Senate
10 May 1956

22nd Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 657

QUESTION

SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask the Leader of the Government - or the chief salesman of the Government-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Senator Brown, there is no Minister representing the chief salesman of the Government in the Senate and I ask you to address your question to the appropriate Minister.

Senator BROWN:

- Mr. President, with all due deference and humility, I expect that there must be some Minister in charge, or there must be some chief salesman over whom the Minister has jurisdiction. However, in deference to this Senate, I will not labour the matter any further. I will try to be as nice and decent as I can, and ask the Leader of the Government-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Senator Brown, there is no need for you to reflect upon my request to you to ask your question in the proper way.

Senator BROWN:

- Mr. President, 1 would not reflect on you for one moment.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! All I am concerned about in the asking of questions is that the question be directed to the proper Minister without a long preamble directed towards discovering what section or department may be involved. Ministers themselves will sort out who is the responsible person to reply, to the question.

Senator BROWN:

– I will say this, Mr. President, that in asking questions, I am the one Senator in this chamber who has rarely prefaced his questions with long preambles. This is my question: Is the Government aware that many thousands of good Australians are deeply perturbed because of the sale by the present Government of the people’s assets ? I notice that honorable senators are all listening very intently. Will the Minister inform the Senate and the people of the number of Government undertakings which can, and still may, be sold? Will the Minister assure the Senate and the people that, despite rumour to the contrary, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories will not be permitted to fall into the prehensile paws of profit-seeking private enterprise?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for the Navy · QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr. President, I am sure that you will agree with me that I should not countenance the antics of Senator Brown when he abuses the forms and procedure of the Senate and thereby brings it into disrepute.

Senator Brown:

– Ah ! Nonsense - utter nonsense!

page 657

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH RAILWAY

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport whether he has completed his organizational tour of inspection of the various offices of the department which he controls. If he has, is he now of the opinion that the officeof the Commissioner for Railways should be transferred to Canberra so that he may more closely control the work of the commissioner? If he is not of that opinion, does he believe that the office should be at Port Augusta, the headquarters of the main Commonwealth railway? Can he supply information which would justify keeping the office of the Commissioner in Melbourne where there is no Commonwealth railway?

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

– There are certain definite and distinct advantages flowing from the fact that the office of the Commonwealth Commissioner for Railways is located in Melbourne. Indeed, I have always imagined that those advantages were the factors which led to its being established in that centre. While it is true that there are no Commonwealth railways in Victoria, it is equally true that Melbourne is the pivotal centre from which the Commonwealth Commissioner for Railways and his staff can watch the activities of lines in various parts of the Commonwealth and, more importantly, can control the freight and other business which flows to the various Commonwealth railways from other State railway systems. Certain administrative and operational matters are, of necessity, dealt with at Port Augusta; but, in the main, it has been found over the years that the location of the. office at Melbourne for policy and directional purposes has infinite advantages, and my tour of inspection, as Senator Benn termed it, has confirmed that view. I may say that the question asked by Senator Benn -was one of the first questions I asked myself when I was appointed to- this portfolio, and I made inquiries and reached that conclusion.

page 658

QUESTION

REGULATIONS AND STATUTORY RULES

Senator McCALLUM:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Attorney-General inquire into the possibility of improving the form of statement by which regulations and statutory rules are brought to the attention of honorable senators, in order that they may be informed of the general purport of a statutory rule or regulation?

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– My recollection is that we did do something about this some time ago. Perhaps, the standards we set have not been maintained; but I will make inquiries, and if any improvement can be made I will endeavour to have it made.

page 658

QUESTION

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY LOG

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the- Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service based upon paragraph 90 of the interim report of the committee of inquiry under the Stevedoring Industry Act 1954 which states -

As long ago as the middle of 1950, both the employers’” organizations and the Federation died logs of claims with the Arbitration Court . . The Arbitration Court has not yet, six years later, really come to the actual hearing of these logs.

The report then refers to ‘” this sorry state of affairs “. After attributing .responsibility both to the Government and the Arbitration Court, the committee made this statement -

This ‘delay ‘accounts, we find, in no small measure for the chaotic conditions we find existing in the .iudustry.

Does the Attorney-General consider that statement of sufficient importance to warrant the preparation of a detailed explanation of the -actions of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in relation to that Jog for the consideration of the Seriate?

Senator SPICER:
LP

– I do know, of my own knowledge, in connexion with this matter, that a great deal - indeed, I would say the major part - of the delay that has taken place in the hearing of this log has been due to the action of the parties concerned. I am most conscious of what might have been done by the Government itself to accelerate the hearing at times when the parties were not prepared to proceed with the hearing themselves. From time to time, there have been hearings of particular matters in relation to the log, and several of those hearings, as a matter of fact, have taken place in the course of the last twelve months. The matter has been accelerated somewhat, but I shall give further consideration to it in the light of the honorable senator’s question, and if a useful statement can be iiafi.de I shall have it prepared.

page 658

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface a question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General by stating that, in South Australia and, I presume, in other States, many thousands of people are still waiting for telephones to be installed at residences and places of business. Many of the applications have been lodged for more than twelve months. The usual excuse for the delay is a shortage of materials. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether that difficulty has been overcome, and whether the number of applications £or telephones in South Australia over the past twelve months has increased or decreased?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– I know that applications have been made for a number of telephones, and that many have not yet been installed. One of the main factors is the great demand which is consequent upon the .prosperity that Australia is enjoying. Some years ago, the telephone was looked upon as a luxury, but now it is a necessity. So many thousands of persons are applying for telephones that the Postmaster-General’s Department has difficulty in coping with the demand. I shall ascertain how many applications are outstanding in South Australia, and give a detailed report to .the honorable senator as soon as possible.

page 659

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. With a view to encouraging saving in the community, will the Minister give consideration to allowing interest received from savings bank deposits and loans made by taxpayers to State and municipal bodies the same exemption from income tax as at present applies to Commonwealth bonds?

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

– I know from my own knowledge that the Treasurer, and, indeed, the Government, from time to time have given consideration to tax remissions or tax concessions on the various forms of investment which are regarded as being of national benefit. The decision has been against doing so. Each particular set of circumstances has to be judged on its own merits and its repercussions in various directions. I am not aware that consideration has been given to savings bank deposits in this respect, but I should think it extraordinarily difficult to establish a case for doing so on the ground that it would bc profitable in the national interest, because of the tremendous volume of savings bank deposits and the fact that they could be in such competition with our own national loan-raising activities. I do know, however, that, from time to time, consideration has been given to proposals that loans raised by semi-governmental authorities should attract tax concessions, and that on each occasion on which the matter has been considered the final decision has been against doing so.

page 659

QUESTION

EYRE HIGHWAY

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Shipping and Transport inform the Senate of the authority that is responsible for the maintenance of the Eyre Highway? Is he aware that considerable repair of that highway is required, and that its condition now is poor? Will he inform the Senate of the action that has been taken to keep the maintenance of the highway at a reasonable level and the steps that have been taken to improve it, in view of the fact that it is of marked strategic importance and of great value to Western Australia?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– Responsibility for the maintenance of the Eyre highway rests primarily with the States concerned, South Australia and Western Australia. It has, . however, been the practice for the Commonwealth to make special grants for assistance in this work. Last year an initial grant, I think of £20,000, was made and subsequently it was raised to £25,000. At the moment, a report is being prepared on the condition of the road and will be taken into consideration in the assessment of any further aid that may be necessary.

page 659

QUESTION

TAXPAYERS’ ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of the important conference of the Taxpayers Association which is at present being held in Hobart, a gathering of some of Australia’s leading men on taxation matters, and men of great practical experience?

Senator Benn:

– They are a lot of tories.

Senator LAUGHT:

– I shall not direct the Minister’s attention, at this stage, to any particular matter that has been brought forward; but I ask him whether he will request the Cabinet to procure, for close study before the casting of the forthcoming budget, details of papers read and matters discussed at the conference.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I have read the press report of the proceedings of that conference in Hobart. Contrary to the opinion that has been expressed by Senator Benn by interjection, I regard it very highly. The Taxpayers’ Association is composed very largely of people who have quite a good knowledge of the income tax law and its application. For my part, I always look at its decisions with a good deal of interest and appreciation. I do not think that there is much in the honorable senator’s suggestion in practice, because I know that all the proceedings and decisions of the association receive close departmental examination, and I think that the honorable senator himself would be the first to admit that, having regard to all the technicalities of the income tax law, an examination of any proposal must be started by the department nt the technical level. I know, from my discussions and experience, that all taxation proposals come automatically to the attention of the Treasurer and, of course, it is the Treasurer who initiates taxation measures. I think it is general knowledge that Cabinet Ministers discuss taxation proposals’ as they appear from time to time in the press.

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Further to the question that was asked by Senator Laught, will the Minister representing the Treasurer say whether his attention has been directed to the decision of the conference on taxation currently being held in Hobart, that an accepted tenet in regard to taxation is that it should be based on ability to pay. Will he see that this matter is brought to the notice of the Treasurer before the next budget is introduced?

Senator SPOONER:

– I think that is the generally accepted principle, and it has been exemplified in taxation measures that have been introduced by both the Labour Government which Senator Tangney supported and by this Government.

page 660

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator HENTY:

– Reverting to my earlier question, I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether, having regard to the extreme importance of encouraging saving in the community, and to the fact that conditions change from time to time, he will give further thought, when the next budget is under consideration, to the two points I raised.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– All I can do is to assure the honorable senator that the purport of his question will be brought to the notice of my colleague, the Treassurer.

page 660

QUESTION

POULTON CASE

Senator SEWARD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the AttorneyGeneral inform me whether any progress has been made with the appeal to the Privy Council in what is known as the Poulton case? When is it expected that the matter will be finalized ?

Senator SPICER:
LP

– I am afraid that I cannot at the moment give the honorable senator a specific answer to this question, but I shall make inquiries and let him know the result.

page 660

QUESTION

DRIED FRUITS

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that for the 1954 season the Australian Dried Fruits Association has only received £70,000 sterling of a total claim of £270,089 sterling for currants and raisins under the United Kingdom Price Support Agreement ?
  2. Is the Minister aware that this delay in settlement of the Australian . Dried Fruits Association’s claim is placing an unprecedented financial burden on the growers, who are also suffering severely from heavy crop losses?
  3. Can the Minister give an assurance that immediate representation will be made to the United Kingdom Government to have that total claim promptly finalized?
  4. Is it possible for the Australian Government to make a substantial grant of money to the Australian Dried Fruits Association pending an interim or final settlement of the claim ?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister foi- Primary Industry has supplied the following answers : -

  1. A first progress payment of £70,000 in respect of the 1954 dried vine fruits support price arrangement was received from the United Kingdom Ministry of Food several weeks ago. A further amount of £30,000 stg. was received late last week.
  2. The difficult situation of dried fruit growers this year is appreciated by the Government and the need for prompt settlement on that account has been stressed in the negotiations with the Ministry.
  3. Everything possible is being done to obtain early finality in regard to an important portion of the claim in respect of which the Ministry of Food has disputed its liability.
  4. The Government is hopeful that the balance of the claim will be settled in the near future.

page 660

QUESTION

COURTS-MARTIAL APPEALS ACT 1955

Senator LAUGHT:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Has the date of commencement of the Courts-Martial Appeals Act 1955 been proclaimed ?
  2. If so, what date; if not, then what is the reason for the delay and when does the Attorney-General expect the date to be proclaimed ?
Senator SPICER:
LP

– The answer to the honorable’ senator’s questions is as follows: -

The Courts-Martial Appeals Act 1955 has not yet been proclaimed owing to the necessity to prepare regulations to provide for the many matters which the Act prescribes, such as the procedure for applying for leave to appeal from convictions by court-martial to the Tribunal, provision of legal aid for appellants, custody of property, and other matters. As the honorable senator is aware, the prescription of these matters requires consultation with and the concurrence of the Service Departments to which copies of the draft regulations were recently forwarded for approval. After the regulations have been promulgated, some further delay will occur while administrative arrangements are being completed to ensure the efficient functioning of the appeal system provided by the legislation and the appointments of members of the Tribunal are being made. But it is my intention that the Act should be proclaimed and members of the Forces given the benefit of this legislation at the earliest possible moment.

page 661

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION

Senator ANDERSON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I understand that the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs now has an answer to a question asked by me in relation to the International Labour Organization.

Senator SPICER:
LP

– On the 2nd May, Senator Anderson asked a question in relation to the Australian delegates to the International Labour Organization, which included a request for information as to what financial assistance is provided by the Commonwealth in connexion with their visit. The Minister for External Affairs has provided me with the following answer in respect of that part of the question : -

The Commonwealth meets the costs of the fares of the delegates, together with the daily travelling allowances and their hotel accommodation at Geneva.

page 661

FISHING INDUSTRY BILL 1956

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 9th May (vide page 656), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I do not intend to add much to what I have already said about this bill. Quite a great deal has been said about it by other honorable senators, and quite a deal of heat has been engendered over it. Indeed, there has been a good deal of misrepresentation. The Opposition here, and the Opposition in another place, have made certain accusations against the Government, not about the honesty or dishonesty of the Minister concerned, but merely from a business viewpoint.

All we say is that if that is a sample1 of ‘individual effort or non-government interference, it is a very bad example indeed. No one has attempted to reply” to what has been said by members of the Opposition. .Senator Arnold, last night, from a business point of view, made a very fine analysis of the sale of this industry, but nobody disputed a single thing he said. Some one asked why the Western Australian Government did not* offer more. I am not iri a position to answer that question, but I should imagine that certain factors would enter into a deal between governments that would not exist in a deal between a government and private enterprise. After all, Western Australia is a big place with few people and the matter might perhaps bear on the amount it would be granted when allocations were being determined in another direction. That is the only point that was anywhere .near the matter at all and even that had nothing to do with it.

I am sure that the businessmen among Government supporters cannot tell the Senate why the Government has virtually given away an industry that was worth at least £3,000,000. It has never been denied that there is a profit of £200,000 a year to be made from the industry. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. McMahon), in another place, admitted that it amounted to £1,000,000 in five years. One does not need to be a great mathematician to know that £4,000,000 would require to be invested at 5 per cent, in order to return a profit of £200,000. Altogether, something between £700,000 and £800,000 is being obtained for the asset.

Senator ANDERSON:

– The important tiling is what it would bring on the market.

Senator GRANT:

– Why does not the Government use the £200,000 profit instead of selling the asset for less than its real value? It has been pointed out by many speakers that this was done in a very underhand way - I was going to say a thimble and pea trick, but I have to be very circumspect. Tenders were not called, and from what I have read in Hansard the Minister in another place said that those who were interested were notified of the fact that the station was for sale.

Senator Henty:

– What was the price?

Senator GRANT:

– I have the floor now and in a few minutes I will reply to what the honorable senator and his intellectual friend, Senator Marriott, have asked. There is a time to ask questions and there is a time to keep quiet. I am here not to answer questions but to make a speech, and those- honorable senators should have enough intelligence to know that. I ask them not to interrupt me, because their questions are so superficial that I am not prepared to waste my time in answering them.

As I have said, no honorable senator opposite has dealt with the real question at issue at all. It has been suggested that the Labour party is not interested in developing fisheries. It is an extraordinary thing that the Government wants to get rid of every profitable undertaking which, the Labour Government has established. I do not wish to labour the point, but I remind the Senate of the sale of the Bay line of ships. Honorable senators opposite made some song about socialism in connexion with that Une. but I know they have not the slightest idea what socialism is. When World War II. broke out the Government, and the people of Australia, deeply regretted that the Bay line .had been sold. Aamalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited made a profit of £250,000 a year and that, too, was got rid of. Nobody can suggest for a. moment (lint that was a good business deal, but it was done because of the policy of this Government in contradistinction to the policy of the Labour party. The Govern ment’s policy is to grease the fatted pig : but our policy is, as far as possible, to use the co-operative efforts of the people to benefit the country as a whole. The Government got- rid of these two undertakings and many others. The Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited is another example. In time of war, oil is probably the most important commodity in the world, and even to-day it is of greater importance than automation. The Commonwealth’s interest in Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited was sold for a mere song in accordance with the Government’s policy to dispose of anything which was operated on the basis of what it called socialism.

When I was a boy in the old country, I used to hear a lot about Australia, lt was regarded almost as a land out of thi? world. It was of no use to say that one could not succeed in Australia. Australia was in the vanguard of prosperity. Probably that was true at that time, but now it seems that instead of being in the vanguard, Australia is now in the guard’s van. When the welfare state policy was introduced in England, it was described as socialism by many people who did not know what socialism was. Fundamentally speaking, it was hardly touched by the Conservative party. But, in Australia, where conditions are supposed to be advanced, if the Labour party takes over some enterprise and runs it in the interests of the public, as soon as the counterpart of the British Conservative party gets into office it disposes of the enterprise.

Government senators have talked about socialism, and although I have no wish to be insulting, I suggest, with all due deference, that before they speak on any subject, ‘whether it be socialism or anything else, they should make themselves conversant, with it. I regret that Senator Marriott is not present, but it is noticeable that senators from Tasmania are particularly opposed to government enterprise; yet, on almost every day that theSenate meets, they complain about the Government not shifting a few bags of potatoes that have been left over there. They want to know when the Government will send ships to take the goodsaway.

Senator Wright, who is, mentally, in a very high class - I say that, although comparisons are odious and I have to be careful in making them - the other night gave a careful analysis, in his own inimitable way, of the effects of increased freights on the Tasmanian economy. He said that since the war freight rates had increased sevenfold. He and his colleagues from Tasmania are totally opposed to what they call socialism, but he realizes that the Government ought to do something about reducing freights. The trouble is that, like representatives of the Australian Country party, they want to have benefits both ways. If the price of wheat or potatoes or any other primary product is low, they want a government subsidy, but if the price is high, they do not want any agreement to control sales. However, they do not want socialism, and that has been their attitude and that of their party over the past 30 years.

X was amazed to hear some of the statements made by honorable senators on the other side in reply to criticism of the Government’s action in disposing of the whaling station. Senators on this side have never suggested that Senator Spooner or some other representative of the Government indulged in graft in the disposal of the Australian Whaling Commission’s station at Carnarvon. I may have faults, but from my own experience I have no desire to undermine the character of any responsible member of the Government. When I was a member of the Legislative Council in New South Wales, and since E have been a member of this House, I have never used my position to accuse any one of dishonesty. Last year, the Parliament sentenced two citizens to a term of. imprisonment because it was alleged that they committed a breach of parliamentary privilege, and I received some kicks for the stand I took in the matter. In my opinion, politicians have too much power, rather than not enough, and it seemed to mo that, in that case some were using their “ coward’s castle “ to undermine the characters of others. In connexion with this matter, senators on this side have made no such suggestion, but they have contended that the Government has made a very bad business deal in disposing of the whaling station.

I now wish to say something about what could be done, and by way of illustration I refer to the St. Mary’s deal - or if the word “ deal “ is not acceptable I will substitute the word “ project “. On the last three occasions that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and his party have gone before the electors he has suggested that Australia needs a government that would study the best interests of the nation, and put into operation a policy that would foster those interests. No one could imagine a policy that could have greater inflationary effect than that of the Government in connexion with the St. Mary’s project. An American company is carrying out the work, and the establishment has to be built quickly.

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

– Order! I ask the honorable senator to confine his remarks to the bill.

Senator GRANT:

– I was merely pointing out that the St. Mary’s deal was not economical. If the Government was prepared to .spend £20,000,000 on that, surely it could have made a better deal in connexion with the Carnarvon whaling station.

Turning now to the subject of socialism, about which so much has been said, I repeat that I do not mind people speaking on a subject about which they know something. I said last night that I do not know much about fish - probably I have been a “ fisher of men “ most of my life, but perhaps my efforts in this House have been wasted. Senator Henty addressed himself at length to this subject. Incidentally, I understand that a gentleman named Henty had something to do with the initiation of fishing industries some time ago. I do not know if he was a relation of the honorable senator. Senator Henty and his colleague, Senator Marriott, had a talk about socialism, which has nothing to do with this bill. If a government takes control of an industry and runs it to make ti profit, while the people obtain little benefit, that is not socialism. Socialism means production for the benefit of the people as a whole, and not for the purpose of profit making. I know that such a thing cannot happen under capitalism, and what is called nationalization may be mistaken for socialism. Senator McCallum, as an erstwhile member of the Labour party, should know what socialism is supposed to do. There is nothing new about the word “ socialism which has been thrown about for many years. “ Utopian socialism “ was discussed in the days of Sir Thomas More. I suggest that Senator McCallum, for their edification, might go into the library and read some of the books on the subject to them. He might start with the works of Robert Owen and later, if he wishes to read something heavier, devote himself to some of the writings of Marx and Engels.

Senator McCallum:

– The best author to read on the subject is Hayek.

Senator GRANT:

– I have no objection to the honorable senator’s reading the best authors. The Labour party stands for the best in everything. But the honorable senator will know that what is commonly described as socialism in Australia, is not socialism at all. I now want to know whether the Minister in charge of the bill (Senator Spooner) intends to show that the disposal of the whaling station was a good business deal. I know that he is adept at juggling figures, but I will not eulogize him as my colleague Senator Arnold did yesterday. Will the Minister inform the Senate why the Nor’ West Whaling Company succeeded in buying this station? Why did the Government conduct this transaction with such quietness? Why did not the Government develop this industry during the past seven or eight years? The Government has at its disposal a highly skilled scientific organization which could have made all the investigation necessary to develop the fishing industry. If the Government could spend £20,000,000 on the St. Mary’s project, surely it could have found some money for the development of the fishing industry. My friend Senator Kendall is very interested in the fishing industry, and I am sorry he is not here. Honorable senators opposite seem to leave the chamber whenever I mention their names. I do not know whether it is that they are afraid of me. But Senator Kendall gave us a very fine treatise on how to catch anything from sardines to whales. He went from the Coral Sea to Samoa and to

Japan and mentioned all sorts of things that had nothing to do with the question. As for Senator Mattner, perhaps he should have stayed with his sheep, for he told us nothing about the measure before us. But I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us what wa3 wrong with what Senator Arnold said. Senator Arnold, like the Minister, is an accountant whilst I, having been horn in Aberdeen, was a bit astray when they got up to the millions; but I still think it is incumbent upon the Government to show that this is a good business deal. I do not believe it is; it cannot be shown to be a good business deal.

I know it is the policy of the Government to get rid of undertakings of this kind, but why did not the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) tell the people that he intended to get rid of this enterprise? The Government has gone as far as it can. The Conservative Government in England would have abolished the whole of the social services in that country if it had been game enough; but in England most of the people had been educated to an appreciation of the benefits of social services. Right from the days to which Senator Brown referred some time ago up to the present time, the people of England have had to fight hard to advance each step forward in social reform. To-day, social reform is being handed to Australians on a golden spoon. Young men are walking into jobs, which pay from £15 to £20 a week, and they do not understand how hard earlier generations have had to fight for these things. They do not appreciate how important it is that the Government should go ahead with what I call social reforms.

I arn satisfied that the Government is making a very big mistake in this instance, but we of the Labour party are not surprised at that. The very fact that it has sold this enterprise, or that it has found an anxious buyer, indicates to Senator Kendall and others that the Labour Government did the right thing in establishing the industry. I think it was Mr. Chifley who inaugurated the venture. I have also read something about the value to agriculture of the by-products from the whaling industry, and it would seem to me that if this firm obtains another quota in addition to the one it already has, it will have a complete monopoly of whaling on the western coast of Australia. As this Government does not believe in prices control - that is why it is in such a mess to-day - the new owners of the enterprise would seem to have excellent propects for the future. If the Government had a sound case for selling this enterprise, I should like to hear it. I should like some honorable senator opposite to tell us, step by step, why it is a good business deal; and if it is, why there has been all this secrecy about it. Like one honorable senator who spoke last night, I should like to know why the fact that the assets of the Australian Whaling Commission were to be sold was not advertised all over the world. Every time I return to this place after a recess, I find that something Kas been done while I have been away. I remember saying to Senator Gorton, when he was speaking during the foreign affairs debate, “By the time we come back, something else will be gone “ ; and that has proved to be so. I do not know that the Government has much more left, but I suppose Senator Marriott, for instance, would sell even the Post Office if he could. Perhaps, he does not know that not so very long ago the Post Office was a private institution, or that the Army belonged lo an individual. Perhaps, he does not know that not so long ago the predecessors, mentally, of this Government’s supporters objected to Government control of education. The governments of those days held the view that one’s individual initiative demanded that one should educate oneself. Again, not so long ago, if a man was out of work, the Government would ask, “ What has that to do with the Government”? If a man and his children were up against it. Government members would say, “We believe in private enterprise. What right has the Government to interfere”? To-day, through our education system, we have proved to some of the people at any rate that everything that exists in the way of food, clothing and shelter in this world, has not been bought or made by individuals but is the result of the sum total of the mental and physical energies of all the people right from the beginning of the world up to this atomic age. Because that is so, no individual or body of individuals has the right to usurp what rightfully is owned by the common people.

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

– in reply - I confess that I start to reply with some feeling of inferiority when Senator Grant, with his vast experience, finds that senators leave the chamber as he mentions their names.

Senator Grant:

– That was just a joke.

Senator SPOONER:

– I hope the same fate does not befall me. I think that this can be described as a most unusual debate. We have before us for consideration two separate bills, one dealing with the sale of the assets of the Australian Whaling Commission and the other dealing with the establishment of a trust fund into which we propose to pay the proceeds from that sale for the purpose of doing good work in some other direction. The whole of the debate from the Opposition side has been curious in that honorable senators opposite have done no more than pay lip service to the good proposals contained in the bill under discussion and, at the same time, have endeavoured to discredit those proposals by criticizing the proposals contained in the other bill that is to come up for consideration. In truth, most of the contribution from the Opposition in this debate would have been more applicable to the next bill. All I plead is that we do not have to go over this ground again when dealing with the next bill. It is said that hope springs eternal in the human breast; but there are certain limitations to physical endurance and I hope that I shall not have to listen to a repetition of the arguments that have been advanced in this debate and which I, in my youthful optimism, propose now to destroy one by one.

Before doing that, I pay tribute to the thoughtful contributions which, as usual, were made to the debate entirely from this side of the Senate. I refer particularly to the speeches of Senator Kendall and Senator Wood. Their remarks related to the problems confronting the fishing industry, andwould be well worth listening to in any company ; andI think they redound to the credit of the Senate as a whole. If honorable senators were prepared to devote time and thought to constructive speeches of that character, it would bebetter for the Senate.

Allow me to recapitulate the provisions of the bill because, in the heat and fury of the debate, the provisions of the bill have been completely overlooked by members of the Opposition. We propose to set up a fisheries development trust. It will be a revolving fund, and that is an important development in the use of government finance. The money will be used and re-used, and the fund will not be subject to annual allocation. “With collections from interest charges imposed from time to time, and possible profits from particular transactions, the fund should appreciate in size over the years, given good management and good luck. The fund is expected to start with £750,000, and from it various projects aimed at developing the fishing industry will be financed. That is a worthwhile cause. Although about £10,000,000 in capital is invested in the fishing industry in Australia, including £3,500,000 in the whaling industry, we are importing fish products valued at £5,500,000 each year. The objective of the bill is to assist those engaged in the fishing industry so that we shall become less dependent upon imports.

The Opposition has not discussed the pros and cons of that proposal. Instead, we have had a series of allegations and statements that the purpose of the bill really is only to camouflage the sale of the assets of the AustralianWhaling Commission, and that the Government has evaded requests for information on that matter. The Opposition has criticized the Government for not calling tenders for the sale of those assets, and we have heard a series of quite irresponsible statements that the assets have been sold for a fraction of their real value. Senator Grant, the last speaker on the Opposition side, put. a value of £3,000,000 on the assets.

Senator Grant:

– I said that £4,000,000 would be required at 5 per cent, to get a return of £200,000.

Senator SPOONER:

– That is like the flowers that bloom in the spring - it has nothing to do with the case. If the honorable senator wanted to get £200,000, he would have to pay income tax on that amount, and in no set of circumstances would anybody value a hazardous industry like this by capitalizing the income on the basis of a return of 5 per cent.

Senator Arnold:

– Did the Minister say “ hazardous industry “ ?

Senator SPOONER:

– Hazardous is an over-statement, but it is subject to the risks of trading, and I am sure that Senator Arnold would not go into a venture of this sort with profits capitalized on 5 per cent, before the payment of income tax, which would be a capitalization of l½ per cent, after deduction for income tax. Let me proceed to demolish the arguments one by one. I think it would be more proper to deal in general outline with the criticism, or the accusation, that the Government proposes to sell the people’s assets. Honorable senators on the Opposition side have placed a great deal of emphasis on that aspect of the proposal as an appeal to public opinion. All these political questions are a matter of opinion. Each person has his own assessment of the public appeal of a slogan or catch-cry. For my part, I am quite clear that the Government has the complete approbation of the people as a whole . in this and other transactions it has concluded. Let us consider those transactions individually. “Whatever the original purpose and intent behind the formation of Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited, it developed to a stage where it became an ordinary trading concern, with the valuation and the worth of such an organization. I see no room for criticism in the fact that it as owned now by some thousands of Australian citizens rather than by the Australian Government as the representative of Australian citizens. Let us consider the case of Commonwealth OilRefineries Limited. This is covering old ground, but I shall deal with it only in passing. Only a completely irresponsible person would contemplate the Australian Government finding £40,000,000, or whatever the correct figure might hare been, to match the expenditure of the British petroleum company to complete the new refinery in Western Australia when there are so many other directions in which the Australian Government could spend money if it had the necessary financial resources.

Senator Kennelly:

– The Minister ti light not think along those limes if we were unfortunate enough to have another war. If the Minister did think along these lines, he would not be agreeing with the expressed and written words of Sir Winston Churchill about the actions of the oil cartels in the early part of World War II.

Senator SPOONER:

– I do not know what Sir Winston Churchill said. For my part, I have no apprehensions on that score. The oil company to which I have referred is one of the highest repute and standing. It has the best reputation in the world and, with the Government as its partner, it stood foursquare with the other oil companies in main tain ing selling prices and general terms and conditions of business. Sensibly, the Government went along side by side with the overseas oil companies. I do not believe that it is very profitable to pursue that issue.

Senator Grant has spoken in terms of liberalism and conservatism. He is more expert in these fields than I. I am never quite certain about the meaning of socialism., conservatism or liberalism. I asn. always certain, however, about what is, and what is not, good common sense. I have never had the slightest doubt about the Government investing money in Rum Jangle in a field where private capital will not be invested. I have never bad the slightest hesitation about the establishment of research stations in the Ord River area. I welcome with approbation overseas interests coming here and developing the rice-growing industry at Humpty Doo, in the Northern Territory. Ft is a matter of common sense for us “to get private capital at work in as many directions in Australia as possible, in order to release public funds for use in directions which are beyond the scope -of private enterprise.

In the case of the whaling station, why should the Government continue to have -capital invested in it when private enter prise is willing to come in and do the job? Let us not speak altogether in terms of profit and loss. Let us take a longer view. Nobody can dispute the general proposition that, nationally, we shall derive much more benefit from having this money invested in a fund for th” development of the fishing industry than we should from having it retained in the whaling station for the purpose of earning profits. Let us not forget the £200,000 a year - a figure I do not dispute, because I have not looked at the figures - that the purchasers of this station will earn, because 8s. in the £1 on those earnings will come back to ““Johnny Government” by way of taxes. Governments always have a foot in both camps. We withdraw our capital and put it to work in a manner that will be far more advantageous nationally than it is at the present time. There is private capital available and there are private investors prepared to do the job. The Government then extracts toll from the profits of the people who continue the work.

I can see no argument, and no foundation in common sense and logic, for criticism of the sale of things in which the Government should not be interested. With all my faults, 1 am aways a great believer in the common sense of the Australian people. I believe that when you put a common sense argument to them. common sense always prevails. I am certain in my own mind about that, and for that reason I was pleased to hear Opposition senators criticizing the sale last night, because in my humble opinion, and as a political opponent of honorable senators opposite, I thought that they were making themselves look foolish in the eyes of the public. But that is a matter of opinion.

Let us turn to the criticism of this transaction which, more properly, should have been made during the debate of the legislation which is to follow the bill now before the Senate.

Senator Tangney:

– But the Government has dealt more extensively with the matter under this bill than it proposes to deal under the other bill that is to be introduced.

Senator SPOONER:

– We make a passing reference to it in this bill. Let us deal with the criticism. First, let us consider it in general terms and then come back later to particular terms. In general terms, I put the view that all the criticism from the opposite side of the chamber is answered by the fact that it is notorious and public knowledge that this whaling station has been for sale since 1952. It was in 1952 that we, as a Government, stated that we would sell the station in accordance with the principles in which we believe and which I adequately tried to outline a few moments ago. Back in 1952, the Minister in charge of this whaling station said that the Government would sell it. In 1952, the Government proceeded to make a, start with that task, but business has its ups and downs. A little after that, in 1952, there was a fall in the price of detergents, for which, I understand, the whale oil is used, and as a result of that uncertainty about the price of whale oil, entirely unfavorable conditions, which would have worked against the Government receiving the real value of the asset, commenced to operate. We have a series of responsibilities. We must use our financial resources to the best advantage. When we go into a proposition we have to go into it as prudently as we can. When we come out of a proposition such as this, we have to come out of it prudently. Therefore, if our judgment is that there is a passing phase in relation to market values, we should not sell on a falling market. There was a period, from 1952 until later, when circumstances were unfavorable for the sale of the asset. But the world knew that the Government would sell the asset.

Senator Kennelly:

– How can the Minister say that, when questions were asked in the Parliament for the specific purpose of obtaining information, and those questions were side-stepped?

Senator SPOONER:

– I am trying to deal with the matter step by step. The first point I am endeavouring to make is that it was public information that the station was for sale and that endeavours had been made, in 1952. to sell it.

Senator Vincent:

– Everybody except Senator Kennelly knew about it.

Senator SPOONER:

– Everybody knows it. I come now to the next point made by Senator Kennelly. I ask the honorable senator to remind me later on, by way of interjection, about this alleged avoidance of questions. At the moment, I wish to deal with something else. When, in 1956, we came to sell the asset, we reached the stage at which every person who has something to sell has to decide the track that he is going to take and how he intends to go about selling. By and large, one may sell by public auction, by tender, or by private sale. We must make our choice of the means of selling that we propose to adopt. I put the question to critics of this sale: If they had a house to sell, would they not automatically sell it by private tender rather than by public auction? Generally speaking, I think it is fair to say that the average person with something to sell, after he has established its value in his mind, believes that he will do better by private sale than by public auction or public tender, because when he sells in that way there is created ,a feeling that it is a forced sale. He is not able to discount that feeling, and he will not be able to obtain such a good price.

Senator Kennelly:

– I understand that the Minister has had a lot of experience in certain affairs and I do not think he believes what he is saying in this respect. Surely he does not believe that selling a home by auction creates the impression that it is a forced sale.

Senator SPOONER:

– I shall accept the honorable senator’s amendment and take away the word “ home “. I used the illustration of the home because it was a simple one. Let us replace it by a sheep-station, a factory, or any other asset that we have for sale. I suggest that the general concensus of opinion is that if you make a private sale you will probably do better.

Senator Kennelly:

– That is a statement unsupported by facts.

Senator SPOONER:

– Let us call it not a statement but an argument.

Senator Kennelly:

– It does not prove anything at all.

Senator SPOONER:

– We get to the same road in the end. What happens ifr that, by and large, sales by tender are sales by people who are in a position of trust, such as trustees, executors, and so on. They sell in that way because then they are removed from any subsequent accusation or personal , liability. If you sell as a trustee and you make an error of judgment, you are liable personally for the result of your error of judgment. In other instances, such sales are made by people who are uncertain of values. So the normal thing to do is to make a private sale, and the normal thing to do in a position of trust, having made a private ‘sale, is to submit all the facts and circumstances to the beneficiaries and ask for their approval. That is exactly what is being done at the present time.

Let us consider the circumstances. This is not in the nature of a private sale; it goes far beyond being a private sale. First, there was public notice to the world that the assets were for sale. Secondly, it was not a sale negotiated with one person ; it was a sale negotiated by calling tenders. Everybody who was thought to be interested was written to and told that the assets were for sale, that the closing date for the receipt of offers was a certain date, and that the terms and conditions were available for perusal by all interested parties.

Senator Cooke:

– “Were people overseas informed in those terms?

Senator SPOONER:

– Overseas people were not informed, because we thought it better to keep the assets within Australian ownership. Therefore, everybody had an opportunity to make an offer. I come to the Opposition’s assertion that Ministers were evasive in answering questions about the matter in the Parliament. I shall state the circumstances frankly. Those who were asking the questions knew as well as the Government did that the assets were for sale, and that those who were interested had been invited to submit offers.

Senator Tangney:

– That is not so.

Senator SPOONER:

– The people who were asking the questions had no illusion about the fact that the Government was endeavouring to negotiate a sale but, by their questions, they endeavoured to embarrass the Government. Of course, politically that is fair enough; that is what the Government has to stand np to. But the questioners, by their questions, were attempting to reduce the value of the asset the Government had to sell, by creating doubts and uncertainties in the minds of prospective purchasers. Acting irresponsibly, they tried to frighten off prospective purchasers, in order to deny to the Australian people an opportunity to get a fair price for the assets. They adopted a completely unpatriotic and un-Australian attitude in order to gain a little bit of political capital.

Senator Kennelly:

– Away the whaling assets go ! Out comes the flag first, the Corns second, and the whales just swim away.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator SPOONER:

– I am reminded of the maxim “ Great is the truth, and it will prevail”. The Opposition has followed a miserable, petty procedure in order to gain a few votes. However, we all know the facts of life, and from time to time Ministers who have to answer questions have to suffer a little bit of political disadvantage. A responsible Minister does not want to get into an argument when negotiations are proceeding. The Government has. done everything in connexion with this transaction that a normal, prudent vendor would do. It did not rely on only one valuation; it did not sell on the “ blind “.

Senator Kennelly:

Senator Kennelly interjecting,

Senator SPOONER:

– Does not Senator Kennelly want to listen to what I am saying? Apparently he cannot face the position, because he keeps on talking and apparently closes his ears. Anyway, he will be able to read the report of my speech in Hansard. Before the Government endeavoured to sell the assets, it had them valued.

Senator ARNOLD:

– Is the Government prepared to make available to the Opposition the reports of the values?

Senator SPOONER:

– Yes. The first valuation of £763,000 was made by a firm of chartered accountants.

Senator ARNOLD:

– To what did that valuation refer ?

Senator SPOONER:

– It was the firm’s valuation of the assets that are being sold in this particular transaction. Not content with one valuation, the Government asked for the assets to be valued by a government official, and an officer of the Taxation Branch valued them at £954,000.

Senator Wright:

– Was not a valuation made by an officer of the Land and Valuation Court?

Senator SPOONER:

– A valuation of £763,000 for the going concern was made by the private firm, and the government valuer submitted a valuation of £954,000. Yet honorable senators opposite have asserted that the assets are being sold cheaply.

Motion (by Senator Kennelly) put -

That so much of Standing Order 407a he suspended as would prevent the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) speaking in reply for more than thirty minutes.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator SPOONER:

– I never dreamt that I would gain such esteem in the eyes of the Opposition that Senator Kennelly, its Deputy Leader, would move for the suspension of Standing Orders in order to permit me to continue my remarks. So encouraged, I shall once more enter the breach. The Government’s approach to this matter has been criticized by the Opposition. Certain honorable senators opposite have spoken a lot of nonsense about the Government not getting the right price. Senator Grant stated that the commission’s assets were worth £3,000,000, and Senator Arnold, for whose opinions I entertain great, respect, also criticized the price being received. Is not the criticism of honorable senators opposite answered by the fact that although the independent valuation was £763,000, and the official valuation £954,000, the Western Australian Government offered only £620,000 for the assets?

Senator Tangney:

– Of course, it already owns the land.

Senator SPOONER:

– I repeat that the Western Australian Government offered only £620,000.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Labour endeavoured to spoil the sale so that the Western Aus tralian Government could buy the assets at that bargain price.

Senator Vincent:

– There was no word of protest from the Opposition about that offer.

Senator SPOONER:

– When the Government announced its intention in 1P52 to sell these assets, it told everybody who was interested, and it obtained an independent valuation. Subsequently, the Government extended the period during which offers would be. received so that the Western Australian Government could make an offer. That Government then made an offer of £620,000, which was a quarter of a million pounds less than the market value of the assets. If the Opposition can answer that question, it should do so. If it cannot answer it, it should withdraw its criticism.

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

– Is the Minister able to say how the valuations were reached?

Senator SPOONER:

– I have no objection to giving that information, but I must confess that as I am acting for another Minister, I have not that information readily available. I now wish to reply to certain comments made last night by Senator Tangney. It is most unfortunate, but nevertheless it is in accordance with the rules of the Senate, that an honorable senator who is making a speech while our proceedings are being broadcast, .can make a series of completely extravagant and incorrect statements to which the Minister is unable to reply. As that situation arose last night, it may explain to Senator Kennelly why I was a bit terse when he suggested that the Opposition would put forward another speaker. I did not intend to give the Opposition one and a half hours’ broadcasting time, so I arranged for one of my colleagues to take part in the discussion. That was done so that I could be given an opportunity myself to answer the criticisms of the Opposition.

I am sorry that I came in so abruptly on the remarks of Senator Harris yesterday, but I did so because until Senator Harris spoke, there had not been any frank and open statement from the Opposition that this bill is crook. No honorable senator of the Opposition had gone as far as to say that. All they had said was that the deal was bad business.

Therefore, I must confess that I was sitting in the Senate yesterday waiting for some honorable senator of the Opposition to take his criticism of the bill to the stage at which I could come down on him, and as I unfortunately always seem to pick on the wrong man, it so happened that I was forced to attack Senator .Harris. However, I take more exception to the remarks made yesterday by Senator Tangney than I do to those made by Senator Harris. Senator Tangney did not say that there was anything wrong about the sale of the assets of the Australian Whaling Commission, but she did say that there was a Mr. Baxter interested in it who was chairman of the Australian Country party.

Senator Tangney:

– I said he was chairman of the West Australian Whaling Company.

Senator SPOONER:

– And also chairman of the Australian Country party.

Senator Tangney:

– No, I did not say he was the chairman of that party. I said that he was a member of the Australian Country party.

Senator SPOONER:

– I ask, with all respect to Senator Tangney, what this gentleman’s political affiliation has to do with the transaction under discussion, unless there is an innuendo that something is wrong.

Senator Tangney:

– No. I suggest that he got a raw deal. He was not in the winning company.

Senator SPOONER:

– I had never heard of Mr. Baxter until Senator Tangney mentioned him, but I take a very dim view of any one’s political affiliations being mentioned in connexion with a business transaction. I claim the right to have my own private affairs, in. the same way as Senator Tangney and other Opposition senators wish to have their own private affairs. I have my own political affiliations, and I put forward the view-point that when an honorable senator names a person’s political affiliations in connexion with a business transaction, then by innuendo that senator is endeavouring to create the impression that there is something wrong with the business deal

Senator Tangney:

– I ask you, Mr.

President, whether it is possible for me to make a personal explanation at this stage. I claim that I have been misrepresented.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator is not entitled to make a personal explanation at this stage of the proceedings.

Senator SPOONER:

– I have no desire to misrepresent any _ honorable senator, and if Senator Tangney endeavours to correct me by way of interjection, I shall extend due courtesy to her. That is the first point that I wish to make clear to the Senate. I do not know who Mr. Baxter is, but the story is that he contemplated forming a company to buy the assets of the Australian WhalingCommission. He got in touch with the Commonwealth authorities and said, “ May I make an offer ? “ and the authorities said, “Yes, we want offers from every one who is interested “. He made his offer, but it was not in the race. It did not win. Now, what is there wrong with a transaction of that sort? Anybody who wants to make an offer for Commonwealth property should surely be encouraged to make the offer. I believe that in this particular transaction, not only was he encouraged to make his offer, but he was also told that if he wished to make an offer the closing date for tenders would be extended in his case as had been done for the “Western Australian Government.

Senator Robertson:

– That is quite correct; he told me that himself.

Senator Tangney:

– I was not impugning his character.

Senator SPOONER:

– I am not particularly concerned with the facts of the matter but, because I believe that there is some insinuation to the contrary, I am interested in establishing that this is an open and above-board transaction carried out in accordance with correct business practice, and that the outcome has been satisfactory.

Now let me consider the next criticism. Some criticism was made by an honorable senator1 - whose name I do not remember - to the effect that the Government acted foolishly because it did not cover the matter of the tenure of the land on which the whaling station is built. What are the facts in connexion with that? The Australian Whaling Commission has a lease of the land upon which the station is built, with an option to purchase it. Therefore, honorable senators will note that the commission’s position is protected. The commission is in occupation of the land under a lease, with an option to purchase, and I suggest that that is a completely satisfactory tenure for any prospective purchaser. Why should we have approached the Western Australian Government? We have our tenure, we have something satisfactory to sell, and we know that the Western Australian Government, for its own political purposes, is a prospective purchaser. Who would go to a prospective purchaser and beg favours on the eve of a sale? If we had done that, would not the Western Australian Government have endeavoured - not because it is a government, but because it would be in accordance with ordinary business practice - to influence circumstances so that the price would be reduced, and it would be able to buy more cheaply. I suggest that there is nothing in that which need be considered any further.

Senator Tangney also mentioned another matter which needs to be dealt with. Upon this particular phase I am not as well equipped as I might be, but Senator Tangney quoted extracts from the West Australian newspaper, which created an impression that the prospective purchasers met secretly at dead of night with an ulterior motive. I have a very high respect for the West Australian, which is one of the good newspapers in Australia. It is therefore with some hesitation that I enter the lists against it, believing that it is possible that Senator Tangney’s quotations were taken out of their context. All that I desire to do now is to answer any suggestion that there has been any holein.thecorner arrangement about this matter.

The facts are that the Cabinet had before it the offers for the assets of the Australian Whaling Commission. It made its decision about what it was going to do, and on a deal of this size there are always a few loose ends to betied up. One of those was in connexion with the employment of those engaged at Carnarvon. After considering that matter, the Cabinet said to the Minister,. “ We will accept that offer subject to these details being cleaned up “. The Minister then, apparently, communicated something to that effect to the company and the company finalized those details and the transaction was concluded. By way of illustrating how important is this allegation of a “cloak and dagger “ atmosphere, I point out that the Minister did not even think it wasworth while seeing the representatives of the company. They came from Perth, but the Minister did not see them; they finalized, with departmental officers, thematters that were outstanding, and. that was the end of it.

I hope that what I have said will allay the apprehensions of honorable senators opposite. I am sure that they hold their opinions sincerely. But I have no doubt that this has been a good transaction from an ordinary business point of view, and, allowing for the divergence of views that exist between us on the principle involved, I think honorable senators opposite should at least be fair enough to admit that every precaution has been taken and that the best results have been obtained.

Question put -

That the hill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 26

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Commencement).

Senator BENN:
Queensland

– This clause is very simple, and is the customary clause we find in all bills. However, I should like to know if it is possible at this stage for the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) to indicate the probable date of proclamation.

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

– I can only say that I see no reason why this measure should not be proclaimed immediately it goes through the ordinary procedures of the Parliament. We should get a message back from the House of Representatives before the Senate rises.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Definitions).

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I should like to know why it is that this section is so misleading in that it includes whales, turtles and dugong under the heading of fish. Surely, a fish is a fish and a mammal is a mammal, notwithstanding any act of Parliament.

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

– I am told that according to the normal method of drafting when one wants to extend the use or meaning of a word in various places throughout a bill, a little poetic licence is taken in order to make for easier reading of the bill.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

– I should like the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) to say something in respect of one term in the definitions. One of the definitions reads - “ the fishing industry “ means any industry in connexion with the culture, taking, storing, processing or marketing of -

I would give the word “ storing “ the widest meaning. In a subsequent clause there is reference to the fishing industry. Storing in the fishing industry could cover various classes of storing, and I should like to know whether it is intended that storing shall apply to only one class of storing. For instance, a fisherman goes to sea and on his boat he stores, for three or four days, or perhaps a week, the fish he catches, until he returns to port. His usual practice is to take his fish to a cold store. I should like to know whether storing as defined in the bill applies to the storage of fish not only on a boat but also in a cold store. The purpose of the bill is to provide financial assistance for those engaged in the fishing industry to enable them, first, to solidify the fishing industry, and then to extend it. Cold storage, of course, is part and parcel of the fishing industry.

Sitting suspended from 18.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator BENN:

– This morning, I asked a question in relation to clause 2 of the bill. I wanted to know when it would commence to operate, and I was informed by the Minister (Senator Spooner) that he saw no reason why it should not commence to operate immediately. When I asked that question I had in mind, the fact that the Minister will require a certain period in which to make a complete survey of the fishing industry in Australia. I have no doubt that the Minister concerned will administer the measure in an equitable way. This legislation covers the fishing industry throughout the whole of Australia, and the needs of fishermen in Western Australia must be assessed, and compared with those of fishermen in Queensland or other States. Consequently, a complicated situation arises. I am Confident that the Minister will administer this legislation with considerable wisdom.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid). - I remind the honorable senator that the committee is now dealing with clause 3, and that he is at the moment discussing the commencing date of the measure.

Senator BENN:

– I said that my question was related to one I was about to pose to the Minister.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Will the honorable senator connect his remarks with clause 3?

Senator BENN:

– Storage is one of the matters definitely related to this matter and I feel sure that the Minister knows what I am about to say. I indicated to him earlier to-day that, first of all, advances for the provision of storage would have to be made. The Minister knows that I am dealing with the right clause because he has in his mind the framework of the question I wish to ask him. My remarks are directed to the subject of storage. Various kinds of storage are dealt with in this bill, one of which is storage on boats. One request that will be made to the Government by the fishermen will be for financial assistance to improve means to store fish on their boats. If storage facilities on their boats are improved, the fishermen will be able to go further out to sea, and. consequently their hauls will be considerably greater. They will be bringing in larger quantities of fish to their home ports.

The question immediately arises, what will they do with that fish? Someone suggests that they should sell it, but some fishing ports are long distances from towns where fish can be sold. Consequently, they will have to rely upon storage or land transport to the nearest market. Cold storage premises provide the logical answer. The problem arises, however, that space in these premises is limited because it is used for storing meat, fruit, poultry and, in some cases, eggs so that the area left for fish is often inadequate. What will the fisherman do with his catch if there is not room enough to store it? He will have to rely on land transport to the nearest market town. Last year, a Queensland fisherman lost fish to the value of £ 1,000 because, as it was a holiday, he could not get his catch to market, and the local cold storage facilities were fully utilized.

Circumstances of this kind emphasize the need for the Minister to be granted a waiting period of six months or twelve months so that he might make a study of the fishing industry throughout Australia. That would not prevent him from making advances to fishermen to improve refrigeration facilities so that they might be able to store their catch immediately they reached port and keep it in a’ fit condition for human consumption. No doubt many applications will be received for assistance to provide additional storage on the boats, and after that has been done a stocktaking will have to be made in respect of land cold storage facilities. Otherwise there will be chaos in the industry, and the cash that has been allocated for this particular purpose will be almost entirely wasted.

I know that the Minister would not wish that kind of thing to happen, and that he will administer this legislation equitably and with wisdom. Obviously, the amount of cold storage facilities on the boats must be balanced with the cold storage space available on land. There may be huge cold storage works devoted to the storage of foods of all classes, on? of which is fish, and I take it that under this measure only a portion of such premises could be expanded for the purpose of improving storage facilities for fish. To expand these premises would involve the obtaining of architectural advice, building materials and many other items. If it is possible to delay the implementation of the measure for even longer than six months it will be worth while. It is important that the Minister should have a period in which he can gain certain knowledge that will enable him to administer the legislation in a proper manner. Immediately the act is proclaimed requests will be received from fishermen all over Australia-

Senator Henty:

– Good luck to them !

Senator BENN:

– The honorable senator says, “ Good luck “. We always wish fishermen “ Good luck “. I have gone fishing on many occasions, and every time I have done so my friends have wished me “ Good luck “, and I have promised them in return the biggest fish of my catch, but very ‘often I have not caught one fish. Leaving aside for a moment this serious consideration, I recall an occasion when T went fishing and caught a schnapper weighing 20 lb. I carried it home and laid it on the kitchen table, and my wife said to me, “Did you catch only one ? “. This bill is not a matter of wishing fishermen good luck. Chance has to be eliminated as far as possible because they are engaged in an occupation on which their livelihood depends, and we must make it as secure as possible for them. They must have all the assistance possible so that on any day when they go out fishing, whether they get a. reasonable haul or only a small one, they will be assured that they can store it in suitable premises so that eventually it will reach the consuming public in a proper condition. They can only do that by having the facilities for it, the chief of which is refrigeration. The Minister must also administer the measure in such a way as to create a balance between the provision for cold storage and that for fishermen.

Senator Spooner:

– We have heard all this before.

Senator BENN:

– I said it before, but good words will always stand reiteration. Although I -may be repeating myself, I have no doubt that many fishermen throughout Australia will be repeating what I have said up to this moment.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I am anxious about the finance to be used under this measure. Clause 8 defines “ the moneys of the commission “ as follows : - “ the moneys of the Commission “ includes moneys of the Commission which, immediately before the date of commencement of the Whaling Industry Act Repeal Act 1950, were invested under paragraph (6) of section twenty-three of the Whaling Industry Act 1040-1052.

Will the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) say how much money the Government expects to spend on this very worthy objective of establishing a fisheries development trust fund to do all the things that he and other honorable senators opposite said in their second-reading speeches would be done in order, that this industry might grow to such bounds in Australia that it might be looked upon as one of the greatest fishing industries in the world? I take it that the whole of the money that can be expended will be something in the vicinity of £S00,000, although I am open to correction on that point. The actual facts are that in the first year the Government will receive a deposit of £350,000. Does it propose to use that capital for these purposes? If it does, I remind honorable senators of the very interesting speech delivered by Senator Kendall in which he said, if I remember correctly, that a decent trawler would cost something like £60,000. Governments generally, right from the inception of federation, have done little or nothing, to put this industry on a sound footing or to help it to develop to the extent that it should be developed. I want to know how far the Government expects to get with this amount of money. If itspends the whole of the £350,000 that it receives as deposit, then it will have to wait until the end of the next year when, according to reports of statements by the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) in another place, another £120,000 will be paid.

In the first year, the Government will receive £350,000 as deposit plus £120,000 after twelve months. It will get a further £120,000 in the second year. If the Government really intends to do all that the Minister says it will do, the amount of money to be made available under this measure will be totally inadequate for the purpose, especially when we look at the coastline, of this country. Apart altogether from jokes, I should say that much more money will be required.

Senator Spooner:

– It is not a bad joke when we are having a look at the coastline mentioned in the definition clause of the bill.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Even- confining our attention to the coastline as defined in the bill, the average person wants to know whether this is all the money that the Government proposes to spend on the industry to do all the things that we have been told are to be done. Especially is this so when we realize that the value of fish products imported into this country last year was about £5,500,000. It seems to me that the Government will not get very far with the moneys mentioned in the bill. I should like the Minister to tell us at least the amount that the Government contemplates spending. Is there any plan setting out how much is to be spent in the first year, how much in the second year and so on, seeing that we are selling our interests in the whaling industry on what might be called a deposit and time payment? I should like to know how much of the deposit the Government expects to spend. If it is intended to spend the whole of that capital, then it will not be many years before more money will have to be found from Consolidated Revenue in order to do all that we are told the Government proposes to do.

Nobody argues against what is proposed to be done. If this bill can be the means by which a thriving industry can be developed in the country, I do not think any one will complain at all about the money expended. Our only concern about the measure is the source from which the money is to come. If the Government had merely said to the Parliament,’ “ We want a couple of million pounds out of Consolidated Revenue I am certain honorable senators on this side could have told it where it could get the money if, for once, it were prepared to give a little heed to what we say. If that had been done I am- certain that we on this side would have been in a better frame of mind than we are to-day. In any case, I ask the Minister to explain at least how it is proposed to finance these things. We have heard a nice lot of words, but they do not get us very far. Can the Minister tell us exactly what the Government has in mind in respect of the establishment of a fisheries development trust fund? If I read the bill correctly, I understand that any money that is expended on this work must come from the sale of a whaling station. I ask the Minister to tell us whether the Government proposes to use the capital or whether that capital is to be. paid into a trust fund and only the interest used for this purpose. I ask him to give some details so that we shall have some idea of just what amount of work will be done in order that the fishing industry may be helped in the way that we are told this bill will help it.

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

– We should understand clearly the order of debate and where we are going. We have had the rather unusual experience of hearing two second-reading speeches in the committee stage on the definition clause in the bill. If that is an indication that the bill is to be delayed, I remind the Opposition that the Government has the best argument of all - the numbers.

Senator Grant:

– Stalin is” dead; long live Stalin!

Senator SPOONER:

– I shall answer as best I can every question that is put, to me in committee if it is put quickly and concisely in the normal way, but if we are to have a series of second-reading speeches in committee I am sorry, but I will not play. Senator Benn asked why the word “ storing “ is included in the definition. That was done deliberately, as he has suggested. The word applies to stores in shipping fleets and on shore. The word is used in the bill to meet both contingencies. If it is a good thing to assist in the provision of cold storage on shore for the purpose of holding a catch, that provision should be made within the limits of the bill.

I shall now reply to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Kennelly) and Senator Benn with one answer. There cannot be a rush on the fund to use it up quickly. The money available will not be substantial in the early stages. One of the strengths of this proposal is that it is to be a revolving fund. Instalments will go out and, provided there is no loss from bad debts, the fund should increase as money will be lent, on occasions, at interest. On the other hand, there may be grants rather than loans. There is a foundation for the use of the fund because we have had, for some years, a Fisheries Division and, from” its experience of the problems of the industry, it has considerable background upon which to base advice on the best method of using the fund. This is a new venture in this particular sphere of activities. I am not apprehensive that there will be a constant call on the fund so that it will be used only in Western Australia or South Australia. I am not without hope that if the scheme is successful, as expected, the money may be augmented in other directions and the work extended.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

.- Clause 3 of the bill refers to the setting up of a fisheries development trust account. The Opposition is not opposed to the opening of such a trust account, but objects to any returns from the sale of the assets of the Australian Whaling Commission being put into this account. As the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) has foreseen, there may be some delay in bringing this transaction to finality. He said -

Should unforeseen circumstances prevent a satisfactory sale being finalized, the legislation will remain on the statute-book until such time as a satisfactory sale of the enterprise is made. [ ask the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) what funds there will be in the fisheries development trust account in the event of such a contingency arising, and the sale of the assets not being completed satisfactorily.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

.- The committee is still considering clause 3 of the bill, and I refer to paragraph (b) which relates to spawn or eggs of fish. The eggs of fish, are the subject of an industry. They are used for industrial purposes. I propose to mention them because applications could very well be received by the Minister from persons engaged in the fishing industry for assistance, under this bill, so that they might extend their activities to deal with the spawn or eggs of fish.

During certain periods of the year, the mullet run on the coast of Queensland. They are netted and sent to market indiscriminately. Establishments obtain the roes of the fish, dry them and export them. It is understood that the roes of the fish are used for the manufacture of caviar and, as everybody knows, caviere is a food that is eagerly devoured by the unemployed workers of the world. I think that the definitions have been inserted in the bill so that the Minister, when making loans available to fishermen, can exercise some restraint. He can withhold funds in respect of applications made for assistance. Obviously, every fish egg is a potential fish. I have been to fish works and seen countless millions of fish roes, and I have thought of the millions of fish that are being lost to the Australian consuming public. We are now dealing with that matter in a bill which does not give the Minister much authority in that connexion.

Senator Spooner:

– That is, in relation to one of the eggs?. What happens if the egg does not fulfil its potentiality ?

Senator BENN:

– I can answer that question by saying that it would be useless for caviar. I know that the Minister will have various applications to consider in respect of assistance from this fund and that he will be able to use his powers in various ways. I should like to know from him whether or not it is intended to use restraint in the granting of loans and advances to fishermen engaged in this industry.

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

– I pursue the point that was raised by Senator Kennelly and developed by Senator Tangney concerning the way in which the assistance is to be financed and the fund constituted. If I am at liberty to do so, in dealing with clause 3 I also wish to refer to the more specific provisions of clause 5. Clause 3 deals with the title of the fund. Apparently, the fund is to be constituted by an appropriation under this legislation of the net proceeds, after certain deductions, of the sale of the assets of the Australian Whaling Commission. If honorable senators turn to clause 5, particularly sub-clause (1.), they will see that that appropriation is to be made. Then, in sub-clause (2.) of clause 5, the following words appear : -

In addition to the amount which, under the last preceding sub-section, is required to be paid into the Account, there shall be paid into the Account -

moneys appropriated toy law for the purposes of the Account;

Then it proceeds to other matters. Subclause 3 of clause 5 reads-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! Does not the honorable senator think that we should discuss clause 5 when we come to it?

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

– I suppose that we can do so, but it may save time if I am allowed to develop my argument now.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I have already given wide latitude to honorable senators.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

.- I thought that the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) would wish to reply to the discussion of clause 3. I take it that the Government is now getting out of whaling by selling the assets of the Australian Whaling Commission, and that it proposes to set up a trust fund. I wonder whether the Minister would give me specific information about the reason for the inclusion of whalesin the list of fish to be investigated in the future. As I understand the whaling industry, it is not confined to the 3-mile limit. Whales migrate for thousands of miles. If the industry that the Government is now handing over to private enterprise should fail due to lack of whales along the coast, or something of that kind, does the Government propose to act as a kind of watch dog? I suggest that if this company gets into trouble, much money may have to be spent on the provision of trawlers to go to the Antarctic waters where whales may be found. I understand that, at the moment, we do not own a. ship that is capable of going into those waters.

In addition, I should like to know whether the Minister has any comment to make about dugongs.

Senator Spooner:

– Male or female?

Senator WILLESEE:

– The interjection of the Minister indicates his mental attitude. When he is not making foolish interjections, he is insulting somebody or going on with a lot of rot.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Senator WILLESEE:

– If the Minister knows anything at all about dugongs he will know that there are even greater potentialities in relation to dugongs than there are in relation to whales, particularly in respect of the extraction of oil. I thought thatthe Minister would be well briefed on this matter, although I should have realized that if he had been well briefed it would have been the first time that that has been so.

Reference has been made to many fish during this debate, but nothing has been said about eels. I recollect that, when the Snowy Mountains scheme was first mooted, protests were lodged by the Governments of South Australia and Victoria because it was thought that eels might be turned into the Murray River and result in the destruction of fish. That matter leads to the important question of the degree to which the development of fisheries will be concerned with internal waters. Instead of the Minister being facetious at one moment and insulting the next, he should give us some idea of how this money is to be expended. Senator Benn made the point, by implication, that having regard to the wording of this bill it would be possible for a person to buy fish at Fremantle and store it at Kalgoorlie, and yet qualify for a grant under this legislation, without having got his feet wet.

The purposes of this bill are very wide, and all kinds of considerations arise from it. I should like clarification particularly of the technical clauses, in relation to the various fish referred to and specially regarding what is contemplated in respect of future whaling operations. On the one hand, the Government is getting out of whaling completely, and on the other hand it proposes, apparently, to act as a kind of watch dog in case its friends should fall by the wayside.

Motion by Senator Spooner) put -

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 26

NOES: 22

Majority…… 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That clause 3 stand as printed.

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

AYES: 26

NOES: 22

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Declaration of Urgency.

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

– I declare that the Fishing Industry Bill 1956 is an urgent bill.

Question put -

That the bill be considered an urgent bill.

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

AYES: 26

NOES: 22

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time.

Motion (by Senator Spooner) proposed -

That the time allotted for the consideration of the bill in committee be until 3.10 p.m.. this day.

Senator McKENNA:
. Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I desire to record an emphatic protest against this procedure. . When we reach a clause that deals with matters connected with the sale of the assets of the Australian Whaling Commission, and when we want to ask questions about the agreements and the valuations and the failure to call for public tenders, it is most significant that at that very point this procedure should be interpolated. I desire to ask some questions about this matter myself, but the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) has given us only five minutes.

Senator Spooner:

– I have extended an open invitation..

Senator McKENNA:

– To take advantage at least four minutes, I propose to sit downand try to utilize that time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Moneys to be paid into the account).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– We now come to a clause which poses a contingency, and provides that if the disposal of the assets of the Australian Whaling Commission is effected, the net proceeds are to be paid into a trust fund to be set up under this bill. I ask the Minister whether that contingency has been realized. Has the agreement been concluded, and if so has it been reduced to writing? Is it effective to-day subject only to the passage of this legislation? If the agreement is in writing; will the Minister make it available for considerationbythe Senate. In that context, I point out that the sale we are considering is not a sale by a private individual of his own personal assets. The Minister gave an instance to the Senate earlier to-day, drawing a distinction between obligations tohold sales by public auction, and the right of an individual owner to please himself. I point out that as the Government, the Cabinet and even this Parliament are merely trustees for the people of Australia, we have no beneficial ownership in the assets of the Commission. The Government is conducting public business and not its own, and I, on behalf of the Opposition, put my desire to inspect the documents of sale in the form of a request rather than as a claim of right.

I also ask the Minister to table the valuations that preceded the conclusion of the negotiations. Again, all that is public business. The Minister said earlier that he would be willing to give honorable senators some break down of the figures, but I want to know what instructions were given to the valuers. Were the valuers allowed to run free, forming their own opinion as to the values of the Commission’s undertaking as a going concern? Were they asked merely to value specific assets? In particular and above all, what about the matter of goodwill? That question, I suggest, arises most particularly because here is a very profitable concern which has earned about £1,000,000 in the five years of its existence.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– Does the honorable senator suggest that any valuer would ignore goodwill?

Senator McKENNA:

– If he got specific instructions along particular lines, he would. I ask what his instructions were. It is all very well to say that lie would not overlook goodwill, but, on the face of it, I say that he has completely ignored it. The commission has earned about £200,000 profit a year, and I would say that in that case the goodwill should be worth at least £600,000, or a purchase price of three years’ profits. That would reduce the value of the physical assets plus the licence, plus what is, in effect, a monopoly, to £200,000.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! As the time allotted for the committee stage has expired, I shall put the question -

Question put -

That clause 5, the remainder of the clauses and the title of the bill be agreed to, and that the bill be reported without amendment.

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

AYES: 26

NOES: 22

Majority . . 4

In division:

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment.

Motion (by Senator Spooner) proposed -

That the report be adopted.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

Mr. President-

Motion (by Senator Spicer) put -

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 26

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Spooner) put -

That the report be adopted.

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

AYES: 26

NOES: 20

Majority 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Spooner) pro posed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) put -

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 26

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 682

WHALING INDUSTRY ACT REPEAL BILL 1956

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 3rd May (vide page 540), on motion by Senator. Spooner -

That thebill be now read a second time.

Declaration of Urgency.

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

.- I declare that the Whaling Industry Act Repeal Bill is an urgent bill, and I move -

That the bill be considered an urgent bill.

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

AYES: 26

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time.

Motion (by Senator Spooner) pro posed -

That the time allotted for the consideration of the bill be as follows: -

For the second reading of the bill, until 4.15 p.m.

For the committee, stage of the bill, until 4.25 p.m.

For the remaining stages of the bill, until 4.30 p.m.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I protest against this way of carrying on the business of the country. It is an absolute disgrace. Time has been taken in divisions and although for the past two days honorable senators on this side have asked questions they have received no satisfaction. The press has commented on the fact that the Senate does not sit often, and it is just as well that it does not, if this is the way it goes on. I came here to try to give a little intelligent assistance in the conduct of the business. This is ruthless gagging. It is a world’s record. Landy would not be inthe race with it. The last bill went through in five minutes. This one is going through in about twenty minutes. The late Senator McLeay, whose memory we all revere, sometimes did it, and other governments did it, but never to this extent. Every honorable senator on this side of the House should protest. Honorable senators on the Government side assert that there has been no corruption. I do not know whether there has, but the way the Government is carrying on suggests that there has. To illustrate my point I quote the following lines by Robert Burns: -

Here’s to those who would read

And here’s to those who would write.

There is none that would fear that the truth should be heard

Save those whom the truth would indict.

What are Government senators afraid of? I do not accuse people of corruption. I have never done that. The Minister is an accountant, a man who knows figures. I say that the case that has been put up here and in another place by our party has never been answered. I have read Hansard over and over again, and I can find no answer to it. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) in this place has asked question after question. He is an extremely gentlemanly fellow. He is a “brilliant man. If I were in his position I certainly could not he as gentlemanly. He certainly does not deserve to be treated in this way. I read in the Sydney Morning Herald some comment about a visit by Indonesian students to this Parliament. That article asked what could be better for the Indonesian students than to bring them in here to see how democracy worked, so that they would not be caught in the net of Stalinism or totalitarianism. This is a lovely exhibition for them to see. If this is the way in which democracy works, then the sooner democracy goes out of existence the better, because there could be no worse form of dictatorship than what we have seen here today. In fact, it is worse than dictatorship. This is not democracy; it is democrazy. I protest against the way in which this measure has been gagged through, and I know that my fellow

Labourites on this side feel exactly as I do about it. I know that you cannot do anything about it, Mr. President. It is not your fault. Ear be it from me to blame you. I think that we have had fair treatment from you, but this is a lovely exhibition of the way the Australian Parliament practises democracy as it is known in the House of Commons. Democracy in the House of Commons means the right to listen to other people’s theories, the right to discuss them, the right to answer a man’s questions. There should be no gagging unless there is an emergency. I could understand the Government’s action to-day if a war were on, if the Japanese were outside our gates, and this bill had to be through by 5 o’clock. In those circumstances, every honorable senator on this side would say that the sooner it was through the better. What is the necessity for the hurry in this instance? It would seem that the hurry is necessary because the Government is afraid that the further the debate goes the worse it will appear to the public. In this instance, the Government may be likened to the chap who fell out of the Empire State building in New York, from the 102nd story. His friend was 52 stories down, and as he went past the 52nd story, his mate said to him, “ How are you going ? “ He said, “ I am all right, so far “. The Government thinks it is all right so far, and that is the reason why it is putting on the gag now. That is’ all I have to say. I protest vigorously against this action. If this is the way the Senate is to be treated, then the sooner the Senate closes up the better.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

Mr. President

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) proposed -

That the question be now put.

Senator Benn:

– I rise to order. I understand that it is a practice of this House that when the Leader of the Opposition rises he takes precedence after the Leader of the Government. It has been the practice of this Senate for many years now to give the call to the Leader of the Opposition in preference to any other senator. On this occasion, the Leader of the Opposition rose and, having got to his feet, commenced to speak. You, Mr. President, called the Minister on the other side. I submit that you have made an error of judgment, and I ask that you reconsider your decision.

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not think I have departed from any established practice here in calling a Minister who rose at the same time as the Leader of the Opposition. A Minister of the Crown has the right to rise and submit a motion at any time.

Senator Willesee:

– May I speak on the same point ?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes.

Senator Willesee:

– I have been very perturbed by what is happening this afternoon. I think that the normal procedure not only of this House, but of the House of Commons and of every other parliament in Australia has been departed from. I am not imputing anything improper, but I think that probably, because we do not take the technical details of our Standing Orders as seriously as we might, this error has occurred. It has occurred on two other occasions in my memory in the last six years.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Under what standing order is the honorable senator taking his objection ?

Senator Willesee:

– Standing Order 405.

The PRESIDENT:

– I would point out that the honorable senator is objecting to my ruling. I have already given a ruling, and he seems to be objecting to it. If he is objecting to my ruling, then he must put his objection in writing, and the proper action will be taken.

Senator Willesee:

– You will remember, Mr. President-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I will not canvass this matter with the honorable senator. If he is objecting to my ruling, which he is entitled to do, he must put his objection in writing.

Senator Willesee:

– Did I not ask you a moment or two ago whether I could speak on this, and did you not say “ Yes “.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, but you are canvassing my ruling. Now let me hear what you propose to say.

Senator Willesee:

– If you put it that I am canvassing your ruling, then I suppose I am, but I wanted to point out that you dealt with only one phase of the calling of speakers. I wanted to quote to you Standing Order 405 as setting out what I think is the standard procedure in the Australian Senate. I hope that you will at least be able to bear with me and that you will, perhaps, change the ruling you have just given. Am I at liberty to continue?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator is going as close to canvassing my ruling as he possibly can go. Standing Order No. 405 says -

When two or more Senators rise together to speak, the President shall call upon the Senator who, in his opinion, first rose in hi? place.

On this occasion, the person whom I saw rising in his place was Senator Paltridge.

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

– A point I should like to make, if I may, is that when you gave your ruling you based it, noi on the fact that you had seen Senator Paltridge before Senator McKenna, but on the fact that there was a tradition in the Senate that if a Minister of the Crown rose at the same time as any other senator precedence should be given to the Minister of the Crown. ,With due respect, I point out that you are now ruling on a different basis. I ask you to indicate to the Senate what is the exact ruling you are giving. Are you ruling on tradition, or are you ruling on the standing order, and saying that Senator Paltridge rose first?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I think the surest way of clarifying this is to point out that my original call was in keeping with Standing Order No. 65 which reads -

Any motion connected with the conduct of the Business of the Senate may be moved by a Minister of the Crown at any time without Notice.

I must say, to be quite frank, that when I called Senator Paltridge I was guided by what I always recognized as the right of a Minister of the Crown to be given the call. I shall be quite honest . with honorable senators. On this occasion, I saw the Minister’ first. There has been some rather quick movement in the chamber, and it was only natural that I should see the Minister before I saw the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator Brown:

Mr. President–

The PRESIDENT:

– What is the honorable senator’s point of order?

Senator Brown:

– I do not wish to raise a point of order. I want to ask a question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I am not here to answer questions, nor shall I debate my rulings.

Senator Brown:

– I do not wish to debate the matter.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order ! If the honorable senator has a point of order, he should inform me upon what standing order he bases it.

Senator Brown:

– As honorable senators know, I occupied the chair as President of the Senate for eight years, and I should have the right to say a few words. [ do not wish to go against your ruling, Mr. President, but on the question of tradition, I wish to point out that there was a motion before theSenate, and when the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) rose, he did so to put another motion. When the original motion was before the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) rose. I should say that the Leader of the Opposition should have the right to speak to the original motion before the motion “ That the question be put “ is put to the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I point out to you, Senator Brown, that I have been very patient and have not interrupted you. You are completely out of order, and I disapprove of the contribution that you have made to the discussion. Obviously, you have canvassed my ruling, and that is not permissible.

Question put -

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 21

Majority…… 3

That the motion(vide page 682) be agreed to.

AYES

NOES

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 21

Majority…… 3

AYES

NOES

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Before the Senate at the moment is a motion for the second reading of this bill. I inform the Senate, at the outset, that the Opposition does not support the second reading and I propose to move, on behalf of the Opposition, the motion which is now being circulated through the Senate by way df amendment. The motion is in the name of Senator Tangney, but I adopt it. I move -

That all words after “That” .be left out with a view to inserting in lieu thereof the following words: - “ the Senate declines to give a second reading to the bill until such time as the Joint Committee of Public .Accounts lias inquired into and reported to Parliament on all aspects of the proposed sale of the Australian Whaling Commission’s assets to the Nor’ West Whaling Company Limited.”

I take this first opportunity, in the limited time available to me,’ to pay a tribute to the Minister who initiated the establishment of this commission, to the Norwegians who contributed to its foundations, and to the commission that has 30 successfully operated the undertaking and its assets over the period. T think tha t too little has been said regarding the parts played by those three classes of persons in connexion with this industry. - Now I come to the recent employees of this organization. This bill is a part of the machinery which enables the Government to take the matter out of the hands of the commission and sell the whole undertaking, the proceeds then being applied as we discussed under an earlier measure to-day. It is an ill reward for the men who have operated the commission, for those who have worked with the commission, on shore, in the vessels, and in the factory establishment, to throw their high endeavours aside and allow some private enterprise to take over, no matter at what price. I suggest that it is most churlish treatment of the men who have built and fostered a great industry.

In the first instance, I ask the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) whether there is an agreement in relation to this matter. I assume that there is one and that it has been reduced to writing. Is he prepared to make that agreement available to’ the Senate, either now or at the committee stage? If he i-c not prepared to do it at this stage, will he do it at some future time? I ask, and claim as a matter of right on behalf of the Opposition, that we have access to thai agreement. I point out to the Minister and the Government that they are merely in the position of trustees for the nation. They are not handling their own private affairs. It is public business that they are transacting, and I ask that that agreement be made available. I ask him, too, in the interests of the employees of the commission : “What has been done, if anything, in the course of that agreement to protect the interests of those men ?

I should imagine that the development of an organization of that kind would have aroused great enthusiasm in the employees. They would have felt that they were performing a real job on behalf of the whole nation, and that they were making a substantial contribution to its economy. It is a pity that such enthusiasm should be allowed to wane. Let us look at the practical considerations that are involved. Those employees have been allowed to claim for superannuation benefits under the Public Service Superannuation Act. I understand that now they have all been dismissed from what amounts to governmental employment. I take it that they automatically drop out of the right to participate in superannuation benefits and the rest. How can amends be made to men for that loss of what amounts to future security? I should like to know from the Minister the position in that regard, although he has given himself no time in which to have an opportunity to supply the information. I think that he should tell the Senate particularly what has been done to protect these men. What happens in relation to their superannuation rights, and so on ? I have no doubt that they are not now a part of the scheme and that when this matter is concluded they will drop out of public service, or semi-public service, employment and will have to seek employment with a private employer who may or may not have a superannuation scheme. Even if he had such a scheme, it would not have the backing that is available to the Public Service scheme. 1 Iia ve other demands to make of the Minister, and I say “ demands “ because I speak not for myself but on behalf of the whole Opposition. Why were public tenders not called in this instance? It is no answer to that question to say that only certain people were interested and that the Government arrogates to itself the right to determine who those persons should be. Only certain persons or films in fact were invited- to tender. I put it to the Minister that something that has been completely overlooked is that there are entrepreneurs or businessmen in this community who are able and enterprising, who can move from one field into a completely unrelated field, and who are adept in the art of company promotion. There may have been many men in this community who would have welcomed an opportunity to acquire an asset like this and give to the public of Australia an opportunity to become shareholders in it. There is one class that was completely excluded when the Government merely looked at individual firms and companies which somebody in the Government thought might be interested. There is necessarily a very small number of persons actively interested in whaling, by reason of the fact that there is a limited quota of whales to be taken; but that does not necessarily mean that those already engaged in the industry are the sole potential buyers. I put it to the. Minister that the Government, in the capacity of trustee for the nation, should have done, in this major instance, what all government departments are compelled to do even in minor instances under Treasury regulations, when public auctions are demanded. As one of my colleagues indicated earlier to-day, one reads in the newspapers advertisements by government departments calling for public tenders and advertising the sale by public auction of the most insignificant articles of government ownership. Yet, an asset such as this, which not only involves approximately one and a third million pounds in its set-up, but also earns very real profits, is disposed of by private conversations with a relative handful of people. What can be the justification for that action? That is one df the circumstances that make the Opposition insist upon letting the light of day into the whole of this transaction. The mere fact that public tenders were not called and that there was no public auction alone demands public inquiry. I suggestthat there is no more suitable body than the Public Accounts Committee of this Parliament, which is duly authorized by the Parliament, to undertake the specific duty of investigating the circumstances. I think that the Government itself has made a grave error in not calling publicly . for tenders. It sought to protect itself with valuations, and two valuations have been quoted to this chamber, but of course valuators act in accordance with the instructions they get. One of the circumstances that should be explained to the Senate, and to which a public inquiry should address itself, is the terms of the instructions that were given to the valuers. If they were asked to value the assets as a going concern, that is one thing. But if they were asked to value only .particular assets, that is quite another thing. No information is before this chamber , as to what the instructions were. A further demand that I make on behalf of the Opposition is to be informed of the instructions that were given to the valuators. I ask the Minister to table in this chamber the details and bases of the two assessments. In particular, I am concerned to know whether they did, in fact, take into account the goodwill of this concern. In looking at the valuations, one must have regard to the fact that the assets consisted of a going concern in a highly favoured position, and that it was handling a commodity that is the subject of international and national conservation. There is a world policy to conserve the raw material of the whaling industry, which is carefully guarded and nurtured and rationed, the one threat to it, one might say, being disease. Over-fishing is forbidden, and the regulations are policed. Machinery has been established for that purpose.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– It is dependent, is it not, on a government licence?

Senator McKENNA:

– I am coming to’ that point now. A licence forms a part of the .assets, too. In other words, it becomes not only a relatively safe industry - one might say it is a carefully preserved and growing project - but a strict limit is placed on the number of people allowed into the field.

Senator Wright:

– But when one is dependent on a government licence, he does not always feel confident.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is very true, but I think that it is traditionally accepted by the business community that once a licence is granted by a government authority, it is not capriciously withdrawn.

Senator Spooner:

– It is subject to international agreement.

Senator McKENNA:

– I have already indicated that, but I am building up to the point that here is a specially nurtured industry. The commission holds a licence, it has an extremely efficient plant and is making profits of £200,000 a year. I am sure that if the Minister, outside this chamber, were advising a client, a prospective vendor, he would say that the goodwill of this business was at least three times the average year’s profits. He would demand £600,000 on account of goodwill alone. I have not the faintest doubt that that is the regular practice in relation to matters of this kind. I ask the Minister, on behalf of the Opposition, to say whether goodwill was taken into account by either or both valuers; and secondly, what was the break-up of the valuations that were submitted? I am sure that the Minister cannot rejoice in the fact that an industry that cost about £1,333,000 to establish, and which has been productive of such excellent profits - although they fluctuated in a year when the price of whale oil fell- has been sold for only £880,000. Depreciation has been written off very heavily on a proper commercial basis, and I should be surprised if the market value of the plant did not greatly exceed the book value, in which event it should be somewhere in the region of £1,000,000, with at least £600,000 for the goodwill.

I say that the Government has made an exceedingly bad deal on behalf of the nation. It has granted the following terms :- £350,000 down, £120,000 payable in the second year, £120,000 in the third year and £250,000 in the fourth or last year. Why, it is obvious on the record of the whaling commission that the profits that will be made in the meantime will cover that capital outgoing, and the interest upon the balance outstanding. On behalf of the Opposition, I say quite deliberately that the Government has, in effect, given this industry away. After all is said and done, the Government did ultimately sell to the buyer to whom the proposition was more attractive than anybody else. The Government was in a favoured position to extract the best possible price from the purchaser who did ultimately enter into the agreement with the Government, because the purchasing company already had a licence and, by acquiring the whaling commission’s plant, it will be able to handle the quota under both licences at the one plant.

Senator Wright:

– Does not that explain why the Nor’ West Whaling Company Limited submitted the highest bid?

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, but it does not explain why the bid was as low as it is.

Senator Wright:

– Does not the honorable senator think that it is presumptuous of him to impute anything to the valuers.

Senator McKENNA:

– I have imputed nothing to the valuers. I have asked the Minister in the first place what instructions were given to them. That is a reasonable request.

Senator Spooner:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that they were asked to value exclusive of goodwill?

Senator McKENNA:

– I am making . no suggestion; I am asking a question, on behalf of the Opposition, and I am making no suggestion against the valuers at all. I should want some information before I was prepared to make any suggestion, and I am prepared to say that the Minister should supply the information I have sought. That is, what were the instructions that were given to the valuers, and did they include goodwill in their valuations? If they did, upon what basis was it calculated, and what is the break-iq> of the valuations ?

Senator Spooner:

– Surely the honorable senator does not seriously suggest that any valuer would neglect goodwill?

Senator McKENNA:

– It depends entirely upon his instructions.

Senator Spooner:

– Does the honorable senator think that any one would be instructed to value such assets exclusive of goodwill ?

Senator Wright:

– A valuer would no more ignore that aspect than a lawyer would ignore the law.

Senator McKENNA:

– I should regard as an intelligent government one which said, “ Here is a concern making an average profit of £200,000 per annum The goodwill is worth at least £600,000 “. It would be reasonable to fix goodwill at that figure. The government might go from that point to the next, and say to a valuer, “ Will you value the physical assets as a going concern? “

Senator Wright:

– No valuer worth his salt would treble the annual profits in order to establish goodwill without ascertaining the super-profit.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is a very good rule of thumb, but I say that this Government has sold the physical assets of the whaling commission for something in the neighbourhood of an effective £250,000; either that, or that it has received nothing for goodwill.

Senator Vincent:

– How would the honorable senator go about valuing the goodwill of a whaling station?

Senator McKENNA:

– I should want to know its situation, the condition of the plant, and its annual profits. I should also consider its prospects, having regard to the price of whale oil on both the local and overseas markets. I should want to know all about those factors before expressing an opinion.

Senator Vincent:

– If the honorable senator does not know those factors in relation to this proposition, how can he argue that goodwill was not taken into consideration ?

Senator McKENNA:

– I am asking for that information.

Senator Wright:

– What capitalization rate does the honorable senator think there was in this instance?

Senator McKENNA:

– I am not concerned to put that ; it depends upon many factors.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! As the time for the consideration of the motion for the second-reading stage of the bill has now expired, I shall put the question.

Question put -

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

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

AYES: 19

NOES: 22

Majority…… 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– In the limited time available to me I should like to ask a series of questions of the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner). Will the Minister table the agreement in question, and, if lie will not do so, will he say what will happen to the staff of the Australian Whaling Commission after its assets have been sold? Will he table the valuations, or will he at least give the break down of values in the valuations? Will he say whether any goodwill was taken into account, and, if so, upon what basis? Will he indicate why the Government, as trustee for the people, did not call public tenders ?

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

– I shall answer the questions put by Senator McKenna as quickly as I can in the order in which they can be answered. I have been asked whether goodwill was taken into account, and the answer to that question is undoubtedly “ Yes “. I have in front of me a valuation which follows the normal course, and which deals with all the relevant circumstances - the value of assets, the earning of profits, the relation of this business with other businesses of a similar nature, the type of yield on the capital invested, the whole basis of a valuation as it would be carried out professionally by a firm of accountants or by a government valuator for a normal buyer and seller.

Senator McKENNA:

– Can the Minister state the value of the goodwill in each case ?

Senator SPOONER:

– I did not say that the goodwill had been separately valued. I said that goodwill was taken into account, and for all I know the goodwill may be separately valued, but I should be surprised if it were so separated because that would not be the normal procedure. It is not normal to show assets and goodwill separately.

Senator McKenna:

– Of course it is.

Senator SPOONER:

– With the greatest respect, it is not. There are many businesses that are not worth their asset value because their assets have not a sufficient earning capacity. I do not know what the valuator in question has done, but Senator McKenna’s remark does not follow.

Senator McKenna:

– Will the Minister make the valuations available?

Senator SPOONER:

– No, I am noi prepared to do so. I shall leave that for the relevant Minister in another place. It is his prerogative to make a decision on that point. However, I shall convey the honorable senator’s request to him. Senator McKenna also asked me to table the agreement. I put it to the Senate that at this stage there is not a written agreement, because the vendor is the Australian Government and it will not be until this legislation has been passed and the assets transferred to the Australian Government, that there can be a contractual arrangement made between the purchaser and the vendor. At the present, time there is some letter of acceptance, or some letter of acknowledgment, in existence.

Senator McKenna:

asked me to state what will happen to the staff. Arrangements have been made to the effect that the purchasing company will agree to continue to employ all those who are at Carnarvon, and who have their permanent homes there. Alternative employment will be offered in the Public Service to the office staff of the Australian Whaling Commission who are not offered employment elsewhere. The Nor’ West Whaling Company Limited will take over the employees who have been employed by the commission on a casual basis in the past - that is, the men employed on whale, catching and processing.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Anderson:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! As the time for the committee stage has expired, I shall put the question.

Question put -

That the bill be agreed to and reported without amendment.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator K. M. Anderson.)

AYES: 22

NOES: 19

Majority . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Spooner) put -

That the report be adopted.

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Spooner) pro posed -

That the bill be reada third time.

Senator TANGNEY:
tralia · Western Aus

.- Mr. President–

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the bill has elapsed.

Bill read a third time.

page 691

ADJOURNMENT

Dried Fruits - Business of the Senate.

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia

– I rise, as you, Mr. President, will observe, in haste. The reason I do so should be very obvious in view of events that have happened in this chamber this afternoon. I desire the Senate to consider the situation that has arisen in the dried fruits industry. I remind honorable senators that a week ago Senator O’Flaherty asked a question of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) in respect of payments for the 1954 crop. To-day the Minister, rather belatedly, gave a reply, but it did not in any way answer Senator O’Flaherty’s question.

The position is that £170,000 is owing to dried fruit growers of this country in respect of payments from Great Britain for the 1954 crop. No doubt all honorable senators have been advised not only by the Australian Dried Fruits Association but also by various branches of that body, that a grave situation has arisen in the industry as a result of the long period that has elapsed in making these payments to the growers. On the 3rd of this month, Senator O’Flaherty asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry -

  1. Is it a fact that for the 1954 season the Australian Dried Fruits Association has only received £70,000 sterling of a total claim of £270,085 sterling for currants and raisins under the United Kingdom Price Support Agreement 1
  2. Is the Minister aware that this delay in settlement of the Australian Dried Fruits Association’s claim is placing an unprecedented financial burden on the growers, who arc also suffering severely from heavy crop losses ?
  3. Can the Minister give an assurance that immediate representation will be made to the United Kingdom Government to have the total claim promptly finalized?
  4. Is it possible for the Australian Government to make a substantial grant of money to the Australian Dried Fruits Association pending an interim or final settlement of the claim?

The Minister’s reply did not help the situation in any way. The Minister said that the Government was concerned about the position, but he did not indicate any steps which it proposed to take to assist this industry, which is facing such grave difficulties. The dried fruits growers want immediate action to help them overcome their difficulties, and not a promise of something that may be done in the unforseeable future. I have received advice from influential branches of this association in my own State which clearly shows that the difficulties that growers are encountering call for immediate attention by the Government. By the time the Minister replied to Senator O’Flaherty’s question, an additional £30,000 had been paid, which brought the total payment for the 1954 crop - and I emphasize the fact that it is for the 1954 crop- to £100,000 out of a total of £270,000. Owing to the long - delay in receiving these payments, to which the growers are entitled, they have been forced to go to the banks and virtually buy money with which to carry on although they have an interest under the agreement in the proceeds of a crop which has been disposed of.

This Government has an inescapable responsibility in this matter, and should agree immediately to the request of the Australian Dried Fruits Association that pending a final settlement with the United Kingdom Government under the agreement, the Government should underwrite the amount outstanding so that the dried fruits growers may be given immediate relief. There is no comfort for the growers in the answer given by the Minister. He concluded his reply by saying that the Government was hopeful that the balance of the claim would be settled in the near future. That is by no means reassuring to the growers in their present plight. They will not be relieved of their anxiety by such a reply.

This industry is faced with other serious problems. Growers have sustained heavy crop losses during the current season owing to bad weather, and they are entitled to some relief from the Government. During the last federal election campaign- all sorts of promises were made and all sorts of plans outlined by this Government to provide relief for the dried fruit growers. In South Australia, they hoped for some immediate action, but so far nothing has been done. A clear obligation rests upon the Govern-, ment to meet the request of the Australian Dried Fruits Association to underwrite the amount of £170,000 so that the growers may be enabled to continue the production of a vital export commodity.

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

.- I agree with some of the remarks of Senator Toohey, but disagree with others. Senators should have a clear understanding of the facts of this matter. They are that a quantity of seeded raisins was sold in England by the Australian Dried Fruits Association to an instrument of the United Kingdom Government. The Australian Government did not at any time - as Senator Toohey will admit - have any part in those negotiations. The dried fruits organization, quite properly, as always, insisted that it should be left in complete control of marketing, and, indeed, urged upon the Government that it should not, in any way, or at any time, interfere in the negotiations between the Australian Dried Fruits Association and the United Kingdom Government instrumentality.

The fruit in question was sold by the Australian Dried Fruits Association, and under an agreement with the United Kingdom a support price of £90 a ton was agreed upon. It appeared that this particular type of fruit would be difficult to sell at that price, a,nd the Australian Dried Fruits Association requested the United Kingdom Government to allow it to sell through private channels. The fruit was sold at a price considerably below the £90 support price plan. I understand that the United Kingdom Government disputes that this money is, in fact, owing to the Australian Dried Fruits Association or that it is bound to make up the difference in price between what the Australian Dried Fruits Association sold for and the £90 a ton, which was the agreed support price plan. That being the case, it appears to be reasonably clear that if the United Kingdom Government should fail to pay this money in full the proper remedy is for the Australian Dried Fruits Association to take legal action against that Government.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It is a government to government agreement.

Senator GORTON:

– No, it is an Australian Dried Fruits Association agreement. That association and the United Kingdom Government are the two interested parties. It is for the association to take legal action to ascertain whether, in fact, the United Kingdom Government is bound to make up the difference in price. I differ with Senator Toohey who contends that the Australian Government is bound to enter into this matter and make up the money, or that it. is in any way even morally obliged to do so. On the other hand, I agree with him entirely when he says that the industry is suffering immense disabilities at the moment more through seasonal conditions than for any other reason. I know that the Government has been making urgent representations to the British Government on this matter, and I suggest that it might give consideration to making an advance to the dried fruits industry, without admitting liability in the matter, in order to help the industry over its difficulty. The Government might consider making a, grant to the growers because of their extremely difficult position, but on the clear understanding that this was not to be taken as a precedent or an admission that the Government is obliged to enter into the matter; and on the further understanding that if the money is eventually paid by the United Kingdom Government this Government is to be reimbursed. In other words, the growers should be helped, but in giving that help this Government should not be taken as having established a precedent which could be extremely dangerous to all forms of marketing of primary products.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– I rise only because of the statement made by Senator Gorton that the price support agreement was one between the Australian Dried Fruits Association and the British Government. That is not so. It was made on a government to government basis as is proved by the fact that the Australian Government is receiving the money and then distributing it to the Australian Dried Fruits Association. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge), in his- reply, stated that the first £70,000 that had been received by the Government had been passed on by it. He said that there is another £30,000 that is being passed on to the association. That fact, in itself must prove conclusively that the price support agreement is on a government to government basis; and it is for that reason that we are asking the Government to take whatever action may be necessary to bring pressure to bear upon the British Government in order to adjust the claims made by the Australian Dried Fruits Association.

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

– I am interested in the fact that Senator Toohey rose first to complain that the answer supplied to a question asked by Senator O’Flaherty was not satisfactory. I should have thought that had there been room for any complaint at all Senator O’Flaherty would have taken the initiative and made the complaint. The position is that this matter is not before the Senate by way of question and answer for the first time. Had Senator Toohey been here during the last few days he would know that a long question on the same subject was asked by Senator Laught some days ago to which, a lengthy answer was given. Neither of the senators who asked questions on the subject found room for complaint that their questions had been answered unsatisfactorily. I think that the best thing I can do in the circumstances is to refer to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. McMahon) the remarks made by Senator Toohey, and, if it is possible to clarify the Minister’s answer further, to ask him to do so. I have read the answer to the question that was asked by Senator O’Flaherty and I must say that, at the moment, it certainly appears to me to answer the specific question fully.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I rise to oppose the motion for the adjournment of the Senate at this time. I do so as a protest against the manner in which business has been transacted in the Senate to-day and against the way in which the Senate has been treated. It all goes back to the remark passed by one Minister this morning that it did not matter what was said because the Government had the numbers. That being so, it seems to me that our coming here at all is rather a waste of time. Since the beginning of the year, the Senate has sat on only thirteen days. We were absent from Canberra for five weeks and when we came back here last week, one of the first things we found was that business was to be speeded up to avoid sitting after dinner on Thursday nights. This sitting will be further curtailed if we adjourn now, an hour and a quarter before the normal dinner adjournment, as though we had no important matters to discuss. Because of this terrific haste, the Senate has been deprived of the opportunity to discuss many very important matters which affect my State particularly, and other matters in which the good name of the Government itself is involved.

Any one who saw how the discussion of the sale of the assets, of the Australian Whaling Commission was conducted this afternoon could not help but feel that it is quite impossible to discuss anything rationally with the Government. We are. also told, because of this speeding-up, that we are not to be supplied with necessary information. This is a dangerous precedent. In the interests of the good name of the Senate, I oppose the adjournment at this time. In the community now, there are quite enough critics of the Senate’s work, and I feel that the way in which business has been transacted this afternoon gives further credence to their beliefs. Honorable1 senators on both sides should be jealous and proud of the dignity of the Senateand its value to the community. We should do everything possible to ensurethat this dignity is maintained. Nothing could be more devastating to it than the way in which the business was conducted this afternoon. .For that reason, I strongly oppose the motion.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– In ordinary circumstances, I should find the observations of Senator Tangney completely acceptable, but on this occasion I protest against being subjected to such statements from the Opposition, having regard to the fact that the Opposition brought upon itself the closures this afternoon by its blatant abuse of the procedures of the Senate during the debates prior to 2’ o’clock. It is suggested that the Government has lost an opportunity to clear its good name. It would seem to me and to those who understood the full significance of the last ten minutes of thedebate this afternoon on the Whaling’ Industry Act Repeal Bill that the ignorance of the Opposition was exposed to> such a degree that it should not further burke the progress of the business of the Senate. When the Leader of the Opposition put forward views such as those contained in his statement regarding valuations, upon the assumed basisthat the valuations were not in accordance with ordinary-

Senator Kennelly:

– I rise to order,. Mr. President. Is it competent for an honorable senator, on the motion for the adjournment, of the Senate, to comment on a. statement that was made by an honorable senator in a debate on a bill that passed the Senate as late as thisafternoon ?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Standing Order 415 states -

No Senator shall reflect upon any vote of the Senate, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.

Senator Wright was at a point where I was about to stop him. I inform Senator Tangney that she, also, was close to being stopped.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I say with great respect that, far from reflecting upon the vote of the Senate, I was sustaining it.

In reply–

Senator Kennelly:

– I rise to order. Is Senator Wright in order in pursuing the argument that he is attempting to put forward, in view of the ruling that you have just given, Mr. President?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Senator Wright is not in order. The fact remains that, until an honorable senator has developed his theme, it is difficult to get an idea of the line that he proposes to follow.

Senator Arnold:

Mr. President–

The PRESIDENT:

– What is the honorable senator’s point of order?

Senator Arnold:

– I do not raise a point of order. You have already given a ruling. I wish to refer to the discussion that occurred on the motion for the adjournment. I believe that Senator Tangney had some rights in raising the matter.

Senator Wright:

– Well, well! I rise to order.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Senator Arnold must not canvass my ruling. That has been laid down and well established. As to the statement thatI addressed to Senator Tangney, I was exercising my right to remind her that there were times when she could have made the mistake of leading her remarks to a point where she would have conflicted with Standing Order 415.

Senator Arnold:

– Do I take it that, having listened to Senator Tangney for ten or fifteen minutes, and having observed that she was scouting so close to your ruling, you did not sit her down, Mr. President, but in the first 30 or 40 seconds in which I was speaking, you so successfully discerned what was in my mind that I was not allowed to express any opinion?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I shall sit you down, too, Senator Arnold.

Senator Arnold:

– You have already done so, Mr. President, so I may as well sit down.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.58 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 May 1956, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1956/19560510_senate_22_s7/>.