and the more closely I have read it the more convinced I have become of the incompetence of the Government. This has been a “ stop and start “ Government ever since 1949, when it came to office, but it has been blessed by good fortune. Without that, I do not know what would have happened. I am reminded of the old story that when Napoleon was considering the ability of a general, he did not ask him how many battles he had won; he asked the general whether he was lucky or not.

Senator GUY:
TASMANIA · LP

– The honorable senator himself will need to be lucky !

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– That may be so. Luck is a most important attribute. Not having been blessed with brains, as other ‘honorable senators have been, I have had need of luck. The present Government has been blessed by luck ever since it came to office, and it has been luck, not good management, which has kept it in power.

I do not think .that the Government really can find excuses for the fact that it is obliged to cut the works vote within such a short time of the introduction of the budget. The Minister, in his secondreading speech, said that the Cabinet committee which was appointed to go into the detail of the matter and make recommendations concerning particular items, went to work with a will. Having done so, it seems that all that will be achieved will be a saving of £4,000,000, of the projected £10,000,000, before the Government goes to the country on the 10th December. T suppose there will not be much time now for sub-committees such as that to cut down the works vote still further. I shall leave this question for the moment, but I think that the most trenchant criticism I can make of the Government’s economic policy is to point to this drastic cut in public works so soon after the Government announced that such works had to go on. As I have said, there could have been no new information in the possession of the Government between the presentation of the budget and the Prime Minister’s statement about the economy.

I notice that, included in the items to be affected by this reduction, are Commonwealth offices, Melbourne. After all,

Commonwealth offices have a habit of being delayed in one way or another. We have been considering the question of erecting Commonwealth offices in Sydney for about 30 years, and I have no doubt that, 30 years hence, when the Armstrong administration is in office, that subject will still be under consideration. It seems that, unless the Commonwealth Bank is good enough to build premises, there never will be any Commonwealth offices.

I notice, also, that it is proposed to defer construction of the bridge over the Molonglo River. I shall not worry about that. Only recently, I read that the honorable member for Bennelong (Mr. Cramer) had said that the people of Canberra had too much done for them, anyhow, so perhaps the postponement of the erection of that bridge will not upset them very much.

I come now to the Atomic Energy Commission’s project at Lucas Heights, near Sydney, the laboratory buildings of which are estimated to cost £1,900,000. Work on the laboratory buildings will be deferred beyond the current financial year, but work on the building to house the atomic reactor, which is being fabricated under contract in the United Kingdom, will proceed. The Government should be careful to ensure co-ordination in this matter, so that when the contract is completed in the United Kingdom, the work that has to be done in Australia also will be completed, thus avoiding the great waste of money that can occur through lack of co-ordination.

It is proposed to defer construction of buildings of various kinds, estimated to cost £350,000, for the Post Office, and I also notice that the procurement and installation of various types of equipment, of a total cost of £1,300,000, is to be deferred as well. I sincerely hope that that will not include equipment for the Telephone Branch, the money-making side of the Post Office. It would be a pity if the provision of telephone services, which is one of the ways in which the Government can legally and painlessly extract money from the public, were to be delayed. I suggest to the Minister that this matter be watched very carefully, in order to ensure that the money-making business of installing telephones shall not be disrupted.

It always disturbs me when I hear of proposals to postpone the building of houses, because, with the shortage of housing that exists in the community, that is a very serious matter. It is bad enough when the building of houses in Canberra is deferred, because it is necessary for more houses to be constructed to make Canberra the real seat of government, but when I hear that the building of houses in Darwin is to be deferred I recoil with shock. Whatever else we defer, we must continue to encourage the development of the Northern Territory and the north of Australia generally. It is only when the Government moves into those under-developed areas and starts to spend money on the construction of houses and other works, that those areas develop at a proper rate. To my mind, the decision to defer the building of houses in Darwin is a very bad one and should never have been made. [ know nothing about television, and f have no comment to make on the decision of the Government concerning the building programme in that connexion. However, it is obvious that the Government also proposes to slow down construction of the St. Mary’s ammunition filling factory. That is a big project and is estimated to cost many millions of pounds. Of course, the Government has not yet made an announcement to the country of its intentions in this direction, but I warn it that it must be very careful about interfering with this work, because in such a project, speed is the essence of the contract. Once governments start to halt the rate of progress of works of that kind, good reason 13 always found for continuing to do so. The result is that the ultimate cost of such works often is staggering. It is obvious that a very efficient body of engineers is engaged on the St. Mary’s project. The methods of the Utah Construction Company already have astonished the natives. Previously, of course, that company did good work on the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric scheme and the Eildon weir, and from reports that I have received, it is moving along at surprising speed at St. Mary’s. I understand that the company decided that so much time was wasted because of vehicles having to wait for trains to pass at a certain spot that they had plans prepared in a couple of days, and a 60-ft. overhead bridge was constructed over the railway tracks in a matter of weeks. As we all know, the construction of concrete bridges and culverts in this country usually seems to take not weeks, but years. I have even asked questions in this Parliament about the great length of time that it seems to take the average road-builder in Australia to construct concrete bridges and culverts. In this instance, the Utah Construction Company has done an amazing job at St. Mary’s in a matter of weeks. If the completion of the project is delayed, it? ultimate cost will be far more than the Government expects. There is a diversity of opinion as to the wisdom of establishing the St. Mary’s ammunition filling factory, which could very well, form the subject of a separate debate. However, as the Government has decided to go ahead with the project, it should not delay the contractors once they move on to the site. This is true of all projects. If, after being commenced, their completion is delayed for twelve months or two years, usually the ultimate cost is greater than it would have been had the work not been interrupted. It is with some diffidence that I sound this note of warning to the Government. The Opposition does not oppose the bill. I suppose the further decisions of the committee will be made known publicly in due course. To say the least of it, the position is most unsatisfactory. Having decided several weeks ago to curtail expenditure on capital works by £10,000,000, the Government should be able to announce full details of the proposed cuts - not’ only those aggregating about £4,000,000.

I suppose when further decisions are made, we shall read about them in the press. I only hope that they will not hurt the national economy or prevent the construction of urgently needed houses in Darwin, but will be designed to cause the least possible dislocation of industry.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I express my disappointment, that the opportunity is not available to discuss the bill in the length it deserves. The bill provides for an appropriation of some £100,000,000 which, on the face of it, is to be reduced by administrative decision by some millions of pounds to something like £90,000,000. There are two aspects of the matter to which I wish to refer. The fact that we are appropriating this amount of money for capital works out of revenue is sufficient evidence of the failure of the financial agreement to provide loan money to finance expenditure on capital works required by both the Commonwealth and the State governments. We want to remember the genesisof the financial agreement.

We are now drifting into the very same mess that started in 1927 in regard to capital moneys. The present drift in regard to revenue moneys started in 1942. To me, it is appallingly inflationary that we go on using current revenues of the country in order to finance expenditure on capital works. I want to urge for the consideration of parties opposed to capital levies, except in regard to death duties and gift duties, that from exactions to obtain current revenue, credits be given by means of developmental bonds to the people who contribute their earnings in this generation to be salted down in such undertakings as the St. Mary’s ammunition filling factory and the Snowy Mountains project. It will be remembered that Great Britain adopted a similar course in 1942, when it vastly increased its income tax. It gave, instead of increasing income tax, post-war credits to the order of £800,000,000, only £240,000,000 of which has been repaid, because recurring governmental expenditures have -not permitted a reduction of those credits. It is on record that that policy, which at the outset appeared to be a good idea, has become a national headache. It is with all that in mind that T urge consideration of this matter, in the reverse circumstances that exist in Australia as we approach the opposite cycle of the economy. I suggest that those who criticized Great Britain in the wartime period would advocate the introduction of such a scheme to-day. With those comments, and with that brevity, T reluctantly support the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 807

QUESTION

ROYAL COMMISSION ON ESPIONAGE

Debate resumed from the 13th October (vide page 521), on motion by Senator McKenna -

That the following paper be printed: - Report of the Royal Commission on Espionage.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The matter now before the Senate is the report of the Royal Commission on Espionage. Having regard to the state of business on the notice-paper in this Senate I shall, on this occasion, address myself to a consideration of it with relative brevity, lt is a document of some 4S3 printed pages and deals with a colossal number of matters and incidents. It would be both impossible, and very fortunately, unnecessary, to traverse all those matters. It would certainly be impossible to do so in the course of one speech, no matter how long was the time permitted by the Senate. To gain a complete appreciation of the report, I suggest to the Senate it would be necessary to know the evidence that was before the commission. I realize the impossibility of anybody doing that thoroughly, and remembering it. I know that I gave up reading the evidence placed before the royal commission at the point when I found it not only boring, but in addition, unintelligible, particularly when the evidence was dealing with matters contained in documents the contents of which were not allowed to be mentioned, even in the commission’s hearing. I defy anybody to follow the evidence when the commission was dealing with vitally important documents and the witnesses were not permitted to indicate even the contents of the documents upon which they were asked to comment.

Very fortunately, the commission, in its report, summarizes its conclusions. It does that at page 294, and it does it. very’ appropriately with the warning that the conclusions are necessarily in an abbreviated form and must be read subject to what has been written elsewhere. My approach to the matter to-night is this: I propose to remind the Senate of some of these findings. I shall quote them from the summary of the conclusions, and I shall later comment upon them. I add my own warning, similar to that of the commission, that I am quoting from its general conclusions; aud the Senate will appreciate that 1 cannot quote the whole report.

In the Senate I said on one occasion quite recently that I had always regarded a traitor to his native country as a very rare phenomenon indeed. I thought he was a person who arose once in a generation, or a century, and I also told the Senate that one of the greatest shocks I have ever received in life was when I found in World War II., right at its commencement, that in European countries, particularly in France, there were Quislings, traitors and collaborators with enemies of their country. When this commission was appointed I confess at once I was fearful and distressed lest the same dreadful pattern might be exposed in Australia. But as the evidence unfolded, and as the report came to hand, I am happy to say, I was relieved of that fear so far as Australians were concerned.

I turn now to the portions of the general conclusions of the commission to which [ wish to refer, and upon which I shall later comment. I have selected those that are most important and which highlight the ultimate findings of the commission. I refer, first, to the fifth paragraph in which the commissioners say -

  1. . for many years the government ot the TJ.S.S.E. had been using its Embassy at Canberra as a cloak under which to control and operate espionage organizations in Australia.

Paragraph 8 reads -

The G.E.U. “ Legal Apparatus “-

I pause to say that the G.R.U. is reputed to be the military section of the Soviet espionage system. The paragraph reads -

The G.R.U. “Legal Apparatus” operated from about 1043 until at least February, 1953, but as the G.R.U. apparatus in Australia was kept carefully insulated from the M.V.D. apparatus Petrov was able to tell us little about it. We have reported on this G.R.U. “ Legal Apparatus “ in Chapter 0. We have no knowledge whether -a G.R.U. “Illegal Apparatus” was or is still operating in Australia.

I pass next to the commission’s eleventh finding. It reads -

The ultimate aim of the M.V.D. was the collection of confidential information useful to the U.S.S.R. Its preliminary task was to discover persons who had access directly or indirectly to such information and from whom or through whom such information might be obtained either by inducement or pressure or by unwitting (“in the dark”)- disclosure.

I next quote its fourteenth finding -

The evidence clearly shows that it was only amongst Communists (in which term we include Communist sympathizers) that the M.V.D. could expect to find in Australia willing helpers. The only Australians who, so far as the evidence shows, knowingly assisted Soviet espionage, directly or indirectly, were Communists.

The twenty-first finding of the commission reads-

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– Is the Leader of the Opposition making a speech or reading a report?

Senator McKENNA:

– I am reading some parts of the commission’s report. I assure Senator Marriott that I have in my mind exactly what I want to say, and I shall not be diverted by him or anybody else. I indicated at the outset that I would select some of these paragraphs for comment which I wish to make. I continue to do that. The twentyfirst finding of the commission reads -

Our inquiry discloses no trace of any significant leakage of information from the Department of External Affairs since 1949, although it is evident from the Moscow letters that penetration of that department remained throughout a principal aim of the M.V.D.

Paragraph 22 of the findings states -

So far as we can learn, after 1049 the M.V.D. had no success in gaining any information directly involving the security or defence of Australia, but it pursued its operation and had some success in matters indirectly affecting the security of Australia, particularly in building up its network. Examples ure the procuring of Exhibit H in 1951 and Exhibit J in 1953 from O’Sullivan and Lockwood respectively. The acts of these men were indirectly prejudicial to the security of Australia, not only because of the information they gave but also, and more importantly, because by giving it O’Sullivan was on “ the small hook” (i.e. he had taken the first compromising step which made him vulnerable to future pressure), and Lockwood had more deeply compromised himself.

I refer to the latter portion of the commission’s twenty-fourth conclusion, which reads- - lu the Moscow Letter, dated 6th June, 1052, which contained a “ Plan of Work “, the Moscow Centre recognized that the ineffectiveness of the Australian M.V.D. section during the immediately preceding years had been due to under-staffing and staff inefficiency. [ pause there and refer to paragraph 933 of the report in which that is supplemented somewhat. In that paragraph they refer to the letter of the 6th June, 1952, from Moscow and say -

Apart from its general tenor showing the Soviet’s design, the Letter affords important evidence of the ineffective state into which Soviet espionage in Australia had sunk in 1951 and 1952, and in it the Moscow Centre recognizes that this is due to the understating of the local M.V.D. section so that the “ whole burden of the work “ had fallen on Petrov alone; it promises to rectify matters by sending two new cadre workers, and indeed Antonov and later Kislystin were sent.

I have two more extracts to quote from the conclusions of the commission. No. 27 is this-

Late in 1952 or early in 1953 the Moscow Centre decided to replace Petrov by appointing u permanent Resident but in fact he was not replaced until April, 1954, when Kovalenok arrived. Kovalenok’s overt posting at the Embassy was as a Third Secretary but he was in fact an M.V.D. officer of the Fourth Directorate - an M.V.D. section specially concerned with the planting of ‘’ illegal workers “. The intention was that later an officer more senior than Kovalenok would come to Australia as permanent Resident. Petrov’s defection intervened and destroyed not only the “ Legal Apparatus “ but also the design to establish an “ Illegal Apparatus “.

The “ Legal Apparatus “ is defined as one operating under the cloak of an embassy frith its leaders having diplomatic immunity. The “ Illegal Apparatus “ mentioned by the commission is one which operates outside the embassy, but whose operators do not enjoy diplomatic immunity. Paragraph 28 of the general conclusions states -

So far as we are aware, no G.R.TJ. “ Illegal Apparatus” or M.V.D. “Illegal Apparatus” has operated in Australia since Petrov’s defection.

They conclude in paragraph 29 with this statement -

It would appear that prosecution of none of the persons whose acts we have considered in our report would be warranted.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– “Will the honorable senator read the letter from Molotov ?

Senator McKENNA:

– I will not read anything I do not want to read. If the honorable senator wants further portions of this voluminous report to be placed before the Senate, let him stand up and read them. There would be no objection to that. If he is interested in other sections, as I should not be surprised to learn he is, there are 483 pages in this report, and I have read from only three or four.

I now wish to offer some general comments on those extracts. The first is that, without doubt, the men in the Soviet Embassy were engaged in espionage in this country. They were operating under the cloak of diplomatic immunity. But my outstanding feeling is one of vast relief that so few Australians were in any way involved with them. The Public Service, the scientists, and even members of Parliament, all stood up to the tests of decency and patriotism as good Australians.

Senator Gorton:

– All the Public Service ?

Senator McKENNA:

– The Public Service right through.

Senator Gorton:

– What about Hill?

Senator McKENNA:

– There were questions about individuals?

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– And Burton?

Senator McKENNA:

– I suggest that the honorable senator ought not to mention names. There has been more uncharitable and un-Christian behaviour in one year in this Parliament over the Petrov commission than I have heard of in all the time that I have been here.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– Who set the example ?

Senator McKENNA:

– I wonder whether those who do that kind of thing have any regard for the moral responsibility that they undertake when they do it? It would be well for some of the people in this Parliament to ponder that thought. I find, when I put through the screen those matters dredged up by the commission, that ultimately there is a residue of a very few individuals. Two in particular were contemptible individuals, writing dossiers on their friends and associates in the most shocking terms and in the worst kind of circumstances. But they are the highlights so far as individuals in this country were discovered. The great bulk of the work of the commission was devoted to the said document J and document H. I repeat that it is a great consolation to know that there were so few Australians involved, and none outside a few Communists. It is a great relief also to feel that the Russians were not able to penetrate, to any appreciable extent, the armour of the good Australian men and women.

I comment upon the fact of the inefficiency and failure of the Russian espionage system in Australia to set up what is known as an “ Illegal Apparatus “.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– After 1949.

Senator McKENNA:

– In 1951, 1952, and all the way through. What the honorable senator ought to recall is that the force which countered Soviet espionage in this country was our own counter-espionage organization in the form of the security service. The honorable senator needs to be reminded that it was set up by the Chifley Labour Government because of Soviet espionage.

Senator Vincent:

– Because of leakages from Dr. Evatt’s department.

Senator McKENNA:

– The great instrument which countered and nullified and rendered ineffective attempts at espionage in this country was a creature of the Chifley Labour Government. I had a great deal to do with the setting up of the security service, because at the time T was acting Attorney-General of Australia, and I had a hand in shaping its charter. Accordingly, I know the security service from its origin. The main reason that Soviet espionage made so little progress towards its objective was due, first of all, to the establishment by a Labour government of the security service, and, secondly, to the effective work of that service.

A further comment upon the findings of the commission is that it is clear that in the thing that mattered most, there was no leakage of defence or security information. That is made quite clear from the extracts I have quoted. A further comment is how futile and inefficient and almost laughable - in fact, I will say ludicrous - were the efforts of the Russians in this country at espionage. Over a period of eleven years, there were seventeen of them engaged at various times in this work under many circumstances. I refer to two aspects of it. Obviously, they did not take their work too seriously.- As the commission’s report says, they were directed again and again to study particular people, to make contact with them and to do this and that, but the answers given in evidence before the commission in 90 per cent, of the cases was, “ We did nothing “. That is an extraordinary position, and it justifies whatever has been said about their utter ineffectiveness and futility in many directions, despite their very few successes. In order to drive that point home, I shall refer honorable senators to what the royal commissioners said at page 182 of their report. I shall do that to indicate how futile, stupid and ludicrous were the Russian espionage efforts so far as getting information from members of the Parliament was concerned. Paragraph 649 of the report reads -

As will be seen, even a natural interest shown by a Member in anything Russian, or an ordinary courtesy displayed by him towards a Soviet official, might cause his name to be recorded to the Moscow Centre and there recorded in what the Centre called its “books”.

Would anybody call that anything but comic opera espionage, and who are there who know better than the honorable members and senators of this Parliament that that is exactly what it was? At the end of the section of the report which relates to members of the Parliament, there is a paragraph which I am sure honorable senators will be happy to hear read. Paragraph 689 reads -

Wo repeat that the evidence before us negatives any suggestion that at any time any of the persons mentioned in the entries dealt with in this Chapter either wittingly or unwittingly provided the M.V.D. with any information of the kind which it wished to get. But it is clearly established that the M.V.D. designed to penetrate the Parliament and political parties and to use those persons for the purpose of getting confidential information from or through them.

I have cited that paragraph to support the comment that I made that the Russian espionage service was really ineffective. Nobody knows better than the members and senators of this Parliament how stupid were the suggestions that men from all sides of politics, could be prevailed upon to give, quite innocently, information of value to the Russians or anybody else. That illustrates in a way that should drive home to everybody in this chamber the weakness and ineffectiveness of Russian espionage.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I was smeared by them.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is so, and the honorable senator resented it very much. Each member of the royal commission in turn went out of his way to say how justified was Senator O’Byrne’s indignation, and how completely futile it was even to name him. Indeed, that is true of all the others who appeared before the commission, but the commissioners gave special mention to Senator O’Byrne.

It appears from what lias been said in the report, and elsewhere, that there is little that has come out of the investigations of the royal commission which was not already known to the security service. The security service was not surprised by many of the names that were mentioned, because most of the people outside the Parliament who were named were already under surveillance. I believe that the Government has most grossly bungled the whole affair. I said so at the first opportunity I got to make a speech on the subject, in this Parliament, when I pointed out that right at the beginning of the matter when Petrov defected, there were two courses open to the Government. One was to set up a royal commission and have the whole of its proceedings published, and the other was to have left the matter to the security service to follow up the evidence and to investigate the facts that Petrov brought over to the Government.

One section of the material that he brought over has been dealt with in the second way. The evidence that he adduced which affected other countries and dominions, has been sifted by the security service and passed on to other dominions and countries. That evidence has proved invaluable to the countries concerned. That having been done in the case of other nations, it could have been done with the section of the evidence which affected Australia. Indeed, it should have been done with that evidence, and the fact that it was not done was the first and greatest blunder of the Government. Why that blunder occurred I shall detail later. In that regard I refer to the speech that I delivered on the 12th August, and to a speech delivered by Senator Armstrong in April. Both those speeches set forth the view that I am now stating.

The second instance of bungling by the Government was indicated when the Government rushed through legislation to constitute the commission on the last day of sitting of a sessional period of the Parliament, and then, a few months later, introduced further legislation to overhaul the act that it had previously rushed through. That legislation had been criticized by the High Court in the person of Mr. Justice Fullagar, and an appeal was likely to be made to the Full Bench of the High Court. The Government therefore had to make good the defects in the act, and consequently presented a second bill to the Parliament within a few months of passing the first bill. I do not say that that bungling was on a high level, but it is something that may be added to the total bungling shown by the Government over this affair.

A third point to be considered is that the Royal Commission on Espionage cost the country about £140,000, a not insignificant sum. I suggest that tha t is an undue amount to pay when we consider that the whole of the evidence could, have been sifted thoroughly and quietly by the security service before the persons involved became alarmed. This country will never know how much got through the net of the security service because the Government rushed into the Parliament and blathered the Petrov story all over the country, and all over the world.

Senator Guy:

– The honorable senator supported the Government’s legislation to set up the royal commission.

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– We willingly supported it, but at that time we had no alternative. Up to that point the Government had two alternatives. Either to keep it quiet or to bring the matter out to the public. The Government made the wrong decision for Australia, the security service and the trade of this country.

At a time when our balance of payments is adverse, we have lost about £26,000,000 worth of trade a year through the loss of export trade to Russia. For the twelve months to the 30th June, 1954 - the Petrov defection took place in April - we sold about £26,000,000 worth of goods to Russia. In the twelve months which ended on the 30th June, 1955, we sold about £153,000 worth.

Honorable senators interjecting,

Senator McKenna:

– It appears that all honorable senators are trying to make speeches at once. I suggest to them that they will all have an opportunity later to talk about this matter, unless the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) gags them. It is my turn at the moment. On the 30th June, 1955, it was only £153,000, an insignificant amount. In other words, ‘ at a time in Australia’s economic history when export earnings are more important than anything else - they are at the base of our economic troubles - that is one of the results of that publicity. Why could not this matter have been handled at the diplomatic level? Why could not the Government have demanded the recall of the men involved? That would have been enough to stop and expose what was going on. The men engaged in espionage at the Russian embassy should have been recalled.

Senator Gorton:

– Including Petrov?

Senator McKENNA:

– Petrov had defected and the Government had embraced him. Petrov was represented by the Government to the nation on the 13th April, when the first announcement was made, as an ideological convert to the Australian way of life.

Senator Mattner:

-No.

Senator McKENNA:

– The honorable senator controverts that statement, and therefore I shall read what the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) said on that day. The honorable senator will then be in a position to judge. I refer him to page 326 of Hansard of that date, when the Prime Minister said -

Mr. Petrov has acted voluntarily throughout. To quote his own words in a statement to the Australian authorities -

I wish to ask the Australian Government for permission to remain in Australia perm anently-

There are some other words, and then he concluded -

I no longer believe in Communism since I have seen the Australian way of living.

He had also seen £5,000. I put it that this blundering has cost this nation not only damage to individuals, and the cost of the commission, as well as loss of trade, but I put it finally that it has damaged our own security service. That service was hauled out into public and exposed. Its agents were negatived, its methods made known, and the bright spotlight of publicity was turned upon the service. This royal commission, serving a purpose which I shall mention directly, has done more harm to the effectiveness of our security service than has been caused by any operations of the Russians.

Senator Gorton:

– That is what the honorable senator wanted when he opposed the Communist Party Dissolution Bill.

Senator McKENNA:

– I repeat that the royal commission has done much harm. Senator Gorton interjects about the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, but what was the answer of the Government at that time, and how did it justify its police-state methods? That bill gave the Attorney-General the right to name any man in the community as a Communist and a traitor, and to restrict or deny access to a court. What was the Government’s answer on that occasion ? It said, “ We cannot expose the security service “. That was the Government’s story then ; but, now, what has it done? Because it was to the political advantage of the parties opposite, the whole security service and its methods have been brought under the fierce searchlight of the proceedings of this commission.

Senator Gorton:

– One man.

Senator McKENNA:

-Not only the head of the security service; was not Mr. Richards also called? And what about their methods? I come to this point : That that particular course which was followed, with all those bad results for this country and its friends, was followed at a time when it disrupted our relations with Russia, and when our international relations generally were far more delicate than they are now. That course of throwing these proceedings publicly into the searchlight of a royal commission was taken by the Government because of the political advantages that it entailed on the eve of an election. It was taken, but at what cost to the nation ? I have outlined the cost. I shall briefly recount the position. On the 13th April, 1954, on the very last day in the life of that Parliament, Mr. Menzies made an announcement regarding the defection of Petrov.

Senator O’Byrne:

– In the absence of the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator McKENNA:

– He tried to create an atmosphere of emergency suddenly arising. Let us listen to his opening sentences. On the 13th April, the Prime Minister obtained leave to make a statement, and he commenced by saying -

It is my unpleasant duty to convey to the House some information which I this morning laid before the Cabinet for the first time, and which we decided should be dealt with as soon as possible.

Some days ago, one Vladimir Mikhailovich Petrov . . . voluntarily left his. diplomatic employment and made to the Australian Government … a request for political asylum.

The atmosphere he endeavoured to create was one of an emergency suddenly arising. He made the statement on the last day of that Parliament when an election was about to take place. I invite honorable senators to listen to his words.

Senator Henty:

– The honorable senator is making heavy weather.

Senator McKENNA:

– On the 12th August, the Prime Minister spoke on the adjournment of the House of Representatives. Speaking with great deliberation, he said -

I say to the House and to the country that the name of Petrov become known to me for the first time on Sunday night, the 11th April, I think, or the preceding Saturday night.

It was that week-end, but he was not certain whether it was the Saturday or the Sunday. I remind the Senate that the Prime Minister spoke on the following Tuesday in this Parliament. He made a very clear statement, in deliberate terms, when, as he said, be spoke not only to the House but to the country.

Senator Spicer:

– That was in August.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, on the 12th August. On the 13th April, the

Prime Minister endeavoured to give the same impression when he said, “ a few days ago “ referring to the time when he became aware of Petrov’s defection. I shall document that. . There is sworn evidence as to what the true date was. I refer anyone who is interested to page 1104 of the evidence before the royal commission given by the security head, Brigadier Spry. I propose to read a few extracts from the questions asked of the head of the security service, and his replies.

The Chairman:

– You are on your former oath, Brigadier.

Mr. Windeyer. ; Did you go to the Prime Minister to report to him orally the fact of Petrov’s defection ? - Yes.

And waa Mr. Richards one of the party that went? - Yes.

And I think there was also an interpreter belonging to your Service? - That is so.

On what date was that? - On the 4th.

Mr. Justice Philp. ; You are quite sure it was the 4th April when you first saw the Prime Minister? ; Yos.

Mr. Windeyer. ; That was, in fact the day after the defection of Petrov: is that so? - Yes.

Mr. Hill. ; You were there for an hour and a half? ; We arrived about 5 o’clock and 1 think we left about twenty to 7.

And, of course, it was said that these documents came from Petrov? - That is correct.

That is the sworn evidence of the head of security. I invite honorable senators to look at the position. They owe a duty to the country to do so. So does the Prime Minister. The evidence of Colonel Spry is supplemented by the sworn testimony of Mr. Richards, the second in command of the security service. That also appears in the record of the evidence. I put it seriously to the Senate that the matter cannot be allowed to stand there. There are two statements that are completely contradictory - the sworn statements of the head of the security service and the very deliberate statement of the Prime Minister.

Senator Guy:

– The Prime Minister said, “I think”. After all, five months had elapsed.

Senator McKENNA:

– I am surprised that any honorable senator should quibble in that way. Let me read what the right honorable gentleman said. The only doubt in his mind was whether the interview took place on the 11th or the 12tb of that month; not whether it took place that week-end or the one before. This is what the Prime Minister said -

I say to the House and the country that the name of Petrov became known to me for the first time on Sunday night the 11th April, I think, or the preceding Saturday night.

Senator Spicer:

– The right honorable gentleman did say, “I think”.

Senator McKENNA:

– The fact that that discrepancy exists has been cited again and again in this Parliament. It has never been answered. There may be an explanation for it. If so, it is time the country got it. I refer again to the statement of the 13th April, and the misleading of the Parliament into the belief that Petrov had just come over when, in fact, the Prime Minister had known for ten days. He had not brought the matter before Cabinet or before the Parliament. Then the right honorable gentleman presented it as something arising suddenly on the last day of the parliamentary sitting, when no proper consideration could be given to it and no test could be applied.

Senator Spicer:

– Well !

Senator McKENNA:

– I do not say who is right, but there ought to be an explanation by the Government of that position. It now appears for the first time that the Prime Minister had knowledge of a possible defection from the Russian Embassy at least as early as the 27th February, 1954. That emerged in his statement for the first time when it was revealed that departmental heads had been told to look out for a defection. The Prime Minister said that only two departmental heads were told. His exact words were -

I was myself told that there was the possibility of a defection, but the identity of the subject was not disclosed, nor did I ask for it.

Senator Spicer:

– Does the Leader of the Opposition think that the Prime Minister should have told the Parliament?

Senator McKENNA:

– I am making the point that on the 27th February, 1954, the right honorable gentleman was aware of a possible defection from the Russian embassy. He was not told the identity of the person and did not mention it. Curiosity is not one of the right honorable gentleman’s vices, apparently. I put to the Senate a picture of the Prime Minister - acute, imaginative, fully aware of the vast international repercussions that could come from a situation of this sort. He knew it was a rare and sensational affair. He has enough imagination to have known the full significance of it, but he did not trouble to ask, “Is it the office boy at the Russian embassy, or the Ambassador ? “ He did not ask. He did not want to know. How incomprehensible that is when one knows all the facts and circumstances ! How incomprehensible !

Senator O’Byrne:

– And how reprehensible.

Senator McKENNA:

– I would say that if the Prime Minister was not informed, during a whole period of three years, that the agent Biagoluski was cultivating Petrov and encouraging his defection, and if he was not told all about, the progress of the affair, it is time the security officers were taught their duty to their country and to their ministerial head.

Senator Guy:

– And to Parliament?

Senator McKENNA:

– Of course the Minister must know, and there must be ministerial responsibility in these matters. From my experience of the security service, as I knew it, the Prime Minister of the day was kept in the closest touch with every matter of moment and every move. I doubt very much whether that position has changed. If it has,- the sooner the security service is made to revert to the practice of keeping the Prime Minister fully informed of major developments of this sort that are pending, the better for everybody - the better for Australia and the better for democracy, too.

I shall go back now to another statement made by the Prime Minister this week regarding the dramatic opening of the proceedings before the Royal Commission on Espionage on 17th May. The Prime Minister indicated at page 7 of his prepared, type-written speech, that he had given directions to Mr. Windeyer, the counsel who was to address the commission at the opening on the 17th May. The Prime Minister stated in his speech -

I gave no directions except on four points.

Let somebody quibble about that! The right honorable gentleman gave directions on four points. What points? First, whether the Petrovs should be submitted to a press interview; secondly, regarding Madame Oilier; thirdly, the vastly interesting matter of the payment to the Petrovs of £5,000. The right honorable gentleman continued -

I did not know of this before. Mr. Windeyer said that to him the amount seemed small in the circumstances. I said it was a matter to be approved and approved publicly, and this should be done later in its proper setting when Petrov was examined.

What was that direction? It was a direction not to mention it on the 17th May. Let somebody put some other construction on that. There is the direction. The public of Australia was shocked when it learned of that payment very much later in the proceedings. The people were shocked, and the reason it was not put forward before is completely clear. The picture of Petrov, the ideological convert, would have been smashed and shattered, as it was the moment the truth was known. The Prime Minister indicated his directions on the night before the opening on the 17 th May of the commission’s sittings in that melodramatic, expensive Hollywood setting in the Albert Hall at Canberra. If he was giving directions, there was another one he should have given. He should have stated, “ This is the 17th May. There is to be an election on the 29th May. That is only twelve days away. I want this matter to go completely non-political. Therefore, hold that opening for twelve days.” What was the hurry? Why did the commission have to open on the 17th May with twelve days to go to a federal election?

The Prime Minister, posing as a purist in party politics, said the other night that he had written to all the Government candidates at the election telling them not to mention Petrov on the hustings. There was not the slightest need for him to do that. The royal commission, with the world looking at it and listening to it, was telling everybody about Petrov for three days at Canberra. There was no need for any candidate to do that.

Senator Gorton:

– Why should that hurt the honorable senator?

Senator McKENNA:

– Because of the completely false atmosphere that was created, and stunting in Australia-

Senator O’Byrne:

Senator O’Byrne interjecting,

The PRESIDENT:

– -Order ! Senator O’Byrne will remain quiet.

Senator Benn:

– So should honorable senators on the Government side of the chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I shall stop them from interjecting, too.

Senator McKENNA:

– On consideration, one can see that the Prime Minister had a far more effective thing to do than that. He has said that he asked his candidates and supporters not to mention Petrov on the hustings. I have no doubt that he did so, and I am prepared to believe that they acceded to his request. But what need was there for him to say a word about it, when the matter was being blazoned abroad, not only by every newspaper in Australia, but also by newspapers throughout the world? That was the whole purpose of that opening. One direction would have saved the bona ‘fides of the Prime Minister in this matter. He could have said, “ Hold it for twelve days “. But that direction was never given, and it is obvious why it was never given. The reason was ihe political advantage to be gained by spilling the Petrov story and creating the atmosphere, as the newspapers did, that Petrov was in fear of his life from Australians who thought that he might involve them. From the press stories of that time, one could picture thousands of Australians rushing to smother Petrov for fear that he would tell about their aid in spying. That helped to create an atmosphere that was distinctly unhealthy, and it was designed to do so.

It is very interesting that the £5,000 was not mentioned on the 17th May, and in the light of the Prime Minister’s statement, it is now completely clear why it was not mentioned. It was withheld at the direction of the Prime Minister. I am afraid that I have spoken for longer than I intended when I began, but perhaps I may be pardoned by reason of the fact that there is so much matter to be traversed. There are so many aspects of this affair that one can only make a selection, and of course, one thing leads to another. I conclude by saying that this exploitation for political purposes has damaged not only our security service but also our international relations and our trade; in addition, it has caused a great deal of unnecessary and unfair concern to many individuals in our community. Finally, I put it that it is one more blunder, on a large scale, in the record of a government which is becoming exceedingly famous for blunders.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– We have just listened to one of the most remarkable speeches that I have ever heard the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) make in this chamber. The first part of the speech, I felt, was his own. He was expressing his own sincere views upon the report of the Petrov commission, and it was the most damning vote of censure against his leader in the House of Representatives that any man possibly could have made. He accepted all the findings of the Petrov commission. There was’ not a word from the honorable senator about these being forged documents with which the commission dealt. He did not call in the aid of Mr. Molotov to indicate the nature of these forgeries. Not a bit of it! He accepted the whole of the findings of the commission. But he spoilt all of that to yards the end of his speech because, apparently, he had to do something in accordance with his leader’s running instructions. At that stage, he got completely off the rails.

After the remarks made by the honorable senator, in the earlier stages of his speech, about the security service, and what we had to thank the security service for, I must say I was amazed when, towards the end, he said that the appointment of this commission had done damage to the security service of Australia. I say to him that if any of the events which have taken place in relation to this commission have caused damage to the security service, they arose directly out of the acts of his own leader in another place. No man in this country has done more to harm the security service, if he could, than has the leader of tie Australian Labour party.

I wish to say a word or two about some of the important aspects of this report. As the Leader of the Opposition indicated, the report establishes that, for many years, the Soviet Government had been using its embassy here in Canberra as a cloak under which to control and operate espionage activities in Australia. The report indicates that the principal target of those activities was the Department of External Affairs and also that, in the main, the Australians whom the Russians were able to get to assist them in those activities were mainly Communists and Communist sympathizers. Since 1949, as the commission points out, they have found that work more and more difficult to undertake because of the existence of a vigilant and inquisitive security service. The Leader of the Opposition tried to pass all that off by saying, “ Well, after all, they did not find many people here who were willing to undertake this work on behalf of the Soviet Government “. That is true, if the matter is considered in relation to the population of Australia, but they found far too many people in close association with the then Minister for External Affairs, and with the External Affairs Department. I should think, from my reading of the report, that an undue proportion of the people associated with these activities were to be found in and around the office of the Minister for External Affairs and the Department of External Affairs itself.

Senator Vincent:

– Where none should have been found.

Senator SPICER:

– As the honorable senator says, in those quarters there should not have been any found at all.

The Leader of the Opposition made some comment about the cost of this commission. He said that it cost £160,000.

Senator Benn:

– He said £140,000.

Senator SPICER:

– Very well- £140,000. I accept the correction. I should hate to misrepresent the Leader of the Opposition on this occasion. If we are going to speak in money terms, it is worth while to consider one or two important matters that this commission disclosed, things that did not happen in this country perhaps because Petrov defected, it is amazing to find the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Dr. Evatt) telling us that there was no security ground for this inquiry and that, in fact, it has been destructive of the national security of Australia. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate seemed to repeat the latter part of that allegation in the Senate to-night. The appointment of the commission was unanimously supported by the Labour party in this Parliament.

Senator O’Byrne:

– What about the false pretences?

Senator SPICER:

– I would like to know when the false pretences were committed.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The facts were not given to the Labour party.

Senator SPICER:

– On two occasions, the Labour party endorsed this inquiry, [n April, 1954, Labour unanimously supported the bill that established the commission, and in August, 1954, another bill was introduced to give legal effect to the Order-in-Council that named the members of the commission. In other words, the Parliament not only endorsed the creation of the royal commission but, by an act, endorsed the appointment of the commissioners. Those two bills were supported by all members of the Labour party in this Parliament.

Senator Sandford:

– We know all that. Tell us something about the commission.

Senator SPICER:

– I Will tell you something about it.

Senator Sandford:

– The Minister is hard to listen to.

Senator SPICER:

– If Senator1 Sandford finds me hard to listen to, he can go outside. I want to consider two cases in particular, which revealed beyond all possible doubt the great advantages that flowed to this country from the defection of Mr. Petrov. The Leader of the Labour party is, I think, one of those who believe that if it had not been for the defection of Petrov, the Labour party might have won the last general election. I do not think it would have done so.

Senator Courtice:

– Labour was not far behind the Government parties.

Senator SPICER:

– As a matter of fact, the Labour party really thought that it was there. But let us assume for a moment that Mr. Petrov had not defected, and that the leader of the Labour party had attained his life-long ambition and had become the Prime Minister of this country. Who would have been his press secretary ?

Senator Sandford:

– Bob Menzies!

Senator SPICER:

Mr. Fergan O’Sullivan would have been occupying quarters in the Prime Minister’s rooms in this building, where he would have been able to read all kinds of secret documents and then take secret information to the Soviet embassy. He had been in Dr. Evatt’s employ for about twelve months.

Senator Tangney:

– Not that long.

Senator SPICER:

– I am not concerned with how long he was in Dr. Evatt’s employ. The fact remains that Fergan O’Sullivan was in the employ of the present leader of the Labour party at the time that Petrov defected, and he was in the employ of Dr. Evatt at the time of the last general election. If Petrov had not defected, Fergan O’Sullivan would, still have been Dr. Evatt’s press secretary - and Dr. Evatt would have been Prime Minister of Australia !

Senator Vincent:

– And still selling out his country!

Senator SPICER:

– What sort of a man was he ? The Leader of the Opposition in this chamber would have us believe that the royal commission really did not discover very much after all, but it did discover that Dr. Evatt had in his employ, in the capacity of press secretary, a man who was prepared to go to the Russian embassy and supply the embassy officials with the names of people he believed to be engaged in the security service of Australia. The security service, as Senator McKenna was so proud to prove to his satisfaction, had been established by Mr. Chifley.

Senator Tangney:

– Was not Fergan O’Sullivan a member of the staff of the Sydney Morning Herald when he did that?

Senator SPICER:

– That is not the point. It is perfectly true that it was when he was on the staff of that newspaper that he gave information to the Soviet embassy as to the names of people whom he believed to be in the security service, but surely it was not excusable for a member of the Sydney Morning Herald staff to do a thing like that. The honorable senator must realize that it was about the meanest and lowest thing that any person calling himself an Australian citizen could do.

Senator Gorton:

– Was not Dr. Evatt warned about him by the security service ?

Senator SPICER:

– If honorable senators examine this report carefully, they will discover that, because of what Fergan O’Sullivan did, he was well known in July, 1954. As Mrs. Petrov herself said, he was on the “ little hook “. It was recognized in the embassy itself, and it was discussed in the embassy itself, that he was a man of great potential use, because he might be the press secretary to the future Prime Minister of Australia. In those circumstances, the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber would have us believe that the Soviet embassy was not engaged in any serious espionage operations, that these were only comic opera operations, when in fact, an attempt was being made to get to a man who was likely to become the press secretary to the Prime Minister of Australia.

Senator Tangney:

– Why did not the security service warn Dr. Evatt ?

Senator SPICER:

– He was warned, but that did not make any difference. I say this : No man in Australia should be more thankful for the defection of Petrov than Dr. Evatt because, as a result of the defection of Petrov, he was saved from being put in the horrible position of being a Prime Minister who was employing a press secretary who was taking the secrets of the country up to the Soviet embassy.

Senator Vincent:

– Honorable senators opposite do not like that one.

Senator Guy:

– Yet the commission found out nothing !

Senator SPICER:

– As Senator Guy says, we are asked to believe that the commission found out nothing.

Senator Vincent:

Mr. Molotov said that it was not true !

Senator SPICER:

– I have there indicated one way in which this commission revealed that the defection of Petrov was responsible for saving Australia from a very great evil indeed. I shall cite another illustration - I could cite dozens of them - which is related to a foreign country. I suggest in all seriousness - and I think this will be agreed with by any one who reads this report and properly understands it - that if it had not been for the defection of Petrov it is not impossible, at least, that the Russian embassy in Australia would have gained a knowledge of the French secret ciphers.

Senator Tangney:

– What rot !

Senator SPICER:

– I suggest that thai is not impossible. The Russian embassy was trying to learn it.

Senator Tangney:

– But it did not get it.

Senator SPICER:

– That is so, but th* report says that the Russian embassy was trying to get it. The lady from whom the Russian embassy was trying to obtain certain information did not, as I read the report of what happened in France, deny that there had been conversations on the subject. As I understand the position, she did not deny that she had received a watch. In other words, she was another one on the “little hook”. She did not deny - in fact, she admitted, as I understand it - that meetings did take place in Cooma at the time that Petrov said they took place. It is not surprising in those circumstances that although she was not convicted of the offence with which she was charged, after having been in gaol for two or three months anyway, the judge should make some remarks about the fact that she seemed to be a bit naive; and the talks about the cyphers might well have been the beginning of something the Russians were trying to obtain. I suggest one gets satisfaction from the fact that at least that little enterprise they started on was not successful and was rendered completely impossible of success by the defection of Petrov. So. it was well worth while.

I do not propose to follow all the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition on this subject in another place. He would have us believe that the commissioners were all wrong, that they were dealing with documents that were obviously forgeries and that they should have discovered that fact. Everybody in the place was wrong but Dr. Evatt. I want to refer to one or two aspects of his approach to problems according to whether the person concerned happens to be a Communist or somebody else. He said that the findings of the commission were all wrong because in some places it acted on hearsay evidence. It does not matter how convincing the evidence is, one should not find a Communist guilty or suspect of anything on hearsay evidence. One should not make a finding against Clayton unless one can prove beyond all reasonable doubt by legal evidence before a jury of twelve that he committed some offence of espionage. That is Dr. Evatt’s approach when he is dealing with Communists.

Senator Courtice:

– Is that not British justice?

Senator SPICER:

– We will see all about British justice; but that is the approach of Dr. Evatt when he is concerned with the activities of Communists. And he poses as a great champion of justice and charity ! Why, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate said to-night that more un-Christian things had been done in connexion with this commission than he cared to think about ! I agree that he is not far wrong. A mighty lot of them have been done by Dr. Evatt. Let us consider his approach to the question of whether Clayton is guilty or not guilty. He says in effect, “Ah! No finding against Clayton unless it is proved by legal evidence right up to the hilt beyond all possible doubt “. But he can make the wildest allegations against the Prime Minister, against the three honorable judges who sat on the commission, against the barristers who assisted the commission and against the security service which was established by his predecessor. He can make the wildest allegations against all those people without a tittle of evidence to support them. It is one of the most disgraceful episodes in Australian history. For a man with his legal training who has held the offices that he has held, to make such charges is a disgrace to the profession to which he belongs.

Senator Ryan:

– He has answered that.

Senator SPICER:

– I have no doubt he would answer anything, but the people of Australia will not take any notice of him. Let us examine this for a moment or two. We have heard a lot about it and it is still persisted in. In regard to the documents which the commission accepted as being genuine Moscow documents, Dr. Evatt, without any evidence whatever to support him, says that they were cooked up by some one in Australia.

Senator Vincent:

– With the knowledge of the Attorney-General.

Senator SPICER:

– At any rate, by the security service working in collusion with the Petrovs. One would expect, if the standards followed by me in relation to the security service that the Leader of the Opposition suggested should be maintained-

Senator Vincent:

– The AttorneyGeneral should be behind the bars?

Senator SPICER:

– Apparently, . not only I, but also the Prime Minister, the leaders of the security service - and, for good measure, Dr. Evatt threw in the three reputable judges who sat on the commission - should be behind the bars. Nothing more fantastic has been conceived in this country, and no more disgraceful allegations have been made with no evidence whatever to support them.

One could go on talking about these matters for a long time, but I do not desire to take up a great deal of time on this occasion. However, I should like to say something about the suggestion that there was some kind of conspiracy. The Leader, of the Opposition in the Senate himself made this suggestion - they have all got this conspiracy complex - that there was some kind of conspiracy, or something underhand, in the way the security service started off in April, 1954, that in some way we used it to our advantage at the elections in May, 1954. It is asked: Why did we not mention the £5,000 before, those elections? If even the name of O’Sullivan had been mentioned as being associated with the kind of activity that he was proved to be associated with, I do not think there is the slightest doubt that Dr. Evatt would not have been returned as the member for Barton. It was a pretty poor sort of a conspiracy to engage in, was it not, if we had all this material? We only had to mention, or whisper, a name. I suggest that if we had done so there would have been the most serious reaction against the Australian Labour party. But we did not mention the names of any of them. The Prime Minister maintained a standard of conduct in relation to this matter for which he ought always to be honoured by the Australian people. We have nothing to be ashamed of in connexion with any of the activities in regard to the appointment of the commission and its operation from first to last. A lot of fuss is being made now about the opening of the commission in Canberra. It is suggested that there was something of a fanciful character about those proceedings. I was never so proud in relation to proceedings of this kind as on the day after the opening in Canberra when I. happened to meet in Melbourne the president of the American Bar Association, Mr. Morris, who has since died. He was visiting in Australia, and had been present at the opening of the Petrov royal commission in Canberra. He went out of his way to praise the dignity with which the proceedings were conducted, and the great care that was taken that no harm should be done unfairly to any individual. One could not but feel proud that in Australia these proceedings should win such high praise from such a quarter.

The security service has been most unfairly slandered by the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator Vincent:

– By the guilty man.

Senator Courtice:

– That is a slander.

Senator SPICER:

– The Leader of the Opposition in another place is guilty of uttering slander against the security service, but the members of that service have uttered no slander against the Leader of the Opposition. The people of Australia have every reason to be proud of them. They did a wonderful job in connexion with the Petrov defection and displayed skill, imagination, foresight and tact.

Senator Benn:

– And spent £5,000.

Senator SPICER:

– The result was cheap for £5,000. Honorable senators opposite have been talking a great deal of nonsense about the £5,000. Does the honorable senator suggest that the leaders of the security service would have been doing their job properly if they knew that this man would come over if he were certain of some security, and they did not offer something to him? He was giving up everything he had.

Senator Benn:

– He did not have much.

Senator SPICER:

– He was receiving a good salary at the Soviet embassy. It is of’ no use saying he did not have much.

Senator Benn:

– He was afraid to go back to Russia.

Senator SPICER:

– He had a very good salary in the Soviet embassy, and he was giving up everything to come over to us and put himself entirely in our hands. He was capable of giving information which was useful, not only to Australia, but also to our allies throughout the world. Does the honorable senator suggest that in those circumstances the opportunity should have been lost to have this man come over and give this valuable information to the Australian security service because we would not provide him with a little certain security as to what his future position would be? That is all that it amounted to. It was a poor substitute for the income he was receiving, and which he could have continued to earn at the. Soviet Embassy. If the security service had not been prepared to take that step to get him, I say without hesitation that the director of the security service should have been dismissed for ineptitude.

In spite of all that the right honorable member for Barton in another place (Dr. Evatt) has had to say, I believe the Australian people realize that they owe a great debt to the men engaged in the security service. Some time ago, as honorable senators know, I had the great privilege of going overseas, and while there I interviewed some of the gentlemen engaged in the same kind of activity in Great Britain and the United States of America. They were full of praise for the job our men had done. Not only did they appreciate their efficiency, but also the immense amount of useful material that it had brought to light for us and for them. The least we can do is to express our appreciation to them for the services they have rendered.

Lt is a source of satisfaction to me that the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber (Senator McKenna) has not been prepared to follow the leader of his party in making wild allegations, and I regard that as evidence of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition in another place in this matter, as always, has been entirely off the track.

Senator COLE:
Leader of the Anti-Communist Labour party · Tasmania

– One impression I gained from the speech of Senator McKenna this evening is that he had been given the hardest brief of his career. I was waiting to hear a little about the conspiracy that has been bandied about Australia to the detriment of a great number of good Labour supporters. The honorable senator referred to traitors in Australia, and was thankful that there were not very many of them. He said that those traitors were Communists. How does the honorable senator reconcile himself to the fact that throughout the Petrov royal commission his party leader was a champion of the Communists, and therefore of traitors? Senator McKenna spoke about the security service, and took great credit for the fact that the Chifley Government had brought it into being. I know that that was done as a matter of necessity, and although the honorable senator praised it, the fact remains that last week it was insulted and derided by his leader in another place. It is important that the people of Australia should appreciate the value of this royal commission. Most people who wish to deride it say, “ Look at the money it cost. Nobody was caught, 30 what value was it?” I know that it cost £140,000, but I remind honorable senators that at least £40,000 of that sum was incurred as a result of the intervention in the proceedings by Dr. Evatt. The Liberal party may believe that that £40,000 was well spent because it brought about the disintegration of the Australian Labour party.

Now let us consider whether the Royal Commission on Espionage in Australia was worth while. To my way of thinking, it certainly was. It made the public aware, and the public needed to be made aware, of the system of espionage that was being conducted in Australia. We Australians are too easy-going. We do not take much notice of things of this description, but the royal commission’s inquiry has awakened the people to a realization of what can happen here in their midst in Australia. The commission showed that the Russian embassy was the centre of a spy ring. Not only did it do that, but it also got rid of the embassy, which was a very good job for Australia. The commission discovered that the agents of the spy ring were Communists and their fellow travellers, and that was a very very important matter, and is the reason for the ultimate disintegration of the Australian Labour party. The Labour party disintegrated because it allowed itself to form bonds of unity with such Communists.

The royal commission’s inquiry drove out the legal apparatus for espionage which was trying to harm Australia, but which., thanks to our security service, did not have a great deal of success. However, to my mind, the most important point in connexion with the royal commission is that its inquiry made known to the people the illegal apparatus of espionage which is still functioning in Australia. The commission itself said -

Having regard to the importance of developments in Australia in relation to guided missiles and the like, it would be unwise to assume the G.R.U. operations in Australia ceased when Gordeev and Pavlov left, or that since the departure of the Embassy in 1054 there has not been a G.R.U. “ Illegal Apparatus “ operating.

I remind honorable senators that the G.R.U. is the illegal espionage apparatus that has been developed in this country. The report continued - . . Petrov expressed to us his firm opinion, based on his knowledge of Soviet espionage practice, that such an apparatus is still operating in Australia.

Now it is pertinent to ask who are the persons operating it. According to the findings of the royal commission, the people who are operating it are the Communists and their fellow travellers. The inquiry of the royal commission has made all these facts known to the people, and so it has shown itself to have been worth while. Furthermore, to my delight, it has got rid of the Russian embassy. It has been said that we have lost trade which is worth about £28,000,000 because Russia has ceased trading with us.

Russia does not trade with Australia for our sake, Russia trades with, us for its own sake. Russia wants our wool, and I am sure that we are not losing any sales of our wool because there is an apparent Russian embargo on the purchase of wool from this country. There is no doubt that Russia is buying our wool through other countries, and will continue so to buy it.

Another point is that the royal commission’s inquiry has allayed fears that the security service is not functioning satisfactorily. This organisation has shown to the people of Australia, and to the people of other nations, that Australia has a security service which is doing the job that it was designed to do, and that we can now be trusted with other countrys’ secrets. I am afraid that that was not the case in earlier years.

Another matter to be considered is that the £5,000 paid to the Petrovs was a small price to pay in order that the Australian people could be alerted to the danger that might come from the quislings in our midst. The worst part about the whole of that affair is that those quislings are Australian citizens. The amount of £5,000 was a small price to pay to alert the people to the fact that not only in other countries, but also here in Australia cities might be devastated through the actions of quislings who are ready to sell themselves to outside interests.

The royal commission proved beyond doubt the credibility of the Petrovs. In fact, it was exceedingly painstaking and careful to ascertain whether the Petrovs were reliable witnesses. I am not very keen on the fact that they were spies in this country who left the service of their own country, but because of that very fact, the royal commission had to examine with the greatest care everything that was put forward by the Petrovs. Nevertheless, the credibility of the Petrovs has been completely proved, as reports from overseas have indicated.

When the Petrov affair first became known the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) came into the ring, and his activities before the Royal Commission on Espionage caused, the rift in the Labour party. I, for one, and others also, do not desire to be tied to the heels of the Communists. We have fought them consistently. Why did Dr. Evatt enter the commission? There must have been a. reason for his doing so. The reason was that he was afraid. After he had heard what had happened in the ease of O’Sullivan, he was afraid that quite a lot was going to be dealt with by the commission, such as his handling of the Department of External Affairs during f lis term of office. When we come to look at it, we find that right through there was that nest of traitors in the Department of External Affairs. Petrov said to Richards between 1945 and 1948 thai there was a grave situation in the Department of External Affairs. The Communist party here had a. group of external affairs officers who were giving them official information. Members of the group were bringing copies of official documents which they gave to Communist party members. That was the position between 1945 and 1948. ls it any wonder that M.v. Chifley appointed a security service? When we look at the head of the Department of External Affairs, we find that we had as its head Dr. Burton, who rose very rapidly in the service, over the heads of men who, I should say, were more capable than he was, and more to be trusted with the security of Australia.

Senator O’Byrne:

Dr. Burton wa.= completely cleared by the commission.

Senator COLE:

– The whole of his associations are with Communists. As soon as he got there, he appointed Milner to a very important position in the Department of External Affairs. Where is Milner now? He is behind the iron curtain - a lecturer in Czechoslovakia. Milner carried on the work, and brought in J. P. Hills, a Communist. Can we wonder that Dr. Evatt, who was responsible for the workings of the department, was really afraid ? He was so afraid that he set about, without the knowledge of the Labour party, to tie that party to this Communist intrigue. What did this leader of the Labour party do? He sets himself up as the champion of justice, but the only justice that he tries to give is justice to the Communists, for whom he is fighting at the present time, and for whom he fought right through his speech in another place.

Senator O’Byrne:

– A vicious statement.

Senator COLE:

– He has been “ on the hook “ and he should thank his lucky stars that the Russian embassy left this country.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I forgive you, for you know not what you are saying.

Senator COLE:

– I know what I am saying. It was only in 1952 that the honorable senator who has interjected came before the Senate with evidence against a Yugoslav. Where did that evidence come from ? It came from Communist sources.

Senator O’Byrne:

– That is another slander.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– -It is true.

Senator COLE:

– That was proven by Senator Paltridge here in this chamber. This champion of justice sets out to give justice only to the Communists. He did not try to give justice at the Hobart conference. He did not believe in justice then. He was afraid he could not win, and so he denied justice even to members of his own party. He said that everything had to be proven up to the hilt before he would believe it. The accusations that he made to the Federal Executive were never proven, and never put to the test; yet this is the man who professes to believe in justice. The justice of the Hobart conference was the justice in which he believes. It may be that he had an ulterior motive, because at that conference there came into existence a foreign policy to which the Labour party is tied at the present time. What a woeful situation! There was the Burton policy, written out along the Communist line, brought before the ‘conference at Hobart. Those who were at the conference were tied and could not move. They had to accept that policy which had been enunciated by the Communists, because if one person present had spoken against it, that policy could not have been brought into existence. There were still only nineteen members representing Australia when there should have been 36.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The honorable senator is adopting Communist tactics by stabbing others in the back.

Senator COLE:

– I shall deal with that in a moment. I repeat that this man who preaches that justice must be done, never tries to dispense justice if it works against himself. Why is it that during Dr. Evatt’s speech he picked out a couple of cases, which he said were ordinary cases, and said he would deal with them ? Who were the two men that he tried to defend ? One was “Klod” Clayton and the other was Sharkey. Clayton is the real head of the espionage ring so far as the Australian public are concerned. Sharkey was a notorious Communist. He had to defend Clayton because Clayton was the go-between from his own Department of External Affairs. Sharkey needed defending because it was through him that a sum of money was paid into the campaign to defeat the Communist Party Dissolution Act. That money was paid in and Sharkey was reimbursed from Moscow. That proves once and for all that the Communist party is led by and suplied with funds to a great extent from an outside body. One amusing thing about the evidence before the Royal Commission on Espionage related to our friend, Bialoguski.

Senator O’Byrne:

– “The great lover “ they call him.

Senator COLE:

– He may be that. The point is that all the documents were to be proved to be forgeries. The person whom the Communist from Melbourne and the right honorable member for Barton had up their sleeves was none other than Bialoguski. He was the man who was to disprove all the terrible things that the Petrovs had to say. The right honorable member for Barton and his friends received one of the greatest shocks of their lives when they found that Bialoguski was a counter-espionage agent.

The inquiry by the Royal Commission on Espionage was well worth while. My only regret is that it put the Australian Labour party back so far.

Senator Kendall:

– That will be a good thing in the long run.

Senator COLE:

– It is not a good thing. The people will not have the confidence that they should have in the Australian.

Labour party, and it will not become a great force again until all its supporters can get together and select men who can be trusted not to play around with the enemies of Australia. Because of its effect on the Australian Labour party, I am sorry that the Royal Commission on Espionage was appointed. In the coming general election, the people will not be able to forget that the Leader of the Australian Labour party wrote to the Russian Foreign Minister, Molotov.

Senator O’Byrne:

– They cannot forget the cost of living either.

Senator COLE:

– The cost of living dost not affect anybody when a country is invaded.What is the use of a high standard of living in Australia if the country is to be sabotaged? When a prominent person writes to the Minister of a foreign power, like Molotov, and asks, “Do you think the Petrovs are telling lies ?”, he must expect that Molotov will say, “Yes”. It is not the first time this sort of thing has happened. The right honorable member for Barton has tried to contact the Russian Foreign Minister before.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Representatives of many countries are fraternizing with Molotov in Geneva to-day* What about them?

Senator COLE:

– Honorable senators should read an article that was written by Allan Reid. That shows what Dr. Evatt will do. I shall conclude on this note: It is time we set this affair to music. It should become the theme song for the coming election.

Senator O’Byrne:

– “Baby, it’s cold outside “.

Senator COLE:

– No, this is the couplet I suggest -

Just Molly and me,

And Burton makes three,

We’re happy in our Red Heaven.

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) put -

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 27

NOES: 16

Majority . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 824

CANBERRA

Report of Select Committee

Debate resumed from the 13th October (vide page 521), on motion by Senator McCallum -

That the report only be printed.

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales

.- I think it would be futile to open a debate on this matter, having regard to the limited time available. I hope that it will be possible to have a full debate on this subject next year.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 824

AUSTRALIAN ALUMINIUM PRODUCTION COMMISSION

Report of Public Accounts Committee

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

– On behalf of the Public Accounts Committee, I present the following report: -

Twenty-second Report - Australian Aluminium Production Commission - Part II. fart I. of this report already has been ordered to be printed, at the direction of cbe Senate. As honorable senators know, the Public Accounts Committee, in common with similar committees, will expire with the expiry of the life of the Parliament. The committee has made every effort to complete Part II. of this report, and presents it to-night in the form only of printer’s proofs, which have been checked, but which are not in final stapled form. Therefore, we are not in a position to circulate copies of Part II. of the report, as is usual once the motion for printing has been agreed to. I mention this matter out of courtesy to honorable senators, lest they should think that the committee has been careless or casual in this matter. On behalf of the committee, [ assure the Senate that, almost immediately the Parliament rises, and during the recess, copies of Part II. of the report, incorporating Part I., will be posted to honorable senators.

Ordered to be printed.

page 825

PRINTING- COMMITTEE

Senator HANNAFORD:

– As Chairman, I present the third report of the Printing Committee. The committee has the honour to report that it has met in conference with the Printing Committee of the House of Representatives. The joint committee, having considered the petitions and papers presented to the Parliament since the last meeting of the committee, recommends that the following papers be printed: -

Papua - Report for the year 1953-54.

War Service Homes Act- Annual Report foi the year 1954-55.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 825

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1955

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 be now read a second time.

This bill is quite short and very simple. It goes to no major matter of principle or policy and is designed to do two things : First, to relieve the Full Arbitration Court of the need to deal with a few categories of cases that come before the court, which the Government feels can appropriately be dealt with by a single judge, and secondly, to satisfy a request made to the Government by the Premier of Tasmania. I shall develop these two points a little.

Generally speaking, the jurisdiction of the court is exercised by a full court of not less than three judges. There are exceptions to this rule. Under the 1947 act, a single judge could exercise the court’s powers in respect of matters of practice and procedure. The disputed elections legislation of 1959 provided that election irregularities and the like could be dealt with by a single judge. Our 1952 legislation added a few more categories of cases, in which a single judge could act for the court.

For some time past, the Government has felt that single judges could, to the advantage of the functioning of our arbitration machinery, dispose of some of the less important cases that now occupy the time of the full court, and tend to delay its’ consideration of cases that really require a full bench. I may say that the Chief Judge advocated this same thing in a recent annual report.

Under normal circumstances, the Government would have preferred to bring forward its proposals after it had completed its review and consideration of a number of suggestions that are currently being put forward for what has been called the reform of our Arbitration system. The course events have run does not, however, permit this particular amendment to await the re-assembly of the Parliament. I refer here, in particular to the regrettable illness of the Chief Judge and Sir Edward Morgan. As of the moment, the court, which has seven judges, is reduced in effect to five - and two of these are principally engaged in particular jurisdictions.

What, therefore, the bill proposes is that, in future, a single judge will, instead of a full court of at least three judges, be able to exercise the court’s functions under sections 5, 29 (i) (e), 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the act. It may be that, in some particular case, a single judge would feel the issues involved of sufficient importance to warrant their consideration by a full bench. We have, accordingly, made provision for this in the bill.

Now, for the bill’s second purpose. Put very shortly, the Premier of Tasmania has asked that Section87 be amended. That section entitles a registered organisation to recover fines, fees, levies and dues from its members, in a court of competent jurisdiction constituted by a police stipendiary or special magistrate. The Premier of Tasmania has advised that a recent decision of the Supreme Court of his State means that there is no such court in Tasmania, and that an organisation would have to resort to the Full Arbitration Court to recover. We consider the Premier’s request should be met, and the bill satisfies it. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

page 826

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1955

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COOPER:
QueenslandMinister for Repatriation · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time. The National Health Act covers the provision of medical, hospital and pharmaceutical benefits, the provision of the free Pensioner Medical Service, as well as a full and complete range of medicines for pensioners. In addition, the act provides for all the machinery necessary to administer the National Health Scheme by a system of Committees. The extensive range of Commonwealth medical benefits are provided in the Schedule to the present act. Since the act was passed in 1953, it has operated with extraordinary smoothness, but with the advance of medical science, and as a result of experience, it is now desirable to make certain amendments. These amendments are in the bill which is now submitted. They will not alter any of the principles of the act, but they will smooth out a number of procedural and machinery problems that have arisen from time to time. It is essentially a committee bill. The necessity and significance of these amendments in maintaining and extending the whole of the national health system will be appreciated if I review briefly the results obtained over the last six years in our experience of the working of the various phases of the national health plan. Our programme has been carried out by the active, co-operative, and intelligent partnership of governments, hospitals and staffs, doctors, chemists, insurance organizations and individuals. This partnership encourages and stimulates self-help, which helps the whole community. It dovetails together the various phases of the health organization which act and interact cumulatively on one another to secure the best results for the sick and other elements of the partnership. Each partner has defined functions and obligations with the aim, within its specific field, of implementing measures to cure disease, shorten the duration of sickness, and to make the scheme pay more back to the community than it costs. It does this by saving lives, and by getting sick out of hospital and back to their normal occupations as quickly as possible.

An instance of how effectively the national health scheme is doing its job is that at the Canberra Community Hospital the number of daily occupied beds to-day is eight less than it was six years ago - this, despite an increase in Canberra’s population from 22,000 to 32,000, or an increase of 45 per cent. The average stay at the Canberra Community Hospital has dropped from fourteen days to nine days for each patient. This reflects the results of early diagnosis, provision of life-saving drugs, and skilled medical attention within the reach of all because of medical benefit insurance and the pensioner medical service. This scheme assists the prevention of disease, lessens the impact of sickness on the life, family and pocket of the individual, and aids hospital and State government revenues. la the ‘thirties, the Federal and the State governments subsidized the establishment of water and sewerage in country towns. This practically destroyed typhoid disease in Australia. Now, the prevention of disease is being further carried out by trebling expenditure on research, one result of which has been our knowledge and capacity to handle the Salk vaccine expertly. A grant of free milk for school children throughout Australia is being made. Two States had inaugurated a scheme on a small scale but now, as a result of Commonwealth assistance, 1,000,000 children throughout Australia are receiving free milk at school. This scheme gives children a healthier constitution, and saves the State governments more than £2,000,000 a year for this service.

Tuberculosis is being eradicated, and our programme has- already reduced mortality from 25 to ten per 100,000. Generous allowances for the acutely infective and mass X-rays for the community at large have resulted in the diagnosis and treatment of thousands of concealed cases, and lessening continuous infection of their families and fellowworkmen. The active disease is being arrested more rapidly each year. This programme is giving substantial help - £7,000,000 per year - to State governments. . The Commonwealth finds the whole of the capital expenditure associated with tuberculosis eradication, and 80 per cent, of maintenance expenditure.

During the last five years, the Government has been providing recommended life-saving drugs free, especially antibiotics, on a doctor’s prescription. These are most potent, and frequently very costly. The annual expense saved to patients is about £10,000,000 a year. This saving has been an immense boon to very ill persons, doctors feel free to prescribe the appropriate quantity to secure the best results. These drugs have had a marked effect on acute infectious diseases, sometimes completely aborting them and always cutting them apart. This saves many people going into hospital, and if they do have to go to hospital, they spend ks3 time there and are back to work sooner.

This provision of free life-saving drugs, together with the operation of the medical benefits insurance scheme, has revolutionized medicine in Australia, promoted earlier visits to doctors by the sick, earlier treatment, shortened the duration of the disease, and lessened complications, both immediate and remote, with a marked saving in hospitalization. The average has dropped from twelve to ten days in hospital per patient throughout Australia. More than 1,200,000 patients go into hospital each year, thus saving 2,400,000 hospital bed-days yearly. At £4 a day, this represents a saving of £9,600,000 to the community, which is almost the cost of providing free life-saving drugs. This free system is policed by doctors and chemists’ committees, which have already steadied costs of this phase of the health scheme.

The condition of the individual sick was first improved by providing free medical treatment and medicine for the most vulnerable section of the community - pensioners and their dependants. These are past their full earning capacity, either from age of sickness. Nearly 700,000 persons are covered by this service, or 8 per cent of the total community. Last year, over 4,500,000 free medical services were given to this group which, with appropriate medicines, cost £3,500,000. As only probably 10 per cent are sick at any one time, it means an addition of £.1 a week each to the pension benefit when it is most needed.

Even more valuable than the actual money benefit is the knowledge to the aged and ill that medical care is readily and freely available. The fact that pensioners can go and see a doctor or have him visit them at their homes, without charge to themselves, has already had a marked effect on the number going to hospital out-patient departments. The number of hospital beds occupied by pensioners who are usually a long time in hospital when admitted, is also lessened. This is reflected in fewer out-patients and a diminished use of in-patient beds. It has also influenced, over the whole of Australia, shorter average stays in hospital from twelve to ten days during the last four years. These shorter stays in hospital make the turnover of beds much quicker and, in fact, are really worth so many more actual beds to the hospital system. This service is ‘ on the way to paying for itself.

Historically and traditionally, the medical profession has always given special consideration to those in the community in unfortunate or indigent circumstances. The British Medical Association expressed its willingness to the federal Government to treat pensioner patients for a concessional fee, subject to alterations of the means test. This has been done since February, 1951. However, the liberalizing of the means test in 1954, and the ten shillings per week increase in each pension in 1955, made it possible for a married pensioner couple to have £15 a week joint income, including their pension. This is roughly £3 a week greater than the basic wage. The anomaly was created, that this income was above the wages of many hundreds of thousands of young working men with families, who do not receive concessional medical treatment, but who mostly provide for their medical attention by some form of insurance. To overcome this anomaly the Government has decided, and the British Medical Association has agreed, that all pensioners will be entitled to continue to receive free concessional medical treatment so long as they have been received into the pensioner medical service by the 31st October, 1955. This ensures that no pensioners who have become entitled to free pensioner medical treatment will be excluded. All new pensioners after the 31st’ October, 1955, will be subjected to satisfying the means test as it was in December, 1953, insofar a* the Pensioner Medical Service is concerned. After the 31st October, 1955, a pensioner’s eligibility for admission to the pensioner medical service will be governed solely by the amount of his income from all sources, apart from his pension. Under the means tests in force at the 31st December, 1953, a pensioner could have a specified amount of income, usually known as “ permissible income “, and still receive a full pension: He still will be able to get an entitlement card for pensioner medical treatment.

Where the pension is granted after the 31st October, 1955, and the pensioner’s income from all sources,’ apart from his pension, does not exceed the specified permissible income under the 1953 means tests, he will be admitted to the pensioner medical service. If his income, other than pension, exceeds the specified permissible income, he will not be eligible for the pensioner medical service. For this purpose, income from property will be taken into account, but not the capital value of the property itself. Except for married couples, and certain invalid pensioners who are permanently blind, the 1953 means tests specify £2 a week as the permissible income from all sources that a pensioner may have and still receive, in addition, a full pension.

In the case of married couples, the normal social services practice of taking the income of each to be half the total income of both will be followed. Consequently, where both are pensioners, the permissible income that they may have between them, in addition to their two full pensions, would be £4 a week, or £12 a week in all. Where only one is a pensioner, the permissible income that they may have between them, in addition to the one full pension, would be £5 a week, or £9 in all. The following examples illustrate the effect that the proposed amendment will have in the vast majority of cases : -

Government subsidy of the medical benefits insurance permits substantial benefits to be given for relatively small premiums. The fact that only a small portion of the fee has to be paid by the patient has already had a marked psychological effect on the attitude of the sick in seeking early treatment, with corresponding early diagnosis, curtailment of the duration of the disease and a shorter stay in hospital. This system thus helps to create a beneficial circle in which sickness is shortened, money is saved in bills for medicine, doctors and hospital treatment, and the patient returns to work earlier. This is of great direct value to the nation with over-full employment when there are more jobs than people.

Last year, in addition to the £10,000,000 worth of free life-saving drugs, the payment of £13,000,000 worth of medical costs was assisted by the medical benefits scheme. The percentage still paid by the patient varies according to the States, especially with the interest of the various State governments in insurance.

Government benefit payable for particular medical services is specified in the schedules to the National Health Act. Revision, in light of experience of the last two years, has provided for new medical procedures which have been brought under notice. The revised schedules are included in this bill. The alterations made are not substantial and do not affect the benefit payable for the more common services. A statement showing the details of the changes will be available for any member who would like to examine these details.

Encouragement is given to hospital insurance by a subsidy of 12s. a day for each day of hospitalization to every one insured for at least 6s. a day. The great bulk of people are insured for much more than this. The proportion varies in different States and in different hospitals. In the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital 88 per cent, of paying patients are insured.

As a result of this combination of assistance to the States and insurance organizations, the financial position of hospitals throughout Australia has greatly improved. Hospital revenues from fund and Federal Government sources have increased from about £6,500,000 to £13,500,000 and are still rising. Previous to the scheme, beds which were kept vacant because staff could not be paid, are now being fully used. Provision of separate beds for tuberculosis cases under the Federal Government’s tuberculosis scheme has taken out some 1,200 patients from the general hospital list, and will ultimately take out 2,800. The pensioner, medical benefit and free life-saving drugs schemes have lessened the call on hospitals and shortened the number of days spent by the average patient in hospital. These improvements have, unfortunately, not yet completely overcome the lag in hospital building that occurred during and after the war. It has, however, permitted a great many more people to be hospitalized than otherwise would have been the case. The number of waiting cases has also been lessened.

This is a broad picture of the working of the scheme. Everyone’s problem is how to maintain its full working. Then the sick will have available the best treatment at reasonable cost, without abuse, by the working of the partnership in which there must be co-operation of individuals, doctors, insurance organizations and friendly societies, hospitals, chemists and States. Benefits are of two types. One is free. One is given by insurance made cheap by government subsidy. Abuse must be prevented in both types.

The education departments control the issue of free milk in their ordinary routine and waste is avoided. In tuberculosis we have clinical tests as to the condition of the patient. In the pensioner medical service and free life-saving drugs scheme, control to prevent waste and fraud is more difficult. Disciplinary committees, both of doctors and chemists, have been brought into existence to give this control.

These committees are specially provided for by the National Health Act. The medical services committees consist of doctors appointed by the Minister from panels nominated by the British Medical Association. Any cases of suspected irregularity or abuse are referred to the committee by the Director-General of Health. The committee then examines the case and gives the doctor the opportunity to make a personal explanation. Should it be found that the doctor has not observed proper standards, an appropriate punishment is recommended to the Minister. A similar procedure operates in relation to chemists in connexion with the supply of free life-saving drugs and medicines for pensioners. ‘ Experience already shows that the very existence of the committees is an invaluable check on abuse. Experience also shows the percentage of cases which require disciplinary action by the committees is extraordinarily small. The overwhelming majority of doctors co-operate in the conduct of the scheme without any suggestion of irregularity.

Insurance subsidized by the Commonwealth Government qualifies for the second type of hospital and medical benefit. There has been very little abuse of the hospital and medical benefit schemes because of the checks imposed; first, by the fact that the insurance organization must pay its own benefit with the Commonwealth benefit and, second, by the fact that the total fund and Commonwealth benefit is slightly less than the actual account. Nevertheless, it has been thought wise to provide for the establishment of similar hospital and medical benefit committees, which will have power to investigate any irregularities which may occur. The establishment of these committees is provided for in this bill.

The essence of insurance is that it gives a sense of individual security as well as averaging individual costs over the whole community. The patient knows exactly what premiums he will pay, what benefits be will get, what the government benefit will be and what he will have to pay the hospital or doctor over and above government and insurance benefits. Government benefit will remain constant. The insurance benefit can bc elastic. It is obvious there must be no sudden changes in charges or else the insurance companies cannot work.

Doctors and chemists, as well as individuals, are all concerned with this problem of getting some certainty, and constant definition as regards charges. Government benefit is fixed. A fairly constant ceiling of charges by doctors and hospitals will greatly stimulate insurance. If any change in charges is contemplated, several months’ notice - or, even better, a year - ought to be given to enable fresh insurance rates and premiums to be calculated and advertised.

Enough has been said to show that a comprehensive health scheme without nationalization is practicable. The suc cessful operation of a voluntary system relies largely on the idea of a faithful partnership of government, doctors, chemists, insurance organizations and the individuals of the community. This great national health scheme has had a splendid, even a spectacular, beginning. The scheme is worth preserving. It is now assured of a successful future if each and every one of its partners works, for stability and orderly development. It may now be useful for me to sum up what is expected from the partners to ensure the preservation and continued progress of the scheme.

First, there is the role of the medical profession, around which so much of the scheme revolves. In the field of medical benefits through prepaid insurance, an important objective is to achieve some stability in medical charges so that insured patients have a measure of certainty as to their commitments when stricken by sickness. On the whole, the medical profession has set a splendid example of restraint and good sense in this matter. The leaders of the profession are, in fact, now taking action with a view to maintaining such relationship between medical fees and benefits as would ensure the continuance of the popularity of the national health scheme.

The profession must also continue to accept its responsibilities in respect of such aspects a3 the hospital benefits scheme and the pensioner medical service as concern it. For instance, the doctor decides whether a patient should be admitted to hospital and when he should be discharged. Unless this decision is made in a responsible manner, there will be a harmful effect, not only on the hospitals, but also on the hospital and medical benefits organizations. Higher premiums or lower benefit rates must ultimately result. Insofar as the pensioner medical service is concerned, the main problem is to eliminate abuse.

The supply of free life-saving drugs calls for a careful exercise of judgment by the individual medical practitioner in diagnosing and prescribing. The supply of these drugs by the pharmaceutical profession is carried out under agreements which enable the chemist to supply these expensive and important drugs under the best possible conditions.

I am happy to report that the leaders of the medical and pharmaceutical professions are highly appreciative of all these problems. They give much time and thought to their consideration, and are fully co-operative in the provision of measures such as the establishment of medical and pharmaceutical committees to deal with these matters.

The States have been fulfilling very useful functions as partners in the national health scheme. State machinery is used for the distribution of free milk to children. Because of the stability of the education systems within the States, this phase should continue to operate smoothly. The States are also assisting in the hospital benefit scheme through the provision of hospitalization certificates, and such other information as is required. However, the sudden sharp increases in hospital fees without sufficient warning, such as happened recently in New South Wales, has a disquieting effect on the hospital benefit scheme and is to be depreciated.

The registered health benefit organizations have a very important role in the national health scheme. These funds, which now cover millions of people for medical and hospital benefits, inevitably had “ growing pains “ in the initial stages. They are to be complimented for the manner in which they came through and for the service they now render to their contributors. I would urge them to continue the happy relationship in their dealings with the Health Department and to handle benefit payments liberally and tolerantly within their financial resources. They must not, however, lose sight of the fact that they are trustees for the contributors.

The contributor, as represented by the man in the street, is the most important one to consider. It was for him and his family that the scheme was evolved. He is the barometer who shows the degree of popularity of the scheme. I should like to impress three things on the contributor. First, the funds belong to him; secondly, the managements are not out to deprive him of any legitimate benefits to which he is entitled; thirdly, while every encouragement is given to seek medical attention when ill, including early diagnosis and immediate courses of treat ment, unnecessary medical and hospital treatment imposes on the funds, the doctors and the hospitals, and must ultimately reflect itself in either higher premiums or lower rates of benefit.

The Australian Government has had several roles to play in the service. There have been, of course, the initial planning, the negotiations with interested bodies, and the implementation of the service. The continuing participation of the Commonwealth consists of the direct arranging of medical services and medicines for the most indigent class - that is, pensioners and their dependants - the provision of free milk for children, the provision of free life-saving drugs for the community in general, and the provision of hospital and medical benefits in the form of subsidies to encourage voluntary prepaid health insurance. Then, in some phases of the service, the Commonwealth acts as co-ordinator and watch-dog, leaving it to the partners to carry out the major part of the administration. The principal aim now is to consolidate our position, to eradicate any weaknesses of the service as disclosed by experience, and build up on the solid foundation laid.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 831

LOAN (CANADIAN DOLLARS) BILL 1955

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

.- I move-

That the bill now be read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to obtain parliamentary approved for a borrowing in Canada by the Commonwealth of 15,000,000 Canadian dollars and to seek appropriation of the proceeds. This loan represents a new venture for both Canada and Australia. It is the first loan raised by an Australian Government in Canada. It is also a new kind of operation for the Canadian market, being the first public bond issue ever floated solely in Canada by a foreign government. This reflects the high credit standing which this country enjoys overseas. The possibility of the Government raising a loan in Canada was mentioned to the Treasurer when he was in North America last year, attending the annual meeting of governors of the International Monetary Fund and International Bank. Subsequently the proposal was carried further by discussion and correspondence and he was able to conduct the final negotiations personally in Toronto shortly before returning to Australia recently.

The reception of this loan in Canada was most enthusiastic. Although the amount, about £A.6,750,000, is not particularly large, it was in the nature of a pioneering approach to a market unaccustomed to foreign lending. The loan was opened for public subscription on the 7th October, and within an hour the books were closed oversubscribed. This was a remarkable result, and is a token of the keen appreciation in Canada of Australia’s economic progress and potential.

The bill now before the Senate provides the necessary legal framework for the loan. It is designed to approve the borrowing and the issue of securities, to set up machinery for using the loan proceeds to assist the development of our resources and to provide for the servicing and repayment of the loan. The loan underwriting agreement and the form of securities, which are reproduced as schedules to this bill,, contain the terms and conditions of the loan.

The loan has been raised to assist Australia’s development programme, and the proceeds will be used to assist in financing capital expenditure from the loan programme approved by the Australian Loan Council for 1955-56, for Commonwealth and State governments. In recent years the Government has financed most of its public works expenditures from revenue, thus making available a greater volume of loan funds for development projects being financed by the States. These include a wide range of works such as construction of facilities for steam and hydro-electric power generation, construction of dams for water conservation, flood control and irrigation purposes, drainage schemes, railway construction and maintenance, and construction of port facilities, roads, houses, hospitals and schools. It is to essential works of this nature that the proceeds of the Canadian loan will be applied.

Very large amounts of capital investment are required to ensure the continuation of our economic expansion and consolidation of our prosperity; and the greater part of this is being financed from domestic financial resources. However, oversea capital has a very useful part to play in supplementing local sources of finance and thus enabling our economic expansion to proceed more quickly and with less strain on the economy. With this in view, it has been the policy of the Government to borrow overseas as opportunities for borrowing on reasonable terms have arisen. Including this new Canadian issue the Government has raised £134,000,000 of new money overseas since coming into office, including £115,000,000 from four loans from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and £12,000,000 in Switzerland.

Honorable senators will appreciate that as well as facilitating our development plans, loans from abroad help to build our reserves of foreign currencies. The Canadian dollar is one of the world’s strongest currencies and it has been exchanging at a small premium over the United States dollar for some four years now. Our external debt is not large for an economy of the size of our own. It is less than 15 per cent, of gross national product, and this proportion is less than one-half of what it was ten years ago. Total interest payments on foreign debt of Australian public authorities are less than 3 per cent, of our total current external earnings. I may mention that during the early 1930’s we were devoting more than 30 per cent, of our external earnings to servicing our oversea debt.

Approval by the Australian Loan Council was obtained before the loan underwriting agreement and related documents were signed. The main terms and conditions of the borrowing were as follows : -

Interest at the rate of 4 per cent, per annum, payable half-yearly. Duration of loan, fifteen years.

Issue price to the public 98-J to yield approximately 4.13 per cent.

Payments of interest and capital are to be free of Australian taxes for bondholders not resident in Australia. This is in accordance with our existing income tax laws.

The loan agreement gives details of the underwriting and other costs of the borrowing to be met by the Commonwealth, the responsibilities of the underwriters, arrangements for the provision of a prospectus, the procedure for delivery of the bonds, and the appointment of a fiscal agent responsible for making interest and sinking fund payments on behalf of the Commonwealth. The form of securities sets out the sinking fund and redemption provisions relating to the loan.

The loan agreement provides that the bonds shall be delivered to the underwriters on the 1st November, when the cash proceeds of the borrowing will be handed over to the Commonwealth. The Government will then sell the net Canadian dollar proceeds to the Commonwealth Bank for Australian currency. The latter will be placed in the loan fund, and the bill now under consideration authorizes the transfer of the Australian currency proceeds from the loan fund to a proposed new trust account to be known as the Canadian Loan Trust Account. Subsequently, they will be invested in Commonwealth loans, thus assisting the loan programme approved by the Australian Loan Council for the current financial year.

The Canadian Loan Trust Account will provide the necessary sinking fund payments which are annual amounts of 500,000 dollars in each of the thirteen years 1957 to 1969 inclusive. When the time comes for these sinking fund payments, and for the final repayment, the trust account investments will be realized to provide funds for that purpose. Interest received from the investment of the loan proceeds may be paid into the trust account, as provided for in the bill, and will be used, as necessary, to meet any possible deficiency between the amount to be placed in the trust account and the amount ultimately required to meet repayment of the loan. The net proceeds, which will be placed in the trust account, represent the gross amount of the loan less discount, underwriting and other flotation expenses. Other amounts paid into thi’ trust account must be sufficient to meet these flotation expenses and, in addition, provision must be made for possible movements in exchange rates which might increase the cost to the Commonwealth of repaying the loan in due course. To the extent that it is not found necessary te build up the trust account in this way. the interest on the trust account’s investments will be credited to Consolidated Revenue. Moreover, as provided in thiAudit Act, any balance which might remain in the trust account after repaying the loan would be transferred back to Consolidated Revenue. Because of these arrangements it will not be necessary to make normal sinking fund contributions in respect of this loan, and the bill, accordingly, exempts the loan from the provisions of the National Debt Sinking Fund Act. Half-yearly interest payments on the loan will be met from Consolidated Revenue.

It is particularly gratifying to join as a partner in a transaction of this kind with another member of the Commonwealth. We have a long tradition of friendship with the Canadian people, and - I welcome this loan, which will strengthen our economic relationships and be of great benefit to both countries. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 833

LOAN CONSOLIDATION AND’ INVESTMENT RESERVE BILL 1955

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill Con motion by Senator SPOONER read a first time.

Second Reading

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

.- I moveThat the bill be now read a second time.

In his budget speech on the 24th August last, the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) indicated that legislation would be brought down to establish a trust account, to be named the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve, and that hu amount of £4S,500,000 would be appropriated to this trust account from Consolidated Revenue during 1955-56. Under the Audit Act, the Treasurer may establish trust accounts and define the purposes for which they are established, and it is common practice for this to be done. In this case, however, the Government considers it desirable to seek legislation for the purpose. The appropriation of a large amount of money is being sought, and it is proper that Parliament should be asked specifically to consider and approve the purposes for which this money will be used.

The primary object of the Loan Con- solidation and Investment Reserve will be the reduction of Commonwealth debt. In this connexion, that term means debt of the Commonwealth incurred for its own purposes as distinct from Commonwealth securities issued on behalf of the States under the financial agreement. Et is well known that a very large amount of Commonwealth debt falls due in the next few years, particularly in the period L95S to 1961. Chiefly, it is war debt arising from public loans floated during, or shortly after, World War II. At the 30th June last the amount of such war debt maturing in the period up to 1961 was £S70,000,000.

Debate interrupted.

page 834

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin). - Order! In conformity with the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 834

LOAN CONSOLIDATION AND INVESTMENT RESERVE BILL 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– No doubt, when the time comes around, efforts will be made to convert as much as possible of this debt into other securities, but this could well prove difficult. There is no means of knowing in advance what financial conditions are likely to prevail in that period. It would, however, be gratuitous to assume that conditions will be favorable to the conversion of large blocks of securities on satisfactory terms and, if the experience of recent years is any guide, there is likely to be strong competition on the part of both public authorities and industry to raise new capital resources. There will also be large amounts of State debt falling due in some years. The possibility must be recognized, therefore, that considerable amounts of Commonwealth debt will have to be redeemed on maturity and, this being so, it is no more than prudent to make some provision in advance against a contingency of that kind.

The National Debt Sinking Fund, of course, usually has fairly large resources available for the redemption of debt. Its annual income now exceeds £50,000,000 a year, and from time to time it has accumulated balances to carry forward. The sinking fund, however, has obligations to redeem State debt as well as Commonwealth debt. It is easily conceivable, therefore, that in some years when large amounts of Commonwealth debt fall due, the resources of the sinking fund might not be nearly sufficient tc> meet the whole of the amount that had to be redeemed. Very difficult financial problems could then arise unless there were other resources available for debt redemption.

Accordingly, with these considerations in mind, the Government has thought it wise as and when resources become available, to undertake the building of a reserve for the specific purpose of debt reduction.

In each of the two financial years 1953-54 and 1954-55, the surpluses which occurred in the Consolidated Revenue Fund were appropriated to the Debt Redemption Reserve, which now has a credit balance of £126,400,000. The Debt Redemption Reserve was established as a trust account under the power contained in the Audit Act. But since there are grounds for bringing it under specific legislation, and since its purpose is the same as that of the proposed Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve, there is a clear case for amalgamating the two accounts. It is proposed in this bill to effect the amalgamation by transferring the balance in the Debt Redemption Reserve to the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve. The latter account being established, it is proposed, as I have already mentioned, to appropriate to it from Consolidated Revenue in this financial year, an amount up to £48,500,000. The amount transferred to the reserve will add to the balance available for debt reduction purposes.

From the resources available in the reserve, it will be possible to redeem Commonwealth debt on maturity and also, as and when securities representing such debt can be repurchased before maturity, to acquire and cancel them, so reducing the total amount of debt outstanding.

Pending the use of credit balances in the reserve for debt reduction, they can be temporarily invested. This will be done- subject to one exception - in the manner prescribed in the Audit Act for the investment of trust fund ° moneys. That is to say, they can be invested in government securities or on deposit in a bank.

The exception, which is specified in the bill, is in effect that only securities issued or guaranteed by the Commonwealth Government will be eligible for investment of the reserve. Under the Audit Act as it stands, credit balances in trust accounts may be invested also in securities issued or guaranteed by State governments. Since, however, the object of the reserve is the reduction of Commonwealth debt, it does not seem necessary to include State securities within the scope of its investments. In any case, State governments no longer issue securities on their own account.

In the form of temporary investments, it will be possible to make use of funds available in the reserve to meet such Commonwealth commitments in the current year as those mentioned by the Treasurer in his budget speech. The Treasurer explained then that there were certain items of Commonwealth expenditure, such as war service land settlement and redemption of war savings certificates for which finance would have to be found outside the budget, and that there was also an indeterminate but potentialy large commitment to assist the Loan Council programmes for 1955-56 from Commonwealth sources. It was to make provision against these commitments that the Government proposed to make an appropriation this year from Consolidated Revenue to the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve. This bill accordingly contains a clause providing for the’ appropriation of an amount up to £4S,500,000 to the reserve.

From time to time it may be found possible and desirable to appropriate other sums of money for the reserve and temporarily invest them pending their use for debt reduction. Thus, on the one hand, as such sums were added, the balance in the reserve would increase whilst, on the other hand the balance would fall as and to the extent that the reserve was applied to debt reduction.

As a further point, the bill provides for interest received from investments of this reserve to be paid into the reserve so adding to the resources available in the account. In general, the Government considers that the establishment of the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve should provide a valuable instrument for promoting financial stability, and it should, in due time, assist considerably in meeting difficult problems carried over from the past and in particular from the war years.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 835

COMMONWEALTH AID ROADS BILL 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 25th October (vide page 660), on motion by Senator Spicer -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– The Opposition does not oppose the bill. Last year, when the provision of funds for the Australian Road Safety Council was before the Senate, the Opposition moved that the grant of £100,000 made available by the Government should be increased to £200,000. It is good to know that the Government has, at last, gone half-way in that direction. The purpose of the bill is to increase the amount of £100,000 that was formerly provided for road safety propaganda to £150,000. When the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) introduced this bill, he said that the allocation for roads from petrol tax revenue amounted to £24,242,000, and of that amount £800,000 was allocated to strategic roads mainly leading to defence establishments. I understand that £50,000 that is to be added to the £100,000 “ previously provided is to be deducted from the £800,000 allocated for strategic roads mainly leading to defence establishments. I am anxious to know just how much of the eS00,000 that was allocated for the purpose has been spent, because it brings me to a favorite topic to which E have referred time and time again. [ should like to know whether there is any possibility of utilizing the roadmaking plant of the great Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric scheme during the winter months when, perhaps, it may not be possible to use it in the Snowy Mountains area, for the purpose of constructing roads in New South Wales. I have in mind, particularly, the construction of a road from Bermagui to Cobargo, Yowrie and Wadbilliga, via Brown Mountain. I point out that only 13 miles of road are needed to join those places. Such a road undoubtedly would be of great strategic value. All along the New South Wales coast, it is most difficult to move from the coast to the tablelands, and that difficulty could be eliminated by the construction of high speed roads which, apart from their great defence value, would give the Government an opportunity to spend some of the £S00,000 which it has set aside for roads purposes. In addition, a great amenity would be provided for the workers at the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme. When those workers have the opportunity for short holidays, they have no great choice of places to which to go. If the Snowy Mountains area could be linked with Bermagui, it would be of great benefit to them.

I suggest that, if it is possible to use the equipment of the Snowy Mountains Authority in that way, it is uneconomic and wasteful not to do so. After all, the biggest part of the investment in such projects is related to the machinery involved, and if that machinery is used properly, it becomes an important economic factor. We all know the saying that what is difficult can be done immediately, whilst the impossible will take a little more time. That should be the approach of the Government to this matter. I am confident that, if the Minister were determined to do something in this connexion, a suitable organization could be developed to use this plant and construct roads where they are badly needed. The Minister should not dismiss this suggestion by saying that the use of the plant in that way would interfere with the operations of the Snowy Mountains scheme. I would not suggest such a course if I thought that that would be the result. I feel sure that the New South Wales Department of Main Roads would be only too pleased to co-operate in the construction of such roads. The Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I appreciate very much the decision of the Government to increase the financial provision for the purposes referred to in the bill. This matter interests me greatly, because I am always endeavouring to have good roads made available for use by the people of Victoria, particularly in the locality from which I come, and in which I happen to be a municipal councillor. I appreciate, too, the decision of the Government to increase the amount to be set aside for road safety purposes. Good roads are essential in these days of heavy road traffic. Whilst the delivering of lectures on road safety to motorists and pedestrians is a very good idea, I think that the whole question of road construction needs serious attention. When many of our roads were constructed, motor traffic was not nearly as heavy as it is today. As a matter of fact, the Victorian Country Roads Board was established in the horse and buggy days, when road traffic did not move at a very fast rate. Consequently, the strips of road that were adequate for the purpose of those days are now too narrow for the heavy motor traffic which uses them. Such roads need widening. Unfortunately, that costs a great deal of money.

It is gratifying that the sum of money to be set aside for the construction of roads in the States will not be affected by the proposed allocation for road safety purposes. Unfortunately, even this increased financial provision will not meet all the requirements of the States for the development of roads. The municipalities will still have great difficulty in trying to keep pace with the growth of road transport. It is only right that the States should come to the assistance of the local government bodies in their efforts to construct roads, and the States can only provide assistance if the Commonwealth is alive to the gravity of the whole position of road transport. I express pleasure that increased financial provision is to be made for roads purposes, and I trust that, next year, the grant will be even larger than it is this year. I support the bill.

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

– What this bill proposes to do, in effect, is to take from the £24,250,000, which is provided to the States for roads purposes, two amounts: £800,000, which is made available for Commonwealth purposes, such as the construction of roads of access to Commonwealth properties, and £150,000 for the road safety campaign. This bill deals only with the £150,000. Senator Armstrong made two points, the first being whether full use was being made of the road-making plant of the Snowy Mountains Authority. I feel that I owe some apology to the honorable senator in this matter. He has raised this subject on previous occasions in the Senate, and I think that, at the least, I should have had a talk with Sir William Hudson in order to see whether the suggestion was practicable or not. On the occasions on which the honorable senator has raised this matter in the past, I have rejected the proposal out of hand, as it were, because I felt 3ure that, if I were to make inquiries, I should find that it would be impracticable, because I could not imagine that the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority, which has millions of pounds tied up in road-making plant, would be so lax in its programming as to have that plant idle at any stage of the year, even during bad weather. I am quite positive that when I speak to Sir William Hudson about this matter he will say that in the very cold weather, when the Snowy Mountains area is snow-bound, the authority concentrates on lower areas and that, in any event, repairs to the plant are effected during certain periods of the year. After I have discussed the matter with Sir William Hudson, I will communicate with the honorable senator and supply him with an answer to his representations.

Senator Armstrong:

– I expect the impossible to take a little time.

Senator SPOONER:

– I do not mind that, so long as the work of the Snowy Mountains Authority is not upset. If it were, the proposal would be completely impossible.

I come now to the honorable senator’s second proposal, in relation to the utilization of the plant for the construction of a strategic road across the lower end of New South Wales. Only £800,000 is allocated for the provision of strategic roads, and the money is spent mainly in the Northern Territory and in north Queensland. Therefore, this proposal takes us into what might be termed a new realm. It would require more consideration than we can give to it at this time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 837

WAR PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 25th October (vide page 660), on motion by Senator Spicer -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

.- This bill merely provides for the payment of a certain amount of money into a trust account, from which war pensions are paid. The very nature of the measure precludes a general debate on it, and therefore I shall not detain the Senate. Of course, the Opposition does not consider war pensions to be adequate: the provisions of the Repatriation Act are not sufficiently generous in this respect. However, as this bill provides for certain increased benefits to ex-servicemen, the Opposition does not oppose it, and will facilitate its speedy passage by the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Sitting suspended from 11.25 p.m. to 12.10 a.m. (Friday).

Friday, 28 October 1955.

page 838

INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT BILL 1955

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

1 12.10 a.m.]. - I move -

That the bill bc now read a second time.

Fur the reasons already made known to honorable senators, the Government, as much as it would have wished to do so, lias found itself unable to embark in this financial year on any general programme of taxation concessions. There are, however, several individual matters which call for attention, mainly in relation to the encouragement of industries vital to the the national economy. It is with these matters that the amendments proposed in this bill are concerned.

The most important of the proposed amendments is a provision to give effect 10 the Government’s decision, which was announced some months ago, to extend for a further year the special 20 per cent, depreciation allowance to primary producers. This allowance was introduced by the Government in 1952 as one of a number of measures designed to assist in the drive for increased production in the primary industries. It applies to all units of plant, except motor cars, used wholly and exclusively for agricultural or pastoral pursuits, as well as to structural improvements, including housing for employees, on land used for those purposes. In substance, the allowance permits a deduction of one-fifth of the cost if the asset in the year in which it is first used for income-producing purposes and in each of the next four years. The effect of the proposed amendment will he to extend the period of operation of the special allowance to the 30th June, 1956.

Structural improvements which are commenced before that date will qualify for the allowance if completed before the 30th June, 1957.

A further amendment affecting some primary producers arises out of the tick eradication campaign to be commenced early next year by the New South Wales Board of Tick Control. This campaign which will be conducted with the assistance of the Commonwealth and State governments, is designed to eradicate cattle tick from two important dairying and beef cattle districts on the north coast of New South Wales. One of the consequences of the campaign will be that, some stock-owners in the districts affected will be obliged to dispose of substantial numbers of their cattle and to refrain from re-stocking for at least sixteen months. Under the present law, the profits from these abnormal sales would be included in the stock-owner’s income tax assessment of the year of sale. As a result, his liability to income tax might be so increased as to make it difficult for him to purchase cattle for re-stocking at the conclusion of the campaign. The purpose of the amendment proposed in this bill is to grant a measure of relief in such cases, by giving each stock-owner concerned a right of election to be taxed on one-fifth of the profit in each of five years commencing with the year in which the stock is sold. By this means the stockowner will be able to defer the greater part of his tax liability on the profit arising from these sales and thus conserve the funds necessary for re-stocking at the conclusion of the campaign.

Senator Wright:

– In what circumstances does that sale occur?

Senator SPOONER:

– When a property is being treated for tick eradication. The proprietor then has to clear the property and sell his stock. Under the present law he would be liable for a heavy income tax and thus would be without capita] to restock the property.

The proposed provision follows the same principle as is already applied in regard to forced sales of live-stock due to compulsory acquisitions of land and losses of pastures and fodder by reason of fire, drought or flood. As a means of furthering the development of the uranium-mining industry in Australia, it is proposed that there should be some widening of the exemption at present provided in this regard. The existing provision, section 23d, exempts the income derived until the end of the income year 1959-60 from the working of a mining property in Australia, Papua or New Guinea for the purpose of obtaining uranium-bearing ore. One of the conditions attached to the exemption is that the taxpayers deriving the income shall be residents of Australia. In the case of a company, it is further provided that not less than threequarters of the voting power shall be controlled directly or indirectly by individuals who are residents of Australia. It is proposed to remove this further qualification in the case of companies, so that the exemption will be available to all companies resident in Australia.

It is also proposed to extend the exemption to income derived from the treatment in Australia, Papua and New Guinea of uranium ore for the purpose of recovering uranium concentrates. The exemption will apply only where the treatment is carried out by the company or individual who mined the ore. It will not be essential, however, that the treatment shall be carried out on the mining property, or in the course of working the mining property. These changes will be effected by repealing the present section 23d and inserting a new section 23d in the principal act. By another clause of the bill, it is also proposed to carry the exemptions through to dividends paid to shareholders wholly and exclusively out of exempt income from the treatment of uraniumbearing ore. This principle already applies to dividends paid out of exempt income derived from the working of the property.

I mention now two provisions included in the bill which concern residents of Macquarie and Heard Islands, the Australian Antarctic Territory and Cocos, or Keeling, Islands. As honorable senators are aware, residents of remote areas of Australia have for some years been entitled to a special zone allowance of £120 in the case of localities in zone A. Et has been shown that the disabilities suffered by residents of the localities I have named are comparable with those encountered in the present zone A and it is proposed that the special allowance of £120 should be extended to those localities accordingly.

In anticipation of these amendments, the deduction of £120 has been taken into account in fixing the rate of tas instalments deducted from the salaries and wages of residents of those localities since the 1st July, 1952. The amendments now brought forward will bring the assessments of the taxpayers concerned into line with the tax instalments deducted from their earnings. An additional concession is proposed in the case of Cocos, or Keeling, Islands, which will shortly become one of the external territories of the Commonwealth. It is appropriate that the residents of the islands should receive the same exemptions as those applying to our other external territories - Papua, New Guinea and Norfolk Island - and it is accordingly proposed that they should be wholly free from Commonwealth tax on income derived from sources within the islands. This exemption will operate on and from the 1st July, 1953.

Clause 8 of the bill, provides for the deduction of gifts to the Duke of Edinburgh’s Study Conference Account maintained by the Department of Labour and National Service, as well as gifts to the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science and the Australian Administrative Staff College.

As honorable senators will be aware, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh has sponsored a Study Conference to be held at Oxford next July for the purpose of considering the human problems of industrial communities within the British Commonwealth and Empire. It is intended that Australia shall be represented at the conference by 25 delegates chosen from various sections and levels of industry. For the purpose of paying the travelling expenses of these delegates, which are estimated to cost about £15,000, a fund will be established by the Commonwealth Department of Labour and National Service. Part of the fund moneys has been contributed by the Commonwealth but, to the extent of about £10,000, contributions will be sought from organizations of employers and employees, as well as from professional bodies and industrialists. It is expected that the conference will prove of great value to Australian industry and it is felt to be appropriate that contributions by taxpayers towards its cost should be allowed as income tax deductions.

The proposed allowance of gifts to the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science follows a similar allowance already granted in respect of gifts to the Australian Academy of Science. The Australian Administrative Staff College has only recently been established, its objects being the instruction of men and women in leadership, administration and related subjects. In many respects, its objects and functions are comparable with those of a public university, gifts to which are already ;i Mowed as deductions.

The remaining provision of the bill of which I should make mention is that relating to the taxation of income derived by friendly society dispensaries. At present, income tax is not paid by friendly societies or by friendly society dispensaries. However, many friendly society dispensaries have been granted the right to dispense benefits under the national health services scheme to members of the public, whether they are members of friendly ‘ societies or not. In addition, practically all dispensaries may sell patent medicines, toilet preparations and other goods to members of the public. In these circumstances, complete freedom from income tax has conferred a considerable trading advantage on the dispensaries over other pharmacists operating in competition.

The Chifley Government sought to remedy this situation in 1947 by amending the assessment legislation to impose income tax on 15 per cent, of amounts received from the Commonwealth by the friendly society dispensaries under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act 1947 and on the gross proceeds of the sales of medicines and other goods as well as special charges for the supply of pharma ceutical benefits. As the Chifley scheme was virtually inoperative, the tax was not actually levied.

The national health services have now been established by the present Government on a sound basis, and the businesses of friendly society dispensaries have expanded. It has become necessary, therefore, to look at the problem again in order that the dispensaries and other pharmacists shall be placed as nearly as possible on an equal footing so far as income tax is concerned.

After an exhaustive examination, the Government proposes that the dispensaries shall, in future, pay tax on 10 per cent, of the gross income they receive from the Commonwealth under the national health services scheme and from trading with the general public, including members of friendly societies. However, amounts received by friendly society dispensaries in the form of per capita payments from their constituent friendly societies for the provision of benefits to members of those societies will continue to be free from income tax. Effect will be given to this proposal in the present bill and, at the same time, the inoperative provisions introduced in 1947 will be repealed. The liability to tax will arise only in respect of amounts received by friendly society dispensaries, from the sources mentioned, on and after the clay, on which the bill receives the Royal Assent. I commend the bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 840

INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION BILL 1955

Bill received from House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to declare the rates of tax payable by individuals and companies for the financial year 1955-56. As the Treasurer announced in his budget speech on the 24th August, 1955, the proposed rates of tax for 1955-56 are the same as those enacted for the financial year 1954-55. This bill does, however, propose an extension of the taxation concessions granted to aged persons. I shall, therefore, confine my remarks to this matter, which is contained in clause 7 of the bill.

Special concessions for aged persona were first introduced by this Government in 1951. Since then, exemption levels for aged persons have either equalled or exceeded the maximum permissible income for age pension purposes. For the financial year 1954-55 the exemptions were £375 in the case of single persons and £750 in the case of married couples, compared with maximum permissible incomes of £364 and £728 respectively. The maximum permissible income of an age pensioner will be increased from £364 to £390 per year as a result of the proposed increase of 10s. per week in age pensions. In the case of a married couple the maximum permissible income will be £780. Accordingly, clause 7 of this bill provides for exemption from tax for single taxpayers with incomes of £390 or less and married couples with incomes of £7S0 or less.

As in previous years, taxpayers with incomes slightly in excess of the exemption will continue to receive some benefit from the provisions. A reduced amount of tax will be payable until normal rates of tax are reached at an income of £434 in the case of a single taxpayer and £937 in the case of a married taxpayer claiming a full deduction of £130 for his spouse. To provide for those cases where a taxpayer is not entitled to a full deduction for his spouse, it is necessary to make provision for payment of a lower amount of tax up to an income of £1,030. Thereafter the normal rates are applie able. The cost to revenue of the extension of the concessions to aged persons is estimated at £375,000 annually and £250,000 in the current year. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 841

WESTERN AUSTRALIA GRANT (WATER SUPPLY) BILL 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 25th October (vide page 661), on motion by Senator Spicer -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– The measure before the Senate proposes to carry on financial assistance . to the State of Western Australia for the particular purpose of developing water works in the terms described in the second-reading speech of the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer). In 1948 the previous Administration made grants on a £l-for-£l basis with a total liability to the Commonwealth of £2,150,000. At that time it was anticipated that the total cost would be £4,300,000. The purpose was, of course, to ensure the development and settlement of areas in Western Australia - a matter of importance not only to that State but also to the Commonwealth. Now it transpires that the total cost will be of the order of £10,000,000- yet another indication of the inflation that has been allowed to run riot in recent years. The State of Western Australia has approached the Commonwealth, which has agreed to raise its maximum contribution from £2,150,000 to £4,300,000. The Opposition supports the proposal.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 841

STATES GRANTS (SPECIAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 25th October (vide page 663), on motion by Senator Spicer -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This bill stems from the existence of uniform income taxation and, to a degree, provides for a reimbursement of tax to the States. The 1946 formula last year yielded £130,000,000 plus £98,000. The

Commonwealth supplemented that amount to the tune of £19,900,000, making a total grant for the year of £150,000,000. Under the 1946 legislation, the formula would this year have yielded an estimated amount of’ £140,S00,000. The Government agreed to increase that amount to £155,000,000 and added a special amount to meet the plight of New South Wales and cover flood losses, making a grand total of £157,000,000. This bill does not deal with the amount determined by the formula but merely authorizes the payment of the additional grant by the Commonwealth.

We support the grant. We agree with most of the Premiers, who do not think that it is enough. I must comment that again it is rather interesting to notice the onset of inflation. As a commentary upon the relative farsightedness of those who in 1946 determined the formula, I point out that the original amount from which the formula stemmed was £40,000,000. In the process of income tax reimbursement, and by the mere operation of the formula, that amount has grown to £140,S00,000. Th.-it; is a colossal growth over a brief period of years and, as it is based on both population and, to an extent, upon half the average wage to-day one can see how very much greater it would have been, and how very flexible the formula would have proved to be, if a more generous provision in relation to average wages had been made. The States are unhappy with the amount, and one must acknowledge that they have reason to be. There are, to-day, all kinds of strains upon State economies. Their railway systems are worn out and they are in grave difficulty over their roads. They must face the fact that they can no longer tax interstate haulage. Increasing demands are being made upon them for the provision of schools, hospitals and all the facilities that they normally provide. The Australian Government is determined that, despite the protests of the States, it will not increase the grant and, accordingly, we offer no opposition to the passage of the measure.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– Because of the situation that has arisen recently in Tasmania, I should like to say a few words on this measure. As a result of the diminution of the amounts that are being made available to the States, and especially to Tasmania, it has been necessary to alter the usual procedure of building houses under the day-labour scheme. The Agricultural Bank, which is financed by grants such as those which are provided by this bill, was able to make available to the Housing Department of Tasmania certain sums of money that enabled it to continue providing houses for people in that State. In the last two or three weeks the daylabour scheme has had to be discontinued in the north of Tasmania. Recently 1 received a deputation from plumbers, builders, carpenters and various other persons interested in the building industry, and in the continuance of the daylabour scheme. These people have done an excellent job over the years since 1945, and have provided the people of Tasmania with excellent houses. They find now that, as a result of the restriction of the grants to the States, they must join the ranks of the unemployed.

I should like to put on record my protest against the Government’s policy of restricting the grants to the States, and thus preventing the continuation of the day-labour scheme. In turn, that will limit the number of housing units that will be produced each year to accommodate Australians and immigrants. That is a very retrograde step. Even the amount of £140,800,000 that is being provided to the States under the formula this year is evidently not enough. The Premier of Tasmania recently advised the employees who made representations to me that it would be impossible for his Government to continue building under the day-labour scheme. It has a contract with a private firm to build 1,000 houses, and because, to keep that contract going, it needs all the money that is being made available by the Australian Government, it has had to discontinue its previous policy of keeping in operation the Housing Department’s day - labour scheme. Because of the shortage of funds the joinery shop will have to be closed, and it will be impossible to keep the day labour scheme in operation. This may be a temporary measure to keep the States quiet by helping them to carry out the plans to which they are committed, but I register my strong protest against the restrictive financial policy of the Australian Government, which withholds from the States taxation revenue to which they are entitled. Every government likes to be able to fulfil its promises, and the Tasmanian Government is anxious to provide its people with good housing as it has promised.

Senator Spooner:

– But the finance to which this bill relates would not be used by the Tasmanian Government to build houses.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Nevertheless, it is necessary to enable the Tasmanian Government to carry out its economic policy within the State. Although the Australian Government is the collecting instrumentality of revenue from uniform taxation it should allocate to the State governments sufficient money to enable them to honour their promises. I hope that in a complementary measure to this one sufficient funds will be made available to the State of Tasmania to enable it to fulfil its promises in accordance with its housing programme.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– It is surely an undeserved retribution on the Government that at this late hour the Senate should be kept in session considering this bill and have to endure a spate of moonlight madness emanating from Senator O’Byrne. The bill allocates to Tasmania an almost unprecedented appropriation on the basis of special financial assistance for that State. It is completely irrelevant for Senator O’Byrne to refer to the question of income tax reimbursement. This bill has nothing to do with that, and is entirely separate. It is equally irrelevant for the honorable senator to refer to the Tasmanian housing programme, which is financed out of loan moneys. The honorable senator’s speech was an exhibition of ignorance such as I never expected, but it obviously indicates that be has spent seven or nine years unprofitably as a member of this Senate.

Tasmania is grateful on this occasion for an institution which was created by a. former Prime Minister, a Tasmanian, the late Honorable J. A. Lyons, who brought into being the States Grants

Commission. That body has recommended an increased appropriation this year to Tasmania of more than £1,500,000. The Australian Government has realized the necessity to adjust the economic levels of the various States so that there will not be a disparity which would be responsible for disintegration and corrosion among them. It is essential to the federal spirit that there should be an economic increase as the objective of our federal situation. I protest at the utter confusion in Federal-States financial relations. This contributes to a degree of irresponsibility in the various State parliaments - and indeed, not exclusively in the States.

A new opportunity will arise within a few weeks, one which we must seize to reconstitute the Federal-States financial relationships on a proper basis that will include capital loan moneys, revenue allocations and special grants assistance.I ask permission, Mr. President, to use one minute more to state in terms of elemental simplicity appropriate to Senator O’Byrne that the last is the matter with which this bill deals.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 843

TOBACCO INDUSTRY BILL 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 26th October (vide page 704), on motion by Senator

O’sullivan -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

.- On behalf of the Opposition, I support this bill, and commend the Government for bringing it forward. I shall not be uncharitable enough to say that it is overdue, but it is, in my opinion, the first indication of a realization by the Government of the need for positive action towards solving a problem that will surely confront this country, in that the Government will be doing something towards increasing the production of this commodity. The tobacco industry will be a great one. The expansion of the industry will mean that many thousands of growers will be able to engage in profitable production, .and many thousands of acres of land in north Queensland, which previously was not suitable for any kind of primary production, except perhaps fruit-growing, will be used in tobaccogrowing.

The tobacco industry is of great importance to Queensland and to Australia, because it can make a valuable contribution towards the improvement of our overseas trade balance. I commend the Government for its action in introducing this measure. The Queensland Government is spending up to £20,000,000 on irrigation and other activities for the expansion of the tobacco industry and I am very pleased that this Government has seen the necessity for the introduction of this legislation. The Minister for Trade and Customs, in his second-reading speech, said : -

The purpose of this bill is to establish a tobacco industry trust account, the funds from which will be used to finance an expansion in tobacco research and advisory activities. The funds available in the trust account will be obtained from tobacco-growers, tobacco manufacturers and from Commonwealth Government contributions.

This is an excellent proposal. It provides wide scope for research and for the application of scientific methods in plant selection and similar activities in the industry. The Minister mentioned many of the setbacks that the industry has encountered over the years that have elapsed since tobacco-growing was commenced in Queensland. He mentioned the difficulties experienced because of the ravages of pests. He did not, however, mention one reason why the industry has failed to progress, and I will tell honorable senators of that reason. After the industry had a very good start in Queensland because of the policy of the Scullin Government of protecting the industry the Liberal Government, led by Mr. Lyons as Prime Minister, reduced import duties on tobacco and increased the excise duty on the locally grown product. That put the industry out of existence almost overnight. For many years afterwards it was not safe for a Liberal politician to go to north Queensland. It may be safe for them to go there now, because the people of north Queensland will probably have forgiven them for their many sins in the past.

The tobacco industry has great possibilities. 1 do not wish to provoke a discussion at this early hour of the morning. The Government is wise in encouraging this industry. I think that the tobacco produced in Australia represents about 12 per cent, or 14 per cent, of the total quantity consumed in this country.. Honorable senators will realize, therefore, that there is a practically unlimited market for our tobacco in Australia, and it will be a long time before the industry will have to compete with other countries. The Government has shown wisdom in introducing this measure, and I feel certain, after many years’ experience, that the industry will grow and become of great value to the Australian economy.

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

– This bill has, as its long range objective, not merely the improvement of the tobacco industry from a scientific point of view, but ultimately the development of that industry as a major contributor to the Australian economy. We shall spend the money to be provided under the measure, which is a comparatively small sum when compared with the economic worth of the industry, to improve tobacco types and discover areas which will grow quality tobacco. At the same time, it seems to me that it would be equally logical to develop, by capital investment, the areas that will enable us to produce tobacco on such a scale that it will become a major contributor to the solution of our balance of payments problem. That is why, at this hour, and without heat, I take the Government to task for its reluctance to help financially in the development of the far north Queensland areas of Dimbulah and Mareeba, which the Queensland Government, with its attenuated finances, is now developing to the fullest extent.

I did have occasion, during a debate earlier in this sessional period, to direct the attention of honorable senators to the contribution made by the primary export industries of Queensland to Australia’s overall trade balance. The figures that I gave were not only illuminating but rather amazing. On a most conservative estimate, Queensland provided, from it8 own external trading and primary products, 50 per cent, of the total net credit trade balance of Australia. That is a magnificent contribution, and this industry played its part. It can be an increasing, and ultimately a major, factor in the improvement of our overseas trade balance. That is why, at this late hour, [ express my regret that the Government has not been able to make a major capital contribution towards the development of the industry on a vast scale. However, the use of the money now being voted in the scientific development of the industry is at least a first step, and we trust that the principles of the bill will ultimately be extended into the wider field of major development.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– Despite the fact that honorable senators frown when I rise at this hour - which is not a late hour of the night but rather an early hour of the morning - I want to dispel the impression, which might otherwise be created, that I might never have words of congratulation for the Government. I applaud this bill with both hands and both feet. It represents the encouragement of a primary industry, the expansion of whose production can reduce our dependence upon imports, and especially imports from dollar countries. I also wish to remove an impression that we from the south will speak only from the point of view of the south. The north Queensland area is very important to the development of Australia, and we rejoice to see this industry develop in that area. If there is, indeed, any degree of reluctance to hear me, it would merely be a provocation for a continuance of an elaboration of that argument. I want to say that I do not wish to be heard with any evidence of reluctance, although I must speak with obvious brevity. If this bill is to come before the Parliament, then there must be an opportunity for each member to express his appreciation or opposition. As a Tasmanian, I rejoice to have the opportunity to speak in appreciation of the fact that the Government is extending a Queensland primary producing industry, the expansion of which will reduce imports to this country, particularly imports from dollar areas. The remarks which I have made, I think, are in the national interest.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 845

TOBACCO CHARGES ASSESSMENT BILL 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 26th October (vide page 704), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– 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 845

TOBACCO CHARGE BILL (No. 1) 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 26th October (vide page 705), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 845

TOBACCO CHARGE BILL (No. 2) 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 26th October (vide page 705), on motion by Senator

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 845

TOBACCO CHARGE BILL (No. 3) 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 26th October (vide page 705), on motion by Senator O’ Sullivan -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question, resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 846

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The following bills were returned from the House of Representatives, without amendment: -

Australian Capital Territory and Jervis Bay (Lands Acquisition) Bill 1955.

Northern Territory (Administration) Bill 1955.

page 846

LANDS ACQUISITION BILL 1955

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

page 846

TARIFF BOARD

Report on Item - Annual Report.

Debate adjourned from the 19th October (vide page 547), on motion by Senator Spicer -

That the reports only be printed.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The papers concerned in this debate include the Tariff Board’s most recent annual report. At this stage of the morning, and at this stage in the life of the Parliament I do not intend to open up the very important matters raised in that report, because that would merely precipitate a debate which could range over the whole of the Australian economy. I should not imagine that much profit would be derived from that, because I believe that all honorable senators- will be spending the next six weeks or so doing- that very thing; and we should save our strength and energy for that. I regret very much that a report of the consequence of the one now before us should come to us at a time when we cannot give it adequate consideration. The Tariff Board has earned the respect of everybody by its efficiency and its close reasoning and thinking. It is unfortunate that this very valuable report is not now capable of being made the subject of full debate.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I consider that the fact that no debate will be engaged in over the matter now before the Senate does not detract from the value of the report. I have risen only to say that the present time gives one an opportunity to express one’s indebtedness to a board which, in its report, expresses an independent attitude of complete integrity through which it advises the Parliament and the people of the economic considerations that should guide the country. It does that in a manner which shall impress us all. There are many who look with some suspicion upon the Australian tariffs and who are accustomed to feel that the board that maintains the tariffs for the protection of our industries is inclined to be unmindful of the needs of other industries that are not protected by tariffs. But a perusal of the report shows the comprehensiveness of the board’s consideration, and 1 simply rise to express my indebtedness to these members of the civil service - not in the peculiar or proper sense, I have no doubt, but in a special sense, a civil service represented by this Tariff Board - for the contribution that they have made, I hope effectively, for the guidance of the Government of this country.

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

– As the Minister to whom the Tariff Board makes its reports, I am very gratified at the complimentary remarks made about its work. Senator McKenna has mentioned that it is unfortunate that we have not the time to discuss or debate this annual report fully. With all due respect, I suggest that the report is rather more a matter for study than for debate: It has made, I think, a very remarkable and excellent contribution to those of us who are concerned with and interested in the general state of our national economy.

Senator Courtice:

– That has been the case for the last three years.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I quite agree that it has been so. I was very happy when I was overseas to have tangible evidence of the very high esteem in which the Australian Tariff Board is held by other countries. Not only has it well merited the esteem and confidence of the Australian people, be they importers, be they wholsalers, be they manufacturers or be they the average men in the street. Over the years, the Tariff Board has, by its conduct, and by its integrity, established for itself a most enviable reputation. I am sure that the very high praise which this last annual report has received from the press in the capital cities is well merited. I am not sure about the reception given to the report by the provincial press, because I did not have an opportunity to read it, but the press of every capital city paid very generous complimentary tributes to the efficiency, candour, integrity and great public work done by the Tariff Board.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 847

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1955

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The bill now before the Senate provides for the validation of collections until the 30th June, 1956, of customs duties under the following Customs Tariff Proposals : -

Customs Tariff Proposals No. 3 of the 26th May, 1955;

Customs Tariff Proposals No. 4 of the 8th June, 1955;

Customs Tariff Proposals No. 5 of the 13th October, 1955;

Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Proposals No. 2 of the 26th May, 1955;

Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Proposals No. 3 of the 13th October, 1955;

Customs Tariff (Papua and New Guinea Preference) Proposals No. 1 of the 26th May, 1955 ; and

Customs Tariff (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland Preference) Proposals No. 1 of the 20th October, 1955.

The somewhat limited time available will not permit at this stage the usual debate on and enactment of the individual tariff variations set out in the Tariff Proposals to which this bill refers. The bill is purely a machinery measure. It merely safeguards until the 30th June, 1956, the collections of duties under the respective Tariff Proposals. I feel that before the expiration of that time, there will be an opportunity for honorable senators to debate fully the variations covered by the Tariff Proposals concerned.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– In view of the comments of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) in his second-reading speech, the Opposition has no objection to the passage of the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 847

EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1955

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The circumstances surrounding the bringing down of this measure are on the same plane as those associated with the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1955. The bill provides for the validation until the 30th June, 1956, of collections of excise duties made in pursuance of Excise Tariff Proposals No. 3, which were introduced in another place on the 26th May, 1955. Like the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1955, this bill is purely a machinery measure. It merely safeguards, until the 30th June, 1956, the collections of excise duties under the proposals concerned. I feel that before the expiry date has been reached the Senate will have a full opportunity to debate and enact the excise variations set out in the proposals referred to in this bill.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania Leader of the Opposition

– In the light of the remarks of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan), the Opposition has no objection to the passage of this measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 848

QUESTION

TARLEE BOARD

Reports on Items.

Debate resumed from the 19th October (vide page 547), on motion by Senator Spicer -

That the following papers be printed: - Tariff Board reports -

Aluminium and aluminium alloy sheets, sections and other shapes; aluminium foil and foil paper. Direct current mill type motors. Fuel injection equipment. Household aluminiumware Lubrication nipples.

Motor vehicle parts - front axle assemblies. Pen nibs.

Phenothiazine and diphenylamine. Phosphorus derivatives. Plumbers’ vises.

Ribbons, trimmings, ornaments, &c. Vegetables.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) has stated that reports such as these are a mattei for study rather than debate. There are reports on twelve items altogether. I shall address my remarks to the first item, which relates to various aluminium products. The report of the Tariff Board on this item arose from a reference to the board by the Minister on the 7th August, 1953. The report, which is excellent, has traversed a field to which the people of Australia generally, and the people of Tasmania in particular, will give a great deal of study in the future. The board’s findings, on this occasion, are consistent with a recommendation made by it in 1947, when it recommended, among other things, that the Government formulate and declare a policy covering measures of assistance necessary to the establishment and development of the aluminium industry as a whole, including production, semi-fabrication, and finishing stages. It recommended also that the Australian Aluminium Production Commission be charged with the duties of formulating a plan for the development of the industry as a whole, of advising the Government on measures necessary to carry out the plan, and of maintaining effective liaison between all the parties concerned.

Aluminium is a metal that has come to be in phenomenal demand during the last twenty years, and figures collated by the Bureau of Mineral Resources for its review of the Australian mineral industry in 1953 show this interesting trend. As far back as 1934, the total world consumption of aluminium was 167,000 tons. In 1939, it had increased to 700,000 tons. During the war, there was a great demand for aluminium products for aircraft construction and the like, and, in 1943, world demand had increased to 1,945,000 tons. In 1952, it stood at 2,046,000 tons, and, in 1953, at 2,421,000 tons. The main producer of aluminium is the United States of America, which, because of its huge internal demand, does not export any great quantity. It is interesting to note - and I emphasize this point, because it is most important from the point of view of production in Australia - that the annual consumption in the United States at 17.2 lb. a head, is far greater than is consumption in any other country. The figure for the United Kingdom is 13.53 lb.; for Canada, 10.10 lb.; for Switzerland, 10.4 lb.; for Sweden, 8.5 lb., and for New Zealand, 5.01 lb. However, the figure for Australia is only 3 lb. I wish to point out the most revealing part of the Tariff Board’s report in the light of the comparison between the annual American consumption of 17.2 lb. a head and the annual Australian consumption of 3 lb-, a head. This fact shows that Australia is being starved of aluminium ingots, plates, flat sheets, rods, bars, wire and tubing.

Senator Wright:

– What is the effect of the report?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– It recommends chat a preferential tariff be imposed on the import of semi-fabricated and manufactured aluminium to encourage the development of the Australian industry.

Perhaps we do not fully realize the importance of this metal to Australia. I have already pointed out the difference between the rate of consumption in the United States and the rate in Australia, and have demonstrated that we are not receiving the full benefit of the use of this wonderful metal. It is indeed a wonderful metal, for it is only one third of the weight of steel, and has the same tensile strength and durability. It can be used for all sorts of purposes. It allows us to use huge transport vehicles only one third of the weight of similar vehicles constructed of steel. As a consequence, many extra passengers can be carried for the same consumption of petrol. I ask honorable senators to compare the weight of railway rolling-stock constructed of steel and of aluminium rolling-stock. Aluminium irrigation pipes may be placed in position in the fields and moved from one field to another much more readily than would be. possible with heavier pipes. I am certain that the Australian people do not realize the importance of aluminium. For that reason, I am studying and not debating the report of the Tariff Board, as the Minister suggested we should do with these reports. If the production of aluminium in Australia was greater, much more aluminium could be used in construction work in the form of corrugated sheets, heavy angles and channels, the advantages of which are being appreciated increasingly by engineers. As a member of the Public Works Committee, I come in contact with engineers, who are always speaking of the shortage of steel for construction work. When in the United States of America, I saw magnificent buildings which were constructed entirely of aluminium material, including huge skyscrapers built for the Aluminium Company of America which were a standing advertisement for the great value of this metal. It is not realized in Australia that bridges, aircraft hangars, prefabricated buildings and large motor vehicles can be built of aluminium. Expanded production could bring about a great saving in dollar imports as well as a substantial strengthening of our cost structure by reducing expenditure on fuel for transport and on freight of heavy commodities being moved from one State to another. It is important to our economy that we give more attention to this very important metal.

Senator Wright:

– Does any country use aluminium for railway carriages?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Yes. It is being used extensively in the United States of America and, according to my colleague who has knowledge of the transAustralian railway, its introduction to Australia is beginning. .

Senator Henty:

– One always finds that private enterprise is miles ahead in the United States of America.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Unfortunately, we have relied on private enterprise in this country, and we are miles behind. If we left such matters as this to honorable senators opposite we would be still in the darks days of the seventeenth century. I do not desire to leave this report until I mention another very important feature of it, which relates to the development of the processing of aluminium foil. Recently this country has been very severely criticized for not presenting its goods in a sufficiently attractive way to be able to compete on the world’s markets. At present, no aluminium foil is being produced in Australia. It is used for wrapping cheese, butter, chocolates, and such commodities. After all, people like to have goods presented attractively. I think that our export trade would benefit considerably if we produced aluminium foil and used it to make our goods appear more attractive. We should not only encourage the two or three companies which are fabricating from the ingot, the secondary process of aluminium production, but we should also guarantee a continuous supply to the Australian market by extending the activities in Tasmania of the Australian Aluminium Production Commission. There is a strong case for such an extension because of the shortage of supply of this metal in Australia. Our present consumption is 20,000 tons a year, and each year it is increasing. Our maximum potential production at Bell Bay is 13,000 tons, but at present production is only about 6,000 or 7,000 tons a year.

We must snap out of the attitude proclaimed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) when he said that only the most raving optimist could think that the use of aluminium would expand after the war. We have to break away from that type of thinking and appreciate the facts. I am stating a case as a direct result of the report of the Tariff Board. The Prime Minister said that the case of the aluminium industry should be referred to the board, and this is the first report on the products of the industry that it has produced since 1947. I commend it to honorable senators as an excellent report.

In conclusion, the board has recommended that a 20 per cent. British preferential tariff be imposed on semifabricated aluminium containing 90 per cent, pure aluminium, a 37^ per cent, tariff in respect of countries entitled to most favoured nation treatment, and a British preferential tariff of 25 per cent, for tin foil such as that used for the lining of butter cases. The production of aluminium is a matter to which we must give more thought, because of its very nature as a light, tensile, and valuable metal. Americans realize its value. They do not export any of it but use it all themselves. Housewives appreciate its value for household utensils. Only if we realize the growing value of this metal in every field, in construction, transport, and the production of household amenities, will we prepare for the needs of future generations. I commend the report to the study of all honorable senators. It enters a field which has not previously been fully studied. I have not had time to study the other eleven reports presented by the Tariff Board, on which I could no doubt say a few thousand well chosen words. Perhaps I shall do so at some later time.

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

– As a bachelor, Senator O’Byrne exhibits a most commendable interest in household aluminium-ware, and I thank him for his support.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 850

LOAN (WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT) BILL 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 761).

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

– The purpose of the bill is to authorize the Government to raise by loan £8,500,000 in terms of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911-1946, mentioned in clause 3 of the bill, to be devoted to the development and opening up of land for war service land settlement. ‘ Of that amount of money, £4,600,000 is required for the purpose of being applied in what are called, roughly, the three agent States. Those States are South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, and that is the term generally applied to States that stand in that relationship to the Commonwealth.

New South Wales comes into the scheme with Victoria under a slightly altered arrangement compared with that which operated previously, and £3,900,000 is to be allocated to those two States. Queensland, which has been in the category of principal States with Victoria and New. South Wales, has withdrawn because the terms offered by the Australian Government were not acceptable.

The Opposition will not oppose this measure. I seldom boost my own State, but I wish to point out that Queensland has an excellent record in war service land settlement, despite considerable difficulties. Queensland had to reconsider its position only because the cost of settling ex-servicemen on the land became prohibitive as a result of the rising tide of inflation. Now ex-servicemen in Queensland will not, perhaps, get the advantages that they had before in this connexion, but that is inevitable. They will be on the same basis as civilians in acquiring and settling on the land.

Since the scheme has been operating, Queensland has spent £10,500,000 on the land settlement of ex-servicemen. _ A large proportion of the money has been provided for additional land settlement, and a little more than half of it on the rehabilitation of ex-servicemen on the land through the assistance of the Agricultural Bank. Quite a number of ex-servicemen in various rural categories have been placed on the land in different parts of the State. If I had the temerity of Senator O’Byrne, I would recite the figures in detail, but I shall content myself with informing the committee that 257 settlers have been settled on sugar properties under a special Queensland act, 751 have been assisted in one way or another with general sugar properties and 198 have been placed on other farms. Altogether, 4,767 ex-servicemen have been successfully assisted by the Queensland Government.

The Opposition does not oppose the bill, but the settlement of ex-servicemen is a continuing problem, and must not be overlooked. We must continue to help these men within the limits of our financial resources, and not forget them as World War II. fades into history. It is regrettable that there are ex-servicemen who want land, and are still unable to get it. It must be our constant endeavour to settle ex-servicemen on the land at a reasonable cost, and on properties that can .return them a fair living for the rest of their lives. Our efforts should be continuously devoted to that end.

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

, - I cannot allow Senator Byrne’s statements about the settlement of ex-servicemen on the land in Queensland to pass without challenge. He is quite wrong. At present, the exservicemen who want properties have to take their chance with civilians in the ballots.

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

– That is what I said.

Senator KENDALL:

– Why did Senator Byrne spout platitudes about what should be done for the ex-servicemen when the Queensland Government has let them down, and has made such a mess of land settlement that no more money can be obtained from the Australian Government for that purpose? The Queensland Government walked out of the scheme, and the ex-servicemen have to take their place with civilians in the ballots. There is no preference for ex-servicemen.

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

– I did not say there was any preference. Why does not the honorable senator listen?

Senator WARDLAW:
Tasmania

– The war service land settlement scheme in Tasmania has been a great success. The scheme that was originally conceived by the Australian Government was a magnificent project, and the development of virgin land, which was originally contemplated, has been achieved in Tasmania with some success. The scheme was started in 1945, and it has had many ups and downs because of shortage of man-power, implements and materials. The cost of development, and the establishment of the men on the properties, has been very high. The properties have been written down in Tasmania to make them an economic proposition. Tasmania is one of the agent States, in conjunction with South Australia and Western Australia, and we are determined to make the scheme a success in Tasmania. The ballot scheme has not proved a success in Queensland or New South Wales, and the properties are allotted to selected men in Tasmania. We believe that that is a better proposition.

We have had 618 applications, and have settled 227 men on the land, principally on sheep properties and dairy farms. I have visited quite a number of them, and apart from a few anomalies and difficulties that have faced the settlers, the scheme has been a success generally. Anomalies do exist, and until they are . cured, it is difficult from the Australian Government to provide for the men satisfactorily. Up to the present, the Government has not refused to help the settlers. Some of them had no previous experience on the land, but on the whole they are working very well, and and now that we are committed to the scheme, we must help them as much as possible.

The greatest difficulty at present, and one that is causing most dissatisfaction, is the inability of the settlers to get freehold values. The Australian Government and the Staes should do their best to finalize this matter so that the settlers will be happier and more contented on their farms. If they had that contentment, there would be a better feeling among them, and they would settle down to the development of their farms on a proper basis. I was a settler after World War I., and I have every faith in the Commonwealth to do the right thing in fixing the values of freehold. At the moment they are very high, and the cost of settlement has been out of all reason, although the war service land settlement scheme has not been the only project that has suffered in that regard in recent years. I have every faith in the scheme, and hope that it will continue to develop.

Senator PEARSON:
South Australia

– I wish to direct attention to an area of land in which the South Australian Government wishes the Commonwealth Government to interest itself for the purposes of war service land settlement. I refer to some land at Hundred of Jeffries, which is probably well known to the departmental officers and which has been offered to the Commonwealth under the war service land settlement scheme, but which has not yet been accepted. This area has been opened up by the South Australian Government, and considerable work has been done on it. The South Australian Minister for Lands, to whom I pay tribute, i3 eager that another inspection of the land should be made. I make a plea to the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Kent Hughes), through the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge), to visit the area personally. I am sure that if he does, he will be impressed by the work that has already been done by the South Australian Land Development Executive, and will learn that it is the opinion of those concerned that the area is suitable for war service land settlement.

I remind the Minister that the South Australian Government is an excellent Landlord, and that this project has been recommended by the State parliamentary land settlement committee which consists, in the main, of men who know the land. I make a special plea to the Minister in charge of war service land settlement to make an early inspection of the area with a view to its being taken over by the Com mon weal th .

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– But for the remarks of my colleague from Tasmania, Senator Wardlaw, I should not have deemed it necessary to rise. I am reluctant to leave with ‘ the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge), from whom we expect purposeful administration and who represents the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Kent Hughes), the impression that there is satisfaction with the scheme in Tasmania, at any rate from my point of view. I ask the Minister to consider whether any settler could be satisfied if he had been on his land for six or seven years and still did not know the rent he was expected to pay or the basis upon which his improvements would be costed, and had not been notified of his auction price.

I remind the Senate that last night it passed a bill which provided for the appropriation of revenue moneys amounting to £1,750,000 to defray certain costs and deficiencies. It is important that we should scrutinize that expenditure to ensure that it is being made with proper purpose, and to the advantage of war service land settlement. This money could be expended for the purpose of acquiring a holding. It is high time thai we got this scheme into perspective, because I assert that in Tasmania it is a sporadic, unco-ordinated, confused and desperate scheme. It is only because of the presence in the chamber of the Minister for Shipping and Transport, of whom one expects sound administrative and managerial qualities, that I have risen to speak.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · Western Australia · LP

in reply - At this hour of the morning, I am disposed to approach with gentleness any speech that seems to be contentious. Lest the remarks of Senator Byrne may have left the impression that the Australian Government had not played its full part in respect of war service land settlement in Queensland, 1 think it is desirable that I should say something about that matter. I have noted that the percentage of loan moneys spent by the Queensland Government on war service land settlement over the years has been very much less than that spent by the governments of the other principal States. In 1945-46, the proportion so spent by New South Wales was 5.5 per cent.; by Victoria, 3.2 per cent.; and by Queensland, .5 per cent. In the next year, New South Wales spent 13.9 per cent, of its loan moneys on war service land settlement, Victoria 26.9 per cent., and. Queensland 1.6 per cent. In 1948-49, the respective proportions were 19.9 per cent., 20.5 per cent., and 5.5 per cent. I am taking these years at random. In 1951-52, the respective proportions were 6”. 7 per cent., 8.5 per cent., and 3.7 per cent. If one looks at the figures for the total expenditure by the principal States on war service land settlement to the 30th June, 1955, one find that New South Wales has spent ?31,578,000, Victoria, ?33,128,000, and Queensland ?4,717,000.

In the second-reading speech, mention was made of the fact that an offer of an annual advance of ?1,000,000 had been made to the Queensland Government, but that it had been rejected. I place those facts on record to remove any possible impression that the Commonwealth has not given to Queeusland the same encouragement that it has given to the other States. Having been a principal State for a number of years, Queensland was offered the opportunity of becoming an agent State on the same terms and conditions that applied to the agent States of Western Australia, Tasmania and South Australia, but that offer was declined.

Senator Pearson asked about an area of land at Hundred of Jeffries, and suggested that the officials in charge of war service land settlement should examine the proposal to which he referred. I am pleased to be able to tell him that the request of the South Australian Government has been acceded to, that the department has signified its willingness to re-examine the proposal, and that the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Kent Hughes) has stated that, if it is possible to do so during the forthcoming election campaign, he will make a personal inspection of the area.

Senator Wright has referred to the nonissue of valuations in relation to certain Tasmanian properties that have been under occupation for six or seven years. My understanding of the position is that the occupants saw fit to take action, but that their claim in the Supreme Court was lost. I understand that they have appealed to the High Court of Australia, and that the case is now sub judice. When the High Court delivers its judgment, valuations will be issued.

Senator Wright:

– Why deny a benefit to settlers generally, simply because one small section is engaged in litigation?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I am informed that some settlers, after being in occupation for as brief a period as three years, and after the conditions of occupancy have been fulfilled and the properties brought to a desirable level of development, have already received valuations.

Question resolved in the affirmative .

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

page 853

MEAT EXPORT CONTROL BILL 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 761).

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– The Opposition offers no objection to this bill, which really foreshadows the intention of the Government to amend the Meat Export Control Act in certain respects, chiefly in connexion with the reconstitution of the Australian Meat Board. I understand that the idea of the Government is to give the industry greater representation on the board. The Australian Labour party always has approved the greatest possible representation on boards of this kind being given to the industries concerned.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 853

STATES GRANTS (MENTAL INSTITUTIONS) BILL 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 765).

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I regret very much that a bill of this nature should be brought before the Senate at this hour of the morning. When we are speaking about mental institutions we might well look about us and wonder whether it is not ironic that the contents of such a bill should come up for discussion at this hour. I think it is rather an insult to the intelligence of the people who send us here that a matter of such vital importance to the community should have to be discussed so hurriedly. However, I do not intend to allow the lateness of the hour to deflect me from the intention I have in mind, which is to bring before the Senate certain aspects of this bill, or to let some features of it go unchallenged.

This bill is historical in that this is only the second time in the history of the Commonwealth that the Australian Government has proposed to make some contribution towards the solution of this very vital social problem. During the debate in the Senate on Wednesday evening last, certain comments were made about this matter, and in the secondreading speech of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) comment was also made concerning the fact that small payments were made to mental institutions by the previous Labour Government in 1948. It was stated that those payments, which averaged only about ls. a head a day in respect of patients in mental hospitals, were most inadequate. As a member of the committee which recommended, to the Government of the day, that some payments should be made, I wish to say that they were never intended to cover the complete maintenance costs of inmates of mental institutions. They were intended to cover the average costs which had been recovered, or were recoverable, from patients’ estates by State governments. That provision was made in order to relieve relatives of patients of a liability which, in some instances, caused distress, particularly in the case of deceased estates. The provision was introduced in 1948, at a time when quite a lot of social services legislation was being placed on the statute-book of this country.

Now, we come to the bill before the Senate this morning. As far as it goes, it is quite a good bill, in that it proposes to make a contribution of £10,000,000 towards the expansion of the building programme for mental institutions throughout Australia. It has come before the Parliament as the outcome of the Stoller report. For some years, Dr. Stoller was attached to the mental hospital at Claremont, in Western Australia, where he did a fine job as a member of the staff. Consequently, he is able to speak from the experience he gained there, as well as from experience gained in his capacity as Director of Mental Hygiene with the Repatriation Department. With that experience, together with scientific knowledge acquired abroad, he is able to speak authoritatively on this matter.

I cannot attempt to deal with all the matters that I had intended to raise on this subject, but I wish to direct attention to the concluding paragraphs of the Stoller report. In my opinion, this report is an excellent one and deserves study, not only by honorable senators, but also by all Australians to whom this social problem is of urgent importance. On page 173 of the report, the following statement appears: - . . the mere provision of more beds, without raising the standards of existing hospitals and improving the quality and numbers of professional stalls, will be perpetuating an historical error.

That is a very important point to remember. The report continues -

The improvement of existing hospitals, the provision of new beds, the establishment of early treatment centres and out-patient clinics, the encouragement of professional training, and a programme of investigation must all be developed together, each as important as the other in the final realization of the mental health programme. . . . There are unsatisfied mental health needs in the community which must be fulfilled if it is to be a healthy one.

Those conclusions were prompted by the survey that was made by Dr. Stoller and Mr. Arscott. They found that there was a great need for re-organization and proper development of the mental hygiene section of the Commonwealth health scheme and the health schemes of the States. There is terrific overcrowding of mental institutions, which are accommodating more than 20,000 patients above the number that they were built to hold. The shortage of all kinds of accommodation in these institutions is terrific, and staff shortages are most acute. Dr. Stoller found, for- instance, that there was a deplorable shortage of nurses. He also found that in Australia, only 125 doctor? were working in mental institutions, which gave a ratio of one doctor to every 235 patients, which is absolutely out of all proportion to the needs of the patients. Ho found, further, that only one-third of those doctors were specialists in psychiatry who had done post-graduate training in that subject.

Surely Dr. Stoller’s findings, and the fact that there are in some States no trained psychiatrists on the staffs of mental hospitals, present us with a really terrifying picture. That is why I expressed at the beginning of my remarks my regret that this very important matter should be brought before the Senate in almost the last hour in the life of the Parliament. However, as I have also said, some very important recommendations have been made, not only by Dr. Stoller but also by others who see this problem- as worthy and possible of solution by a national programme. My only basic objection to the bill is that it deals merely with the provision of money for expenditure on new buildings. That does not go to the root of the problem, which is the need to provide for the training of staff in the actual treatment of patients. However, the bill represents a big step forward towards the goal we wish to achieve, which is to see mental health recognized as an important part of our health services.

The first step towards remedying the present position is to overcome the shortage of accommodation and the resultant overcrowding of mental institutions, of which we are all acutely aware. The second step is the improvement of medical standards in mental hospitals. The statistics show that in Australia there is an astonishing lack of specialists in psychiatry. “Very few of the medical schools in the Commonwealth provide courses in psychiatry, and it would be to the advantage of this country if students who wish to specialize in this field were sent abroad, particularly to the United States, where great advances have been made in recent years in psychiatric research, in order that they might increase their knowledge and be able to return here and put it into practice eventually in the opening up of mental health departments in the various medical schools. There should also be provision of large numbers of suitably trained professional staff for work in mental institutions. As I said on Wednesday evening when I spoke on this matter, one fault that I find with the present system is the low status accorded mental hospital nurses. I feel that we have to see that mental hospital nurses are given a higher status than has been accorded them, and are given improved general training in psychiatric work. They should have the same status in a community as other trained nurses enjoy. This would be a great step towards overcoming the terrific shortage of mental hospital nurses, which is in the vicinity of 1,000. We should also recognize that work could be done by nursing aids in mental institutions which would lessen the load at present carried by the insufficient number of mental hospital nurses.

Senator Wedgwood:

– They are being used.

Senator TANGNEY:

– They are being used in some States, but that is not general practice throughout Australia. I also think that more clinics for the early treatment of mental illness should be established so that the worst effects of the more serious and difficult cases could be obviated. We need a programme of allied research in each of the States into all the causes of mental illness. Those are just a few of the remedies which should be applied to this very important problem, which cannot be solved merely by erecting more buildings. A solution of the problem will not be achieved by providing new buildings and improving existing ones if the standards of staffs engaged in mental health work, and the facilities with which they have to work, are not improved at the same time. Until mental health falls into its proper perspective in the national health scheme the measures provided for in the bill will be just a temporary palliative.

Dr. Stoller recommends an improvement of the training and a raising of the status of mental hospital nurses as a very important step forward. He also has some criticism to make of two Commonwealth departments. After commenting favorably on the Repatriation Department - and I should like to take this opportunity of doing so also, because I have seen its splendid work for our exservicemen suffering from neurosis - he says that the Department of Social Services has an important rule in relation to the rehabilitation of psychiatric patients which is not being fulfilled. He states in that connexion -

There is need for rehabilition and reestablishment facilities for many mental hospital patients as well as psychiatric aid for many invalid pensioners and chronic psychosomatic patients.

That is something which would not cost a great deal of money, but could be done side by side with this proposed expenditure on new buildings. He then states that the Department of Labour and National Service has no specific policy, and has not developed a programme, in relation to the placement of mental patients. He says -

There is room for -a concerted attempt to organize placement of mental patients and defectives and develop industrial programmes. Vocational guidance is necessary at an early stage of convalescence.

That also is very important. ‘ It throws into relief the necessity for a department of mental hygiene. Until all those things can be correlated in order to stop this terrific drain on Australia’s resources, and this threat to our national happiness, many people now in mental institutions have little prospect, in present conditions, of ever being released.

Dealing with the aspect of research, Dr. Stoller said -

This is conspicuous by its absence.

That is something which rebounds to the discredit, not of this Government only, but of all governments in the past which have .allowed this matter to drift. These people in mental institutions have been put out of sight and therefor out of mind. The higher the walls behind which they have been incarcerated the less their problem has obtruded itself on the public consciousness. We have to consider the need to awaken the public consciousness to the fact that mental illness is an illness and not a crime. I should like to see established a Commonwealth department of mental hygiene to provide for some of the most outstanding needs of mentally ill people.

I repeat that I regret that this matter has come before us so early in the morn.ian. when the Senate is about to go into recess, because there are so many aspects of it that I am sure many honorable senators would like to discuss. Unfortunately we cannot give the matter the attention is should have, because of the unreasonableness of the hour at which it is brought before us. The Opposition, therefore, supports the bill without further comment on it, but expresses its great regret that, it throws on the States the onus of providing twice as much money as the Commonwealth is to provide for this fund however, it at least goes one .step forward on the very long and tortuous road which will lead ultimately, we hope, to the solution of this very vexed and sad problem of mental health, the attack on which definitely cannot be any longer postponed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 856

INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION BILL 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 768).

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

– As it would take me at least half an hour to outline fully the reasons why the Opposition opposes this measure - I think the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) might reluctantly agree with me - I shall content myself by merely saying that honorable senators on this side do oppose it. I consider that the setting up of the International Finance Corporation indicates a change of mind on the part of the Government since the International Bank was established. The Opposition considers that money should be provided readily to under-developed countries to enable them to improve their public health, educational, and other facilities.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 856

LOAN (HOUSING) BILL 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 769)..

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This bill authorizes the raising by loan of £33,200,000. The money will be allocated to the States, excluding Tasmania, which is outside the ambit of the measure, for the purpose of promoting housing. The application of that amount is shown in the bill. It will enable the present ten-year agreement to be carried on for one more year. The Opposition supports the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 867

STATES GRANTS BILL, 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 771).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

.; - This is a bill of a type that annually comes before the Senate. Its purposeis to provide, on the recommendation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission an amount of £18,500,000 to the applicant States - South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania.

Senator Wright:

– Is that right?

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. Earlier, we considered a measure relating to income tax reimbursement. This measure relates to the three States that I have mentioned. I merely remark that the Commonwealth Grants Commission is a body that commands the respect of the Parliament. Its recommendations have always been adopted. Its report on this occasion is at its usual excellent standard. It contains a mass of information for anybody who is interested in the vital and important field of Commonwealth-State financial relationships. Unfortunately, it was tabled in the Parliament only within the last 24 hours or so, and no full opportunity has been available to me, at least, to read it thoroughly, I shall certainly do so in the near future. I pay a tribute to the work of the commission, and I also express appreciation of the fact that what are known as the standard States, through their representation in this Parliament, are most generous and ready in support of recommendations by the Commonwealth Grants Commission for ensuring the even development of the services and facilities of the smaller States, as they are called, although that is not a true description of them. On behalf of the Opposition, I express appreciation for the ready co-operation of the standard States, and of those who represent them. The grant is substantially greater this year than it was last year, the increase being from £12,300,000 to £18,500,000.

The only other comment I wish to make is that the commission moves with the times. It is interesting to see in the second chapter of the report - I have only read as far as that - that increased allowances have been made to these States, based upon their peculiar difficulties of population, terrain, age groups and the rest. The Opposition has pleasure in supporting the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 867

TRADESMEN’S RIGHTS REGULATION BILL 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page782).

SenatorMcKENNA (TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition) [2.30 a.m.]. - This measure extends for a further period of three years the provisions hitherto in force. The Opposition supports it.

Question resolved in the affirmative..

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

page 867

RE-ESTABLISHMENT AND EMPLOYMENT BILL 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 783).

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition supports this measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 858

COAL INDUSTRY BILL 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 784).

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition supports this measure also. Its purpose is to enable the Coal Industry Tribunal, Mr. Gallagher, to retain his office, despite the fact that he has been appointed a member of the Industrial Commission of the State of New South Wales. The Opposition congratulates Mr. Gallagher upon his appointment. We agree with the remarks of the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) regarding the excellence of the work that Mr. Gallagher has done as the Coal Industry Tribunal.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 858

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 826).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition supports the two purposes sought to be achieved by this measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 858

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 831).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition does not support this measure. We feel that it is an outrage that a bill of these dimensions should be presented to the Senate in the expectation that it will be passed immediately. We think it was an insult, at least to the Opposition, that, although the secondreading speech of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) contained a most lengthy eulogy of the health services provided by the Government, the only reference to the contents of the bill made by the Minister was a brief reference to a change in the pensioner medical service.

There are 43 clauses to the bill, but there was not one word of explanation of any of them in the whole of the secondreading speech, apart from the reference that I have remarked upon. The schedules relating to the medical benefits service, have been changed and reprinted. Frankly, I have not had an opportunity to compare them with the old schedules and to note the differences. In the light of one thing that I have discovered in the bill, and also in the light of an omission from the secondreading speech, I am not prepared to accept the schedules at their face value. I am not prepared to accept them without having checked them very carefully. For those reasons, and also because of our objections to the change proposed in clause 4 (b), we shall oppose the measure.

I have referred to an omission from the Minister’s speech and to an effect that the bill will have. Recently, I moved the adjournment of the Senate to discuss a matter of public urgency, namely, the proposal by the Government, as announced by the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page), to take the retrograde step of imposing a new means test in respect of the pensioner medical service. It is a most retrograde step to superimpose a means test on a means test, and so create anomalies of the worst kind. I do not propose to develop that theme. I merely remind honorable senators of the remarks I made on that subject in the course of a half -hour speech recently. The Senate knows the views of the Opposition on that matter.

There was no reference in the secondreading speech or in the public statement made by the Minister for Health to the fact that the simple alteration proposed in clause 4 will affect also the pensioner pharmaceutical benefits service. In section 85 of the National Health Act 1953, provision is made to provide pharmaceutical benefits for the public generally, and additional and special benefits for pensioners. The Minister has not drawn attention to that matter in his speech.

Therefore, by inference, it does not arise. I think it was incumbent upon the Minister to mention it. Now we fmd that the meanness which we thought was confined to the pensioner medical service spills over into the pensioner pharmaceutical benefits service. At the committee stage we shall propose an amendment to negative those two proposals, in any event as a protest against the introduction of a measure of this nature which, in the circumstances, I claim the Opposition is justified in distrusting. In the limited time we have had to examine the bill, there has been uo opportunity to carry out a detailed examination of the contents of the schedules and the changes made therein. They are most extensive, covering over 30 pages and comprising many items which need the closest examination. I do not propose to labour the matter at this hour beyond repeating our protest against a bill of this magnitude coming into the Senate at this hour, without an adequate explanation of it being given. Indeed, an attempt has been made to suppress one of the most important effects the bill could have, namely the cutting down of the pensioner pharmaceutical benefit service as well as the pensioner medical benefit service. The Opposition does not support the measure.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– A bill of this nature deserves some consideration as it passes through the Senate, and I hope that at the committee stage we shall hear from the Minister an explanation of the schedule which, frankly, I have no understanding nf at the moment. However, I wish to refer to the principal provision of the bill which seeks to exclude from the benefits of the medical service pensioners who have an income that takes them out of the means test that was applicable in 1953. That is a matter that calls for grave consideration, and the step we are taking under this bill should be followed carefully. I have not formed any opinion which would conscientiously warrant my voting against the bill at the present time; but I desire to express a word of warning to the effect that it does not help us to place our confidence and trust in the medical profession for the effective operation of what, I believe, was a great provision in social services in the form in which the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) introduced the national health scheme. That profession is showing a tendency, by increasing its fees, to force the scheme into an inflationary condition whereby the benefits of the ‘Commonwealth contribution are becoming unreal to the people for whom they were intended. If this measure is an indication that the profession is going to be the controller of this scheme, this Parliament will have to reconsider the scheme in a very determined way. We would be well justified in considering the viewpoint whereby instead of restricting medical benefits according to a past means test for pensioners, we should, if we think a relaxation of the means test is justified, accompany that alleviation of the means test with increased payments to members of the medical profession that would adequately remunerate them in respect of the services which they give to the extended scope of pensioners. I mention that because I think the Parliament is bound to take this matter into earnest consideration within the next twelve months. I for one accept in a spirit of indecision the main provision of this bill; but it warrants very careful reconsideration.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

in reply - I agree that, perhaps, this bill has been brought down at the eleventh hour, and I also agree that it seeks to effect quite substantial changes in various existing provisions. These matters have been under consideration for a considerable time. It is not as though this bill were unexpected. It has been expected for some weeks and has been discussed in Cabinet and among Government supporters. At the committee stage, I shall deal with the amendment that Senator McKenna has foreshadowed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– I refer to clause 4, paragraph (b) which reads -

Section four of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting from nub-section (I.) the definition of “pensioner” and inserting in its stead the following definition: - “ ‘ pensioner ‘ means a person to whom, or in respect of whom, there is being paid -

an age pension, an invalid pension or a widow’s pension under the Social Services Act 1947- 1955 ;

a service pension under the Repatriation Act 1920-1955; or

an allowance under the Tuberculosis Act 1948, but does not include a person to whom, or in respect of whom, a pension is granted to be paid from a date after the thirty-first day of October, One thousand nine hundred’ and fifty-five, and who, by reason of his income, would not have been eligible under the Social Services Consolidation Act 1947- 1953, or the Repatriation Act 1920-1953, as in force on the thirty-first clay of December, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-three, to receive the maximum rate of pension that would have been payable to him if the relevant Act had remained in force as on that date without amendment; “; and

by omitting from sub-section (1.) the definition of “ the Deputy Director”. and I move -

That, in paragraph (b), all the words in the definition of “ pensioner “ after the words “Tuberculosis Act 1948” be left out.

I make that clear to the Senate by pointing out that the machinery for restricting the operation of the pensioner medical service and the pharmaceutical benefit service for pensioners is contained in the words that have been added and follow the words, “ Tuberculosis Act 1948 “ The clause as proposed to be amended will read - “ pensioner “ means a person to whom, or it; respect of whom, there is being paid -

  1. an age pension, an invalid pension or a widow’s pension under the Social Service Aci 1947-1955; ( (< ) a service pension under the Re patriation Act 1920-1953; or
  2. ait allowance under the Tuber eU los is Act 1948.

The words that follow in the clause a.-? drafted are quite new and have been written in to effectuate the intention of the Government.

I draw attention to another retrograde . aspect of this matter. This Government recently provided, as an increased benefit in the social services field, that when income earning property was taken into account under the property test, income from the property was disregarded. I invite attention to the fact that here is a case in which the concentration is upon income. The clause states “by reason of his income “. I suggest that the Government is travelling backward? in more ways than one. It amazes mp that Government members have been prepared to accept this position. If they have reversed their policy in relation to the application of the property test and the income test, they have narrowed the scope of two benefits that they introduced in their present form. I do not think that they have anything to be proud of in this bill. The restriction flows upon those in the community who .are least able to bear it. I will not go any further than that. I have already expressed myself very forcibly on this matter on another occasion.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I support the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) in his objection to this clause, and I support his amendment. Not only does the clause put a means test on medical services for the pensioner, but it puts a very different complexion on the Governments’ attitude toward the pensioner and the increase of pensions which the Government says it has given to the pensioners. When we get down to real, basic, honest analysis of what has been done for the pensioner over a period of time by all governments, we find that no greater increase has taken place in the pension than has taken place in the cost of living. The pensioner, in effect, is getting a bit more money. It is not a big increase in relation to the means test. But when the pension is considered in the light of purchasing power, the pensioner is not one wit better off. The Government has boasted that it has increased pensions sufficiently to compensate pensioners for the inflation that it has caused, and it now proposes that no pensioner who receives the equivalent of a reasonably frugal living shall be entitled to the pensioner medical service. It is rotten, cheating and mean of the Government to do this, because that is one of the most important services that it could give to an aged person. Some pensioners will scrounge for food. They have done so for the last four years. But they cannot scrounge medical treatment. If the idea is to lower the pensions bill by letting the pensioners die of ill-health or malnutrition, that is a scurvy trick for a national government to play on them.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– If the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) were accepted, it would entirely defeat the Government’s intention in clause 4, which is designed to limit the medical benefits to persons in receipt of a certain income which is, for a man and his wife, . £12 a week. When the pensioner medical service was originally introduced, the amount of permissible income plus pension was very much lower than it is at present. We have to look at the position in this way: This Government has promised gradually to do away with the means test by gradually lifting the amount of income that can be earned in addition to a pension. The Government is keeping its promise. Unless we are eventually to give free medical services to everybody in the community, the time must come when we must decide where we shall put the peg.

Senator Cooke:

– The Government is afraid of its own generosity.

Senator COOPER:

– No. Let us consider the case that was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition when this matter was brought up about a week ago on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the position of a young man and his wife and family on the basic wage, which, we will say, is £12 a week. A couple next door to him are drawing a social services pension, and their total incomes amounts to £12 a week. The young people who are bringing up a family on the same income are paying not only towards the pension of these elderly people, but also towards the medical benefits that we are giving to aged pensioners. Yet the young couple are not entitled to any such benefits. If we are to be logical and fair, we must either bring in a scheme to give free medical benefits to the family on the basic wage who are just as deserving as the pensioners in receipt of £12 a week.

Senator McKenna:

– Of course you should.

Senator COOPER:

– The Government had given this matter a great deal of consideration and thought before it introduced this bill, and it is not prepared to extend the scheme at the present time.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– It appears to me that the argument of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) is that the pensioner has become so well treated that he is embarrassing the Government, because no married man and his family on the basic wage, which also provides only a frugal living, are eligible for the social services, free hospitalization and free medicine that is received by the pensioners. The Government thinks that the way in which to correct that position would be to deprive the pensioner of a service which is essential to him. On the other hand, throughout its period of office, this Government has spoken of its intention to do something for the young married man in order to make his position better than that of the pensioner. It is an indictment of the Government that a young married man who is raising a family is so poor that he has to exist and pay for medical services on an income which is not higher, and is perhaps lower, than that of the pensioner who does not have to support a family on the same income. That cannot be denied. So we find that the Government has taken this action. The young married man with a family, of whom the Minister speaks with such sympathy, cannot be hurt if a pensioner receives a benefit which they both need, but which one must do without. The Government has done nothing for the young family man at all.

Child endowment has remained almost static. Yet the Government has put forward this proposition to-night in order to justify taking away from pensioners the most essential service that is supplied to them. This measure will not remove the anomaly to which I have referred. Even after this bill has been passed, it will still be possible for some pensioners to receive free medical treatment whilst men on the basic wage will not receive it. So that anomaly will not be removed. The Minister has said, in effect, “ We have not done the fair thing by the married man. We have not extended family allowances for the family man. We have left him on a frozen basic wage until he is on a standard lower than that which he was on before. So we will deprive the pensioner of medical treatment “. The attitude of the Minister is very poor in view of the promises that the Government gave to the people of this country, both the young and the old.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I should like to comment on the statement of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) that the yoting married man on the basic wage is contributing to the age pension and also to the pensioner medical service that his neighbour is receiving. Is it not also a fact that, throughout his lifetime, the age pensioner has contributed to many social serivces of which he himself has not been the direct recipient? I would also like to ask what it is estimated that this will save the Government. Is it a matter of saving money, or has the British Medical Association said that it is not satisfied with the present system under which the Government is paying for services to people who, on the association’s reasoning, can afford to pay more? How many pensioners are likely to be adversely affected by this change? Why has this obnoxious clause been inserted at all?

Senator McKenna:

– The British Medical Association made the Government do it.

Senator TANGNEY:

– There has been compulsion somewhere because I feel quite certain that the Minister would not have brought down this amending legislation of his own volition. It effects a small saving only, but the principle is important. Having established the principle that pensioners are entitled to a medical service, why whittle it away by this means? It is one of the meanest things that have happened in this Parliament.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

.- Will the Minister tell the Senate whether the decision to do this parsimonious and mean thing to the pensioners was made by the Government of its own accord, or as a result of pressure from the British Medical Association which has, from time to time condescended to give a service to the Government?

Senator Spooner:

– It was a government decision.

Amendment negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment J report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 862

LOAN (CANADIAN DOLLARS) BILL 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 833).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

, - The Opposition does not support this bill under which the Government seeks authority to raise 15,000,000 dollars in Canada. I think that the Minister intimated in his second-reading speech that this was the first loan that Australia had floated in that country. He took great pride in the fact that the loan had filled in one hour, but he overlooked the fact that in Canada loans with gilt-edged securities fill very rapidly at 3 per cent. It is little wonder that the wise investors of Canada rushed this loan, which was issued at 9S£ instead of par and carried an interest rate of 4 per cent. They knew that it would give them a much greater return than they could hope to get from investing in the gilt-edged securities of their own country. It would be very poor indeed if, under those conditions, Australia did not get such a result.

I wish to express, frankly, my view that it is humiliating to see our Treasurer (Sir ArthurFadden) going to a sister dominion to borrow “15,000,000 dollars, which represents, in Australian currency, just a little more than £6,000,000. That is paltry and not to be expected of a country with an annual budget of more than £1,000,000,000. In terms of our national budget this loan is not even petty cash. Such borrowings are distinctly derogatory to the dignity of the country and I do not think that the Government has anything to be proud of. In fact, it has madea very poor deal. Is our international reputation such that we must invoke the aid of brokers to raise a loan that fills in an hour? From a business point of view, what kind of a deal is that? Australia engaged some one to sell a loan which was issued at 981/2 and carried an interest rate of 4 per cent, when a loan, properly presented, at par and an interest rate of 3 per cent., could have been filled in the same time.

Senator Maher:

– This money will help the States to meet their loan commitments. Does the honorable senator believe that Mr. Cosgrove will be happy about his attitude ?

Senator McKENNA:

– It will make a very small contribution to the States works programmes, which are already inadequately served by the Commonwealth Government. To understand why that is so, one need only consider the contradictory attitude of this Government. It is in difficulty with its overseas balances. I agree that we need dollars, but only a few moments ago the Senate approved a bill under which the Government will spend 2,000,000 dollars in joining a new international monetary fund. Is there any consistency in that? This Government borrows dollars to support loan programmes which will help the balance of payments position, but at the same time it sends dollars out of the country for other purposes. The amount borrowed is so small that the Opposition feels that it was humiliating for the Government of Australia to have to enter into an underwriting agreement concerning it with a private firm in Canada. 1 refer to Wood, Gundy and Company Limited. The Government paid to the brokers for underwriting the loan 2 dollars out of every hundred that it borrowed; but the loan filled in an hour. I think it is one of the worst deals that this country has ever made, quite apart from the fact that it is adding to our overseas indebtedness and committing the country to further sinking fund and interest payments. This adds to our yearly outflow of capital and accentuates our balance of payments difficulty. I invite honorable senators to observe the obligations which the Australian nation had to enter into with Messrs. Wood, Gundy and Company Limited. Clause 7 of the first schedule lays down -

Our obligation to purchase and pay for the Fifteen Year Bonds shall be subject to the following conditions: -

after the date of the Prospectus and prior to the closing date there shall have been no material adverse change in the position of the Commonwealth, financial or otherwise

What does “otherwise” mean? from that set forth in the Prospectus.

In other words, under that clause the whole economic and even the moral position of the Commonwealth could be brought into consideration with Messrs. Wood, Gundy and Company Limited. The whole transaction disgusts the Opposition, and we do not support it.

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

in reply - I must reply to some of the observations of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). First of all, I invite honorable senators to consider the terms of the loan. The Leader of the Opposition complains that an underwriting house of brokers has been brought into the matter. In what circumstances can borrowings be made on the open market without using underwriters.? If the State Electricity Commission of New South Wales borrows on the open market it employs underwriters, as also. does the State Electricity Commission, of Victoria. In all its long course of borrowings on the London market, the Commonwealth of Australia has employed underwriters. That happened also when the Australian Government recently borrowed on the New York market. If a borrowing is made on the open market, and bonds are issued to be available to the public, I doubt whether I make an over-statement in saying that the use of underwriters is the only way in which the matter can be arranged.

The Leader of the Opposition said that the general proposal was bad because the Commonwealth was borrowing such a small amount overseas. Does he suggest that it is bad for this country to borrow overseas, or that we should not contemplate borrowings overseas in order to promote the development of Australia? The Government has consistently held the view that Australia, being a young country with a comparatively small population, would be faced with a most difficult, if not impractical, task to attempt to finance all the necessary developmental work out of the savings of the Australian people. Our overseas borrowings have been principally from the International Bank, but there have been other borrowing transactions, also. These have been extraordinarily interesting judged by any standard. Two of them were borrowings from Switzerland, which has one of the hardest and most sought-after currencies in the world. We borrowed also on the New York Stock Exchange, and now this loan has been arranged with Canada. The honorable senator says they are small transactions. Perhaps there is no other country in the sterling area which has the same credit-worthiness to borrow on those three markets as Australia has. Even if my statement is incorrect, it is a great tribute to Australia that it is able to raise loans on the public markets in Canada, New York and Switzerland.

Senator McKenna:

– Of £6,000,000.

Senator SPOONER:

– Although they are small loans, these transactions are a commencement in opening a source of overseas borrowing for Australia, in most difficult circumstances, on the best loan markets from which there can be a continuing supply of funds. Australia’s records of borrowing from the International Bank is that this country has obtained more money from that source than has any other. Only a good government can break into world borrowing markets and successfully negotiate transactions such as these. If the Opposition objects to this borrowing from Canada then it is a serious error of judgment od their part.

Question resolved in the affirmative

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

page 864

LOAN CONSOLIDATION AND INVESTMENT RESERVE BILL 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 835).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The purpose of this bill, which was explained at some length by the Minister, is to tuck away, or find a repository for, an expected surplus of £48,500,000 which the Government hopes to realise this year, and which amount might even be largely exceeded. The opportunity is being taken also to close down what has been a repository for the last two surpluses - the Debt Redemption Reserve - and the amount is now being transferred into the reserve created by this measure. There will then be in the fund a total of something like £166,000,000.

Prom a logical point of view I approve the cancellation of the Debt Redemption Reserve and the transfer to a trust fund which will be the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve Fund. That is a much more descriptive title. The former name was a misnomer. Although it was called a debt redemption reserve fund, and stood at £126,000,000, I doubt whether any of that money was used for debt redemption. It is used generally, as will be the £48,500,000, for the purpose of supporting State works programmes, and will be invested in Commonwealth loans. With those comments I intimate that the Opposition does not oppose 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 865

INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT BILL 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 840).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition offers no objection to the passage of the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 865

INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION BILL 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 841).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This bill continues the existing rates of contribution without alteration, but, at the same time, provides an extension of benefits and exemptions from taxation to aged persons. The Opposition does not raise any difficulties in the way of the passage of the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 865

QUESTION

IMPORTS OF MACHINERY

Senator ARMSTRONG:

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Government’s decision to reduce imports by £80,000,000 by June, 1956, means that applications for import licences for machinery and equipment required for industry are being refused by his department irrespective of merit?
  2. Furthermore, is it a fact that applications for licences for replacement machinery and equipment are also being declined and the applicants told to apply again at some future date 1 If so, how does the Government reconcile such drastic action with its invitation to manufacturers to reduce production costs, and how can this be done on machinery that is worn out and, in some cases, completely out of date?
Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I now furnish the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -

  1. No.
  2. Most items of machinery and equipment are under administrative control which means briefly that each application for an import licence is considered on its merits. It is untrue to say that all applications are being refused but conversely it cannot be said that all are being granted. The need for replacement is not always as urgent as is claimed by the applicant and in view of the necessity to keep our external spending within certain limits, the less urgent cases have to be deferred.

page 865

QUESTION

DRIED FRUITS

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– On the 20th

October, Senator Pearson asked a question in the following terms: -

I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture in connexion with conferences which have been held between the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture and his officers and representatives of the Australian Dried Fruits Association, the purpose of which was to establish a stabilization plan for the industry. I now ask the Minister whether he will ascertain from his colleague the exact present position. I understand that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has given consideration to definite proposals which were submitted to him by representatives of the Australian Dried Fruits Association.

The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has now furnished the following information : -

The Department of Commerce and Agriculture has completed its analysis of the stabilization plan submitted by the dried vine fruits industry. The department’s report and conclusions were recently furnished to the Minister, who expects to place the whole matter before Cabinet at a very early date.

page 865

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PROPERTY

Senator CAMERON:

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

  1. Has the Department of the Interior either leased or sold to the Myer Emporium Limited, 314 Bourke-street and Lonsdale-street, Melbourne, the narrow casement known as Angellane, which separates the Chief Telegraph Office and the Myer Emporium building and which extends from Bourke-street to Post Office-place, Melbourne?
  2. If not, who has authorized the Myer Emporium to build over the front portion and to close up the rear portion of the easement?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

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

  1. No. Angel-lane is not the property of the Commonwealth.
  2. The Department of the Interior has no information on the matter.

page 866

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN AIRWAYS COMPANIES

Senator O’BYRNE:

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

  1. What are present restrictions placed on Trans-Australia Airlines in the freight carrying field and what is the number of Trans- Australia Airlines freighter aircraft?
  2. How many freighter aircraft have Australian National Airways and what is their capacity compared to Trans-Australia Airlines?
  3. Is finance available to Trans-Australia Airlines to purchase modern freighter aircraft to give keen competition in the freight carrying field, similar to that existing in the passenger side of air transport?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

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

  1. There is no restriction on Trans- Australia Airlines carrying freight over the routes for which licences are held and Trans-Australia Airlines has four freighter aircraft.
  2. Australian National Airways has six freighter aircraft. Their capacity is approximately 30 short tons compared with a capacity of approximately 14 short tons provided by Trans-Australia Airlines.
  3. The Minister has not received any representations from Trans-Australia Airlines for finances to permit the purchase of freighter aircraft.
Senator ARMSTRONG:

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

  1. Has the Minister seen the report of the “ muscling in “ of Mr. Holyman of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited into Butler Air Transport Ltd. of New South Wales, and Mr. Butler’s statement that Mr. Holyman of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited had made an offer on behalf of TransAustralia Airlines to purchase the Vickers Viscount owned by Butler Air Tranport Limited ?
  2. Can the Minister inform the Senate how Mr. Holyman can appear in this matter as the spokesman for government-owned TransAustralia Airlines?
  3. Have Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and Trans-Australia Airlines any understanding in the attempted takeover of this formerly independently controlled airline?
Senator PALTRIDGE:

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

  1. I have seen newspaper reports of the nature referred to by Senator Armstrong.
  2. Mr. Holyman has no authority to act as spokesman for Trans-Australia Airlines.
  3. I have been informed by the Australian National Airlines Commission which operates Trans-Australia Airlines that they have had no discussion or understanding of any kind with Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited on this matter.

page 866

QUESTION

OVERSEAS TRADE BALANCES

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– Yesterday, Senator Courtice asked me a question about Australia’s overseas trade balance. I am now able to furnish him with a reply. Australian imports and exports in the three months ended September, 1955, were valued at £208,000,000 f.o.b. and £168,600,000 f.o.b. respectively, so that there was an adverse trade balance of £39,400,000 during that period. The latest available figure of Australia’s international reserves is that given on the 27th September by the Prime Minister, when he said that the reserves then stood at £370,000,000. The reserves totalled £428,300,000 at the 30th June, 1955, and £570,700,000 at the 30th June, 1954.

page 866

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL SENATORS

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) - by leave - agreed to -

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

page 866

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator 0’Suluvan) agreed to -

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

page 866

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory

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

– I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

As this is the last sitting of this session, and also of this Parliament, it is not inappropriate that I should, on behalf, I am sure, of all the Senate, extend to you, Mr. President, our appreciation of the courtesy, the dignity, the hospitality and the general consideration which you have shown to all of us during the session which is just drawing to a close.

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear!

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I think that 1 can speak on this occasion on behalf of the Senate when I express our appreciation to the Clerk, Mr. Loof, to his staff, and to the poor, long-suffering Mansard reporters, who, from time to time, record in excellent fashion the speeches that we read the following day, or even within an hour or so - and sometimes far too soon. On behalf of myself and my colleagues 1 extend to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) my appreciation of the courtesy which he has invariably extended to me and to those who sit with me.

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear!

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– That does not mean that I always agree with what he says. It does not mean that he has not fought hard and relentlessly, but he has always fought very fairly. The fact that he has fought hard has not in any way made our life here any less bearable. On the contrary, compared with a place which I shall not name, I think that the atmosphere and standard of our chamber are such that none of us has any reason to be ashamed. We have very strenuous debates and very hard tussles, and very few concessions are given by either side. But, at least, we do enjoy a degree of courtesy, and in matters of national importance a degree of co-operation and understanding. I believe that we are all indebted to the Leader of the Opposition in that regard, and to those whom he leads. Now that we have a new party in the Senate, the leader of which is not, here at present, I should like to extend the good wishes of the Government parties to Senator Cole. Under the form of government that we enjoy all parties are deeply indebted to the Whips, and we on this side of the Senate believe that we have the very best Whip that we. could have. So far we have not lost a division.

Senator Critchley:

– She is better looking than our Whip.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I have not yet been informed that Senator Critchley has been a candidate in a beauty contest. However, it is a very happy circumstance that our respective Whips seem to work in harmony, and we on this side of the chamber have always enjoyed the utmost courtesy from Senator Critchley, the Opposition Whip.

During the sessional period that has just passed, we have discussed many amendments put forward by the Opposition, and some that have been put forward from this side of the chamber; and we are deeply indebted to the parliamentary draftsman and his staff. All of us who have had occasion to call upon those gentlemen have found them most helpful and co-operative. We have had the inestimable advantage of the assistance of Mr. Monro, who is the Senate Ministers’ guide, philosopher and friend. For the help that the has given us, we are deeply grateful. Now that we have just finished the debate on the appropriation measure, we should like to tender a word of thanks and appreciation to those unselfish, devoted public servants who have guided us through this very difficult experience.

If there were more of them here I should say quite a deal about the gentlemen of the press, but as there are only a few present at this late hour I shall confine myself to tendering our thanks to them. After all, apart from the air, the press is the vehicle of communication by which the thoughts of the Government and the Opposition are conveyed to the people.

Senator Armstrong:

– They take things down, alter them and use them in evidence against us.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I remind those representatives of the press who are present that that remark came from the Opposition. Of course, I am not always enamoured with what the press does, and sometimes I am not enamoured with what it does not do. Sometimes, I find that after preparing a statement with loving care and handing it to the press, the whole thing dies there.

One of the most important groups to whom we must tender our appreciation for their devoted service to us are the attendants. Without them we should be completely lost. They distribute their services and attention without any thought of favour or affection, and they are, after all, the people upon whom this chamber revolves and the people upon whom we depend a lot. Those of us who have had meals here should pay a meed of thanks to the staff of the refreshment room, who carry out so well the duties that they are called upon to perform. I wish to all those whom I have mentioned, and also to yourself, Mr. President, the compliments of the season and a happy and contented New Year.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– [ extend to you, Mr. President, on behalf of the Opposition, and on behalf of myself in particular, our good wishes for Christmas, and our appreciation of your excellence in the chair. You have earned - and I mean earned - the respect and regard of all honorable senators, and that is a very high compliment indeed. We also extend our compliments to Mr. Loof; and I believe that this is the first occasion upon which we have been able to do so while he has occupied his present position. He looks as though he has many ripe years ahead of him in his position as Clerk of the Senate, and I hope that he will adorn the Senate for a very long time to come. To his staff, to Mr. Odgers, and 10 Mr. Emerton, we are indebted beyond words for the services that they provide. We are also indebted to Hansard, Mr. Monro, the attendants and to all those whom the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator O’Sullivan) has named in the course of his remarks.

As I look around me to-night, I see many who will be my opponents on the future battleground. When I look at them politically I hope that most of them will not come back here, but, when I look at them as men whom I meet in and around the Senate chamber, I say that I would be regretful over the absence of any one face as a result of the fight that we are about to engage in. I am consoled by the thought that, perhaps, we shall all survive, if only to look at each other, until the 30th June next. I look forward to the fray, and I shall not complain about the result whatever it may be. I just hope that both sides will keep the fight clean.

I pay tribute to the press for the way it has been able to keep the Senate out of the headlines. Headlines do not seem to be the fate of the Senate on many occa sions. I thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate for his kindly references to myself. My great regret is that the good relations that I am able to preserve with him and his colleagues outside the chamber cannot always be brought inside. I am sure that it is his fault and not mine, because we get on famously outside this chamber, but periodically fight inside. I suggest that honorable senators take to heart what I have said, and be as co-operative inside the chamber as they are outside it. At the request of some of my supporters, I ask that Senator O’Sullivan might arrange for answers to questions that remain unanswered to be sent as early as possible to senators after the Senate rises. I have made the promise to a number of honorable senators who are not now present that I would make that request.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin). - Honorable senators, I thank you for your very good wishes on the occasion of the completion of another year of work in the Senate. It has been your ready co-operation that has made my work easy. It has been a real pleasure this year to have been associated with you in the Senate work.

The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator O’Sullivan) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) have mentioned many people. I do not propose to go back over that ground except to say that there are some in this building whom we never see. I refer to the men who work down below - the mechanics, the tradesmen, and the man who looks after the furnace, which is of extreme importance during the cold days in Canberra. They are men whom we do not see, but they help to carry on the work of the place.

Senator Tangney:

– And the girls on the switchboard.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, and the girls on the switchboard. On behalf of honorable senators, I express our sincere thanks and appreciation to them. I take this opportunity to thank honorable senators, and extend to them the very best wishes for the coming year.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 3.41 a.m. (Friday) to a day and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 27 October 1955, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1955/19551027_senate_21_s6/>.