22nd Parliament · 2nd Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMuIlin) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.
page 875
– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware that the delay in the opening of the season throughout the southern part of Australia is causing serious concern to primary producers? As the Australian people depend largely on food supplies normally produced in this area, has the Government given consideration to the effect that continued dry weather would have on those supplies? Has the Government any information as to whether the production of milk and other dairy products has seriously declined in recent weeks? Are adequate stocks of butter, meat and other primary products which are normally exported, held in reserve to meet the requirements of the Australian people, and can he say what quantities of unsold wheat remain in Australia at the present time?
– Naturally, any weather conditions which adversely affect primary production, particularly production for export, cause the Government considerable concern. As to the specific questions asked by the honorable senator relative to the production of milk and other dairy produce, and the quantity of butter and meat on hand, I have no detailed information available, but I shall consult my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry and get the information for the honorable senator.
page 875
-Can the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs say whether it is a fact that Egypt is at war with Israel, and that Egypt denies the passage of Israeli ships through the Suez Canal? If so, can he inform the Senate how long that denial of free passage of ships has been in operation? Further, can he say whether Australia protested to the United Nations concerning the action of Egypt in stopping Israeli ships from passing through the Suez Canal prior to the military operations by Britain and France in the Canal zone? if sp, what were those occasions?
– I understand that the basis of the honorable senator’s questions is substantially correct. Speaking in general terms, I say that there is not a state of peace existing at the present time between Egypt and Israel, although actual fighting is not taking place. I understand also that it has been well reported that representations in connexion with the general relations between those two countries in regard to the Suez Canal were made by the Australian representative at the United Nations Assembly.
page 875
-Senator LAUGHT. - Can the Minister for Civil Aviation inform me when it is proposed to open for public use the new terminal buildings at West Beach airport, near Adelaide?
– I answered a question some time ago on this matter. I indicated then that it was hoped that all the contractors would be out of the building by the end of the financial year. The Department of Works has advised that that is its latest expectation. I am hopeful that the building will be opened and put into use immediately thereafter.
page 875
– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a statement in a leading daily newspaper this morning headed “ Maritime Unions’ Hush Money “ in which it is stated that shipowners are forced to make undercover payments - in this instance £30,000 - to maritime trade unions for allowing companies to bring ships to Australia by so-called “ cheap “ crews? Will the Minister investigate the statements and report to the Senate in due course on the matters I am about to enumerate? (1) The truth or otherwise of the statement. (2) The possibility of the existence of stand-over tactics being employed by Australian maritime unions. (3) If the statement is found to be true, will the Commonwealth take steps to declare these transactions illegal? (4) The possible effect - if proved - it may have on increased interstate freights and charges.
– I know no more of this matter than what I have read in the newspaper report. It seems to be alleged that shipping companies make payments to unions to get into a position of hiring crews at lower wage rates than are applicable under Australian articles. I think, in view of the importance of the question, it would be more proper for me to ask the honorable senator to put his question on notice so that the Minister for Labour and National Service himself can reply to it.
page 876
– On 2nd May I asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy a question in respect of the possibility of a unit of the American Navy, during Coral Sea Week next year, visiting the Port of Hobart. I understand the Minister has an answer to my question.
– I have received an answer from my colleague the Minister for the Navy. He advises me that visits of United States Navy ships to Australian ports are proposed by the United States Naval Authorities, and the Royal Australian Navy is consulted only to seek diplomatic clearance and to ensure that the facilities of a particular port will not be overburdened. For Coral Sea Week visits, arrangements were made between the AustralianAmerican Association and the United States Naval Attache in Australia. The Minister assured me that he would arrange for the United States Naval Attache to be informed that a visit of a United States Navy unit to Hobart would be welcomed.
page 876
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows: -
page 876
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice -
– The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied the following replies: - 1 and 2. Apart from periodical censuses conducted by the Commonwealth Statistician there is no official series of figures which measures precisely the number of unemployed in Australia, or in any State, at any time. Figures of the number of persons registered for employment with the Department of Labour and National Service, and of the number of persons receiving unemployment benefit under the Social Services Act administered by my colleague the Minister for Social Services are published each month. These indicated that there were more persons registered for employment, and more were receiving unemployment benefit in Western Australia in March this year than in March last year. The respective figures were -
Persons registered for employment -
At 29th March, 1956-3,211.
At 29th March, 1957-4,466.
These figures are of persons who claimed when registering for employment with the Commonwealth Employment Service that they were not employed and who were recorded as unplaced at the dates shown. They include -
Persons receiving unemployment benefit -
At 31st March, 1956-536.
At 30th March, 1957-1,607.
At 26th April, 1957, the number of persons registered for employment in Western Australia was 4,565 (3,561 males and 1,004 females) and at 27th April, 1957, the number receiving unemployment benefit was 1,804 (1,630 males and 174 females).
There is nothing to indicate that any marked variation is likely to be experienced in Western Australia over the winter months.
page 877
asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice -
– I have the following information in reply to the honorable senator’s questions: -
Package reactors - that is, reactors with small power output, usually in the range of from 5,000 to 15,000 kilowatts - have been developed in the United States of America and in Great Britain, and the manufacturers of these are at present attempting to find economic outlets for this source of power.
The reactors are characterized by high capital charges per kilowatt installed, and the operating costs have been variously stated, with an average of round 2.0d. per kilowatt hour. The manner of estimating the operating cost, however, varies from one example to another.
These package reactors use concentrated fissionable fuel, and will not operate on natural uranium. Their use, therefore, depends upon fuel supplies which must be imported from overseas, involving the expenditure of foreign exchange. They are, therefore, comparable with plants which use oil for the production of power, and their adoption in any particular case will depend on the economic advantage they may have, if any, over oil.
So far, investigations carried out by the Atomic Energy Commission have not revealed any place in the interior of Australia where these package stations would have advantage over oil. This is not to say that such places do not exist, and the situation is being examined continuously by the Atomic Energy Commission.
page 877
asked the Minister representing the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, upon notice -
Will the Minister have inquiries made and experiments carried out to decide whether the collecting of kelp from the Derwent estuary would have a detrimental effect on any or all of the types of fish in the estuary, thereby destroying or limiting the valuable fishing industry of that area?
– The Minister for External Affairs, who is in charge of the C.S.I.R.O., has supplied the following reply to the honorable senator’s questions: -
The C.S.I.R.O. has already been consulted by the Tasmanian authorities and they have advised it that the proposed harvesting of kelp probably will not be detrimental provided that this is not done when the crayfish larvae are most abundant on the kelp beds. However, the C.S.I.R.O. is investigating the Tasmanian crayfish at present, and has advised the Tasmanian Government on what precautions should be written into any lease to avoid danger to the crayfish industry. If a kelp industry should develop, the C.S.I.R.O. will keep watch to report any possible harmful effects.
page 878
asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -
What action has been taken by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, or what work has been carried out by that department, to provide a coaxial cable between Sydney and Melbourne to enable the people of Sydney who have television sets to view events as they happen in Melbourne and likewise, the people of Victoria to view events as they happen, in Sydney?
– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question: -
The Postmaster-General’s Department has given close attention to the measures that are necessary 10 provide for growth of the communication services between Sydney and Melbourne, including telephone, telegraph and television relay facilities. The Postmaster-General will make an announcement on the subject at an early date.
page 878
– by leave - As there appears to be considerable confusion over the joint administration of import licensing by the Department of Trade and the Department of Customs and Excise, I feel that it is advisable for the information of the Senate to present the facts and the way import licensing procedures in general are administered by the Department of Customs and Excise.
The division of functions is quite clear. The Department of Trade attends to matters of policy, and the Department of Customs and Excise carries out that policy insofar’ as the establishing of quotas and the issue of licences are concerned. From an importer’s viewpoint it means this. If goods are under Administrative control, i.e. not administered on quota but on the merits of each application, he must first apply to the Department of Trade for an allocation from the administrative budget to cover his licence. If approved, he then obtains his import licence from the customs.
If goods are on the quota control, i.e. categories “ A “ and “ B “, the importer will in the main have his dealings with the customs. In these cases quotas are established at a percentage of his imports during “base years “-1951-52 for “A” category goods, and 1954-55 for “ B “ category goods. Establishing the percentages is a function of the. Department of Trade, from then on> the matter is carried out by the customs.
To establish a quota the importer has to furnish a return showing his imports of the particular goods in the base year. This is checked by the customs, and from it a card is set up showing the total base year imports and the calculation of the quota entitlement in the current period. It is a simple job, involving simple calculations, which does not lend itself to automatic calculators or electronic computers Undoubtedly they could be used, in the same way as steam-hammers can be used to crack nuts..
With each change in licensing levels, a quick and simple calculation is made on the previous quota to establish the new amount for the new period.
The procedure in the issuing of import licences is correspondingly simple and straightforward. The importer desiring a licence against quota lodges his application at the Customs House where his quota has been set up. The licence is compared with the importer’s quota card, and if a sufficient credit is on hand, it is approved. At the same time its value is written off the quota card, and the amount of quota remaining immediately recorded. Every quota card at any time shows the amount of quota outstanding. There is no confusion in departmental records on that question.
It will be seen that the calculations involved in issuing a licence and establishing the amount of quota then outstanding are limited to simple addition and subtraction. It is the sort of thing a bank teller does before your eyes - no elaborate machinery - in fact no machinery of any kind could speed the process, but it could well hinder it.
To illustrate that the issue of licences is a process which is carried out as quickly as possible, I quote the following statistics. From 1st April, i.e., the beginning of the current licensing period, to 16th May, 68,307 licences were issued at the six major ports. That meant 2,009 licences per working day, of which Sydney issued close on 1,000. Sydney’s total for that short period of just over six weeks was 32,823. For the bulk of the applications not more than 36 hours elapsed between lodgment and issue - they are received,, checked, approved, written off the quota card,, and made available to the importer with the least possible delay. There are, of course, rush periods at the beginning of a new licensing period and towards the end of a period.
The licensing branches in the Customs Houses are under constant examination with a view to improvement in their organization and method. Continuing reviews have resulted in the elimination of much unnecessary work and the installation of up-to-date equipment where warranted.
Let me turn now to the extraction of the statistics which are a vital necessity in assessing the effect of current licensing levels and planning future programmes. It is in this field that there is a call for the highly specialized machines available today, and it is here that they are used. A first important requirement is to know the total value of licences issued1 - over the whole of the Commonwealth - under the various category items. This is achieved by copies of all licences being despatched to Canberra on the day of issue, where they are quickly coded and passed to the statistical bureau for machine tabulation and the extraction of the figures under the desired headings. As for other statistics, my department has now set up- in Canberra a record’ of quotas established under individual category items showing totals for the Commonwealth. This record is amended by fortnightly returns, so that an up-to-date record of our commitments in that direction will be available to the Department of Trade for use in its forward planning. It has in operation also a system of returns from which on a weekly basis the value of imports against licences, the values outstanding on valid licences, and unused values on completed, licences can be obtained. The other side of the planning picture - just how much of his quota an importer will use, when he will use it, when the goods will arrive and so on - is still very much open to conjecture..
I have heard a lot lately about the need for machines. From the foregoing, I hope it will’ be plain that we do not use machines where- they have no place; but we make full use of the excellent Hollerith- tabulators of the Bureau of Census and- Statistics to collate statistics. I trust this information will prove of some, value in giving the honorable senators a clearer picture of licensing procedures, which are a function of the Department of Customs and Excise. Import licensing is an irritation to both importers and the business community, who will be completely satisfied only when these restrictions are entirely removed. In the meantime, the best possible service is being given, to importers by the issue of licences with a minimum of delay and inconvenience.
page 879
– On 14th May, Senator Sheehan asked me the following question: -
Will the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral request his colleague to induce the Postmaster-General’s Department to expedite an answer to a letter that I wrote to the Department following a reply I received in the Senate from the Minister on the development of television in country districts in Victoria? In my letter, I suggested that certain places in Victoria - Mount Alexandra, Mount Turrangower and Mount Macedon: - be explored for suitability as sites for a television station. I have not yet received a reply. I notice that the Premier of Victoria mentioned the matter recently, and the next day he received a reply from the Postmaster-General. I am anxious to know why I cannot have a reply as quickly as did the Premier of Victoria.
I now advise the honorable senator in the following terms: -
The Postmaster-General has now informed me that a reply to Senator Sheehan’s representations was already being prepared at the time of his question and has now gone forward to the senator. The Postmaster-General has also asked me to make quite clear that he has received no representations from the Premier of Victoria on the subject, nor has he furnished the Premier with any information on it.
page 879
– On 10th April, Senator Marriott asked me the following question: -
I address my question to the Leader of the Government, because it concerns both immigration and recruitment for the Royal Australian Navy. In view of the policy of the United Kingdom Government to decrease the number of ships in the Royal Navy, will the Minister suggest that an approach be made either by the Minister for the Navy or the Minister for Immigration to enlist excess Royal Navy personnel’ to fill vacancies in the Royal Australian Navy? This would help the inflow of suitable British immigrants to Australia, and would also bring up to full strength the trained personnel of the Royal Australian Navy.
I have discussed this matter with my colleague, the Minister for the Navy, who has informed me that approval has recently been given for the recruitment in the United Kingdom of a substantial number of ex Royal Naval ratings, who will be entered in the Royal Australian Navy and brought to Australia. The Department of the Navy will nominate the wives and families of these men for passage to Australia at Commonwealth expense.
page 880
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin). - I have received from Senator Arnold an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the Senate for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely -
The urgent necessity for the Government to grant immediate substantial increases in rates of pensions and benefits to alleviate widespread distress amongst aged, invalid, widowed, and repatriation pensioners and recipients of other social services including the unemployed and the sick.
.- In the absence of Senator Arnold, who has been detained through illness but who will be here later in the day, I move -
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till tomorrow at 3.30 p.m.
– Is the motion supported? (More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places) -
– The Opposition is raising this important and urgent matter in order to express the feelings of people who are disappointed, disillusioned and disgusted at the abject failure of the Government to fulfil its electoral promises regarding social service benefits, and also to try to make some impression on the cynical and Scrooge-like Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton). My use of the term “ Scrooge-like “ implies all those hardhearted things that were personified by Dickens in Scrooge. The Government’s attitude is causing great hardship to very many under-privileged people. The great mass of the people, who are led to believe that in a democracy the government is the servant of the people, believe that real hardship is being inflicted upon a section of the community that is least able to bear it and which should be the last to be treated in that way.
Repeatedly, when this matter has been raised during budget debates or when budgets were being prepared and the plight of these people has been placed before it, the Government - when I refer to the Government, I mean every honorable senator opposite, because each must bear his share of the responsibility - by-passes the issue by quoting all kinds of figures and what has been done by previous governments. That kind of argument only emphasizes one of the greatest failings of this Government and of the Minister for Social Services. The Minister’s attitude is quite the reverse of what it should be in his task, on behalf of the people of Australia, of administering the Department of Social Services. The function of that department is to care for the under-privileged people in the community, to ensure that the aged and invalid have a reasonable level of comfort in the twilight of their lives. Those people who have contributed of their best throughout their working lives, have built up this great country in times when conditions were worse than they are today. Many of them who saved what they could during their working years, and at the same time raised families and paid for sickness and other contingencies, which are the lot of all families, have found in the evening of their lives that the value of their savings has depreciated and that they must reluctantly rely on the charity and compassion of the Government. I make an accusation against not only the supporters of the Government in this chamber and in another place but also the Minister for Social Services himself, that they lack the essential quality of compassion. Each time the plight of these people is raised in the Parliament it meets a frozen atmosphere, and immediately the issue of party politics is brought in, as though members of the Opposition were merely trying to gain some political advantage. I often wonder what is the real opinion of supporters of the Government when they reply to people in need in the community who write to them about their plight. I wonder whether they have any qualms of conscience when they refuse to take definite action to alleviate the unhappy position of these people. We repeatedly hear the same old stock answer given each time a request is made for more justice for this section of the community: “The present Government is doing more for them than the Labour government did before the present Government came into office.” That answer is not good enough. For a number of years the Government has boasted of the buoyancy of the Australian economy and of the advances being made in production. It is true that some sections of the community enjoy benefits from the policy of the present Government; I refer to those who are making big profits in business, or are sharing in the tremendous dividends that are being paid by companies, and which this Government’s policy makes possible. More attention is given to these privileged sections of the community by the Government than is given to the needs of the pensioners.
There is another aspect of this matter to which I desire to draw attention. If the Government is right in its belief that the economy of the country is buoyant, that is only a stronger reason why it should pay more attention to the social and moral aspects of its responsibility towards the aged, the invalids, the widows and the sick persons in the community. The attitude of the Minister for Social Services towards these under-privileged people was made clear in a speech which he delivered towards the end of last year in reply to a member of the Opposition who pleaded with him to help certain church organizations and other bodies which were devoting their energies towards the welfare of the less fortunate people in the community. When the Minister’s attention was drawn to their sad plight, he replied -
I remind you and other persons outside this House who are interested in this question that there is no way for this Government, or any other government, to bring down a bill to provide for compassion, the expansion of Christian charity. There are illimitable opportunities for people to engage in the relief of the distressed without such legislation.
Such a statement offers cold comfort to people who have placed their trust in the Government, and expect that their distress and their needs would be recognized, and they themselves treated compassionately. For one of Her Majesty’s Ministers of State to make such a statement is a grave re- flection, not only on him, but also on supporters of the Government who hold similar views.
In the Speech with which His Excellency the Governor-General opened the present session of this Parliament His Excellency said -
My Government has a lively sense of the needs of the social services, and particularly of the difficulties of pensioners of all types who have no other source of income. It will continue to review its legislation.
At the time, I thought that that was scant and fleeting reference to a serious matter which deserved much fuller and more generous treatment, but implicit in that statement was an admission of the plight of the pensioners. Notwithstanding that admission, however, during the present sessional period which is now drawing to its close there has been absolutely no move on the part of the Government to do anything for these people. Perhaps those of us who are fortunate enough not to have to get down to the details of eking out an existence and obtaining sufficient food to quell the pangs of hunger, and are not finding it difficult to obtain sufficient warm clothing in the winter, or accommodation to protect us from the elements, cannot understand the plight of these people. It may be that some do not want to understand and are quite prepared to turn a blind eye to the sufferings of those in distress and faced with these problems.
In today’s issue of the “Canberra Times” there is an advertisement in which firewood is offered for sale at £6 a ton. When we think of persons who are ill, infirm, or aged, trying to keep warm, and having to pay for wood at that price out of their pension of £4 a week, and also pay their rent and high prices for meat, eggs, butter, and other essential commodities, particularly eggs and butter and other sustaining foods, we wonder how the Government and its supporters can face the people and the Parliament, while continuing to pay the present miserable pittance to pensioners which, at the best, can provide only for their minimum needs.
For a number of years we on this side have drawn the attention of the Government to the evils of inflation and rising prices. When the Government decided to discontinue prices control, it assured the people that it would legislate in the interests of the whole community, and that by establishing a free market prices would reach a reasonable level. That has proved to be a fallacy. Prices are still rising, and the very section of the community least able to bear the impact of rising prices and inflation is being penalized. If the Government’s policy is to allow inflation to continue, prices to rise, and company profits to continue to increase - and there is no reason to believe its policy to be otherwise - then we on this side of the chamber say that, in. the name of justice and fairness, pensioners of all kinds, exservicemen, widows, sick people and recipients of repatriation benefits should not be made to bear the brunt of this policy. Immediate consideration should be given by the Government to the alleviation of their plight.
The suspension of the cost of living adjustments to the basic wage in 1953 has been responsible for a virtual reduction in the standard of living of almost every section of the working community, those earning their living with their hands and those with their brain. In an attempt to offset the effect of this impact, men who normally feel it their privilege and honour .to provide for their families, have been compelled to allow their wives to do part-time or full-time work in order to supplement the family income. That is a bad reflection on a country which boasts of its expanding economy, its great economic and financial bouyancy, and its prosperity. It is bad in a democratic community to see numerous cases of the disintegration of home and family life as the result of economic pressures which cause wives to go out to work. However, they are, in the main, the younger and more active members of the community and in their own way they are trying to counter the impact of the increased cost of living, the lowered standard of living and the inability of fixed incomes to meet the rising prices of commodities. How much worse is the impact on those who have to live .on .a fixed pension, the value of which is reducing weekly as the cost of living increases?
This is a problem which confronts all of us. Most of us will grow old some day and it may be that the only way to deal with this matter is to appeal to the selfinterest of members ,of Parliament who, in the final analysis, are the only ones who have .the authority to say whether justice will be given to the recipients of social service benefits. Perhaps some more fortunate members of the community can say for certain that they will not be in need of assistance in their old age, but they represent a very small proportion indeed. In an uncertain economy and uncertain community, very few people can say that their old age is secure. Many hundreds of thousands of people who have made some provision for their old age have no guarantee that ill health affecting them personally or their families will not overwhelm them financially and reduce them to a state where they, too, will need assistance from the Government. Even from the viewpoint of self-interest, members of the Government should make certain that by way of obligation or responsibility a minimum amount is provided, on a sliding scale, that will give to people in their old age a standard of social security and comfort.
Some interesting figures have recently been circulated in a pamphlet by R. I. Downing, the Ritchie Professor of Research in Economics at the University of Melbourne. It is entitled “ Raising Age Pensions “. Some of his observations are important and bear closely on this subject. Amongst other points, he made observations on a poll of a number of pensioners conducted by himself in conjunction with a committee of the university. He said -
Old people are like the test of the community. A few of them have no money worries. Many of them have enough to live in adequate comfort and dignity. For those without provision for their old age, Australia has - and has long had - a comparatively generous age pension scheme, one which has been ahead of most countries in many respects. But it just does not meet the needs of some who are hungry, lonely and ill-clad. In this respect our pension arrangements lag behind other countries.
Then he proceeds to mention some pensioners who are in the best position. He says they are married couples in good health, with a well-furnished house of their own, a garden in which to grow vegetables and raise chickens, a good stock of clothing, £400 in the bank, a joint income from earnings, annuities or superannuation of £7 a week and each receiving the full pension of £4 a week. Then he mentions the pensioner who lives alone, who is in poor health, who needs looking after, who pays a high rent for a low-standard room, who has only a few bits of clothing, furniture and bedding, and who has no income but his pension of £4 a week. The writer says that those who want to do nothing for pensioners have perhaps the first picture in mind, that is, of a couple living together in their own home. He suggests that others see only the second type of pensioner. In fact, both types exist. But it is particularly on behalf of those people who are ill-clad, who are paying a high rent and who are finding that their health is deteriorating weekly because of the inadequacy of the pension to meet their requirements, that we put forward this motion to-day. We do hope that the Government will heed our plea.
Some very interesting observations are made in the report of the Director-General of Social Services for the year ended 30th June, 1956. The report states that a survey has revealed that 62.4 per cent, of all age pensioners are aged 70 years or more. In this group lies the real sadness and poignancy. We know very well that it is impossible for these persons, who are over 70 years of age, to supplement their incomes in any way. Mr. Downing’s report reveals that 82 per cent, of all age and invalid pensioners who receive the full rate are entirely dependent on that income. That is a wider range in the community than is generally understood. Many of these persons are proud and feel that they are receiving charity. Something has gone wrong with their lives to put them in the position of being unable to support themselves. Circumstances quite beyond their control have worked against them. I, and I am certain every other honorable senator, would like to assure them that they are entitled, not only to the thanks, but also to the generosity of the Parliament that represents a generation that has gained so much from what these people have contributed.
We propose this motion because we are not satisfied with the replies that we receive to our repeated requests to the Government to do something about the underprivileged people in our community. The matter of urgency relates to age, invalid, widow and repatriation pensioners. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) has received repeated demands from ex- servicemen’s organizations and other bodies, which .have pointed out that the rising cost of commodities is depreciating the value of pensions. Some of these people are sitting in their rooms now. Winter is approaching, and many of them, instead of being able to enjoy the conditions which they formerly enjoyed - perhaps when their husbands or wives were alive - are forced by increased rents and the higher cost of houses into small, damp rooms in tenements. When they hear our plea to-day and realize what we are trying to do for them, they must be nauseated by the Minister’s inevitable reply that the Government is giving them more than was given to them in 1936, 1946 or 1956. That is not good enough.
These people expect and demand a better deal than they are getting at present. They want to know what they can expect from the Government, which is the only authority able to authorize the payment of more money in their fortnightly pension cheques. It is skulduggery to dash their hopes when they have no one other than their elected representatives to appeal to. They should not be brushed aside with hifalutin comparisons, in hard, cold figures of ten or fifteen years ago.
I appeal to the Government not to repeat its actions of last year, when pensioners came in deputations and wrote numerous letters at the time the budget was being considered. The Government’s answer then was, “ The budget has already been brought down. There is nothing we can do about it “. With the advent of winter, now is the time when people need more food, warmth and clothing. Generosity, compassion, and Christian charity must take their place in the minds and hearts of Government supporters, and something should be done to alleviate the plight of pensioners.
– Once again, as a budget session approaches, letters are coming from individual pensioners, petitions from pensioners’ organizations and motions of urgency for political advantage from honorable senators. Very soon, I presume, there will be a movement of pensioners to Canberra such as took place last year. All this, to my way of thinking, is rather pitiful. It is something that should not happen. Once again, I stand here and advocate a policy that is a decent policy and that should be adopted, so that pensions may be removed altogether from the political sphere. We believe that hope for the pensioners lies in the policy that we put forward. I have advocated this policy now for several years, and once again I ask the Government, before the budget is prepared, to attempt to take pensions out of politics. In effect, that is what it means, because both sides rely on the pensioners’ vote.
We demand the establishment of an independent tribunal to determine just rates for all pensions. Once those just awards were fixed, it would be the duty of the Government to relate them to any fluctuations in the cost of living. The Government would have to provide the money required. If our plan is adopted, pensions will be removed from politics, and we shall not hear again of pensioners living under heart-breaking conditions.
The Government must accept that we live in a welfare State. Although we may not agree with that statement to some extent, the Government must realize that the pensioners should be given a fair standard of living.
When the pension was introduced it was intended to be only an addition to income to help the children of aged persons to assist their parents. That attitude has changed. Possibly the philosophy is still practised in other countries, but in Australia it is finished. Everybody, including the pensioners and their children, believe that it is the responsibility of the Government to provide a full living for aged persons. In other words, we are now in a welfare State. When the Government realizes what almost everybody, except the Minister for Social Services and the Treasurer, understands - that the welfare State is here to stay - we might get some response to the appeals that are made on behalf of the pensioners.
As I have said we, as children of the pensioners, do not live up to our responsibilities by helping them. We say that the Government has to do that. If the Government has to increase income tax rates because we refuse our responsibilities to our parents, there should be no outcry.
We ask the Government, as we have done before, to set up an independent tribunal to obtain all relevant statistics and facts and then, on that basis, to put the aged persons on an appropriate standard of living. If that would cost a lot more money, we must expect to meet that cost by way of taxation. I know that some persons do help their parents, but many do not assist them. Therefore, we must treat all of them alike.
The supporters of the Australian Labour party have submitted the urgency motion that is under discussion. It is quite a good motion from a political point of view, but I remember that not long ago I moved certain amendments to the social service legislation in this chamber. One of my proposals on behalf of the party I support was that an increase of pensions should be related to cost of living adjustments. When a vote was taken, I noticed that honorable senators did not support it. Some were absent.
– Does the honorable senator mean that the Australian Labour party did not support it?
– It was not supported by either the Labour party or the Government parties. I ask the Government to adopt the suggestions I have made before the next budget is drafted. Everybody knows the story of the pensioners. We know their difficulties. We know that they and persons on fixed incomes are affected most drastically by rises in the cost of living. The anti-Communist Labour party asks the Government to pay heed to the policy in this connexion that this party has advanced in recent years. It also asks the Government to meet the immediate needs of the pensioners and to provide for an increase of £1 a week in pensions in the next budget. That would alleviate the difficulties of the pensioners to some extent.
It may be that the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), who represents the Minister for Social Services in this chamber, will say that the Government has in mind the provision of £2 a week more for pensioners. That would mean an improvement in the lot of the pensioners during the difficult months ahead, as Senator O’Byrne has said. I am sure that the pensioners will appreciate any help that the Government can give them.
– I am sorry that illness has prevented Senator Arnold from being present in this chamber to-day to submit the motion of urgency because I am confident that he would have put the debate on a higher plane than have his colleagues on the Opposition side. I am sure that Senator Arnold would not have based his speech on a personal attack on the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) as was done by Senator O’Byrne. After all, no one person is responsible for a government’s policy. I deplore the attack that Senator O’Byrne has made upon the Minister who is a keen and able administrator of his portfolio, and a very sympathetic Minister within the limits that the law allows.
I do not want to treat this motion lightly. No honorable senator on the Government side of the House would approach a motion dealing with the aged persons in that manner. But we have learnt to expect a motion of this sort to appear from somewhere on the Opposition side when the budget session is approaching. We call it the “two bob both ways motion “ because it has intriguing political possibilities. If no action to assist the pensioners is announced in the budget after a motion of this sort has been debated, supporters of the Australian Labour party, of course, can rise in their places and say, “ We did everything possible to assist the pensioners, but this hard-hearted Government will do nothing about it”. On the other hand, if the budget provides an increase of pensions, members of the Opposition say, “ This is all due to the political pressure that we put on the Government. It simply had to react to that pressure “. So we always call this motion “ a two bob both ways motion “.
– What does the Minister have to say now about keeping the debate on a high level?
– I hope the honorable senators on the Opposition side do not think that they are putting it over the pensioners like that. The pensioners know what it is all about. They are not as silly as Labour supporters think they are. The pensioners know what this motion means and why it has been submitted at this stage. Do not underrate the intelligence of our poor old people!
– What are the pensioners getting for £4 a week?
– I do not think you are looking very underfed this morning. I do not know what you are getting. Senator O’Byrne has said that Government supporters always reply to this “ two bob both ways motion “ by making a comparison with what the Labor government provided in 1949. He has said we should not do that. Of course he does not want us to do that because the comparison favours the government. I can understand why Senator O’Byrne does not like it. That is obvious. That is obvious, particularly when we realize that this motion is submitted from the Opposition side of the Senate. I point out that the Labour party has a record in connexion with social services. It enjoys the doubtful honour of being the only party ever to reduce pensions in the history of the Commonwealth. I can understand Senator O’Byrne’s objection to our mentioning that fact during the discussion of this “ two-bob-both-ways “ motion. I say emphatically that the motion is loaded with calculated political cynicism.
Having said that, I should now like to draw the attention of the Senate to this Government’s record.
– Not again!
– I know Senator Hendrickson does not like it, but that will not stop me giving it.
– What is the Government going to do for the old people?
– I wager that the Minister will move the gag when he is finished so that we cannot reply to him.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Anderson). - Order! There is too much audible conversation.
– Opposition senators do not like this! It touches them on the raw, but they are going to hear it just the same. In 1949, the Labour party provided a pension of £2 2s. 6d. a week. Now, the pension is £4 a week, but what so many people overlook are the benefits or services which go with the pension to-day but which were not granted with the pension of £2 2s. 6d. a week in 1949.
– The Labour government refused to grant them.
– Yes. Although the cost of living, rose in 1949,. the Labour party would not grant one penny for such services. Speaking from memory, I think the cost of living increased by something like 11 per cent, in that year, and the Labour party did not give the pensioners anything. Yet honorable senators opposite support a motion such as this just before the time for preparing the budget so that they can have “ a couple of bob both ways “!
Let. us now consider the amenities that go with the pension to-day but which were not enjoyed by pensioners in 1949.
– The right to freeze and starve. They are the amenities.
– The pensioners must have been jolly cold when the Labour party was in government if that was the standard which was set. I do not think Senator Hendrickson looks like freezing at the moment. To the present pension of £4 a week must be added such services as free medical, hospital and pharmaceutical benefits for pensioners, and their dependants. None of those services existed in 1949. They are of real value to the pensioners. Many pensioners, although they may have been receiving only £1, 25s. or 30s. a week by way of pension because they had private income, have said to me that these additional benefits relieve them of the burden of responsibility they have had hitherto in connexion with hospitalization, medical and pharmaceutical costs. This relief is of tremendous assistance to those old people.
– Yet so many people have signed petitions asking for increases.
– It is interesting that Senator Hendrickson should mention that matter. People had these petitions outside the Federal Members’ Rooms in Melbourne. I did not check all the signatures, but I venture the opinion that possibly every Victorian member of the Opposition added his signature in order to help build up the story.
– The Minister has a suspicious mind.
– I do not think so. It is a very practical and realistic mind, and I will bet on that opinion.
Another point of interest is the movements in the C series retail price index. That is often quoted by honorable senators opposite. I point out that in 1949 the C series index figure was 1,428 and the rate of pension, was £2 2s. 6d. a week. The latest price index number issued is 2,550, and if Senator O’Byrne has enough initiative to apply the ratio 2,550/1,428 to the £2 2s. 6d., he will get the answer of £3 15s. lid. It will be seen, therefore, that when we compare the C series index figures, the actual pension to-day is 4s. Id. better than the pension so magnanimously granted by the Labour government in 1949r
I should like to make one or two other points because they are of interest. Ohe in particular relates to the payment of unemployment and sickness benefits. I suggest it is worthy of note that these benefits were left unaltered bv honorable senators opposite who are professing such profound interest in pensioners at the moment. Those benefits remained unaltered right up to the time when the Labour party went out of office. This Government, on the other hand, has doubled the payments. One would have thought that honorable senators opposite, if they were genuinely interested in the unemployed and the sick, would have increased these benefits, but they did nothing. It was left to this Government to double those benefits.
Altogether, our expenditure on social services this year will be £276,620,000, compared with the £101,277,000 spent by the Labour government in 1949. Of the sum to be expended this year £20,500,000 is being expended on repatriation pensions and benefits. Here I pay tribute to my colleague, Senator Cooper, who administers the Department of Repatriation, because Australia has the best repatriation service in the world.
– What is wrong with that?
– Nothing is wrong with it. There is no digger who has not earned it; I am merely pointing out that I am proud of the Australian scheme and of the Minister who administers it. Why should I not be?
Let me refer now to the book mentioned by Senator O’Byrne, the five-point programme of Professor R. I. Downing, Ritchie
Professor of Research in Economics at the Melbourne University. It has been referred to often in the press and in this chamber. I have read it closely, and I say without hesitation that there is not one point in it that has not been advanced by honorable senators on this side during debates on social services. It has been mentioned in particular by the lady senators, Senator Annabelle Rankin, Senator Wedgwood, Senator Robertson and Senator Buttfield. They have all advanced the points mentioned by Professor Downing. There is nothing new in what he says, and I feel it my duty to point that out to the Senate. The book contains nothing that has not been put forward by honorable senators on this side to the Minister for Social Services, and any credit for improvements that have been made rightly goes to those honorable senators on this side who have placed such matters before the Minister and the Government so consistently.
Every government recognizes, as I am sure every person does, that there are special cases of hardship and that there are anomalies. A constant study of these matters has been made by the Minister and the department with a view to bringing relief to those cases. I do not think there is any pension or social services scheme in the world which is perfect. I am sure no honorable senator in the chamber will disagree with me when I make that statement. It has been the regular practice of all Commonwealth governments, regardless of their political opinions, to review social services each year in the preparation of the budget. This practice will be followed this year by the Government, and the people of Australia will trust us, as they have trusted us for nearly eight years now, to do the best we can, within the confines of our responsibility, throughout Australia. I now move -
That the question be now put.
Question put. The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin.)
AYES: 29
NOES: 24
Majority … 5
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Question put -
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till to-morrow at 3.30 p.m.
The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin.)
AYES: 24
NOES: 29
Majority…. 5
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
page 888
– I present the following report of the Public Accounts Committee: -
Thirty-first Report - Advance to the Treasurer: Presentation of Supplementary Estimates, together with Minutes of Evidence taken by the Committee in connexion with this report.
Ordered that the report only be printed.
Sitting suspended from 12.35 to 2.30 p.m.
page 888
Debate resumed from 16th May (vide page 830), on motion by Senator Spooner -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– The measure now before the Senate seeks to amend the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act, which was last amended as recently as October, 1956, or a little more than six months ago. Because we had the previous measure under consideration so recently, my recollection of its introduction is good. The opening sentence of the second-reading speech made by the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) on 1st November, 1956, was couched in the following words: -
The bill is short and its purpose clear.
I turned up that speech after discovering that the first sentence that was uttered by the Minister when introducing this bill was -
The bill is short, and its purpose is plain.
I congratulate the Minister upon having found a slight difference in words, but not upon the breadth of his imagination in seeking an opening. I agree with his statement that the bill is short and that its purpose is plain, but his second-reading speech is not short. It is not short for a very good reason. The Minister, on behalf of the Government, has assumed the very proper responsibility of explaining to the Senate why, within the space of a little more than six months after increasing the stevedoring industry charge from 6d to1s. 7d. a man-hour - the greatest increase that has taken place in the history of this charge since it was instituted in 1947 - it is necessary to increase it further to 2s. The Government very properly accepts that onus.
It must be a matter of grave concern to the Senate that the Minister acknowledges that the revenue for the current financial year will fall short of the estimate that was made in October last by approximately £200,000 and that the expenditure will be increased by some £600,000. In other words, there has been an error in estimating of some £800,000, or nearly £1,000,000, in an industry that is not new and in which the factors, apart from one perhaps, were already well developed. Although the Opposition agrees that there is a need to increase the charge from1s. 7d. to 2s. under present-day circumstances, it comments adversely and strongly upon the fact that the Government, when fixing the charge a little more than six months ago, was very short-sighted. It was a piece of bad estimating.
The Minister has given four main reasons for the need to make this very substantial change so soon after the violent increase from 6d. to1s. 7d. that was made in November last. He said -
First, the volume of imports has been lower than anticipated.
Control and regulation of imports by the Government has been in operation in Australia since 1952, and is constantly under review. One might have expected that the Government, in determining its policy from month to month and from year to year, would by this time have had a more accurate estimate as to the trend of imports in the current year. When one looks at the last report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority in relation to the operations of its predecessor, the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board, for the year ended 30th June, 1956, one sees that the question of import restrictions is dealt with at page 11. The report, which was published in February last, reads -
It is impracticable to forecast accurately the effect of import restrictions on the payment of attendance money, because it is difficult to relate changes in the value of imports to their physical volume. However, it is not improbable that import restrictions will mean some falling off in employment. 1 appreciate the fact that, when the Government determines the level of imports by mere reference to money values, that determination has no immediate relation to the bulk of the imports, to the amount of stevedoring operations that will be required and, above all, to the amount of attendance money that will be required in connexion with the unloading of those imports. But it is perfectly clear that it was before the board’s mind prior to June, and that it was in the mind of the new authority after June, that there would be some falling off of employment consequent upon reductions of imports.
That was one factor that the Minister said was a cause of the slump in the board’s revenue and of the increase of its expenditure. This is not a new factor that has swum into our ken since October or November last; and it is perfectly clear that, in relation to the first excuse that it has tendered, the Government, in conjunction with its industrial authority, must accept responsibility for this piece of underestimating. There is more virtue in the sub-head on that particular point to which the Minister adverted. He said -
The Suez crisis has also had some influence on the rate at which imports have arrived.
There he has a legitimate ground.
It is extraordinary how the presentation of the previous stevedoring industry charge measure coincided with the climax of the Suez situation. Israel attacked Egypt on 29th October, 1956, France and Great Britain issued an ultimatum on 31st October, and on 1st November, the following day, Great Britain and France attacked Egypt. It was on the very day that the attack was launched that we were considering the Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill 1956. I acknowledge the fact that there was a great surprise element in that attack and the events which so quickly and dramatically supervened. So I concede to the Government the excuse that is offered by the fact that the Suez crisis developed, that the shipping of the world, particularly to Australia, was disorganized, and that that had an unforeseeable effect upon stevedoring operations in Australia and accordingly upon the revenues of the board and the amount of attendance money that had to be paid.
The next excuse or explanation for the underestimating that has been offered by the Government is -
Secondly, there has been a progressive decline in the tonnage of general cargoes handled by our interstate shipping. Bulk cargoes have not lost ground in the same way, but it is general cargo that requires the larger labour force. In 19S6, the tonnage of general cargo carried interstate declined by more than 20 per cent, in comparison wilh that of the previous years.
The facts are true; I do not controvert them. But I do indicate in my criticism of the Government’s estimating that the trends were in force long before the estimate was made which led to the increase from 6d. to ls. 7d. I again refer the Senate to the report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, Part III., at page 10. It is headed “ Decline In Interstate Sea Trade “, and reads -
A notable trend in recent years in interstate trade has been the decline in the tonnage of general cargo contemporaneously with an increase in iron and steel cargoes and bulk cargoes such as iron ore, coal and limestone. The sea carriage of general cargo, which traditionally had provided the major avenue of employment of waterside labour in interstate trade, has declined at an accelerated rate since November, 1954, because of increased rail and road transport competition. The latter followed the invalidation by the Privy Council of State legislation which imposed charges on interstate road transport.
The effects have been particularly noticeable at Sydney. A comparison of the total tonnage of general interstate cargo handled at Sydney in the quarter immediately preceding the Privy Council decision and four subsequent complete quarters is as follows: -
Then follow two sets of values, one for Sydney and the other for Melbourne. They show that, during the three months from July to September, 1954, the cargo loaded and discharged was 323,699 tons, and that it fell to 143,493 tons for the quarter from January to March, 1956. In other words, the cargo loaded and discharged was more than halved early last year. The point I stress to the Senate is that that trend towards a falling off of general cargo in the interstate trade was most apparent before the Government addressed its mind to an appropriate level of charge in October last year.
– There was something in kitty.
– Yes, but it was running out rapidly. I am glad to have the Minister’s interjection, because it enables me to say that if the Government had not made a mistake in 1954, when it reduced the charge from lid. to 6d., there would have been something worth while in kitty. The Minister will recall that when that reduction was made in 1954, the Opposition stoutly opposed it. We pointed out that it would be wise to have a reserve, and also that funds should be built up to make provision for such things as sick leave and holiday pay - the very matters that have since arisen and will have to be taken into consideration. One factor that has not yet emerged is the payment of pensions to mem.bers of the waterfront labour force. If the Government were frank about this matter, it would acknowledge that it made an error when it reduced the charge in 1954, and also that when it increased the charge last year it made an error in not increasing it sufficiently. The Government now proposes to rectify that error. Whilst there might have been some kind of reserve in 1954, that was not the position in 1956, because the Minister’s speech, on 1st November of that year, indicated that the funds were running out rapidly. I have before me the exact terms of his statement on that occasion. He said -
Principally as a result of the increase in the rate of attendance money to which I have referred, and there being no earlier opportunity for the Parliament to review the rate of the levy, the authority’s working funds have been running down at a rapid rate. It is, accordingly, now necessary to restore the authority’s funds to provide a safe level of working funds for the future.
– It was built up after that?
– Yes, but the Minister’s interjection a few moments ago was that there were some reserves in 1956. I point out to the Senate that the Minister said, in November, 1956, that the funds were running out rapidly. That statement by him is not consistent with the present claim that there were reserves at that time. I go further and point out that there were no reserves because of this Government’s action in 1954 - an action which we opposed at the time and which has since been proved to have been an error.
– The assessment by the Opposition at that time was correct.
– It was more a progressive and forward-looking view than the Government adopted in 1954. It is clear from the report of the authority, and from what I have quoted from the earlier speech of the Minister, that the trend in relation to the decline of general cargo was disclosed and apparent early last year, and before the Government made its assessment and decided to increase the tax or charge by ls. Id., lifting it to ls. 7d. Accordingly, on behalf of the Opposition, I reject the second reason given by the Minister.
I accept his third reason, which he expressed as follows -
A third factor which has affected the authority’s finances is the unusually dry weather in many ports. This has meant, overall, a significant reduction in the time lost due to rain, and, although there has been no great effect from this on the total man-hours worked, there have been more men on attendance money.
There were no interruptions because of bad weather and so the work proceeded continuously, with the result that fewer men were required and more attendance money had to be provided. I am not prepared to blame the Government, or any one else for the vagaries of the weather. On the contrary, I acknowledge the part that that factor had in disturbing the Government’s estimates. The Minister gives it as a third reason, but not as a major reason. Obviously, it is not a major reason, but it is a valid factor.
The fourth reason given by the Minister was expressed in the following terms: -
There has been a welcome improvement in stevedoring performance. The increase in sling loads and the smaller gangs which have resulted from Mr. Justice Ashburner’s award are bearing fruit. . . .
That is the first time I have heard this Government acknowledge that there has been any improvement on the part of the labour force on the waterfront. The Minister does not put it in that way, but speaks of the stevedoring performance. The terms used by him are wide enough to include the stevedoring companies, as well as the men working on the waterfront, and also the new scheme set. up under the judgment of Mr. Justice Ashburner. However, there is a belated acknowledgement from the Government that the waterside workers are playing their part, and have contributed in a significant way in assuring speedier work on the waterfront, a more efficient handling of cargoes, and a quicker turnaround of ships. I hope that. the Government will not lose sight of the fact that: this is a very important thing to the Australian community. I think it might expect even better results if it were a little more generous than it had been in the past, and would acknowledge the part that is played by the waterside workers on the Australian waterfront.
I go further, and say that I do not believe that the stevedoring companies and those responsible for the waterfront in Australia have yet provided adequate facilities for the men who work there. Those men have demonstrated their willingness to operate the safety equipment, and to improve their output, and it is now up to the management and the new stevedoring authority to ensure that modern equipment for handling cargo is provided. The onus has shifted from the men to those responsible for mechanization and better facilities on the waterfront. I confess that I am. pleased to find the Government paying this tribute to the workers.
– It is well justified, particularly in view of the Government’s inability to estimate- the position correctly.
– Yes. It is one factor which explains the need for . more attendance money. Those are the four reasons that the Government has given for increasing the charge. Consideration, of this measure does enable us to open up all the questions that affect the waterfront of Australia. I resist the temptation to embark at large upon the subject at this stage, and will comment only on two other matters.
First, there is the question of amenities to be provided for men on the waterfront. I do not have to make out a case as to how bad they are. The Minister, for National Development, who introduced the charge bill last year, did that for me. He is reported in the Senate “Hansard” of 1st November, 1956, as having said -
It is notorious that amenities for waterfront, workers are, in many cases, much below the standard found in other industries.
When he admits that, there is no need forme to make a case. From time to time I have claimed in this chamber that there were waterfronts in Australia that were a. disgrace. I indicated one and spoke in very terse and trenchant terms of the facilities, or lack of facilities, available for the men at Devonport, in Tasmania. I am very happy to learn that the new authority has taken some notice, and has provided the sum of £14,500 for the- marine board authority to enable those amenities to be improved. I applaud that. I hope that that type of policy will be extended as rapidly as possible to the waterside workers in every port in Australia. It is vastly important to their, performance as workers and to their dignity as human beings that they have proper working, conditions. One of the reasons why the Opposition offers no objection to the increase in the charge is that it will enable the authority to go further in providing amenities for the workers on the waterfront. For that reason, amongst others, the Opposition gives its support to the measure.
I join with the Minister in hoping that the increase in charges will not be translated by the stevedoring and shipping companies into higher freights, on the Australian coastline. I understand that the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) has already indicated that it is his expectation that the Commonwealth Shipping Line will be able to absorb the increased, charge, and even the increase of 10s. in the basic wage, without adding to its freight charges. That is a very consoling piece of information to the Opposition. It is a justification too, for the Commonwealth Shipping Line being in the interstate coastal trade, because if it holds its rates and is given an opportunity to compete in the general cargo field, then there is justification for its existence, even if there were no other justification. It is there as a conditioning factor in relation to interstate freight rates. I hope the Government will watch the interstate freight position very carefully.
I recognize that the Government lacks real power to fix rates in that field owing to interpretations that have been put upon section 92 of our Constitution, which says, in effect, that interstate trade, commerce and intercourse shall be absolutely free. Unfortunately, there is at the moment no power for the Commonwealth Government to step in and control effectively interstate freights. When I put- that to the Minister for Shipping and Transport some time ago, he admitted that in the ultimate the shipping companies could do what they liked and that the Government was powerless. In this field, of course, State governments have no power. In the Commonwealth field, the Commonwealth power over interstate trade is subject to the fact that it can only regulate that trade but cannot restrict or prohibit it.
Reference is made in the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority’s report to the effect that the transport cases showed that neither States nor Commonwealth could fix prices or make charges in relation to interstate transport by road. We find exactly the same thing applying to interstate traffic by sea. The Commonwealth lacks power. I think the first duty cast upon a Commonwealth government whatever its political complexion is to ensure that it does get adequate power in a field of that nature. We have seen interstate freights rise again and again in recent months to the concern of everybody in Australia and to the detriment of our cost structure. One of the results is already disclosed in the report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority from which I have quoted, indicating that general cargoes are being taken off the sea and are going by land. I shall not take this opportunity to talk of the devastation to our roads that that development is causing. There are bad national features about the whole thing altogether apart from its effect on interstate shipping.
One could advert to many matters. The bill offers an opportunity for opening the subject up very considerably but I have deliberately restricted myself to matters that are completely relevant to this bill. That does not mean a ukase upon any of my colleagues who wish to address themselves to this matter, or anybody else. I do not even put my action forward as a good example, but I am making it perfectly plain that I am not canvassing the whole industrial front and the whole of the activities of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority at this stage, but in the course of acknowledging assent to the bill I think it pertinent and proper to have made so much comment as I have offered.
– When a bill of this nature was before the Senate last year I opposed it, and I intend to oppose this- bill. Since I have been in the Senate, I have been interested in the activities of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board by reason of the fact that hold-ups on the waterfront, and the delay in the turn-round of vessels, have cost Australia very dearly and have also given it a bad name in respect of its shipping industry. Up to this year, when we have discussed a bill of this nature we have always had a report of a stevedoring industry authority before us to guide us. On this occasion we have no such report. It is true we have the report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board up to June, 1956, but I think I shall be able to prove that that report is completely out of date. That can be done by referring to the statement that the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) made in his second-reading speech.
Last year when a bill of this nature was before the Senate and an amendment was moved to limit the operation of the bill to a period of twelve months with the object of bringing it up again this year after we had an opportunity of considering the Tait report, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) opposed the motion. In so doing he cast the Tait report into the limbo of forgotten things. We have to carry on with the report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority which we have before us.
The object of this bill, as stated by the Minister, is to provide mainly for the payment of additional attendance money. There are other objectives that were mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, but the main one is to provide for increased attendance money, which was increased by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission from 16s. per manhour to 24s. per man-hour. Of course, that was the reason for the introduction of last year’s bill, so one naturally looks around to see why we have to make an additional amount available in order to pay attendance money and the other matters that are concerned with it. In giving reasons for last year’s bill, the Minister stated that the estimated additional amount required to pay the extra attendance money would be £380,000.
It is interesting to recall the various alterations that have been made in the stevedoring charges. In 1949 the charge was 2id. per man-hour and yielded £499,000. It was raised in 1951 to 4d. per man-hour and that brought in £550,000. In 1952 it was raised to lid. per man-hour and that brought in £1,143,849. In 1954 it was reduced to 6d. and produced an amount of £998,000. Last year, the rate was fixed at ls. 7d. a man-hour. We have not the figures showing the revenue that that charge produced, but as it was three times the previous charge, I estimated then that it would be likely to bring in £3,000,000 a year. The addition of 5d. to the charge should bring in another £1,000,000, making in all about £4,000,000 a year to meet these charges.
The expenditure on attendance money between 1950-56 is very interesting. It rose from £273,000 in 1950 to £394,000 in 1956, with a maximum amount of £724,000 in one year. One naturally wants to know what is to become of the balance, approximately £2,000,000, of this money. Surely, we are entitled to some figures which will give some support to the bill, but, looking at the figures in the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority’s report, I cannot find any figures to support the statements that were made by the Minister in his second-reading speech. I do not suggest that he gave incorrect figures, but we have to work on the figures that we find in the latest returns.
The Minister said that this extra money was required because, although it was estimated that the man-hours to be worked this year would be 36,000,000, it is now thought that the figure will be 34,000,000. The authority’s report shows that the manhours worked in 1950-51 were 40,457,000; in 1951-52, 40,864,000; in 1952-53, 33,999,000; in 1953-54, 37,189,000; in 1954-55, 40,358,000; and in 1955-56, 38,821,000. So, there- is an apparent decline of about 5,000,000 man-hours. I think that we should have an interim report from the authority, giving particulars of the decline in the number of manhours worked since the last return.
The Minister said, further, that the decline in imports had had a substantial effect. The same report shows that in 1950-51 imports amounted to 36,000,000 tons; in 1951-52, 38,000,000 tons; in 1952-53, 38,000,000 tons; in 1953-54, 39,000,000 tons; in 1954-55, 45,000,000 tons; and in 1955-56, 49,000,000 tons. These figures show an increase of 13,000,000 tons in 1955-56 over the amount for 1950-51. There again, it is difficult to see how it can be said that a decline in imports is having a big effect on the amount of shipping coming to Australia.
As a further test, I took from the report the figures showing the tonnage of cargoes handled by interstate shipping, which the Minister said had also declined. I shall not give the figures for the various years, but interstate tonnage has increased from 16,671,000 tons in 1950-51 to 25,737,000 tons last year. That is an increase of 9,000,000 tons. The number of overseas vessels calling at all Australian ports increased from 4,770 in 1951-52 to 5,126 last year. Calls by interstate vessels have declined from 5,865 to 5,702. So it is difficult to reconcile the Minister’s statement with the only figures we have to guide us, which are contained in the report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority for the period ended 30th June, 1956.
The Minister gave as one of the reasons for increasing the charge that the authority needs to be in a position to pursue a useful programme of installing necessary amenities and improving pick-up and other facilities, although he said, quite rightly, that this is the responsibility of the port authorities. I verify that statement. I remember the visit to Western Australia some years ago of a representative of the Stevedoring Industry Board to inspect amenities on the wharfs. He wanted this, that and something else done. When I got in touch with the general manager of the harbour, he said that it was the responsibility not of the Stevedoring Industry Board but of the Fremantle Harbour Trust to put amenities on the wharfs, because the wharfs belonged to the trust.
I substantiate the statement of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) that the amenities at some wharfs are woeful and far below what are required. Quite apart from amenities, the general facilities for handling cargo are inadequate. Some of the harbour authorities, apparently, intend to shelve their responsibility to provide amenities, and to have them provided by the Stevedoring Industry Authority, so making these charges higher.
I join with the Minister in hoping that the extra charges will be borne by the shipping companies and will not be passed on to the consumer, but I cannot share his confidence. As a matter of fact, shipping charges are rising fairly regularly. We have heard some complaints about them in this chamber, and I shall not be at all surprised if, in the very near future, shipping freights are further increased to meet this extra charge of 5d. a man-hour.
I am pleased to acknowledge that there has been a reduction of industrial disputes on the waterfront. I acknowledge also the receipt from the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt) of reports showing how the work has been carried out in the various months. I have reports covering the period from November, to March. I find that in those five months the total loss of man-hours was 242,541. Prior to this year, of course, the lowest number of man-hours lost in a year was over 1,000,000, and it rose to 3,000,000 in one year. So there has been an improvement in that respect. I shall be very interested to know why the first return sent to me by the Minister was for November. I was wondering what happened between July and November. That information should be available to us.
Although there has been an improvement on the waterfront, there is ample room for greater improvement. Only a few weeks ago, waterside workers at Darwin refused to unload 5,000 tons of cement, much of which was required for the construction of a runway at the aerodrome there. Incidentally, I think I remember a Bristol Britannia aircraft being bogged recently on that runway. When refusing to unload the cement, the waterside workers stipulated that slingloads should not ‘exceed 24 bags of cement, whereas the award of the industrial court stipulates 36. In the result, the ship had to take that cement all the way back to Fremantle, and no doubt it will have to be returned to Darwin, because it is needed there. When that kind of thing occurs, the extra freight involved in transport from Darwin to Fremantle and return should be debited against the funds of the Waterside Workers Federation, because the men are acting in defiance of an award of the industrial tribunal. A similar incident occurred in Fremantle, when a ship was delayed ‘because of a dispute over slingloads.
The loss of 242,000 man-hours a year is considerable and places an extra charge on industry. I hope that steps will be taken to reduce that loss and do away with delays in loading and strikes. They are having a marked effect upon our shipping. Usually we are told that delays are caused by wet weather. Now they are happening because of dry weather.
I believe that much of the surplus labour and lack of employment has been brought about by the actions of the waterside workers themselves in delaying ships in past years. The shipping companies are getting tired of those delays. They are reluctant to send ships to Australia if they can send them elsewhere and have them turned round more rapidly. The watersiders are putting themselves out of work by their actions in delaying the turn-round of ships and, therefore, more attendance money is being paid to them.
Two reports in the statement by the Minister for Labour and National Service have interested me. Unfortunately, the Minister has not stated what happened in the two cases to which he referred. They happened in Sydney where on one occasion the gear was found to be defective and caused a hold-up. In another case in Sydney about a week later the gear was not safe. I regard those deficiencies as serious. Men cannot be expected to give good work unless they are provided with proper facilities. Their lives might be endangered. When employers do not ensure that the gear is efficient and in good order, they must expect some action against them. There is no excuse for faulty gear.
For those reasons, I am not able to support this bill. I think we must do something other than buy good work from employees. They are entitled to the best working conditions comparable with those provided for workers in other industries. If they are given those conditions, we are entitled to a good return from them. At present I do not believe that we are getting that service. Harbour authorities should bring their facilities to the highest standard of efficiency. Some years ago when coal was being loaded in Newcastle, the trimmers had to shovel it to the sides just under the decks with shovels. That method is about 50 years out of date. There are mechanical trimmers to do that work in the handling of wheat. We cannot expect men to use antiquated facilities. They will not give the best return in those conditions.
Some of the wharfs need modernizing. 1 was pleased to- notice that stoppages in Melbourne are much fewer than those in Sydney. That proves that up-to-date appliances in Melbourne are an inducement to men to give their best. I do not think we have enough information before us to justify the huge amount involved - almost £4,000,000 - when the greatest amount paid in attendance money in past years was about £772,000. Each year, more and more money is being used up in administrative and other charges. That is all the more reason why we should have a report from the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority setting out where the extra money will go so that we can have some positive grounds upon which to increase the charge. For those reasons, I am opposed to the bill.
.- I was astonished by the speech that was delivered by Senator Seward. First he said that he wanted to get rid of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority altogether. Then he cast his mind all round Australia and tried to recall stoppages that had occurred on the waterfront. He complained about some faulty gear at Newcastle. If we are to approach this matter properly we must bear in mind the recent report of the authority and also take into consideration the second-reading speech of the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner). I refer particularly to that portion of the Minister’s speech which showed that, since the last increase in the charge that is paid to the authority, there has been a substantial increase in the work performed on the waterfront, and a reduction of the time taken for the turn-round of ships.
It is all very well for those who have not worked or lived among waterside workers to complain about them. Things are not so good for those who go down to the wharfs morning after morning and cannot get a job. The payment of attendance money has improved their lot, but as one who has lived near the waterfront for quite a long time, I can say that it is not too heartening to go down to the wharfs from 7.30 a.m. to 10 a.m., and then go back at 2 p.m. to 3 p.m., and get no work. If we want to get a better feeling among waterside workers, we do not help the industry when we try to find faults, particularly when it is shown that the time taken for the turn-round of ships has been reduced. Complaints about the actions of some waterside workers should not be taken as a reflection on all of them.
This bill is framed to increase the charge made on behalf of the Stevedoring Industry Authority from ls. 7d. to 2s. a man-hour worked. It is interesting to analyse how the money has been expended in the past. It is used in the first instance to finance the operations of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. In 1955-56, that organization spent about £1,000,000, and the levy at the time was 5d. less than that envisaged by this measure. The expenditure included £588,000 attendance money for the waterside workers, £49,000 maintenance on the waterfront and £476,000 for the administration of the authority. It is true, as the Minister stated during his second-reading speech, that the number of man-hours worked did fall, and, as the number of man-hours worked drops, so does the payment of attendance money increase. The Minister gave several reasons for the drop in the number of man-hours worked. First, he stated that import restrictions affected work on the waterfront, but, on the other hand, if we consider the national point of view, we must appreciate that if we cannot sell sufficient goods overseas, we cannot import the amount of goods which, possibly, the people engaged in importing industries here would bring in, given a free hand.
The next reason given by him is of vital importance. He says there has been a progressive decline in the amount of cargo carried by ships round our coast. When the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) was answering a question relating to the amount of cargo shifted round our coast. I was amazed to hear honorable senators on the Government side saying, “ What else could one expect? The decline is brought about by the hold-up of ships, by the slow turn-round of ships “. I hope that those honorable senators have paid some attention to what the Minister has said and give some credit where it is due. They should admit that, in recent times, that has not been a reason why goods have been carried by road instead of by ship.
– It is one of the reasons.
– Honorable senators on the Government side never give away anything at all. All they ever want to do is belt the waterside worker, irrespective of whether he is right or wrong, and then they wonder why the men on the waterfront say, in effect, “ Unload the ships yourselves “. I think every one must be concerned at the time taken up in transporting goods and the cost of the transport in this country; but, just as the various State railway systems suffered from the competition of road hauliers, so are shipping companies feeling the effects of that same competition to-day. Just as the road hauliers picked the eyes out of the merchandise and other goods to be transported within a State by rail, so are they now picking the eyes out of the cargo that usually went by sea. There may be good reasons for that. It may be cheaper in the long run to transport by road. One advantage is that goods are picked up at point of despatch and delivered at the door of the person to whom they are addressed. But I am wondering how long the people of this nation will continue to allow road hauliers an open go without making any contribution at all towards the cost of the State roads.
Another important point made by the Minister was the fact that the dry weather in ports has led to a significant reduction in the time lost due to rain. I point out that it is the responsibility of the State authorities who control the various ports to see that the conditions under which the men work in those ports are all that one would desire, but the fact is that in the main the States have not looked after the amenities of the men who work ‘on the waterfront. However, this explanation seems to me to be a little unreal. While the weather is dry the men can work, yet that is given as one of the reasons for the introduction of this bill. I believe that if conditions on the waterfront were as they ought to be, there would not be the time lost during wet weather that there has been in the past and no doubt will be in the future. I hope nobody expects the waterside workers to work in the rain. I am certain the stevedoring companies would be the first to close the hatches in order to protect the cargoes. It seems to me that some device, which should not be hard to find, should be introduced to cover both the hatches and the men.
– We had it SO years ago.
– It is not in operation on the average wharf to-day. We hear much about the slow turn-round of ships, but little or no thought seems to be given to rain. Senator Kendall, with his knowledge of ports, has stated that there has been some protection in operation for 50 years, but I know of more than one waterfront where it has never been used because nobody wants to sit in a shed and wait.
– It is not used now. I said it was in operation 50 years ago.
– Honorable senators opposite might find the next reason given by the Minister hard to swallow, if I may use that term, because it would take from them one of those hardy annuals that they always like to place before the people in criticism of the waterside workers. It has been shown that there has been a very big improvement in stevedoring performances. That has been brought about by the award issued by Mr. Justice Ashburner providing for larger sling loads and smaller gangs for the manipulation of cargoes. To a lesser extent, it has been brought about by the mechanization of the waterfront. Let us hope that a vast improvement in this direction will be made “by State authorities, some of whom have been very slow in installing modern mechanical appliances over past years. If the States will not do it, then we might find some other body which will attempt to help in this direction, because the mechanization of the waterfront must reduce the time ships are required to stay in port.
It is further anticipated that there will be fewer hours worked. This, of course, will reduce the income by about £200,000 for the current financial year because the higher cost of 2s. envisaged by this bill will be payable only on man-hours worked. It is also expected that the additional expenditure in the current year will be £600,000. I am concerned about the meagre information given to us on the various categories of cost. On the basis of 38,000,000 man-hours, the authority will receive £3,800,000 a year. The Minister has told us that this money will be spent on an extension of the authority’s administrative activities, on the payment of attendance money - which is now 24s. a day - and on payment for sick leave and statutory holidays. The amount in respect of statutory holidays has not been mentioned. In Victoria, I think there are thirteen statutory holidays a year and, if I remember correctly, about 4,500 men are employed on the Melbourne waterfront. I assume that the amount paid by the authority in this connexion will not amount to more than that involved in the payment of attendance money for a number of days equivalent to the number of gazetted statutory holidays.
According to the annual report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, the expenditure last year for administration and attendance money was £1,115,000. As I pointed out a minute or two ago, the levy at the increased rate of 2s. a man-hour will provide the authority with revenue of about £3,800,000 a year. The Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty), I think, stated by way of interjection that the purpose of increasing the stevedoring industry charge to 2s. a manhour is to enable the authority to establish a nest egg. The amount spent by the authority last year was £1,100,000, and it is expected that this year an additional £600,000 will be needed to pay attendance money. The Minister for National Development stated that there is an overdraft of £800,000.
Those items total about £2,500,000, so the authority should have almost £500,000 available with which to meet unforeseen commitments and to establish a fund to prevent it from going into the “ red “ in the near future.
Senator Seward pointed out during his speech that the stevedoring industry charge has increased from Hd. a man-hour in 1947 to 2s. under this bill. One conclusion is evident. The more we can decasualize this industry, the better it will be. It would be unreasonable to expect a large number of waterside workers to be satisfied with a payment of only 24s. a day for many days of the year. The Minister stated - it is also mentioned in the report - that the authority has ceased recruitment for the industry and that it is expected that natural wastage will help to improve the position. I know that, over the years, there has been a shortage of labour on the waterfront for the period of six or eight weeks preceding Christmas, but for many days in the year many men receive only attendance money. If the conditions on the waterfront are improved, more work will be done, there will be a quicker turn-round of ships and the nation as a whole will gain.
It is true, as I said before, that the administrative costs of the authority have risen considerably since it was established. The increase of attendance money from 16s. to 24s. a day involves the expenditure of an additional £250,000 to £300,000 a year. Sick leave, up to 30 hours a year, is paid for at the rate of 9s. lOd. an hour, at a cost of £350,000 a year. As I said earlier, the report makes no reference to the cost of payment in respect of gazetted public holidays. I think that the Minister should have given the Senate much more information than he did about the industry.
In common with other honorable senators I am worried about transport costs, which greatly affect both goods exported from Australia and those sent interstate. When we remember that one-third of the cost of goods in Australia is attributable to transport charges, it is evident that transport is an important factor in the prices of commodities purchased by the community. I join with Senator Seward in asking: Who will carry the increase of the stevedoring industry charge?
The Commonwealth might have some power over interstate shipping, because its own ships are engaged in that trade, although not long ago the Government introduced legislation to hamstring their operations. If honorable senators opposite think that the shipping companies will bear the added cost of £600,000, they are hoping for something that I think will not eventuate.
The popularity of interstate shipping for the movement of merchandise is waning, in spite of the comparatively low freight rates. The figures for 1953-54, which were the latest that I could obtain, show that the cost of transport by rail was 4.17d. a tonmile, by road 12.82d., by sea .8d., and by air 46.14d. Judging by those figures, one would expect that as much cargo as possible would be transported by sea. Neither this Government nor any other government can do anything to overcome the problem of interstate transport until the Constitution is amended or until - and I say this with great respect - the High Court of Australia reads into section 92 the meaning that the founders of federation intended it to have instead of handing down such famous interpretations as have so far been given.
The waterside workers are a greatly maligned people. It is easy for people to criticize and malign others when they themselves have not undertaken the kind of work that is in question. I believe that every effort should be made to decasualize work, and that the time must come when waterside workers can go on to the waterfront just as the average man goes to any other class of work. We should give to waterside workers the amenities that other industries enjoy. The layout of factories that are now being built in Victoria will lead to a better feeling between the employer and the employee, and the employer will benefit in the form of greater output. Likewise, if the Austraiian Stevedoring Industry Authority provides for waterside workers better conditions and amenities than they have enjoyed in the past, the people of Australia as a whole will benefit from the consequent faster turn-round of ships.
Being inhabitants of an island continent that is far removed from the world’s markets, and knowing the various elements in the cost of producing the goods that we can sell overseas, we ought to be the last to increase those costs by allowing trouble to develop on the waterfront. Reasonable working conditions would place the waterside worker in a better frame of mind. He has nothing but his labour to sell, and at all times he is entitled to the best that he can get for his labour. I hope that the authority will assist these people who help in the turn-round of ships in our ports.
.- The Anti-Communist Labour party supports the bill, because the increases that are envisaged in it are inevitable. Obviously, the Government has been informed by its advisers that the amount that will be received from the old charge will be insufficient to provide the necessary amenities for waterside workers. We have no alternative but to accept that advice and to vote for the increase.
I believe that, even under present circumstances, there is great scope for an improvement of the conditions of waterside workers. I agree with the statement by Senator Kennelly that decasualization of the industry is essential. One has only to go to such places as the pick-up centre in Melbourne to learn that conditions at many places where waterside workers are compelled to assemble in the course of their vocation are most unsatisfactory. We must spend money to improve those places. Therefore, I propose to vote, as I did on the last occasion that we considered this charge, in favour of raising sufficient sums of money to enable waterside workers to receive at least reasonable amenities.
I do not altogether agree with some of the criticism that has been levelled against the Government and the suggestion that it should have been able to estimate more accurately the amounts that would be required. My recollection is that, during the debate in October last, at least one honorable senator, in an aside, asked the Minister in charge of the bill, how he knew that the charge would be sufficient. In reply, the Minister, said that it was not possible to say definitely that it would be sufficient, and that subsequent events might prove that it could be lowered or would have to be increased. It was because of the Minister’s reply that I voted in favour of the amendment that was submitted by Senator Wright. That amendment suggested that there should be an annual review of the charge to ensure that, if it was not sufficient to provide the necessary amenities it could be raised, or that, if it were too great, it could be reduced to whatever was considered to be sufficient.
I voted in favour of that amendment, as did my colleague Senator Cole, and there was never any question of recording a vote against waterside workers receiving holiday credits and ‘Other amenities. It was with some amazement, therefore, that I later read a report in Melbourne concerning a stop-work meeting of the waterside workers union at which an .official of the union said, on the authority of an un-named Opposition senator, that Senator Cole and I had “voted against waterside workers receiving such amenities. I was further amazed when, at a meeting of the Melbourne Trades Hall Council, an official of the union, Mr. Rourke, perhaps better known as “ Curly “ Rourke, stated categorically that Senator Cole and I had been so opposed to the waterside workers receiving the benefit of those amenities that we voted against their receiving them. That was a deliberate misstatement. I do not blame Rourke. He is not a brainy personage and he does not overflow with grey matter to such a degree that it is oozing out of his ears. Rourke merely repeated what he had been told to say. I do not take any undue exception to that kind of thing being said about me, or my colleague, or the party to which we belong. In a civil war there appear to be no rules. I merely say that the statement was made, and that it is the sort of statement that is repeatedly made about our party. It is just as untrue as are most of the other statements made about the party.
I am glad of the opportunity to refer to Mr. Rourke because he exemplifies the real danger to a proper turn-round of ships and the handling of cargo in this country. All of us are entitled to give the waterside worker everything he should get. I am one of those who have as much respect for the waterside worker as any one else has, but the industry in which he is engaged, like the coal-mining industry, has not a happy record. The waterside worker has often been maligned when he should not have been maligned. I believe that, just as in the case of the coal-mining industry, in which an endeavour is made to inculcate a better spirit in the industry by providing improved amenities and better relations between master and man, we shall get better work on the waterfront by adopting the same methods. But, regardless of what charges are made, or what amenities are provided, on the waterfront, we shall still not get a decent turn-round of ships, and still not get what we are seeking on the waterfront, unless the unions whose mem bers are employed on the waterfront are in good Labour hands. I believe that if we have good Labour men running all the unions we shall have an opportunity to get what we should get from the industry. However, all that we may do in a matter of charges will fall down if we permit the waterfront industry to remain in the hands of officials who are either members of the Communist party or so close to being so that one cannot tell the difference. I would classify Mr. Rourke as a man who, if not a Communist, is so close to being one that it is impossible to tell the difference. He was expelled from the Labour party about five years ago, and he obtained his position in the union by being an instigator and a candidate on the unity ticket which for some years has controlled the Melbourne waterfront. Some Labour men that I know have said that it is possible for a Communist to be a good union official. I do not accept that view, because if a man is a Communist, his first loyalty is to the Communist party and his second loyalty to the union. Therefore, he cannot be a good trade union official, because that requires his first loyalty to be given to the trade union.
I believe that the unity tickets which are being run, and have been run for some time, constitute the gravest threat possible to all the attempts that are being made to inculcate a better spirit on the waterfront by improving the amenities provided for the workers there. I have pointed out thai unity tickets under which Labour men are joined with Communists are supposed to have been banned by a decision of a conference of the Australian Labour party recently held in Brisbane. Two days ago I expended 6d. of the £17,000 which 1 have read in the newspapers I retained as secretary of the old executive when the Labour split occurred in Victoria, in tin purchase of a document published by the Australian Labour party for the State of Victoria, bearing the signatures of Mr. F. E. Chamberlain, the federal president, and Mr. John Schmella, the federal secretary, which purported to state the decisions of the federal conference of the Labour party made at the Caledonian Hall, Brisbane. I have read it through to find out what was the much-heralded decision on unity tickets, but it does not contain the decision on unity tickets. If those are the decisions of the federal conference, where is the decision, and where is the ban? This publication is issued by the Victorian branch, but it is possible, of course, that the Victorian branch of the Evatt party has, in this matter, adopted a logical and common-sense view.
Last October, immediately after the ban on unity tickets for the federal executive, the party permitted its members to take part in a unity ticket in the tramways union. Earlier this year, Mr. Butler, a member of the State Australian Labour party executive, organized a meeting to draw up a unity ticket for the Amalgamated Engineering Union, and it was successful. Recently Mr. J. J. Brown, together with Mr. Donald, president of the Australian Railways Union and a member of the Evatt party, called a meeting and drew up a unity ticket which is now being fielded in the election of the Victorian branch of the Australian Railways Union in defiance of the alleged decision of the Brisbane conference. No action has been taken by the Victorian executive in this matter, and no action will be taken. We will get Mr. Gair expelled in Queensland for disobeying an executive decision, whilst in Victoria they will excuse all members of the party who disobey decisions on unity tickets time after time, and will do nothing against them because they happen to be on the side that is in power. On the wharfs a meeting was held within the last fortnight and a unity ticket was drawn up. It will be run on the waterfront, and probably will be successful simply because on the waterfront there are three sections, namely the Australian Labour party Industrial group, the Communists, and the federal Labour group. The middle group - the Communists - holds the balance of power, and its members are prepared to sell their votes to the Evatt Labour party in return for giving their members key positions, such’ as the secretaryship and the assistant secretaryship of the union. I do not accuse federal Labour members of having sympathy with Communists, because with them it is only a matter of cold, hard cash. By placing those people in power they are able to retain the affiliation of a particular union for their party, which may mean as much as £2,000 or £3,000, just as in the Australian Railways Union they receive an annual sum in affiliation fees amounting to over £2,000 in return for selling key positions in the union to the Communist party. The contempt with which the Communists treat these matters is shown by their attitude on the occasion when in the Victorian branch of the Australian Railways Union a motion to affiliate with the Evatt Labour party was proposed not by one of the members of the Evatt party but by a member of the Communist party. In those circumstances, when we find reputable people in the community, or people who claim to reputable, selling the trade union movement of this country down the drain in the guise of unity tickets which they profess to ban, we can only say that the prospects of industrial peace in the years to come are not bright.
– It is amusing to the Minister.
– It is not amusing to anybody who has a regard for this country.
– Nobody takes any notice of the honorable senator.
– Yes, we do.
– Senator Hendrickson knows that what I am saying is true; but he has to face an election in two years’ time and he will never admit that what I am saying is true. If he did, the State executive in Victoria which issues unity tickets, in spite of the ban against them, would refuse to endorse him for one of the key positions.
I wish to say, in conclusion, that there was a decision made by a body in Brisbane which said it was necessary in the interests of this country not to allow its members to associate with Communists, for the purpose of preventing the handing over of trade unions to the Communist party. That decision has been flouted and ignored in Victoria, and the industrial future of this country is being endangered day by day in spite of that decision. I know that moves are being made in Victoria to get around the decision, and one move is going to be the admittance to the Evatt party of people with Communist records which are not too recent and not too hot. We had an example the other day and I am glad to have the opportunity of mentioning it to Senator Toohey. As he is a member of the federal executive, I look forward to his taking the same drastic action against the present Victorian executive in this case as he took against a previous one. I will say this to Senator Toohey: Some years ago a delegation from the Victorian Labour party waited on the Chifley Government to ask Mr. Chifley and Senator McKenna to bring in legislation because in certain unions good Labour men were being victimized by Communist union leaders for opposing them and because in certain trade unions, ballots were being rigged in a corrupt way. I honour Mr. Chifley and Senator McKenna for the action they took. They legislated, and there are honorable senators here who voted for the legislation to prevent those things from happening.
The man who was responsible for that legislation was Chandler, the secretary of the Building Workers Industrial Union in Victoria and a member of the Communist party. He followed a decent Labour man from job to job and said to him, “ If you do not stop opposing me, I will deny you the right to work”. When an Industrial Grouper opposed him in the union election and defeated him, he put in 800 corrupt postal ballot votes and declared himself the winner of the election. Because this Communist, through his corruption and attacks on decent Labour men, was dragging the name of unionism in the mud, Mr. Chifley and Senator McKenna took action to bring in that legislation. Let me tell honorable senators this: In a recent issue of his union journal, this man Chandler, who caused the Labour Government to put through this measure, proudly announced that he has been admitted as a member of the Evatt Labour party. Not only that, but he has received the concession of having his admittance back-dated to give him some continuity of membership.
I only say this: In spite of the fact that there has been a division in Labour’s ranks, in spite of the fact we are fighting one another, and people say that in civil war there are no rules, surely there is some responsibility to the country! Surely you cannot sell your trade unions to the Communists, when you know that Mr. Chifley, who was not opposed to unionism in any way, in 1949, when the Communists ran the unions, even thought it was necessary to put union leaders in gaol and freeze union funds because otherwise he could not have run the country. This Opposition should bear in mind that, although it may become the government one day, if the big unions are in the hands of Communists, it can never govern. That is the thought it should bear in mind, and that is the thought the people of this country have to bear in mind.
– With respect to Senator McManus, I think it would be a good idea if I read the title of the bill we are debating. This is a bill to amend the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act by increasing the charge from ls. 7d. to 2s. per man-hour. I think, myself, it is most unfortunate that after the modest beginning this charge had, it has now increased to such an extent that it is becoming a burden on the shipowners, who have to bear the brunt of it.
All honorable senators who have heard me speak on matters maritime in this Senate in years gone by will know that I hold no particular brief for the shipowners. I have no reason to do so. At the same time, fair is fair, and I should like to call the attention of the Senate to exactly what this 2s. per man-hour means to the ordinary small vessel trading along our coast. It is important that I do so in view of the remarks that have been made about the lack of cargoes and the increase in unemployment on the waterfront, about ships leaving the coast, and all that sort of thing. In the case of an ordinary ship of 2,500 or 3,000 tons, trading along the coast, a charge of 2s. per man-hour would represent - with an average of five gangs and five days in port - the amount of £412.
During the Christmas recess, I took advantage of the time to go back to sea as a junior for some two months to find out exactly what went on at sea in these days, because it was a number of years since I had been at sea. I made copious notes during that trip, and I can assure honorable senators that 2s. per man-hour which the shipping companies have to pay at the present time on a normal ship which spends about half its time in port, working an ordinary eight-hour day shift and probably a twilight shift, amounts to not less than £1,200 a month or £15,000 a year.
We hear many honorable senators on both sides complain about the rise in freights. As I said before, I hold no brief for the shipping companies at all, but fair is fair. With a charge of about £15,000 a year on one small vessel-
– For one ship?
– Yes, for one ship. A charge like that has to be paid for the purpose of providing amenities for waterside workers, attendance money, and such things. I bring the matter forward because as freights go up so cargoes go down. This is one of the vicious circles which cause the spiral of inflation. Once it starts, it must go on, because the higher sea-freight charges the more freight is carried by either rail or road, and the more freight that is carried by rail or road the less cargo there is for the ships. We are in the. unfortunate position of changing from what was before the war the finest coastal service in the world, both passenger and cargo, to something entirely different. We are in the process of losing our position completely. Honorable senators can think back over the years to the big passenger ships we had on the coast in the days of “Ormiston”, “ Orungal “, the old “Canberra”, the “Westralia” and the “ Awatea “. We have lost all those ships. To-day we have only three passenger ships on the coast whereas once we had the finest service in the world. I am not saying that this charge which is now to be put up to 2s. is the cause of all that, but it is the cause of some of it.
The Minister, in his second-reading speech, gave several reasons for this. To the reasons which he has already given, I want to add a reason of my own, because it is relevant, but it is probably not known by many honorable senators on either the Government side or the Opposition side. I agree entirely with the Minister’s statement that import cuts and the Suez dispute have been the cause, to a certain degree, of shortage of cargoes for overseas ships, but on the coast at the present time large exports are made, for example, from Queensland to the south. They include canned pineapples, and canned fruits in general. At present the railways in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria apply what is termed a privileged freight rate of £10 10s. a ton as opposed to- the minimum rate by sea of £15” 15s. 6d. a ton. Quite obviously, with such a tremendous reduction as that, all these goods are going’ down by rail instead of by sea, as- would normally be the case.
One company alone, James Patrick & Company Proprietary Limited, which operates small coastal ships, is losing 12,000 cartons of canned fruits a week, which means that not only is the company losing money but also fewer waterside workers are employed. The consequence is that more waterside workers have to draw attendance money, and so we come round in the circle and. we- now have to raise- the stevedoring industry charge from ls. 7d. to 2s. a manhour worked. The railways do not care two hoots if they lose money. They are- like the Commonwealth ships. It has been said that Commonwealth ships can keep freights down. Of course they can, and so can the railways, because they are answerable only to the taxpayer, who does not have any say anyway. All the money that they lose is made up by the taxpayer. The private shipowner has not recourse to that source of revenue. He has to make his ships pay in order to be able to pay wages and’ dividends.
These are the people who made the coastal; shipping services of this country. It is a shame to see them going down hill, primarily because of these practices. In addition, we have had perpetual trouble on the waterfront, which Senator Kennelly mentioned just now, and to which I will refer in a moment. I do not know whether the Commonwealth Government has any power to go into the matter of the privileged rate. I would say that it has not, but this rate which is being charged by the railways and which involves the very big reduction of 50 per cent., is a matter which we should bear in mind when discussing the matter which is before the Senate to-day.
Senator Kennelly made a couple of remarks to which I should like to reply before I get to the real point of my rising to-day. He mentioned amenities on the wharfs. This has been a most difficult subject. I agree entirely with him that over the years amenities on the wharfs have been shocking, and I probably know more about them than does anybody else in the Senate. They have been bad, and I have said so frequently. But with the introduction of the stevedoring industry charge, we have had available large amounts of money which could have been spent on amenities by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, had it been allowed to do so. We have two types of port. There is the small port, which welcomes an offer by the authority of help to bring amenities up to standard, and there are places like Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, where the wharfs are owned by harbour trusts and State governments. These bodies say, “ No, we do not want any money from you. We want our Premiers to go to Canberra, kick up a row at a meeting of the Loan Council, and bring money back to us to be used to improve our harbours and rivers.” In Brisbane, where some wharfs are privately owned, some owned by the State and controlled by the Harbours and Marine Department, and some even owned by the Brisbane City Council, we have three different groups, some of which will take money for repairs and amenities whilst others want to bring the matter before the Loan Council.
Senator Kennelly also spoke about what he termed the fact that where there were good facilities on the wharfs there was better work. I am sorry to have to disagree completely with that statement. Take his own State of Victoria. Melbourne is probably the finest port in Australia and has the finest port facilities, thanks to the chief engineer, Mr. Mackenzie, who has been there for the last four or five years. Yet the rate of loading and discharging is lower than the rate in Sydney, which still has the same wharfs that I remember from 30 years ago. So it is not a matter of facilities alone. Many other factors enter into it.
On one other point that he made, he spoke of the pick-up of waterside workers as it operated four years ago, not as it is to-day. I remember the old days when 3,000 or 4,000 men were required and if one had a row with the pannikin boss he was not picked up. To-day there is no need to go down to the wharf. Notifications are made by the radio and press, and persons who are not employed are paid attendance money.
Those are one or two arguments that I wanted to answer. I really rose to ask the Government to give consideration to an examination, at least, of the methods used in New Zealand. I have spoken on this subject on several occasions and given full particulars, but I propose to remind the Senate of one or two of the things I said before and, finally, to read something about what happened last year. I refer to the co-operative contracting system which operates in New Zealand. There is an organization known as the Waterfront Workers Industrial Association, which isrun entirely by waterside workers. They” elect their own secretary and president; just as is done by waterside workers in various Australian ports. In 1954-55 the association made a profit of £1,000,000. In other words, every waterside worker in New Zealand got a bonus of £182 at the end of the year in addition to his average pay of £18 10s. a week during the year.
The way the system works is that a shipping company rings the office of the association saying, perhaps, “ ‘ Aorangi ‘ is coming in to-morrow. We want five gangs at 8 o’clock to work until 5 p.m.” The gangs are sent down, and there is no trouble. They do the work and go home, and the actual transaction is between the shipping company and the association’s treasurer or executive. The system is working very well. In 1950-51, 8,000 men handled 8,000,000 tons of cargo. In 1954-55, 6,500 men, or 1,500 fewer, handled 10,250,000 tons of cargo, or 2,250,000 tons more. Yet those men were earning £1,100, £1,200, and as much as £1,500 a year. Not only were they earning those incomes, but also they were happy and well satisfied, except, I suppose, for the odd one who had to moan about something. In general, they did a good job, and they knew they did a good job.
Another point is that there is no restriction on casual labour. If all the waterside force in a port is actually working, the employer is allowed to employ casual labour in order to keep ships moving. That has been agreed to, and everybody is quite happy. Over a year, casual labour, to the extent of between 4 per cent, and 5 per cent., has been used to fill in at odd times when there is not sufficient permanent labour available. It is a good thing for the waterside workers because it means that there are not too many men out o£ work.
They get a minimum of £8 10s. paid by their own federation whether they work or not. That more than takes the place of the attendance money that we pay, and it is easier to handle. It does not come out of the pockets of the shippers by way of freights paid to the shipowners. It is a magnificent scheme compared with ours. In 1955-56, the rates of loading and discharging for each gang were nearly double those of 1950-51. That shows that the scheme is working very well and that the men themselves like it. Their average pay last year was £18 lis., and the minimum pay was £8 10s., whether they worked or not.
Finally, I shall read a statement that was made by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr. Holland, and was published in the “ Auckland Star “ on 2nd April. Mr. Holland said -
Nobody should begrudge the waterside workers the high wages they are getting because they ate doing more . . . The all ports average for the loading of overseas cargo has increased by 3.66 tons a gang-hour-
That is in the two years of which I have been speaking - more than 20 per cent. - and the average for discharging overseas cargo has increased by almost 5 tons a gang-hour - an increase of more than 40 per cent.
There have been improvements in handling rates at all ports with a result that last year 490 fewer workers than in 1949 were responsible for the handling of 2,341,000 more tons of cargo.
I feel that when the waterside workers can produce results like that, they deserve praise, and it was my intention to praise them. The other side of the picture is the higher wages they are earning. In 1949-50, the average earnings on the waterfront for an average working week of 44J hours, including Hi hours overtime, was £11 17s. 4d.; last year for an average working week of 47i hours, including 12i hours overtime, the average earnings were £20 2s. 8d. The increase is £8 5s. 4d., or more than 69 per cent.
I ask the Government again to give some thought to the introduction of some such scheme in Australia. After all, it need not do Healy or Bird and other persons out of their jobs. They could still be secretaries
Or presidents of the organizations that would be set up. Australian would quickly establish a position where our coastal shipping would be able to win in the competition with road and rail transport. Our shipping is losing in that field now, hand over fist. I remind the Government again that the State railways, which are privileged, are cutting down freight rates. Is there nothing that the Commonwealth Government can do to stop that under-cutting, because the shipping companies cannot possibly afford to meet it? I support the bill, because I realize that the money is needed, although I deprecate the reasons that make it necessary to introduce the measure.
– I propose to deal briefly with the bill that is before the Senate, but first I should like to reply to Senator McManus to some degree. He seems to have an obsession that every time he rises in this chamber he must malign the Australian Labour party. He also attempts to malign the unions that are controlled by the Communist party. I raise no objection to that; he is perfectly at liberty to malign the Communist party as much as he likes, but I take very strong exception to the manner in which he prostitutes the Standing Orders of this Parliament to malign the Labour party.
Almost all his speech this afternoon was confined to an attack on the Labour party and the unionists. He received very close attention from every supporter of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party on the Government side. I am asking only for the same latitude that was given to Senator McManus, and I am sure that I will get it. I am not asking for any interruptions from the supporters of Senator McManus on the Government side. It is well known that the Anti-Communist Labour party, to which Senator McManus belongs, is an appendix of the Liberal party. Its latest recruit is Mr. Alan Manning, who is now its front man. He was a candidate for Lawson in the 1954 election campaign. The Liberal party then issued a little pamphlet authorized by J. R. Sullivan, “ Leafleigh “, Binnaway, with the imprint of the Mudgee “ Guardian “. These statements were contained in the pamphlet -
page 904
Mr. Manning for a number of years was a member of the Country party.
Mr. Manning was a member of the State Executive of the Graziers Association. This organization was affiliated with the Liberal party.
Mr. Manning wrote this in the “Coonabarabran Times “ - “ The swing away from moderate political thought from social reform has left the Communist party as the only party in Australia with intelligent progressive policy “.
This is the new leader, the new front man of the Anti-Communist Labour party, of which Senator McManus is a member. I shall not weary the Senate by repeating all the contents of the pamphlet. 1 merely reiterate that Senator McManus seems to be imbued with the idea that every time he rises in this chamber he must malign the Australian Labour party and attack the unionists.
What is the attitude of Senator McManus to unionists who are controlled by Communists? Why does the honorable senator seek to penalize members of an organization because it is Communist-controlled? Does he suggest that every member of the Waterside Workers Federation is a Communist? Is he suggesting that because the federation is Communist-controlled, it should not be given recognition and that its members should not have amenities and an improvement of their conditions? If the honorable senator believes in democracy, he should have no grouse about the officers of an organization, whether it is Communistcontrolled or not, provided the ballot for its members is clean and the workers in the industry determine who shall be their leaders. Every time the honorable senator rises in this chamber he attacks the Communist party. Let him go on to the platform outside and not prostitute the National Parliament by attempting to malign the Labour party.
Much has been said in this chamber to-day about the proposed increase in the charges to provide a fund for amenities for waterside workers and for the administration of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. The Government has expressed the hope that the increase in the charges will not be passed on. It hopes that they will be borne by the shipowners and the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission. What guarantee is there that this increase will not be passed on? Surely the Government should take steps to ensure that the shipping authorities carry this increase themselves! Certainly the huge profits dis closed by their balance-sheets indicate that they are in a position to absorb this increased cost which, after all, is not so very great especially in view of the fact that its real purpose is to improve conditions on the waterfront. I sincerly hope that steps will be taken to ensure that the charge is used for this purpose because one of the main conditions of its establishment originally was the provision of amenities on the waterfront. When I speak of amenities, I refer to conditions provided by other industries.
Until the last war, there were hardly any amenities on the waterfront at all. Most of them have been provided during and since that time. During the war period, cafeterias were installed and many other improvements effected. The report of the authority makes reference to improvement of conditions on the waterfront, and both the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt) and the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) have referred to it when speaking to this bill in their respective places. Much of that improvement was effected originally by the Labour government. For instance, we were the first to introduce mechanization to the waterfront. We provided machinery for the palletization of cargoes, and we introduced fork-lift trucks; in other words, we took steps to make machinery instead of human beings do the work of the donkey.
I admit that some improvement has taken place since then and this Government is justified in pointing to that, but I also draw attention to the fact that the industrial position on the waterfront has not improved to any extent. The dissatisfaction there is due mainly to the number of man-hours lost in Australian ports during the last year. The man-hours lost through disputes last year numbered 3,323,718 as compared with 2,675,000-odd in the previous year. It will be appreciated, therefore, that there has not been the improvement that there should have been in the industrial position on the waterfront. I also emphasize that unless we provide on the waterfront amenities equal to those enjoyed by the employees of associated industries, we can never hope to have either contentment amongst employees or continuity of work on the waterfront.
The shipping industry has always claimed that freights, are regulated: by costs in the: industry, and it refers mainly to’ the slow turn-round of ships. The- Government has announced that there has- been an improve-‘ ment in the turn-round, but, despite this, freights have continued to> increase, and the Menzies-Fadden Administration has made no attempt whatever to resist this increase. I hope that in future its. resistance will not be as feeble as it has been in the past, especially in connexion with any attempt on the part of the shipping industry to pass on the additional charge envisaged in this bill.
Transport is one of the most acute problems of every State of the Commonwealth, and I think that the Government should resist any attempt on the part of the shipping, companies to transfer this additional charge to the public. It is to be hoped that the new authority will give greater attention to the- provision of amenities on the waterfront. I notice from the balance-sheet of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board that salaries, and wages cost £347,828, travelling expenses £21,951 and amenities for waterside workers including waterfront cafeterias, the transfer of port amenities and amortization of depreciation £49,513 last year. Out of a total expenditure of £1,114,540, the amount taken for amenities for waterside workers is very small indeed. In those circumstances I suggest that more consideration should be given to the provision of amenities on the waterfront.
The balance-sheet also discloses that legal expenses accounted for an expenditure of £26,180, while rent cost £10,344 last year: Surely some of those items could be reduced, especially legal expenses? I suggest that the rent could be reduced by the provision of permanent premises for the use of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority.
I think every honorable senator isentitled to more information from the Minister about the additional expenses this year. I’ point out that they are £250,000 more than last year. I should’ like to know how the department proposes to expend the additional revenue to be raised by way of increased charges under this bill. Is it in order to provide adequate funds for the new authority that it is found necessary to increase the levy by 7d., or is the proposed increase to be utilized for the provision of better amenities? I should like some statement about that because, if we are to avoid industrial disputation, it is essential that better amenities than those provided now be made available to the men on the waterfront. At least those amenities should be comparable with those provided by other industries. I should like some information on that point, for I am confident that the Minister appreciates that Parliament should be told how this money is to be spent.
Let me say in conclusion that I am sorry I had to digress to some extent, but I did feel bound to reply to Senator McManus. If he wants any further opportunity to malign the Australian Labor party or to malign people without any regard for their character or the accuracy of his statements, I remind him that he has his own. newspaper, the “ Weekly News “ in Melbourne, which he can use for that purpose. On every occasion that he rises in this chamber he attacks and maligns the Australian Labour party to the greatest extent possible. I have read a document that was issued not by the Labour party but by the conservatives, in Australia, stating that they welcomed with open arms the No. 2 Opposition party in this chamber. If Senator McManus wants in future to malign the Labour party, let him do so in the “ Weekly News “, so that the people whom he maligns will have an opportunity to obtain redress, instead of standing up here in a coward’s castle and attacking people under conditions that prevent them from replying.
– I challenge Senator Cole,, also, to repeat outside some of the statements he has made in this chamber.
– I regret that I am unable to support some of the contentions of the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) in his second-reading speech on this bill. In my opinion, he is not well-informed on the waterfront industry, and I quite agree with those speakers who have said that there has not been evident any improvement in the working of the waterfront during the last twelve months.
Before making some observations on this matter, I should like to reply to assertions that have been made by several speakers, on the other side. Senator Kennelly contended that we on this side of the chamber want to belt the watersiders. I think the day has gone when any section of workers in this country could be said to be exploited or kept on the bread line. We on this side want to see regular employment provided in the waterfront industry, greater efficiency and increased wages. The honorable senator, in referring to natural wastage in the industry, said that within the next twelve months or two years fewer man would be employed on the waterfront. In my opinion, the best and most reasonable men will be. leaving the industry and those who are left will not be of the same calibre. The men leaving the industry will be those who are prepared to do a reasonable day’s work.
I should say that the majority of the waterside workers do not want regular employment. It will be recalled that the Minister said on another occasion that they had been offered regular employment but refused to accept it. I suppose that, as members of the Waterside Workers Federation have the exclusive right of employment on the waterfront, they prefer to work when they like or at times when penalty rates are payable.
I agree with the statement by Senator McManus that the Waterside Workers Federation is controlled by Communists. I believe that is one of the reasons why the waterside workers do not give either to the shipowners or the taxpayers the service to which they are entitled. The quality of the service provided by the waterside workers has deteriorated, and I believe that it will continue to do so while the Communists remain in. control of the federation.
Senator Kendall stated that, figuratively speaking, shipping was going downhill. I think there is a good deal of truth in what the honorable senator said. I agree that we would do well to adopt the New Zealand system of control and direction of labour on the waterfront, which has been so successful in that country. It has brought about, not only a great improvement in the efficiency of the industry and a faster turn- round of ships, but also increased wages for the men, which everybody applauds. I heartily agree with Senator Ashley’s statement; it confirmed my view that there has been no improvement of effort on the waterfront.
The bill sets out, in the first instance, that the stevedoring industry charge will be increased from ls. 7d. to 2s. per manhour. The charge was raised, in October last, from 6d. to ls. 7d. for the purpose, principally, of covering the payment of attendance money, which was increased by 50 per cent., from 16s. to 24s. a day. Inmy opinion, that increase has not effected a very great improvement of effort on the waterfront or, indeed, any improvement. In addition, in 1956, waterside workerswere awarded! sick leave and statutory holidays by Mr. Justice Ashburner. I should say that they were legally entitled to those amenities; nobody begrudges them. But, of course, those amenities, in addition to the award benefits that they received in. June. 1.956, must be paid for by the shipping companies.
The judge also conceded to employers the right to increased cargo loading by having cargo* slings loaded within the limits of safety, without placing strain on the men and without restriction by the Waterside Workers Federation, in addition to reducing the size of gangs, again without placing undue strain on the men. The federation accepted the improved conditions and amenities, but, true to its previous record, resisted the employers’ attempts to exercise the rights that were conceded to them. The waterside workers continued their normal practice of engaging in strikes, go-slow methods, and interference with the smooth running and efficient working of ships. The public has a right to expect, that, if the members of this union are to enjoy the substantial benefits that are awarded to them, they must accept the conditions which accompany them.
This Communist-controlled union has had a very sorry record of strikes, stoppages and industrial unheavals. No one will deny that the major proportion of its members are law-abiding and hard-working citizens, or would be if they were not prevented by their officials from doing, a reasonable day’s work. Why are waterfront disputes responsible for the great bulk of Australia’s industrial troubles, and have been for many years? Most of the great trade unions of Australia are prepared to abide by the industrial awards that affect them, but this union has not abided by any. It has not even carried out the spirit of the award, even though it has been in its favour.
The position on the waterfront has not improved materially during the last twelve months. As the Minister said, the limited improvement that has been achieved has not been brought about by harder work or greater efficiency but simply by the increased sling loads. I think that the gangs are still too large. The number of men in a gang could be reduced from 21 to 14, which was formerly the size. Gangs of that size did particularly good work on the waterfront without the facilities that the presentday workers enjoy. A friend of mine who works on the waterfront has told me quite definitely that in his opinion no more than one-third or one-half of a gang works continuously. I submit, therefore, that I am justified in saying that the gangs are too big and that they would work much more efficiently if they were smaller.
The answer to the problem is clearly set out in the Basten report, which recommends that the gangs should be regularly employed or, in other words, should consist of permanent employees. If waterside workers agreed to that suggestion, they should be paid a minimum of £20 a week. I do not wish to see their wages reduced; rather do I want to see them increased. But it is very necessary that they should be thoroughly satisfied with their job. There is no reason why they should not be paid £20 a week as permanent employees for eight hours’ work a day to be worked in one of two shifts - from 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. and from 4 p.m. to 1 a.m. I should say that, in addition, they should be paid an increased amount for all cargo shifted in excess of 20 tons per gang-hour. So, if they did an honest day’s work, as I think they could if they were allowed to, there is no reason why waterside workers should not get a wage of £25 a week. That should lead to greater efficiency on the waterfront and a faster turn-round of ships.
I am reliably informed that 15 per cent, of the waterside workers are between 65 and 80 years of age, and that some are even more than 80 years of age. If that is so, they should be pensioned at double the present pension rate, half to be paid by the shipping companies.
Successive governments have adopted a policy of appeasement in the hope that the Waterside Workers Federation would eventually co-operate fully with shipping companies and the government. But that has all been to no purpose. If the present position remains unaltered, Australia’s economy will continue to be seriously damaged. The recent set-back and loss of markets to the Tasmanian timber trade is due principally to the disastrous shipping strike early in 1946. We all remember that strike which resulted in the disruption of the timber markets that we had. In the main, they will never be recovered. Surely that will react against the waterside workers, in addition to throwing hundreds of timber workers out of work.
The proposed increase of 5d. is equal to an increase of 20 per cent, on the old rate, and will be a further charge on the shipping companies. It is equal to an impost of 17i per cent, on award rates, and can be regarded as a special pay-roll tax.
Honorable senators do not wish to see shipping costs raised, but this increase, coupled with the slow turn-round of ships, will mean a certain, increase of 5 per cent, in shipping rates within a very short period. I repeat that efficiency on the waterfront has not been increased. The tonnage of goods carried is declining. Merchandise is being carried by air, rail, and road, and unless conditions change the business will not come back to sea-borne means of carriage.
To sum up, I should say that there is nothing about the present situation upon which anybody should be congratulated. The gangs are inefficient and much too large, and slings and pallets are still short-loaded. All this will result in less and less cooperation, more trouble, higher freights and a slower turn-round of ships, with consequent untold loss to Australian shippers, Australian primary producers and taxpayers, and ships, wharfs, sheds and equipment in which tens of millions of pounds are invested being worked for a token few hours a day. Just how long the economy of the country can stand it is, in my opinion, in the lap of the gods.
– We have just listened to an extraordinary speech by Senator Wardlaw, who asserts that he wants waterside workers to have reasonable conditions of employment. He lauded the fact that the Government has had to increase the charge by 5d., but he concluded his speech by speaking derogatively not only of the waterside worker, but also of the administration of the waterfront in general.
The Opposition regrets that the charge must be increased. Indeed, it regrets that every charge on the community is being increased because of inflation. I cannot reconcile the Government’s argument on this matter with equity and reasonableness. Government expenditure is much higher than it was in time of war; but the fact that an increase of the wages of a manual worker, who has only his labour to sell, will lead to an increase of the cost of production becomes a matter for criticism. The best possible conditions should be awarded to the manual worker on the waterfront. If honorable senators opposite say that the waterside workers must have good conditions, then the Government should legislate for those conditions. If it were left to private enterprise, about 33$ per . cent, of all overhead costs would be allocated to cover sick leave, recreation leave and other amenities that should be enjoyed by workers in what we say is a civilized country.
The Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority now grants sick leave, annual leave and payment for waiting time. I am pleased to be able to say that, as a result of the agitation of waterside workers and the continual effort of Labour governments, we have reached the point where it is realized that a man is entitled to civilized conditions irrespective of whether he is a waterside worker, a railway worker, a senator or a High Court judge.
There has been some question about payment for waiting time. If waiting time can be avoided, the waterside worker is quite willing and eager to work full time. Any time for which a waterside worker is stood down and in respect of which he is paid waiting time rates is to his disadvantage. People say that the farmers suffer an impost because of payment for waiting time, but they do not suffer from that im post only. I suppose that farmers throughout Australia are now sitting down and waiting for appropriate weather conditions so that they can till their land and seed it. They are suffering because of the vagaries of the weather; they are actually experiencing waiting time. But the income that they receive eventually will be derived from the sale of their crops and their profits over the years. Should the waterside worker, because of rain or other bad weather conditions, not be able to work, is it not right that he should be paid at a minimum rate for the time that he has to wait because he cannot work for reasons outside his control?
Senator Wardlaw interjecting,
– If the honorable senator were to attempt to work for one week on the waterfront he would soon be forced to apply for sick leave or the pension payable to senators. I have been there, and I know what these men do. They are called upon to perform hard physical work. I am prepared to work for eight hours in competition with. the honorable senator in any kind of work.
– Not in any kind of work.
– I am pleased to have these interjections from honorable senators opposite, because, notwithstanding all the things that have been said by the Government about its good intentions in the matter of improving conditions for the workers, they prove conclusively what is really in the minds of honorable senators opposite. They talk of extra sling loads and say that the gangs are too big. All these things are reckoned with, but when it comes to providing reasonable protection against accidents by the institution of safety measures in the use of slings and cranes, we find that it is not the workers only who have forced these conditions. Insurance companies and others also have advocated these improvements. Safety provisions are now included in the factory legislation and regulations of every State as the result of a general consensus of opinion as to what is reasonable in the interests of safety. I do not think that any honorable senator believes that when an arbitration court or other similar body provides for lightening the sling load, it does so without good reason.
– An arbitration court does not decide such things.
– No, but other bodies do so; and what has been done is the result of representations by people who understand the work of handling and shifting cargo. They have as much right to approach the proper authority in these matters as the waterside worker has to challenge existing conditions when he thinks that his side of~the question has not been given proper consideration. There is great difference of opinion among honorable senators opposite on this subject. Although some back-benchers have said that the Minister was wrong, I hope that he was right when he said -
Given reasonable prospects of a continued improvement in waterfront performance, I should hope to see. not merely an absorption by shipowners of this charge, but, as the charge becomes reduced, corresponding steps taken by them in the direction of a reduction in their shipping freights.
There is a vast difference of opinion between the back-benchers and the Minister on that question. Senator Wardlaw expects freights to rise by 5 per cent. I wonder whether he or the Minister has had the best advice.
– Time will tell.
– That is so. It is pleasing to notice in the speech of the Minister some complimentary remarks regarding the waterside worker and the way in which he has done his work. The Minister admits that there has been an improvement, and he hopes that the shipping companies will be able to absorb the increased charge without increasing freights. Some persons, however, taking advantage of the fact that when they speak the workers are not in position to answer back, describe them as sluggards who do not do a fair day’s work, and say that the loads they are called upon to handle are not heavy enough, that the safety precautions should be removed, and the size of the gangs decreased. What an attitude for members of this Parliament to take! I am convinced, from my personal association with these men that, given proper equipment and protection from injury by the provision of adequate safety precautions, they will give as good results in their work as other Australian workmen do. In the interests of their families, as well as in their own interests, they are entitled to insist upon proper safety precautions being taken.
I see a ray of hope in this bill, because in introducing it the Minister saw fit to compliment the men who had worked hard to get better conditions, not only for themselves, but also for farmers and other sections of the community who are giving service, and who they think are not being properly compensated. These men may form a radical section of the community but, if so, it is only because they have suffered hard times. I have seen waterfront workers who have been willing to work stood down for a week or a fortnight at a time, during which period they had to accept whatever casual labour they could find in order to live. Do honorable senators opposite want a return to those conditions? The Minister clearly does not, but some of the back-benchers in the Senate are entirely antiquated in matters of social justice and wage justice. I make no apology for claiming that these men have the right to be freed from unsatisfactory conditions, and to enjoy rising wages and better conditions.
Inflation has been so long with us that even businessmen say that we have a new currency. That is, indeed, a fact. It would appear that we are not likely to get back to the conditions that existed before the currency was inflated, and so long as wages and conditions of employment in industry are controlled by governments, boards and arbitration authorities, workers in industry are the last to move up. The Opposition is pleased that the Government at last realizes that amenities for workers on the waterfront are justified, and is prepared to introduce legislation to provide for them.
The background of this measure was legislation introduced by a Labour government which was severely criticized at the time. Now, the things which that legislation set out to do have become an accepted part of our industrial life, and are regarded as being only justice for the workers. The Government realizes that it must obtain the money necessary, and why should that not be so? Why should not the community pay what amounts to an insurance premium to ensure that men shall work in safety and be properly fed, clothed and housed?
I believe that conditions on the waterfront have improved in recent years, but there is another aspect of this subject which the Government should seriously consider, and which would be welcomed not only by the waterside worker, but also by the farmer, the businessman, both importer and exporter, and that is the control of shipping freights and other charges outside this country. When we compare the vessels that transport goods to and from this country - and both our export trade and our import trade are vital to us - we see that our shipping is very much inferior to that of our competitors. Many old vessels that should have been scrapped years ago are still in service because the Government has no control over the shipping companies that own them. There has been talk of the slow turn-round of ships, but we have heard less of the slow passage of ships which are no longer up to date. In this matter, as well as in the matter of freight charges, we have no control.
Many of the vessels travelling between Australia and other countries are badly loaded. For example, .goods for discharge at Fremantle are sometimes loaded below cargo for eastern ports, and, consequently, they have to be shifted when the vessel reaches Fremantle. That means increased costs, which could be eliminated if these matters were properly attended to. These extra costs, due to bad management, are not the fault of the workers on the wharfs. There is much to be done before we can say that our sea transport, both coastal and international, is conducted in a proper manner and in a way that will give the best results. We must have up-to-date, fastmoving ships; supervision over the stowing of cargo; modern equipment on the wharfs; and some medium whereby we can negotiate with overseas companies in an absolutely untrammelled fashion on shipping freights and charges.
Reference has been made to the economic loss caused by the actions of waterside workers, but the economic loss caused by slow-moving ships, bad stowing and ballasting, and our dependence on private shipping companies is by far the greater. The amount of money involved in this measure is infinitesimal compared with the amount lost by this nation in trying to develop its shipping services without an adequate maritime act to govern the people who are shifting goods in and out of Australia. If the ships were fast-moving and modern, no trouble would be experienced in getting them unloaded, always provided the conditions and the amenities on the waterfront were reasonable. I notice Senator Kendall shake his head. I have great respect for the fact that he was in the maritime service when conditions were far worse than they are to-day. However, when I was in Japan and tried to make a plea to the shipping companies on behalf of the Labour government to put more up-to-date ships on the run to Australia, I was informed that Australia was lowest on the order of priority. The shipping companies told our delegation that if Australia wanted to compete in trade with India, the Argentine and other countries, it would have to use more efficient ships. At the present time, there is no competition among private shipping companies in fixing freights to Australia. Why? Because we Australians submit - I do not quarrel with the sentiment - that we want to use as far as possible shipping lines within the British Commonwealth. By imposing such a restriction upon ourselves, we are not able to have the most efficient service and the most efficient ships.
From time to time we have seen ships with such old names as “ Largs Bay “ go to the shipping grave-yards. At present, the coastal shipping companies are using ships that are obsolete and they too will very soon have to be sent to the graveyard. I do not know whether it is true - the Minister may be able to tell me - but I have heard a rumour that when these ships have been taken off the coast, the shipping companies will not be interested in replacing them. It is not because the ships have not paid for themselves over and over again. With the present freight charges, the owners will be able to show a very satisfactory balance-sheet before the vessels are scrapped. As I have said before, if Australia wants to be one of the great nations of the world, if it wants to import and export, it must pass a maritime act whereby it can assure that modern fleets carry the produce of this country. At present, the shipping companies have no competition and can send their ships to Australia ad lib. without any check on the freights they charge. There have been times when, although we have had produce to be shifted, the shipping companies have refused to shift that produce from our continent.
We as an Opposition have no regret that the stevedoring charge is to be raised in order to provide money to improve conditions on the waterfront. I have every confidence that the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, working in conjunction with the Waterside Workers Federation, will improve those conditions. Something that is not often acknowledged, although it is probably known to honorable senators, is that officials of the Waterside Workers Federation do form themselves into committees and sit on boards for the purpose of disciplining their own members. They have been doing so continuously in order to keep men working when working conditions are reasonable. On the other hand, although they have been criticized for it, they have sought to improve conditions when they have considered them unreasonable or dangerous. For example, they have considered that their members, when unloading cement, have needed protective clothing. Honorable senators opposite should not forget one side of the picture in their eagerness to discredit the worker. Committees set up by a statutory authority have imposed fines on their own members, and have generally done an excellent job,
I will be glad to see this bill passed because I believe it is a further step towards making conditions better in an industry that has found difficulty in establishing reasonable conditions for workers. I only hope that the Government will realize that these charges will continue to increase under these inflationary conditions, as will every other charge. Shipping freights must also increase because the Government evidently has no control over them. I urge the Government to make a close examination of our transport disabilities both interstate and international.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 912
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Motion (by Senator Cooper) proposed -
That the bill be now read a first time.
Debate (on motion by Senator O’Flaherty) adjourned.
page 912
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Spooner) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to appropriate £34,956,000 to carry on the necessary normal capital works and services of government for the first four months of the financial year 1957-58. There will be Commonwealth works in progress at 30th June, 1957, expenditure on which must be continued until after the 1957-58 budget has been considered by Parliament. In addition, it is the practice to programme the capital works and services in the major Commonwealth departments including the Department of Works, the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, War Service Homes Division and the Department of Civil Aviation. The appropriation will also provide funds to ensure continuous employment and to enable purchases of materials in advance for the carrying out of those programmes of works.
The bill provides for four months’ expenditure at the annual level at which expenditure was approved for the purposes of capital works and services in 1956-57.
Debate (on motion by Senator O’Flaherty) adjourned.
page 912
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Motion (by Senator Spooner) proposed -
That the bill be now read a first time.
Debate (on motion by Senator
O’Flaherty) adjourned.
page 912
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Spooner) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
This measure which is complementary to the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) for ordinary services now before the Senate seeks parliamentary authority for a further appropriation of £2,139,000 for capital works and services for the current year. There has been some re-allocation between the items of the Postal Department, civil works and acquisition programmes within the Capital Works and Services Estimates.
Provision has also been made for certain other unavoidable capital expenditure which could not be foreseen when the budget was presented. The main items are a further advance of £335,000 for the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission, an additional £90,000 for the Atomic Energy Commission and £97,000 for the Flax Commission. It is not expected, however, that the budget total of £109,700,000 for capital works and services will be exceeded.
I commend the bill to honorable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator 0’Flaherty) adjourned.
page 913
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Henty) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to extend the operation of the flax fibre bounty for one year. At the present time production of flax fibre is undertaken by the Flax Commission operating mills in six country districts in Victoria and at Mount Gambier, in South Australia, and by the Blackwood Flax Co-operative Company Limited at Boyup Brook, in Western Australia. Pro ducts manufactured from flax include canvas goods, cordage, fire hose, twine and ropes and linen thread.
It is gratifying to hear from the Tariff Board that the flax fibre produced locally is eminently suitable for Australian requirements and that spinners regard both the quality and grading as satisfactory. Australian production supplies practically the whole of the local demand which is increasing. The board also found indications that the growing of flax had become accepted by farmers in their rotation of crops and that much of the reluctance to undertake this form of agriculture in most districts had disappeared.
Under the Flax Fibre Bounty Act 1954, a bounty was payable on flax line fibre produced during the two years ended 31st October, 1955 and 1956, from flax plants grown in Australia. Bounty paid on flax fibre sold during the year ended 31st October, 1955, totalled £49,022 and for the year ended 31st October, 1956, £61,661. There were still some 82 tons of fibre on hand on 31st October, 1956, which will attract bounty of £4,118 as sales are effected. The bounty rate commenced at the basic figure of £35 a ton of flax fibre, fell to £30 in December, 1954, and then fluctuated somewhat until November, 1955, when it stood at £70. The current rate, as determined, is £125 but bounty has been restricted to £50 a ton on sales since 1st April, 1956, in order to keep the total payment for the year within the annual limitation of £70,000.
A comprehensive review of the necessity for the further maintenance of the industry, including the operations of the Flax Commission and the form of assistance, is now being undertaken by the Government. The bounty aspect has received the attention of the Tariff Board and in its report of 8th February, 1957, tabled by me recently in the Senate, the board has recommended a three-year extension of bounty. Consideration will be given to the recommendation in conjunction with the wider issues involved when the current review is completed.
Meanwhile, it seemed only fair to all concerned for the bounty to apply over the current year; that is, the year ending 31st October, 1957, since trading transactions have been entered into in the reasonable expectation that bounty would be payable. The bill provides for. a rate of bounty of £50 a ton of flax fibre for the first half of the year till 30th April. This will meet the needs of the industry under the circumstances then prevailing. Provision is made for the rate to vary in the second half of the year according to fluctuations in the price at which flax fibre of an equivalent quality to our standard grade could be imported into Australia. This follows the recommendation of the Tariff Board. Whilst the basis of calculation has been changed-, the ultimate rate will be the same as that prescribed under the present act, except that a maximum rate of £75 a ton will apply.
Apart from the extension of the period of the operation of the bounty, this bill also provides for amendments of the principal act, for administrative reasons, to shift, the emphasis on the payment of bounty from “ production “ to “ sales “.
Honorable senators will know that the existing act provides for the payment of bounty on fibre produced in a particular year. The fibre must, however, be sold for use in Australia and the rate of bounty varies according to the date of sale. This necessitates identifying the fibre sold with that produced in a particular year as the fibre is not always sold immediately after processing. Complications also arise in the application of the annual limitation on the amount of bounty payable inasmuch as the bounty entitlement of each applicant cannot be ascertained, under the present legislation, until the whole of the production has been sold, and this may be a long time after the close of the year.
The amendments apply to flax, fibre produced after 31st October, 1956, but bounty will be payable only on sales made during the bounty year.. This, will mean that stocks of fibre on. hand and unsold at 31st October, 1957, will not attract bounty unless the act is further extended. Finally, the bill provides for an extension of the annual limitation on the payment of bounty for the current year from £70,000 to £112,500’ as recommended’ by the Tariff Board.
Debate (on, motion by Senator Sheehan) adjourned..
page 914
Motion (by Senator O’sullivan) - by leave - agreed to -
That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act 1933-1956, and for other purposes.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
Standing Orders suspended.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to make a number of amendments to the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act 1933-1955 which are necessary or desirable to facilitate the administration of justice in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The bill contains no matter of a controversial character. The amendments to be effected relate to regulation of the practice and procedure of the court by ordinance, the procedure for prosecution of indictable offences, and the administrative arrangements of the court..
The Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act contains, some specific provisions relating to the practice and procedure of the court. The act also provides that rules of court may be made governing other practice and procedure of the court. The specific mention of rules, of. court only has raised a doubt as to whether any matter touching practice and procedure may be contained in an ordinance. In ordinances relating primarily to such matters as probate and administration, oaths and evidence, it is desirable to include provisions which, may incidentally affect practice and procedure. Indeed, it is often extremely difficult to determine whether a matter is one of substantive law or of practice and’ procedure: only. This bill,, therefore, seeks to amend a number of sections of the act to permit the matters dealt with in those sections to be dealt with also by ordinance. The clauses of the bill which carry out this are clauses 6, 7, 8,. 9, 1.1 12 and 13.
Section^ 53 of the act provides, that any person committed for trial: for an indictable offence triable before the Supreme Court may be put. upon his> trial before the
Supreme Court by information in the name of the Attorney-General or of any other person who has been appointed by the Governor-General in that behalf. In the absence of any provision in the act enabling the Attorney-General to file an information against an accused person who has not been committed for trial, or the Attorney-General or other person appointed by the GovernorGeneral as provided by section 53 to decline to proceed in an appropriate case against a person who has been committed for trial, doubts have arisen whether the AttorneyGeneral or such other person can exercise these powers. Section 53 has accordingly been re-drafted to include provisions in this regard similar to those contained in the Judiciary Act and the criminal law of the States.
There is no provision in the act at present for the appointment of a deputy registrar of the Supreme Court. The administrative work of the court is now such that it requires the appointment of a deputy registrar, who will at all times be capable of exercising the powers and functions and of performing the duties of the Registrar, and clause 10 of this bill makes provision accordingly. This is a straight-forward measure designed to facilitate the work of the court, and I commend it to honorable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 915
Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) - by leave - agreed to -
That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Australian Antarctic Territory Act 1954.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
Standing. Orders suspended.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is a very minor measure consequential upon the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Bill. The Australian Antarctic Territory Act applies the laws from time to time in force in the Australian Capital Territory to the Australian Antarctic Territory, and gives the Governor-
General power to make ordinances for that latter Territory. The act also provides that the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory has jurisdiction in the Territory and that the rules of court for the time being in force under the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act apply in the Territory as if the Territory formed part of the Australian Capital Territory.
The amendments to the Australian. Capital Territory Supreme Court Act relating to the regulation of the practice and procedure of the court by ordinance have necessitated that the practice and procedure so regulated should be as applicable to the exercise of jurisdiction of the court in the Australian Antarctic Territory as it is in the Australian Capital Territory. Clause 3 achieves this result.
The opportunity is being taken of including, in conformity with the practice in legislation relating to other external territories, a provision expressly covering the exercise by the Governor-General of the power of clemency in relation to punishment for offences committed in the Territory. The ambit of the power given under clause 4 is identical with that possessed by the Governor-General in relation to offences against the laws of the Commonwealth..
I commend the bill to honorable senators.
Debate (on motionby Senator McKenna) adjourned.
HEARD ISLAND AND McDONALD ISLANDS BILL 1957.
Motion (by Senator O’SuIlivan) - by leave - agreed to -
That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend’ the Heard Island and McDonald Islands Act 1953.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
Standing Orders suspended.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is almost identical with the previous, bill that I introduced. The Heard Island, and; McDonald Islands Act makes. similar provisions for the application of the laws of the Australian Capital Territory to Heard Island and McDonald Islands and for the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory in those islands. This bill makes the same consequential amendment regarding the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction in Heard Island and McDonald Islands as did the last bill in relation to the Australian Antarctic Territory. It also makes a similar provision for the exercise of the Governor-General’s power of pardon and remission.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 916
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is designed to amend the existing act in its relation to the appointment of officers in the High Commissioner Service; to provide for matters previously not covered in the act, such as the engagement of temporary officers, furlough for permanent officers and the appointment of an Acting High Commissioner; and to provide that the remuneration and allowances of the High Commissioner shall be determined by the Governor-General. I propose to deal with each of these items in the order in which they appear in the bill.
The act at present provides that the High Commissioner shall be paid a salary of £3,500 per annum and expenses not exceeding £2,000 per annum for an official residence. It has been apparent for some time that the salary of the High Commissioner should be raised. No overseas post is of greater importance to Australia than the London post, whether in terms of diplomatic relations or trade or migration, or many other matters. The position of the
High Commissioner in London is, therefore, of the highest order of responsibility. All honorable senators are perfectly well aware of this, and, therefore, a salary which recognizes his responsibility is called for.
Under present-day conditions, the existing figure of £3,500 is an inadequate salary for the post. The salary which the Government now has in mind is £5,000. Nothing less should be considered. For one thing, the Deputy High Commissioner, who is a First Division officer of the Commonwealth Public Service, receives a salary of £4,500 per annum. The latter’s salary was raised to this figure when the salaries of permanent heads of the Commonwealth Public Service were raised in 1955. It is anomalous that the High Commissioner should receive a salary less than that of the Deputy High Commissioner. No change is contemplated in the £2,000 per annum allowance for the upkeep of an official residence.
The Government has carefully examined whether it should continue the present provision for making salary increases by amendment to the act. It has decided that the act should be amended so that salary and allowances shall be determined by the Governor-General. There are various reasons for this. First, it is an everyday procedure for salaries for offices of this sort to be fixed or amended by the Executive. Secondly, as the salary and allowances of the High Commissioner are considered at the time of the Appropriation Bill it is unnecessary, from Parliament’s own point of view, to have to consider a bill to amend an act because a change in salary has become necessary. Thirdly, the heads of diplomatic missions - for example, the High Commissioner for Australia in other countries - already have their salaries fixed by the Executive and it is consistent for the salary of the High Commissioner in the United Kingdom to be determined by the Executive. His salary was fixed by act of Parliament in days when Australia had only one High Commissioner and that situation has persisted down the years. Fourthly, the trend of legislation is to provide that remuneration shall be determined by the Governor-General. A perusal of the statute-book will establish this beyond doubt - e.g., the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority, the Australian Atomic Energy
Commission, the Australian Broadcasting Commission, the Australian National Airlines Commission - to mention a few.
The amendments proposed by clause 4 of the bill provide for the appointment of permanent officers and the engagement of temporary employees and allow regulations to be made for this purpose and for the fixing of terms and conditions of employment. Section 9 of the present act contains a provision for the High Commissioner to make appointments in accordance with instructions from the Minister. It is preferable that the various formalities connected with the appointment of officers should be provided by regulation rather than by special instructions from the Minister. This conforms to the practice followed in the Commonwealth Public Service. The existing section will therefore be repealed and replaced by a new section 9(1.) and 9(2.). The control at present exercised by the Minister will still be exercised by him, but by means of regulations which are at present under consideration.
Clause 4 also inserts a new provision in the new section 9 for the preservation of the rights of Commonwealth officers who transfer to the High Commissioner service. It is normal practice for an officer of the Public Service who is employed under another Commonwealth act to have his public service rights preserved.
Provision is also made in clause 4 for a new sub-section relating to furlough for permanent officers in the High Commissioner service. Furlough privileges for permanent officers under the High Commissioner Act have been provided in the High Commissioner Regulations based on Commonwealth Public Service conditions of furlough. When the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Act was introduced in 1944, officers of the Commonwealth Public Service were excepted from its provisions. A similar exception was not made in the case of officers under the High Commissioner Act. The High Commissioner Regulations providing for furlough are consequently no longer operative and have had no force since the enactment of the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Act in 1944. If furlough privileges under the High Commissioner Regulations were still valid they would be somewhat better than those under the Commonwealth Employees’
Furlough Act. It is due to the officers that these privileges should be preserved. This will be achieved by providing in the High Commissioner Act power to make regulations relating to furlough, notwithstanding the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Act.
Clause 5 inserts a new section 9b in the act providing for the appointment of an Acting High Commissioner. The present act makes no such provision and therefore a person acting as High Commissioner cannot under the act and regulations exercise powers which have been conferred upon the High Commissioner. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 5.51 to 8 p.m.
page 917
Debate resumed from 20th May (vide page 839), on motion by Senator Paltridge -
That the bill be now read a second time.
.- I should like, on behalf of the Opposition, to make some comment on this measure and the Wheat Tax Bill 1957. As the two bills are so interwoven, I understand that honorable senators are agreeable to them being debated together at the secondreading stage and considered separately in committee.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid). - That procedure will be in order.
– Clause 9 of the Wheat Research Bill provides - (1.) For the purposes of this Act, there shall be a Wheat Industry Research Council, which shall consist of -
Clause 13 provides - (1.) For the purposes of this Act, there shall be a Wheat Industry Research Committee for each State, other than the State of Tasmania. (2.) A Committee for a State -
It will be seen, therefore, that the committees in each State will be composed of persons who are well versed in the various facets of the production and disposal of wheat. The purpose of the Wheat Tax Bill is to obtain the necessary finance for the wheat research work which will be undertaken by the council and the committees. It is interesting to note that in this instance those who will pay the tax have agreed voluntarily to their being levied at the rate of a farthing a bushel on wheat delivered to the Australian Wheat Board. This is a unique circumstance, because generally there is opposition to taxation. In this instance, the wheat-growers have agreed voluntarily to the proposal.
Another interesting feature is that the taxation will be imposed upon the Australian Wheat Board. This arrangement will obviate the necessity to forward assessments to some 60,000 wheat-growers in Australia. The tax will be paid to the Government by the board. Clause 8 outlines the purposes for which this money may be expended. It reads -
The purposes in respect of which expenditure may be approved under the last preceding section are purposes in relation to the following matters: -
The Minister, in his second-reading speech, drew attention to the fact that the wheat industry is the third primary industry in Australia that has agreed to the setting up of a scientific research bureau, subsidized by the growers. The existing bodies are the Wool Research Board and the TobaccoResearch Board. There is a difference between those boards and the proposed Wheat Industry Research Council. In the respective bills establishing the Wool Research Bureau and the Tobacco Research. Bureau there were stipulated amounts which the Commonwealth Government would contribute in addition to the amounts contributed by the growers and, in the case of tobacco, by the manufacturers also. In this instance, all we have is a statement by the Minister that the Commonwealth, will bear its share. Nowhere in the bill have I been able to find a clause which definitely binds the Government to undertake this responsibility. I should be glad if the Minister, during the committee stage, would give us more definite information about what is likely to happen.
It is significant that, so many years after the growing of wheat was first undertaken in Australia - at this late stage, as it were - a measure has been introduced to make provision for the scientific investigation of the wheat industry. In saying that, I do not mean that research has not been undertaken in past years. I think that the wheatgrowers of Western Australia deserve a special word of commendation for having, prior to the introduction of this measure, established a fund, into which they agreed voluntarily to pay moneys for the purpose of financing wheat research in that State. I am pleased to see that the Government has acknowledged their efforts in that connexion and has provided that whilst this taxing measure shall have retrospective application, the growers in Western Australia will not be required to contribute a second quota, and that the amount they have paid into their fund will be taken into consideration in fixing the amount that will be levied in the State.
As I have said, wheat research has been undertaken for a number of years. In my earlier years I was employed in the Mallee district of Victoria. It is a very big district. I well remember that many years ago a good deal of discussion took place amongst members of the Victorian Parliament and the public generally as to whether the Mallee was worth saving. Its great wheat-growing potential was not realized at that time. It was almost looked upon as being waste country, and was of no great commercial value other than possibly for the distillation of eucalyptus.
But there were people who braved all the difficulties and began to grow wheat. I remember the discussions that took place amongst the farmers of the day; I was always interested in their struggles. If they were not experiencing a drought, they suffered from fire or low prices; they were exploited by the wheat agents; and they got little return for their money.
At that time they were experimenting. When I was in the district, there was great discussion about various types of wheat. Steinwedel was a very popular variety. Purple Straw and Yandilla King were popular varieties. If is interesting to note that from those two varieties came the wonderful variety known as Federation, which was the result of many years of application by Farrer, who has gone down in history as one of the great men of the wheat industry. Gluyas was famous for about 30 years after 1910. It was the parent of Nabawa, which was bred by a Western Australian named Mr. W. A. Sutton. Then came the Bencubbin and Bungulla varieties, which also were very popular in Western Australia. Kurrawa was popular for very many years, and from it were bred Ghurka and Quadrant. That brings us to the latest variety, Olympic.
I mention those facts to demonstrate to the Senate that, amongst the farming community and those who have been entrusted with the activities of the various State Departments of Agriculture, there has been intensive study of the best varieties of wheat. Discussions usually centred around the questions of rust prevention, flag smut, planning for the strength of the straw and, above all, the yield per acre. Very little, if any, regard was had to the gluten or vitamin content of a particular variety. Because of low prices and the difficulties that farmers were experiencing, it was the yield that counted. The more wheat they could raise, of course, the better was the yield.
Very little study was directed to soil conservation or soil research. I remember the first wheat crop that I saw planted. It was planted after the native mallee bush had been rolled down with a roller drawn by a team of bullocks. After it dried, the farmer set it alight and left the ash on the field’. Then, after making a few cuts in the ground with a hoe, the seed was sown. It was much later that, following the advent of the stump-jump plough and so on, the farmers were able to improve their methods of ploughing and raise better crops. Slowly but surely they realized that, if they sowed the same area year after year, it would not be long before the country became like the great Sahara desert, which some of us saw depicted in a film a few moments ago’. At one time, the great Sahara desert: was the granary of the then known world, but because of intensive cultivation it became the waste that it is to-day.
Many honorable senators have known of. cases in the Mallee and other areas where a man’s farm has been blown away and has been found, on somebody else’s property. At one stage, the farmers were denuding the fields of timber and it looked as though the Mallee would just become a sandy waste. Fortunately, wiser councils have prevailed and, as a result of the great work that has been done by the State Departments of Agriculture, the farmers have been taught to rotate their crops, to spell their fields, and to engage in sheep-raising or fat-lamb production. At one time, it was thought that it was almost impossible, because of contamination of the wool by sand, for sheep to be raised in that district. The fleece brought a lower price, and very little encouragement was given to sheepraising. But, following the increase of the price of wool, sheep raising was encouraged, with the result that the Mallee district is recognized as being one of the finest for raising fat lambs.
Because of the very important part that the wheat industry plays in Australia’s economy, the time has arrived when we should do a little more to develop it. Being a regular reader of the wheat and wool growers’- journal, I have noticed that this section of the community has commenced to agitate for the application of science to the industry. Although Australia produces a very valuable variety of wheat, it is sometimes decried and regarded as being very soft or of little value. It is by no means the world’s worst variety of wheat. I agree that we are meeting strong opposition because of the stockpiling of wheat in America and Canada, which produce a very hard red wheat. We know that, if we were able to produce a variety that was more acceptable to certain overseas buyers, we could step up our export trade. It is comforting to know that because of the wheat agreement, and the activities of the Australian Wheat Board, we have a ready sale for a considerable quantity of wheat, but not as much as we could export. About 50 per cent, of the crop is required for home consumption, and that leaves a similar amount available for sale overseas. It is well to know that through the instrumentalities I have mentioned the Australian wheat-grower is assured of at least a reasonable income based on the cost of production. I think that that was one of the best things that has happened to our wheat industry. It enables the wheatfarmer with confidence to agree to this tax being levied on his returns and applied to the purposes I have mentioned.
This bill will not in any way lessen the valuable work that has been, and is being, performed by State authorities and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research” Organization. On the contrary, the efforts of those bodies will be co-related, and because of their joint efforts we are hopeful that the future of this great industry will be assured.
A factor of importance in relation to the production of wheat with a high protein and vitamin content is the fact that the Japanese are desirous of obtaining wheat of a comparatively high standard, and are likely to be good customers of Australia in the future if we can supply them with the grain they desire. We shall be wise if we prepare in advance for custom of that kind, as we have done in connexion with some of our secondary industries. For a number of years we have had technical schools in which students are trained, and other institutions for the training in management of men who will be entrusted with the control of our secondary industries. Just as we have found it desirable to do those things in order to compete with the products of the secondary industries of other countries, so it is necessary to do something of the same kind in connexion with the great primary product of wheat. There is a great future for the wheat industry so long as we do the things necessary to develop it on right lines, and, accordingly, the Opposition will support this bill.
We support it for the further reason that traditionally the Labour party has always assisted in the development of the Australian wheat industry. Members of the Labour party have always regarded the wheatgrower as being akin to the worker in industry. That worker has his labour power to sell, and the Labour party has protected him by establishing wages boards, arbitration courts and other tribunals. The wheatfarmer, too, has only his labour to sell. By applying that labour to the growing of wheat he produces a commodity which is sold in the markets of the world, and the price he receives for his wheat is the payment for his labour, or in other words, his wages. The Labour party has at all times supported any proposal to help wheat-farmers, and has largely been instrumental in setting up an organized body to deal with this country’s wheat. We have done that because we believe that the wheat-farmer is entitled to a fair return for his labour.
Before I sit down there is another point to which I desire to refer, notwithstanding that I am aware that many other honorable senators desire to speak to this bill, which I know will receive the support of all honorable senators. Speaking in another place, the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) described this measure as the bill of a century. Indeed, he became quite eloquent about it. Despite the fact that between £150,000 and £160,000 will be paid by the wheat-growers in the form of a levy or tax from an ordinary harvest - and that is no small sum - the Minister gave the bill his blessing. I have followed all the wheat legislation that has passed through this Parliament since I first entered it in 1938 and conditions were not good for wheat-growers in those days - and this is the first time to my knowledge that that gentleman has agreed to a compulsory tax being levied on wheat-growers. As I have said, the Minister became most eloquent, and during the course of his speech he said -
For the first time growers have been taken into the confidence of the Government in all its deliberations affecting the industry.
Those honorable senators who remember the discussions that took place in this Parliament in connexion with the stabilization of the wheat industry, and the setting up of a board to deal with the wheat harvest, will know that during the regime of the Curtin Labour Government representatives of the wheat-growers were taken into the complete confidence of that Government. Discussions took place between Ministers and the representatives or organizations connected with wheat growing concerning the bill. I have here an article dealing with the Australian wheat-growing industry from 1788 to 1948 written by Mr. Edgars Dunsdorfs If honorable senators will peruse it they will find that it contains the information that it was the Curtin Government which, in November, 1941, when three more growers were appointed to the board by that government, reduced the number of representatives of wheat merchants by two. It was that Labour Government that first gave to the wheatgrowers of this country majority representation on boards which controlled the wheat industry. In his eloquence, the Minister for Social Services talked about the “ fell hand of depression “ and went on to say that, largely because of the application of members of the Government to the problem, fortunately that burden had been lifted from the industry for the first time in our agricultural history. I do not mind any one putting up a good story, whether in this chamber or in another place, or on the hustings when speaking to his constituents, but when a person speaks of the history of wheat growing in Australia and of the trials and tribulations through which the wheatgrowers have passed, I think we should remind ourselves that at one stage a former Minister for Commerce and Agriculture referred to them as mendicants. I need hardly say that that Minister was not a member of a Labour government. I cannot allow the present Minister for Social Services, in his enthusiasm for this measure, to get away with a statement of that kind, or allow to go unchallenged his statement that this is the first time that the representatives of the wheat-growers have been taken into the confidence of the Government.
During the time that negotiations for the stabilization of the wheat industry were taking place, I visited many country centres in an endeavour to popularize the idea, and came in personal contact with many wheatgrowers. It was not an easy task to induce them to come into the scheme, especially when they saw that there was likely to be a small increase in that season’s crop. A good deal of negotiation and so on had to be engaged in before success came our way.
Under the agreement we have on nights when the proceedings of the Senate are being broadcast, my time has run out. As I have said, the Opposition will not oppose the bill. It may be termed an all-party measure, because it is recognized there are wheat-growers in the Liberal party; there are wheat-growers in the Australian Country party; but I venture to suggest that the more militant and intelligent wheat-growers are members of the Australian Labour party.
.- I rise with enthusiasm to support this bill because I believe it is a classic example of democracy at work inasmuch as it writes into the statute-book the desires of an industry conscious of its responsibility to the national economy, conscious of the difficulties that it faces and conscious of the fact that it has an obligation to render financial assistance to the solving of those problems. There is also a Government which is conscious of its responsibility in the matter, which realizes that it is dutybounden to maintain a stable industry so valuable to this country both domestically and overseas, and which is prepared to render financial assistance to the industry by way of research.
We have listened with great interest to Senator Sheehan’s contribution and are indebted to him for a most interesting exposition of the early days of wheat-growing, particularly in Victoria. I should like to relate my comments on this bill to the difficulties and problems that face the wheatgrower to-day and the effect that this legislation can, and, I believe, will have on the solution of some of those problems. Before I leave Senator Sheehan, I should like to say to him, quite kindly, concerning his denunciation of the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) in another place, that, in spite of the criticism offered, he might have commended the Minister for at least being gracious enough not to mention the New Zealand wheat deal. So you see that all is not lost!
It is not new to say that Australia is a primary-producing country. That has been said again and again. I suggest that we have to keep on saying it because so closely interwoven are our secondary industries with our primary industries that the one is dependent upon the other. Therefore, I think it appropriate that we should have a quick look at the world wheat position. We have heard a great deal about surpluses and about the policy that America has embarked on of dumping its wheat here, there and anywhere, at a give-away price. It has perhaps adopted that policy for political, military or long-term economic reasons; but whatever the reasons, America has embarked upon a policy which enables any country in the world to-day, regardless of its financial position, to obtain wheat from America. If any honorable senator wants verification of that, I suggest he have a look at the Canadian Corn Report, which says categorically that any country, regardless of its financial position, can obtain wheat from America if it so desires.
– At what price?
– There is no fixed price for American “ dumped “ wheat, unfortunately. I am coming to that matter. I suppose we all indulge in wishful thinking, and I suggest that it is logical to think that we have said to ourselves, “ Well, this dumping policy cannot go on for ever. If America goes to the four corners of the world to hand out her wheat, the time will come when the position in America will [finally right itself and we in this country will gain by being in a position to take up our rightful share of the market “. Let us have a quick look at the figures to see what the actual position is. For the sake of brevity, I will confine myself to citing the figures for the last two selling seasons only.
At the end of the selling season, 30th June, 1956, which is the conclusion of the American season, that country had a surplus of 1,030,000,000 bushels. In spite of all the wheat that America has dumped here, there and everywhere during the last twelve months, it is estimated that at the end of the selling seaon at 30th June, 1957 - just five weeks hence - :that country will have a surplus of 1,045,000,000 bushels, an increase of 15,000,000 bushels. The story is even sadder in respect of Canada. Its surplus is up by 42,000,000 bushels, and I think it is pertinent to pose the question: How long will Canada sit idly by and see the markets that have been so valuable to it slip through its grasp because of the policy that America has employed?
The Argentine has a surplus of 52,000,000 bushels, which is up 11,000,000 bushels on its previous surplus.
– That is private enterprise for you.
– Now we come to private enterprise. The one bright spot in this somewhat disconcerting picture is that Australia, where private enterprise thrives, is the one and only country that has shown a reduction in its surplus.
– That is due to the drought.
– In order to keep the discussion on a factual basis and not to depart into the realms of fancy, let me say it is due to an aggregation of factors which I have not time to discuss at this stage, save to say that it does reflect great credit on the Australian Wheat Board for the enthusiasm and zeal it has displayed in searching for new markets for flour. The board is facing a real problem to-day in the placing of its flour and 1 hope that at some future time I shall have the opportunity of saying something on that score. The hard facts are that at the end of the selling season in June, 1957, the four main exporting countries of the world will have a surplus of 1,705,000,000 bushels.
– There are millions of people starving in China.
– I think that remark is quite irrelevant. I am not talking about China; I am talking about this bill as it affects our economy. Therefore, I want to tell the Senate just how the American dumping policy has affected the markets of the world.
The United Kingdom has been our best customer. In 1952 it imported 18,000,000 bushels. That figure has steadily risen until in 1956 it imported 24,330,000 bushels from Australia. Again I give only the round figures, in the cause of brevity. It is interesting to note that under the agreement that has just been completed, Great Britain has agreed to take 28,000,000 bushels. In addition, it will take any hard wheat that we have for sale. It will buy high quality wheats in excess of that amount.
– It will, if it can, if the price is right.
– I think it is appropriate to say, in reply to that interjection, that I am old-fashioned enough to believe that the Englishman’s word, whether implied or spoken, is still as good as his bond. I am prepared to believe that the agreement will be honoured in the spirit as well as in the letter. I should not have mentioned New Zealand earlier, because I have to come back to it now. New Zealand has been a steady and constant customer, for which, as a wheat-producing country, we are most grateful. Our exports of wheat to New Zealand have risen steadily from 8,000,000 bushels to 10,000,000 bushels in 1956.
The German story in relation to wheat is most interesting. In 1952, Germany imported half a million bushels from Australia. Its imports rose somewhat spasmodically to 10,000,000 bushels in 1956. But the melancholy part of the story is that America again has entered our field, and what we will sell on the German market in future is a matter for conjecture. That is one aspect that is somewhat gloomy.
The Indian story is even more depressing. In 1952, India imported 6,500,000 bushels of wheat from Australia. In 1956, its imports had grown to 22,500,000 bushels, but honorable senators know that the deal that has just been completed between America and India provides that huge stocks of American wheat are to go to India, so our chances of retaining a market there are negligible.
I come now to the last case that I want to cite, which relates to one of the principal customers for Australian wheat during the last five or six years. I refer to Japan, which, in 1952, took 1,250,000 bushels of our wheat. After that, our exports to Japan rose fairly steadily to 10,000,000 bushels in 1956. During all of that time, as Senator Sheehan has told the Senate, Japan was clamouring for hard wheats and high quality wheats. High-quality wheats have always been the burden of the Japanese demand. A most significant fact that must be borne in mind now. is that from December, 1956, until the present time, the Australian Wheat Board has not had from Japan one inquiry for wheat. There has been not one inquiry in six months, and I am not .so naive as to suggest that that is because of quality. There is an aggregation of facts which have a bearing upon the situation. But we have to face the fact that Japan, all through its wheat negotiations, has demanded hard wheats.
The main problem facing Australia to-day is a huge world surplus of wheat. We have no alternative but to seek newer and bigger markets, by concentrating on improving the quality of our wheat. I do not, for one moment, decry the quality of Australian wheat. I never have done so, and my journeyings up and down the countryside have convinced me that Australian wheat has produced a fairly hardy race of people, well-nourished and well-fed. I think that my friend Senator Cameron will agree with me on that issue.
I return to the principles of the bill. I said at the outset that the driving force in the formulation of this bill was democracy aX work, and democracy is to be applied in the implementation of the bill. At the State level, State committees will be established, the majority of the members being wheat-growers from the Australian Wheat Growers Federation. Those growers will be supported by representatives of other interested bodies. I name, for instance, the Victorian Grain Elevators Board, but there are other like organizations that have a peculiar and special interest in the storing and handling of wheat.
The money that is derived from each State will be spent in that State, and I think that is a very wise provision. There are many problems that are peculiar to each State, but perhaps the greatest problem that confronts most of the States is soil deficiency. Soils in wheat-growing areas suffer from a serious deficiency of nitrogen. It is true, as Senator Sheehan has said, that the wheat-grower has been resourceful enough to vary his methods of farming. On the larger holdings he has been able to rotate his crops and to sow medics and legumes, so he has been able, to some extent, to improve the quality of his wheat. On smaller holdings, it is not as easy as it may seem to solve the problem, because very often a small grower cannot afford to leave his land unsown and spelled, because he has not an acreage adequate for that purpose.
Only last week I heard of a most interesting experiment that is being undertaken by a fairly large commercial company. I am not criticizing it for experimenting for commercial purposes, because it is astute enough to see the possibilities of research in this field and courageous enough to take advantage of them. It wants to be in the forefront, if possible. The company predicts that if its experiments are successful a suitable method ‘will be found of introducing nitrogen into the soil artificially, so as to eliminate fallowing. This will enable the wheat-grower to grow a quality product, year in year out, in the same soil. That is something hitherto unheard of. It indicates not only that the possibilities for research are very great, but also that there are people and organizations which recognize that that is so.
The bill provides, on the Commonwealth level, for a Wheat Industry Research Council. This council will consist of representatives of the Department of Primary Industry, wheat-growers, the State Departments of Agriculture, universities, and, above all, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. The functions of that council on the Commonwealth level will be to co-ordinate and prevent overlapping. I suggest that its responsibility, above all others, will be to instil an Australian outlook into the State committees. If we have five State councils which are all, for instance, doing their utmost to breed a wheat of high quality that will yield well, that is a service that will be of untold value to this country. I could go on, right down the research line. As a layman, I know the field is open.
It is sufficient to say that many difficulties face us, and in spite of the allegations that may be made against me of painting a gloomy picture, I have painted not a gloomy picture but a factual picture, and we must get down to realities. Some people preach a policy of restriction. I say that a policy of restriction is a policy of despair and one with which we will not be associated.
I say, therefore, that this bill has been well and wisely drawn. It has been drafted with imagination and it will bring together interested persons who can give real service in a cause that requires it. So I suggest to honorable senators that when these committees are functioning, every right-thinking Australian will wish them well in the great task they have undertaken.
– I have been very interested in the speeches that have been delivered by Senator Sheehan and Senator Wade. Although I did not hear all Senator Sheehan’s speech, I congratulate him upon it, particularly as we all know that he is not a farmer. He has had comparatively little to do with wheat-growing and his previous experience has been in the railway world. He has shown, however, that he has good knowledge of the industry, and the history of legislation affecting wheatgrowing as expounded by him has been very interesting.
My comment on the bill that is before the Senate will differ a little from that of the two previous speeches. I believe that the measure should be examined from many angles. I do not want to detract at all from what has been said, but I believe that we should look at this measure more particularly from the viewpoint of research and the application of science to the industry. We know that we live in a scientific age and, as with other industries, we must apply science to wheat-growing.
I remember a few years ago the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen), who was then Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, addressed a conference of the Agricultural Bureau in Adelaide. He told the farmers who were present a few home truths. One was that up to that time the wheat industry itself had never contributed anything towards a research trust fund to advance the interest of wheat-growing and its development. The germ of the idea that is contained in this bill can be attributed to the words of the present Minister for Trade at that time. He continually made a point of that aspect of wheat-growing, and emphasized that the farmers needed the assistance of science to promote their own welfare and the welfare of the community at large. The proposition that he advanced then has been adopted by practically every great wheat-growers’ organization in Australia. I know that to be correct. Practically all the organizations of wheatgrowers are behind this legislation heart and soul.
I agree with Senator Sheehan that the outlook in the wheat industry is entirely different from that which obtained 20 or 30 years ago. Although I cannot go very far back in the history of wheat-growing, I remember when the uncertainty of the wheat-growers’ position was something to be deplored. We had reached a stage when we believed our situation was almost hopeless. Through the instrumentality of the Commonwealth and the introduction of stabilization schemes, the wheatgrowing industry and the position of the wheat-growers themselves have been made much more stable.
We know that we have contributed, by way of self-help, towards that stability. Up to the present, throughout the history of the preceding stabilization scheme, which was introduced by the Chifley Government, and the scheme that is operating now, it has not been necessary for the Commonwealth to make any contribution. It is true that the Commonwealth stands to contribute if help is needed but the wheat-growers, by paying into a stabilization fund, have been able to meet all commitments and the Commonwealth has not had to pay anything into the stabilization scheme.
Senator Pearson has reminded me that the wheat-growers, besides helping themselves and contributing to the stabilization of the industry so that they receive the cost of production and a margin besides, have also contributed enormously to the welfare of the consuming public of Australia. It is estimated that the wheat-growers have contributed to the welfare of the consumers an amount which totals between £180,000,000 and £200,000,000. The stabilization scheme has not only helped the wheat-growers; in fact, there is a possibility that they would have been better off if they had been able to sell on the open market, but they have been satisfied with the cost of production and a margin of profit. At the same time, they have been supplying the Australian consuming public with a product that is needed at a price well within the purchasing power of the people. So much for the history of the stabilization schemes. I believe that the principle of self-help is extremely valuable and could be applied with advantage to many other industries.
We know that the wheat-growing industry is of enormous value to Australia and has very wide ramifications. We know what it means in the employment of our people. Persons are engaged in the wheat industry throughout the length and breadth of this continent. The wheat trade means a lot to our railways and all those engaged in the processing of wheat, including the manufacture of bread. All those things must be taken into account in considering the wheat industry. Its ramifications compare more than favourably with those of any other Australian industry.
I turn now to a somewhat different aspect from those touched upon by Senator Sheehan and Senator Wade; that is, research. I do not claim to be a scientist, but I have taken an intelligent interest in the application of science to wheat-growing and I believe it important that as legislators we should realize that, unless we encourage such work, the industry cannot hope to prosper. We know how important it is to apply research to the industry. We have acquired certain scientific knowledge about the growing of wheat, but it has been gained mainly from a system of trial and error in the past. Wheat has been one of the greatest industries of all countries down through the ages, but unfortunately its progress has been maintained chiefly by the application of the system of trial and error. We have now passed that stage. I know that the system of trial and error must be followed also in the scientific world, but I suggest that it is far better to adopt it in the scientific laboratory and then to apply the results to the practical growing of wheat.
In this country, we have a wide variety of climatic and soil conditions. In some parts, certain fertilizers are required while in others a different type is needed. The important fact is that wherever wheat is grown in Australia, it is essential that we adopt far wider rotation methods. I think it was Senator Sheehan who touched upon the vital necessity for wide rotation in the growing of cereal crops, of wheat in particular. I have personal knowledge of the tragic effects of short rotation in wheatgrowing on some of our lands in South Australia, and I think that what applies there would apply equally to all States. We have learnt by research that it is essential that we widen our system of rotation.
In the past, we were gradually destroying some of the finest wheat-growing areas by the methods we were adopting in the growing of wheat in the lower rainfall belt. But we have learnt our lesson and have now done something to overcome the problem. It has been found that by the wider rotation of wheat-growing with the growing of other cereals and perhaps pastures, tremendous improvement can be effected in both the yield and the production in other ways from the same land.
It has to be appreciated also that we need fertilizers in Australia. It is of no use trying to grow wheat continuously on the same land without applying fertilizers. Senator Wade has referred to the lack of nitrogen in our soils. I agree that there is a certain nitrogen deficiency but this has been largely overcome by the widespread growing of such nitrogenous plants as legumes and clovers. We grow those plants now to provide the necessary nitrogen; but what Australian soils lack most is phosphoric acid. This can be overcome only by the application of superphosphate. The great superphosphate industry virtually depends upon the agricultural industry, and vice versa; it works both ways.
Then we have seen what has been done by the addition of certain trace elements to the fertilizers that we usually apply. One has only to go to a certain part of South Australia to see what has been achieved not only by the addition to fertilizers of such trace elements as copper, molybdenite, cobalt and others, but also in the prevention of soil erosion by the adoption of a system of wider rotation.
We have derived great benefit from the research work carried out at Roseworthy Agricultural College, Hawkesbury and other institutions throughout Australia. They have done magnificent work in the field of agricultural research. Admittedly, we have found it necessary to follow the system of trial and error in order to discover which of the findings of scientific research are most beneficial to the industry, but finally great benefit has accrued from this work.
We have been told that the methods adopted in the past have been wrong. In the past, in South Australia, especially in the district in which I formerly lived, the view was held that the best method of cultivating was to plough deeply - that it was necessary to have a deep furrow. It was thought that even though more horsepower was required, it was still necessary to plough deeply in order to achieve the best results. Research and investigation by competent officials of the State Department of Agriculture led us to realize that we were on the wrong track, and that instead of ploughing deeply by far the better method was to adopt a system of shallow ploughing.. Wheat is one of those crops which require a seed bed. By ploughing deeply, the farmers failed to consolidate a seed bed upon which to place their grain, with the result that wheat production declined in those areas and, in addition, the deep ploughing aggravated the soil erosion that was taking place throughout the length and breadth of Australia.
We then altered our methods. Why did we alter them? It was not because we came to the conclusion that shallow ploughing was better than deep ploughing; we altered them because we had obtained the scientific advice of people who were competent to give it. The change in methods took place entirely as a result of the research work those people undertook. The result has been not only to preserve our soil but also to keep it in better mechanical condition, and we have been enabled to grow wheat more successfully.
Some of the money which it is proposed to provide under this measure will be utilized to finance research work into the most suitable types of implements to use in this industry. Any one who has been engaged in the wheat-growing industry knows that there has been what is almost a revolution in the type of implement being used on wheat farms. We do not now use the same implements that we used 30 years ago; we use different types of implements. Constant research is being undertaken by agricultural machinery manufacturers in co-operation with our agricultural authorities, in order to evolve tilling and harvesting implements that: will better do the work of wheat-growing and harvesting.
I come now to the all-important matter of wheat-breeding. I have never been engaged in the work of wheat-breeding; in fact, I think we have been extremely well served by those great benefactors of the wheat industry who have made immensely valuable contributions to scientific research in the breeding of wheat. We know that, in the main, that work has been carried out by the great institutions, but many private wheat-breeders have done remarkable work for Australian agriculture in this field. I think the Minister mentioned that great pioneer, William Farrer, who introduced that wonderful variety of wheat known as Federation. I am old enough to remember something about that wheat. I grew it myself and I know its qualities. I know what a splendid wheat it was. It completely revolutionized wheatgrowing in my State and in the State in which it originated. What a magnificent wheat it was! We in the wheat industry owe a great debt of gratitude to Farrer.
Other people have been engaged in the production of better varieties of wheat. As far as the Roseworthy Agricultural College in South Australia is concerned, we have derived incalculable benefit from the wheats that have been produced there. Some of them have completely revolutionized the wheat-growing industry in South Australia. Their real value lies in the fact that they are high-yielding and high-quality wheats. The Roseworthy wheats that I have in mind are Dirk 48, Sabre and Sword. Scimitar, another wheat produced in the Roseworthy Agricultural College, has not proved to be a very high quality wheat and I do not want to lay particular stress on it. It is essential that this process of wheat breeding be continued, and its continuance will be greatly facilitated by the application of the money that will be raised by this tax and paid into a fund for the purposes of scientific development.
I shall refer now to a few more aspects of scientific research in the wheat industry. We know what has happened at various times when wheat-growing areas have been afflicted by the spore disease called rust. I have seen whole paddocks completely ruined by rust because the wheat that was being grown was not rust-resistant. Over the years, scientific research workers have developed wheats which, in the main, are rust-resistant. One variety that comes to mind at the moment is Dundee, which is a high-yielding wheat. It is a reasonably good flour and bread-making wheat, but formerly crops were completely ruined when there was a rusty year. There has now been produced a variety called Dundee 48, which is almost completely rust-resistant. Formerly, in a rusty year, vast areas of wheat-fields were ruined, but now that does not occur because we are using a variety that is almost completely rust-resistant.
There are other varieties in which the quality of the straw has been improved. That was one of the good features of the old Federation wheat. In those days we did not possess harvesting machinery as good as the present machinery. In fact, there were times when certain varieties with a weak straw went down badly in the fields as a result of heavy weather and a good portion of the crop had to be left in the fields. We did not have the modern harvester-header that we have to-day. We had only the old stripper, or the stripper-harvester, and it was virtually impossible to collect all the grain in those circumstances. One of the triumphs of Federation was its good straw quality. It saved the farmers a tremendous amount of money. They were able to collect all the grain because their wheat stood up.
We have had many institutions working during the years to improve the quality and quantity of our wheat. I have mentioned the Roseworthy Agricultural College. In addition to the research work carried out there, magnificent work has been done by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in connexion with trace elements and fertilizers. We have to remember that if we can grow more wheat to the acre by applying science to wheatgrowing, our costs will be reduced. That is the crux of the situation at present.
I agree fully with what Senator Wade has said with regard to the future of the wheat industry in Australia. I do not altogether disregard the statement that has been made by Sir John Teasdale - we cannot afford to disregard any statement by so competent a man - but I am opposed to a policy of restriction of wheat-growing. However, we have seen what has happened in the past, and we must take cognisance of Sir John’s statement. As I have said, he is an authority on wheat whose advice we cannot ignore entirely.
Despite the fact that at present our costs are high, we in Australia are more favoured than are the growers in other countries. We have good climatic conditions, we do not have to go through some of the processes that are needed in some of the other wheat-growing countries, and our costs compare more than favorably with their costs. If we can go on applying scientific methods to the industry, I have no doubt that we will be able to put our wheat on the world markets at competitive prices.
There is one other matter on which I should like to touch. I know that my time has almost run out, but I should like to deal briefly with this matter because I think it is of some importance to the people of Australia. It is a matter with which the people generally are not familiar. I refer to the production of wheats that provide good bread-making flour. It has been said that some Australian wheats are not as good for this purpose as are wheats produced in other countries. I want to say that we do produce a good wheat that is badly wanted on the world market. It is a soft wheat, which is used largely for blending purposes. We are also producing some hard wheats which could find a ready market in overseas countries, including Japan. In spite of the fact that some of the so-called superior wheats have been produced, we find that even they lack certain bread-making qualities. It has been discovered at the Wagga Research Station in New South Wales that wheats that have been classified as quite good high-protein wheats are not good bread-making wheats. It was discovered recently that if, during the milling process, certain starch granules in some of the so-called superior wheats are damaged, they do not produce good bread.
In other words, contrary to all ideas that a high-protein wheat will produce a highquality loaf of bread, it has been discovered that there are certain inherent qualities in some varieties which, during the milling process, prevent that result. That discovery was made recently at the Wagga research station, and I think it will be regarded, in the future, as being of very great importance to the wheat-growing industry as a whole. The research work was done by a Mr. Bird, and it was commented upon very favorably by Dr. Pugsley, who, incidentally, was a former wheat-breeder at the Roseworthy college in South Australia. I mention that fact because I think it is of great importance, and that it will have an appreciable effect on the production of high-quality varieties for bread-making purposes. This measure is extremely important to the wheat industry and is no less important to Australia as whole.
.- Honorable senators who have spoken so far have addressed themselves to the importance of wheat-breeding, which is all to the good, and also to wheat production which again is all to the good. No one can say anything against those two aspects of the wheat industry. But nothing has been said about the consumption or disposal of wheat, which is the most important aspect of the position that faces the wheat-growers and the country generally.
What are we to do with the surpluses that cannot be disposed of? Honorable senators who have any recollection of the 1930’s will recall that there were immense stacks of wheat throughout the country which were left almost to rot. When war broke out and we wanted to use the wheat, we found that almost all of it had been eaten by weevils. Improved production and the consumption of wheat are the two aspects of the matter that we must study.
I propose to deal, briefly, with statements that have been made regarding the marketing of wheat. Senator Hannaford referred to Sir John Teasdale. A report of Sir John’s statement on the wheat industry appears in the Melbourne “ Herald “ of 24th April. The report reads -
The Australian wheat industry faced the worst marketing trouble since the depression of the 1930’s, the Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, Sir John Teasdale, said to-day.
He named three things that had seriously affected the immediate overseas marketing prospects for Australian wheat.
They are large surpluses in most producing countries, bargain prices offered by the United States and the possibility of a 21-million ton exportable surplus in France.
Recently, Senator Wade asked a question about the matter, but, as far as I was able to judge, the answer that was given did not deal with the position. Sir John Teasdale says that we have a huge and growing surplus. The question that must be asked is: What are we to do with it? Are we to allow a state of affairs similar to that of the 1930’s, or are we to take steps to dispose of the wheat? The report continues -
Sir John said: “ The crisis is no passing phase. The only remedy is to reduce Australian wheat production and switch to growing other foods in greater demand.”
Senator Wade said that he was quite opposed to a reduction of wheat production.
– He is not the only one.
– I know, and it is perfectly obvious that that is what I am pointing out. Senator Wade’s remarks were greeted with cries of “ Hear, hear! “ from honorable senators opposite. The question that I direct to Senator Wade and to other supporters of the Government who believe in increasing wheat production is this: How do you intend to dispose of the surplus?
– The surplus exists mainly, not in Australia, but outside Australia.
– Sir John Teasdale said, in effect, that under existing conditions we cannot dispose of the surplus. American authorities say the same thing.
– If Australia has a bad season this year, we could be short of wheat.
– Our surplus is dropping every year.
– I shall deal with that aspect of the matter later. The report to which I was referring continues -
Sir John said he warned Australia in 1954 of the danger of over-production. “My plea then to adopt a policy of substantial acreage production was denounced by Federal and State Governments and church leaders “, he said.
Church leaders would not know much about wheat-growing. The report then states - “But the crisis which has developed now completely vindicates the stand I made three years ago.”
They are the words of a man who was referred to by Senator Hannaford as being the top man in the wheat industry.
The position in America is referred to in a report published in the Melbourne “ Sun “ of 4th May, under the headline “ U.S. farm output ‘ out of control ‘ “. It reads -
The Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Ezra Benson, said to-day it had become virtually impossible to control farm production in the United States. “ Production per farm worker has doubled in the past 15 years. This creates a new dimension in farm policy and makes it virtually impossible to curtail agricultural output with the type of controls acceptable in our society “, he said.
He does not say exactly what he means by “ our society “; but “ our society “ is commonly based on maximum production or profit for the owners of capital and minimum consumption for the non-owners. So that, on the one hand, in America as in certain other countries there are enormous surpluses of production and, on the other hand, there are millions of people in Asia and thousands in Australia, who are unable to purchase all the bread or by-products that they need.
How shall we control the production and consumption of wheat? He went on to say that the major provisions of the present farm laws had failed. The article continued -
While finding fault with past and present farm programmes he did not lay down any formula for the future. He did say a worthy goal would be the highest possible farm income, which could be achieved only through a combination of large marketing and competitive prices.
In saying that, he repeated in general terms what we on this side have often said. There is nothing specific or clear about it to indicate to any one precisely what is intended. The “ Muster “ of 7th May, 1957, also had something to say on this subject. In an article headed “ Reduced acreage hasn’t solved wheat problem “, that newspaper states -
The matter of wheat production is one of great importance to the nation and individual primary producers. The following article - a condensed version of a view of the situation published by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Canberra - throws further light on the position both here and overseas. “ Australia has harvested its smallest wheat crop since the drought year of 1946-47 at a time when wheat is flowing into the international trade at a rate unparalleled in recent years, the Bureau of
Agricultural Economics in Canberra points out. The general swing away from wheat-growing to stock-farming, which has been most pronounced in southern New South Wales and Victoria in recent years, was responsible for much of the wheat acreage reduction”.
The Government tells us that we must increase production, but these authorities say that production must be reduced. The latter advice is understandable in the circumstances, because if we cannot sell what we produce, obviously we must reduce production. The statement continues -
In this connexion the greatest interest lies in expectations of a sharp decline in the 19S7-S8 United States harvest as a result of subsidy payments for withdrawals of wheat lands to the acreage reserve.
That shows that the Government of the United States of America is paying a subsidy to reduce the production of wheat. The article continues -
Nearly 11,000,000 acres of land have been withdrawn from winter wheat production and a further two to three million acres may not be planted to spring wheat. Average yields on the remaining acreage would result in a crop of about 740,000,000 bushels, the smallest since 1939, . . . North American supplies this season advanced to the huge total of more than 3,100,000,000 bushels, including the carry-over from 1955-56. Of this, about 2,350,000,000 bushels were available for export in 1956-57 or carry-over into 1957-58.
Honorable senators will see that in practically all countries there is a surplus of wheat. Sir John Teasdale mentioned the countries in which there was a surplus, but nothing has been done about it, and we do not know what is proposed. In 1955, Mr. Clement D. Johnson, who was the director of the Chamber of Commerce in Washington, said that primary production, particularly the production of wheat, had increased so enormously that wheat was accumulating in vast quantities, so vast indeed that, to use his own words, “ We do not know what to do about it “. These are the men who actually control production and speak for the industry. They do not know what is to be done about it. They are in precisely the same position as that which faces the Australian Government. It does not know what to do, and its members and supporters are completely silent about what is to be done about the disposal of the surplus. Mr. Johnson said that production had increased by 25 per cent, per man. A comprehensive survey of primary production in Australia was conducted by the British Farm Equipment Company of Melbourne. The survey extended over a decade - from 1942 to 1952. In a report the company stated that the rural population of Australia had declined, by 70,000 in that period. Since then it has declined still further. On the other hand, it pointed out that the production per man had increased by 50 per cent. There we have evidence of an unbalanced economy which the Government refuses to face. The question is whether we are going to deal with the matter intelligently and effectively, or postpone it until it is inevitable that something must be done. The proposals of the Government do not go far enough. It has not announced what it really intends to do.
A previous speaker said that costs were high, but I say that costs were never lower. Here we have two leading American authorities telling us that the per capita production has increased considerably, and an Australian authority says the same thing. Obviously, costs in terms of labour time have been reduced. More wheat is produced in less time, but in terms of labour time and of gold as a measure of value there has been no increase. That indicates that honorable senators on the other side have not studied this question as fully and intelligently as it should be studied. They are, therefore, endeavouring to convey the impression that the wheat industry is thriving, that the Government is going to improve the breed of wheat, and increase production and that farmers can look forward to a prosperous time. Well, the wish is father to the thought! Government senators have not attempted to support that deduction or impression by facts that can be accepted by any intelligent person who understands anything about wheat production. I feel it is incumbent on me to mention these matters because I should not like it to be taken for granted that the Opposition acquiesces fully in what honorable senators opposite have said.
Mention has been made of overseas markets. Overseas m’arkets are quite all right provided we can sell our wheat. The fact is that many millions in overseas countries are living under conditions of semi-starvation. They can purchase our wheat only by giving us gold or goods in return. It is impossible for them to do either and therefore those overseas markets do not offer anything more now than they did in the past. Then there is the home market. The position here is that many thousands in the cities of this country are living virtually under conditions of semistarvation. They could do with more bread, they could do with more of the products of wheat, but they cannot obtain these things because they lack the purchasing power. That again is caused by an unbalanced economy where the power to purchase or to consume is lagging more and more behind the value and the quantity of the things produced.
I trust that the Government will take that aspect into consideration, supported as it is by the highest authority, and endeavour to tell us exactly what it proposes to do apart from breeding a better quality wheat and increasing production. What is the answer to what Sir John Teasdale told us? Senator Wade asked the question but gave no answer that would appeal to anybody. What is the answer to what authorities overseas have said? If the Government remains silent on the matter, the reason is that it is not prepared to take any action in the direction I have indicated. The Government will be faced in the immediate future provided there is not another world war, with one of two problems. The Government will be forced to adopt a more intelligent and constructive stand, or it will be forced out of existence.
– I had no intention of taking part in this debate at all, and did not decide to do so until Senator Cameron asked a series of questions regarding the Government’s intentions for the disposal of the alleged surplus of wheat in Australia. It is just on that point I wish to say a few words. On 3rd April of this year, I addressed a series of questions on this very matter to the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) as the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. McMahon) in this chamber. [ think the figures which the Minister gave me on that occasion will answer some of Senator Cameron’s queries.
I asked, “ What quantity of wheat was delivered to the 1956-57 pool?” That related to the last harvest, the wheat of which has just been delivered. The answer to that question was, “ 119,700,000 bushels”. We can call it 120,000,000 bushels in round figures. The next question I was asked was, “ What was the ‘ carryover ‘ of the wheat as at 1st November, 1956? “ That is a carry-over from previous pools. The answer to that question was, “83,900,000 bushels”. We can saythat is 84,000,000 bushels. That means that the quantity of wheat on hand after the last harvest was delivered was 204,000,000 bushels.
The next question I asked the Minister was, “ What is the estimated quantity likely to be used in Australia for all purposes in the current wheat year? “ The answer to that question was, “ 74,000,000 bushels, made up of 59,000,000 bushels sold from the pool in Australia and 15,000,000 bushels estimated as held on farms “. That gives a total of 74,000,000 bushels. The next question was, “ Can any estimate be made of the volume of overseas sales of wheat, or wheat equivalent, for the current wheat year? “ The answer to that question was, “ 100,000,000 bushels “.
Summing up the position, I point out that there were 204,000,000 bushels of wheat in Australia after the last harvest was delivered. It is estimated that we will dispose of 174,000,000 bushels for home consumption and sales abroad, which will leave in Australia, at 1st November next, for carry-over purposes, only 30,000,000 bushels. That estimate, I think, must be alarming to any person who thinks about this position. The surpluses of which we have heard so much in the Senate to-night will certainly not exist in Australia. No one denies that huge surpluses have been built up overseas and that there is a marketing problem confronting the country because of those circumstances, but I suggest, in all sincerity, that we are faced with a possible wheat shortage in Australia.
No certainty exists in regard to the coming season. Every one interested in this matter is somewhat alarmed, at the present time, because of the lack of rain which is apparent throughout the wheatgrowing areas of Australia. From Western Australia, through South Australia, to the wheat-growing areas of Victoria and New South Wales, there has not yet been an opening to the season. If the wheat season is a failure this year, we have only 30,000,000 bushels, and the position could arise, as it did in 1946, when we restricted wheat acreages, that we will have to import wheat. That is all I have to say in regard to this measure.
– In the years 1944, 1945 and 1946, the wheat failures were caused through adverse seasons.
– We also had restriction of acreages. The point I am making is that it is now suggested we should once again restrict acreages in Australia. Whatever may be my opinion in regard to restriction at any time, I do hold the opinion most decidedly that this current year, in view of the wheat situation in Australia, is not the time to suggest a further restriction of acreages. I will not be a party to that, with due deference to Sir John Teasdale, in view of the rather alarming situation which confronts us at this time. I think it would be ridiculous, if not fatal, to advocate a policy of restriction of acreages at the present time. If we have a bad season - and God forbid we should - that 30,000,000 bushels to which I have referred as being our surplus, could easily be used to hand-feed stock, which would immediately bring to an end any surplus that exists in Australia. I do hope that we will not hear in this Senate, while this position exists, at any rate, any advocacy of a restriction of acreages. I was very glad to hear my colleague, Senator Wade, assure us that he did not support that programme. I cannot support it either, in view of the statistical position I have endeavoured to place before the Senate.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
– Is it the pleasure of the committee that the bill be taken as a whole?
– No.
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 (Moneys to be paid into the account).
.- The clause reads - (1.) There shall be paid into the Account -
As I mentioned in my speech in the debate on the motion for the second reading of the bill, I see no mention of an intention by the Government to pay a specified amount into this fund. There certainly have been statements by Ministers, both here and in another place, to the effect that the Government will contribute, but unlike the legislation relating to research in the wool and tobacco industries, the bill does not specify that the Government shall contribute. I should like the Minister to make some explanation in regard to this matter.
– The provision which is relevant to the payment of money by the Commonwealth into the account is the proposed section 5, which reads, in part - (l.) There shall be paid into the Account -
Those moneys will be appropriated year by year by the government of the day, and, in terms of the agreement reached in negotiation with the wheat-growers’ organization, that amount will range up to a contribution of £1 for each £1 paid in by the wheatgrowers.
– Thank you.
Clause agreed to.
Remainder of bill - by leave - taken as a whole.
.- Clause 7 reads - (1.) Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, amounts standing to the credit of the account kept in accordance with sub-section (1.) of the last preceding section may be paid out of the Account, with the approval of the Minister . . . (2.) The Minister shall not exercise his power under the last preceding sub-section to approve the payment of moneys from the Account unless -
The bill further provides what the committee shall do in the way of training persons, distributing literature, and so on.
I should like the Minister to inform the committee how it will be possible to discriminate between the vast amount of work that is performed now by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, State Departments of Agriculture, and universities, and the additional research to be undertaken later. As we know, a vast amount of research is now being performed and the results are distributed widely. I am interested to know how this provision will work out when the bill becomes law.
– The moneys paid into the trust account which this bill will establish, will be expended on research which is additional to the research which in the past has been conducted, as the honorable senator said, by State authorities, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, and universities. That latter research, and the cost of it, is known. The additional research which will be paid for from this trust account will no doubt be decided upon, and the cost of it approved in advance, by the committees referred to in the bill.
.- I take it that the organizations at present in existence, including the State Departments of Agriculture and universities, will co-operate with the research committees in the States, and so with the council, and from the latter fresh information will come.
– Yes.
– It is very difficult to see where the work of one will end and of the other begin, because a discovery of some moment may be made by a State authority and perhaps some work may be published. It is very difficult to determine where the line of demarcation will really lie.
– The explanation that I offer springs from the co-operation which has already been expressed by all parties interested in reaching this agreement, and which will most certainly continue afterwards. I realize that the line of demarcation may present some slight difficulty, but in an amalgamation of all interests in perfect amity, as in this instance, I do not think that the difficulties will be substantial.
– There is no possibility of one getting out and leaving it to the other.
– No. It is provided that this will be additional research.
Remainder of bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 933
Debate resumed from 20th May (vide page 840), on motion by Senator Paltridge–
That the bill be now read a second time.
.- As agreed upon earlier, this bill was debated simultaneously with the measure that preceded it. This bill will provide the ways and means whereby a tax can be collected to implement the decisions contained in the previous bill. The Opposition has no objection to the measure and will not oppose it.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
– In his second-reading speech, the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) indicated that the tax would be retrospective insofar as the 1956-57 wheat pool was concerned. Clause 4 of the bill states -
A tax is imposed, and shall be levied and paid, upon wheat -
which has been delivered to the Board on or after the first day of October, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-six, and before the date of commencement of this Act; or
which is delivered to the Board on or after that date.
Clause 6 (3.) states -
The first payment of tax shall be made by the Board within fourteen days after the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and fiftyseven, and shall be in respect of all wheat delivered to the Board up to and including that first day of July, being wheat in respect of which tax is payable.
I assume that this indicates that the tax of a farthing a bushel will operate in respect of future payments from the pool. The first advance from the pool has been paid and is in the hands of the growers. Therefore the tax, which is retrospective in respect of this pool, must be deducted by the Australian Wheat Board from any subsequent advance. I take it that that is what clause 4 refers to, and that the amount will be paid before 1st July next. The farmers will probably be glad to know that an advance is to be paid this year and they will remember that the tax will be deducted from the subsequent advance. Can the Minister clear up for me the difficulty I have in my mind as to how the tax will be paid in respect of the 1956-57 pool?
– The tax in respect of the current pool will be deducted from the next advance to the growers which will be made some months from now. The honorable senator is not correct in assuming that the advance will be paid in July of this year. The tax will be deducted from the next advance to the grower.
– Clause 6 (3.) states that the first payment of tax shall be made by the board within fourteen days after the first day of July, 1957. I submit that there is no wheat which is taxable prior to 1st July except the wheat delivered into the 1956-57 pool. It cannot be cleared by 1st July obviously because the advance has not been paid.
– I am sorry that I misunderstood the honorable senator’s question the first time. The Australian Wheat Board will pay the tax and will subsequently deduct it from advances to the growers.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without requests; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 934
Debate resumed (vide page 914).
– The bill that is now before the chamber is one to amend the Flax Fibre Bounty Act 1954. The bounty then provided was to operate for a period of two years only. We have the advantage in considering this measure of the presentation to us of the Tariff Board’s report on flax fibre dated February of this year. The board recommended an extension of the bounty for a further three years on the expiration of the initial twoyear period, but the Government has decided to review the whole economic position of the flax industry. It purports, under the bill, to extend the bounty for one year only at present, but on the general terms that were specified by the Tariff Board.
The amount involved in payment of the bounty has not been substantial in the two years of its currency. It amounted to £49,022 up to 31st October, 1951, and to £61,661 to 31st October, 1956. In respect of that year, there is an amount of approximately £4,000 outstanding which will be added to the total I have just quoted. The bill provides that the total amount to be paid in a year, instead of being limited as at present to £70,000 should, for the year that the present bill proposes to operate, amount to £125,000. That will carry the industry up to 31st October next.
Hitherto, the basis of the payment of bounty has been upon flax produced and sold in Australia. Difficulties have been encountered in identifying flax produced in one year, and not sold for some considerable time, to determine the quantum of appropriate bounty. One of the fundamental changes in administration that the bill proposes to make is to shift the basis from production and transfer it to sales effected. That appears to be a good administrative measure.
The Tariff Board has covered the position thoroughly. The Opposition recognizes both the economic and strategic importance of flax to Australia. It approves the bill. In those circumstances, I do not propose to canvass the many interesting features of this industry that are traversed in the Tariff Board’s report. The recommendations of the board appear on page 11 of the report and there are six of them. All three features that are relevant have been incorporated in the bill. The one major change is the restriction of the bill’s operation to one year instead of three. In the circumstances I shall content myself with the comment that the Opposition supports the measure.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 935
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (onmotion by Senator Paltridge) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill he now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to provide funds for scientific and economic research in the wool industry. It gives effect to an agreement already reached between the Government and Australian wool-grower organizations on this matter.
In introducing this bill the Government is mindful of the vital role the wool industry has played and must continue to play in the development and expansion of our economy. Our export income from wool this year will be about £500,000,000, more than 50 per cent of all export earnings. Wool is also Australia’s outstanding dollarearner, contributing over one-half of Australian dollar earnings from all merchandise exports. In the last five years wool has accounted for 8 per cent. of the gross national production - easily the biggest single item.
The history of our balance of payments problem in recent years has largely been the history of wool. As wool prices fell from 80d. in 1953-54 to 70d. and then to 60d. so our balance of payments problem increased with consequent severe tightening of import restrictions. This year with wool prices again back to 80d. we have been able to afford substantial relaxation of import restrictions. Behind these price movements there has been an impressive increase in the volume of wool produced and exported. Without this expanded volume our troubles might have been worse and our success of this year not so striking. As far as can be seen into the future, wool will maintain this dominant role in our balance of payments situation and through it our prospects for expansion and development. Wool is truly the mainspring of our economy.
The value of research, both scientific and economic, in this great industry must be obvious. Its contribution can be seen in the marked production increases of recent years and it is true to say that insofar as the quality of the clip has been improved, research has also influenced wool values.
One of the most remarkable features of the development of our highly efficient wool industry is the extent of the achievement of the wool-growers themselves. It is to them that most of the credit for the development of the merino as a breed, which is renowned throughout the world, is due. Any money spent on research to aid an industry whose initiative has been such a major factor in carrying Australia’s economic development to its present level is, in my view, money well spent.
The bill we are now considering results from a joint approach by the Government and the wool industry to the problem of ensuring adequate funds for wool research. The funds previously available would have been soon exhausted by even the modest scale of the present research programme. It was therefore decided to discuss with wool industry organizations what should be done to obtain the necessary funds. The facts were put before the industry representatives and the implications explained. It was pointed out that since 1945 when the present wool research programme was introduced, the funds provided for the programme had proved totally inadequate.
These funds consisted of the Government’s contribution of 2s. a bale of shorn wool produced in Australia paid into the
Wool Research Trust Account established under the Wool Use Promotion Act 1945, and the interest from the investment of moneys in the Wool Industry Fund. The latter fund was set up in 1946 with a capital of approximately £7,000,000 from moneys accumulated by the war-time Central Wool Committee from its activities in nonparticipating wool, wool tops and sheepskins under the war-time acquisition scheme. However, by 1953, the funds thus available were not sufficient to meet the increased costs of the wool research programme and the deficits were covered by drawing on capital from the Wool Industry Fund. This fund has been reduced from a peak of £7,800,000 in June, 1952, to £6,700,000 in June, 1956, and an estimated £6,100,000 in June, 1957. On the basis of planned expenditure, the whole Wool Industry Fund would disappear within seven years. The rapid expansion in expenditure on wool research stemmed from both the extension of the wool research programme and the rise in costs which has occurred since 1945.
It is the purpose of this legislation to ensure a continuing flow of funds sufficient to finance a level of research commensurate with the importance of this industry. Continuity is essential since many projects are of a long-term nature. Quite large sums have already been spent on laboratories, buildings, field stations and the like, and if full value is to be realized from this investment, operational funds must be available. There is also the very serious problem of continuity of employment for the highly qualified research staff.
Above all, if wool is to maintain a worthwhile share of the textile fibre market in the face of competition from artificial fibres, it is imperative that the research programme be expanded. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, which is responsible for the greatest part of the wool research programme, has made it clear that unless additional funds are made available, the present programme will have to be heavily cut. The loss to the wool industry and to our economy which this would involve will be appreciated if we recall the benefits which the work of the C.S.I.R.O., often in association with universities, and other bodies, has already brought. The introduction of myxomatosis is perhaps the most spectacular single scientific advance with which the C.S.I.R.O. has been associated. There are few people who are not aware of what this has meant to Australia in terms of added rural production and export income.
Large tracts of hitherto little-used land have been brought to high levels of production by the application of trace elements in which they were deficient. Millions of acres have been sown down to improved pastures over the last ten years. There has been a steady improvement in our knowledge and in the control of sheep diseases. More recently, publicity has been given to the work on the control of water evaporation in semi-arid areas, which could be of vital importance to wool-growers.
In the field of wool textile research, the development of scourable branding fluids has enabled wool textile manufacturers to effect considerable savings which have been reflected in higher prices paid for tar-free wool. New techniques and processes have been developed in the fields of wool scouring, carbonizing and fellmongering. Promising results have been obtained in work on moth-proofing, shrinkproofing and permanent pleating of wool fabrics.
The contributions made by scientific research to the prosperity of the wool industry are widely appreciated. But the role of economic research is no less essential. Not all the results of scientific research have immediate economic application. On the production side, there is a continuous need for improving farm management methods and for adapting them to the changing technological environment. There is a continuous need for up-to-date information and economic analysis of the implications of the research findings, for example, the economics of pasture improvement, the relative profitability of fat-lamb raising as against merino wool growing on such pastures, the economics of drought feeding, to name but a few.
At the same time, on the consumption side, the need is ever present for accurate study of the changing trends of consumers’ expenditures, the effect on such expenditures of changes in income and changes in tastes as they affect the demand for wool. Especially is it of . vital importance to keep in close touch with the latest developments in synthetic fibres and the economic implications for the wool industry of the ever sharpening competition between wool and the man-made products. Investigations carried out by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in recent years have done much to improve our understanding of the nature of the competition between wool and synthetic fibres and to assist us to shape production and research methods in such a way as to meet that threat.
Even with these developments over the whole range of wool research, it is imperative that efforts continue to increase the quantity and quality of our wool clip.
I invite the attention of the Senate to the specific provisions of the bill and the alterations which will be required in the existing legislation:
Based on the current level of wool production, the Wool Research Trust Fund should receive about £1,700,000 each year. Since this is slightly in excess of the current level of expenditure, it should prove adequate for the current programme and at the same time allow some room for expansion. As the size of the clip grows so will the income of the fund.
Consideration has been given to the requests of several organizations that they be permitted to nominate representatives to the committee. The requests have been carefully considered but the Government has come to the conclusion that the composition of the committee mentioned in the bill is both adequate and representative.
New arrangements for wool research and extension already outlined will necessitate the repeal of the Wool Industry Fund Act 1946, and provision is made for this in the bill. In addition, the existing Wool Tax Acts Nos. 1 and 2 of 1952 will have to be repealed and replaced with new acts permitting the collection of the industry levy for wool research in addition to the present wool promotion levy. Consequential amendments will need to be made to the Wool Tax Assessment Act 1936-1953, and the Wool Use Promotion Act 1953 will also require some amendments in this connexion. Separate bills will be introduced covering these amendments.
In the course of negotiations the Australian Wool Growers Council expressed the desire that the rate of the levy be reviewed at the end of June, 1960. This is a reasonable request and the Government proposes to undertake this review in due course, and to take into account any recommendations then made by the wool-grower organizations. The Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation wishes to see the resources of the Wool Industry Fund maintained at the level of at least £500,000,000 in the event of the wool industry finding itself in difficult times with growers desiring to temporarily suspend their contributions. However, it will be the function of the Wool Research Committee, which will have a wool-grower majority, to recommend how money should be expended, and it will be in their hands to determine whether the capital of the new fund is drawn upon or run down.
In concluding, I emphasize that in the battle of the fibres, scientific research geared to strengthening the position of wool is a major weapon. Synthetic fibre interests are spending an estimated £20,000,000 a year on research and development of their fibres. Wool interests - and this means Australia - must match this type of programme. I consider that the provisions of the additional finance for wool research by the Government and the industry is a small premium to pay for what may be justly called an insurance of national prosperity and future economic development. In the broad direction of the wool research programme, the new Wool Research Committee will undertake a task of vital importance and great responsibility. I am confident that it will discharge this task in the best interests of the woolgrowers and the community. I commend the bill to honorable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 938
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Paltridge) read a first time.
.- I move -
That the bill be now read a second. time.
The Wool Tax Bill (No. 1) 1957 and the Wool Tax Bill (No. 2) 1957 will replace the Wool Tax Act (No. 1) of 1952 and the Wool Tax Act (No. 2) of 1952. The purpose of the Wool Tax Bills (Nos. 1 and 2) of 1957 is to provide for a maximum contribution of 2s. a bale, ls. a fadge or butt and 4d. a bag to be collected from woolgrowers on all shorn wool produced in Australia for the financing of wool research and extension. In addition, the bills will continue the provision for the collection of a contribution from wool-growers for the financing of wool use promotion within the minimum and maximum levels as provided under the Wool Tax Acts (Nos. 1 and 2) of 1952. The rate of contribution at present paid by wool-growers for this purpose is fixed at 4s. a bale, 2s. per fadge or butt, and 8d. a bag.
Under the present arrangement the wool tax is paid at a common rate either by brokers and dealers who have received wool, or by persons who export wool which has not previously been received by a broker or dealer. These arrangements will remain unchanged except that the rate of tax will be increased. Provision is made for the repeal of the existing Wool Tax Acts (Nos. 1 and 2) 1952 under the Wool Tax Assessment Bill 1957, which I propose to introduce separately.
Under the Wool Tax Bills (Nos. 1 and 2) of 1957, provision is made for the contributions paid by wool-growers for wool research and for wool promotion to be collected as one tax. However, the component parts for wool research and for wool promotion respectively will be separately prescribed. That part of the tax imposed for wool research will be prescribed upon the recommendation of the Australian Wool Growers Council and the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation. The part imposed for wool promotion will be prescribed upon the recommendation of the Australian Wool Bureau as previously.
It is proposed that the Wool Tax Bills (Nos. 1 and 2) 1957 will come into operation as from 1st July, 1957, in order to coincide with the beginning of the new financial year. As explained in my secondreading speech on the Wool Research Bill 1957, the Wool Tax Bills (Nos. 1 and 2) 1957 are necessary to give effect to the new arrangements in respect of the financing and administration of wool research which had been agreed upon between the Government and the wool-grower organizations. I commend the bill to honorable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 939
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Paltridge) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is similar in purpose and effect to the Wool Tax Bill (No. 1) 1957. I commend it to honorable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 939
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Paltridge) read a first time.
I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to introduce certain amendments to the Wool Tax Assessment Act 1936-1953. These amendments are consequential upon the Wool Tax Bills (Nos. 1 and 2) 1957, and involve minor alterations required to provide for the operation of the new tax acts. In addition, the bill provides for the repealof the
Wool Tax Acts (Nos. 1 and 2) 1952 as from 1st July. 1957. I commend the bill to honorable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 939
Bill received from the House of Representatives .
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Paltridge) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to introduce certainamendments to the Wool Use Promotion Act 1953, principally because of the new agreement reached with wool-grower organizations in respect of the financing and administration of wool research and extension. Effect is given to this agreement in the Wool Research Bill 1957, now before the Senate. In addition, however, the amendments also give effect to the Government’s decision to abolish the positions of Commonwealth Wool Adviser and Deputy Commonwealth Wool Adviser.
The office of Commonwealth Wool Adviser was first established under the Wool Use Promotion Act 1945. The principal purpose of creating this office was to see that the various phases of economic and technical wool research and publicity were closely integrated and to ensure full application of the results of research to the industry.
The office of Deputy Commonwealth Wool Adviser was first established by ministerial direction in 1952. This position was created to assist the Wool Adviser in carrying out his functions. Both positions were continued under the Wool Use Promotion Act 1953. However, owing to the various changes, particularly in recent years, which have occurred in the functions of the Wool Adviser and Deputy Wool Adviser, brought about largely by changes in the functions of the respective bodies charged with the responsibility of wool publicity and research, it is now apparent that the two positions are no longer required.
As a result of these changes, the position obtains to-day where the office of Wool Adviser is confined largely to representing the Government on the Australian Wool Bureau, while that of the Deputy Wool Adviser is the chairmanship of the existing Wool Research Committee. In this capacity, the Deputy Wool Adviser is responsible for the co-ordination and oversight of the wool research programme.
Provision is made in the Wool Research Bill 1957 for the constitution of an advisory body whose function will be to recommend the expenditure of moneys on wool research and to ensure the co-ordination and application of the results of such research. The establishment of this body will thus take care of the functions of the office of Deputy Wool Adviser and, accordingly, the position will no longer be required. Further, as the duties of the Wool Adviser are, in effect, confined to representing the Government on the Australian Wool Bureau, there is no necessity for maintaining the position. The Government will, however, continue to be represented on the bureau and provision is made for this in the amending legislation.
The proposed changes which I have outlined will necessitate the deletion of all sections as well as references relating to the Commonwealth Wool Adviser and Deputy Commonwealth Wool Adviser from the Wool Use Promotion Act 1953.
As a result of the new arrangements for the financing and administration of wool research which are the subject of the Wool Research Bill 1957, some further amendments will be necessary. Since woolgrowers have not hitherto contributed to wool research in Australia, the existing legislation provides for all moneys collected from wool-growers under the wool tax acts to be paid into the Wool Use Promotion Fund. The moneys in this fund are, in turn, used by the Australian Wool Bureau mainly for the promotion of wool by publicity and other means. As wool-growers will in the future be contributing to wool research as well as wool promotion, and as both contributions will be jointly collected under the new Wool Tax Acts (Nos. 1 and 2) of 1957, it is necessary to amend the appropriate section of the Wool Use
Promotion Act 1953 in order to specify the amount which is to be paid into the Wool Use Promotion Fund.
In addition, it is proposed to delete that section of the present act which relates to the Wool Research Trust Account in order that this account may be amalgamated with the new Wool Research Trust Fund, as envisaged by the Wool Research Bill 1957. As a result of the deletion of this section, some minor consequential amendments will also be required. I commend the bill to honorable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 940
– I move -
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till to-morrow, at 11 a.m.
In explanation of this motion I inform the Senate that I do not propose immediately to move for the adjournment of the Senate. This motion is put forward now to avoid the position that would arise if the sitting were continued until 11 p.m. when, under the Standing Orders, it would be necessary for the motion “That the Senate do now adjourn “ to be put. If that motion were agreed to in those circumstances the Senate would adjourn until 3 p.m.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 940
Debate resumed (vide page 915).
– As the title of this bill indicates, it is a measure designed to amend the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act. It is largely a machinery bill, but associated with it are two other measures. One of them relates to the Australian Antarctic Territory and the other to Heard Island and the McDonald Islands. It might save time if I referred to the two complementary bills in connexion with the measure now before us. They could then be dealt with separately without further comment by me. I suggest that leave be given to deal with the three bills together.
– There being no objection, leave is granted.
– As I have said, this is a machinery measure. It has three main purposes which spill over into a number of minor amendments. If I barely indicate the main purposes of the bill, that should suffice. I indicate at this stage that the Opposition supports this measure.
The first main purpose of the bill is to permit the regulation of the practice and procedure of the court by an ordinance. There is doubt whether that would be valid if done under the present act, which provides that the court may make Rules of Court in relation to its practice and procedure. It is thought that that may be a power vested exclusively in the court. Obviously, in many matters, substantive law and legal procedure are very closely intermingled. Apart from other considerations, it is a matter of convenience that the two things - the substantive law and the ancillary procedure - should be merged in one measure. That can conveniently be done by ordinance. There is no difficulty from a parliamentary point of view, on the part of the Opposition, in that the ordinance affecting the practice and procedure of a Supreme Court will be available to the Parliament for consideration and, if so desired, for disallowance. The Opposition, therefore, approves that first main purpose.
The second main purpose concerns a matter of criminal law. In regard to criminal informations that may be filed by the Attorney-General against an individual, it simply brings the law in the Territory, and the Attorney-General’s position in relation to it, completely into line with the broad Commonwealth law in criminal matters, and in line also with the criminal law of the States. No major matters are concerned. The bill, in that respect, is largely procedural, and there is no objection to the proposals on the part of the Opposition.
The third main purpose is purely of a machinery character. It simply provides for the appointment of a deputy registrar of the Supreme Court in the Australian Capital Territory. Those provisions in relation to the making of an ordinance apply to the other two bills to which I have referred - one dealing with the Australian Antarctic Territory and the other with Heard Island and the McDonald Islands. The broad fact is that the law of the Australian Capital Territory applies in those areas because the Supreme Court of the Territory has jurisdiction in those areas. By reason of the changes that are now being made in relation to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, similar and consequential arrangements need to be made in the law affecting the other two Territories.
There is one additional provision in rr*, other two bills, namely, that the prerogative of clemency in relation to offences in those Territories may be exercised by the Governor-General. The Opposition has no objection to the Government’s proposals.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 941
Debate resumed (vide page 915).
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
HEARD ISLAND AND McDONALD ISLANDS BILL 1957.
Debate resumed (vide page 916).
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 941
Debate resumed (vide page 917).
– This is a proposal to amend the High Commissioner (United Kingdom) Act. The first act was passed in 1909. Amongst other things the bill fixes the salary of the High Commissioner in the United Kingdom. No change took place in that salary until 1952 when, although a change was made, it was a very minor one and is to-day completely out of relation to the realities of the position. Instead of continuing the fixation of the salary of that office by the act itself, thus requiring a consequential act of this nature, it is proposed under the bill that in future the salary of that office be determined by the Governor-General. The Opposition has no objection to that. The matter will come up for review in annual appropriations in the Parliament. We think it is a more flexible approach to the matter and is in line with what is done in comparable offices under the Parliament.
The second main purpose of the bill is to re-arrange the basis upon which the terms and conditions of the staff of the High Commissioner are determined. At the present time the act provides that the High Commissioner is to make appointments to his staff in accordance with instructions from the Minister. The proposal now is that the terms and conditions of employment in the High Commissioner’s office be laid down in regulations. I think that is a more satisfactory method from every viewpoint. It gives certainty to the staff. Some detailed provisions are included in the bill providing for superannuation and various other important rights of the staff. The Minister, of course. will still have authority, but he must present the matter through the Executive Council, after Cabinet submission, to the Governor-General. The regulations will come under review in the Parliament. The Opposition has no objection to this second main purpose of the bill.
The third main purpose is purely a machinery amendment but nevertheless a necessary one to permit the appointment of an Acting High Commissioner. That is obviously necessary in these modern days when the High Commissioner is called upon to perform many functions and undertake a good deal of travelling. His duties very often take him away from the United Kingdom to Europe. At the moment it is not possible to provide for an Acting High Commissioner during his absence. The bill proposes to rectify that defect. I offer no further comment. The Opposition does not oppose the passage of the measure.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
Senate adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 May 1957, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1957/19570521_senate_22_s10/>.