Senate
5 September 1957

22^nd Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS
QUESTION
- CIVIL DEFENCE
QUESTION
- HOUSING FOR DEFENCE PERSONNEL
QUESTION
- SOIL EROSION
QUESTION
- GOVERNMENT LOANS AND FINANCE
QUESTION
- DIESEL FUEL TAX
QUESTION
- MICA
QUESTION
- NUCLEAR BOMB TESTS;
QUESTION
- EMPLOYMENT OF IMMIGRANTS
QUESTION
- ORD RIVER RESEARCH STATION
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH1 PROPERTY
QUESTION
- EMPLOYMENT OF IMMIGRANTS
QUESTION
- PORT AUGUSTA-BROKEN HILL RAILWAY
QUESTION
- SHIPPING
QUESTION
- UNIDENTIFIED SUBMAKINES IN NORTHERN AUSTRALIAN WATERS
QUESTION
- MERINO SHEEP
QUESTION
- MEDICAL BENEFITS SCHEME
QUESTION
- POLIOMYELITIS
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES
REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
WINE GRAPES CHARGES BILL 19S7
- Second Reading
SALARIES (STATUTORY OFFICES) ADJUSTMENT BILL 1957
- Second Reading
COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION BILL 1957
- Second Reading
NATIONAL SERVICE BILL (No. 2) , 1957
- Second Reading
WINE GRAPES CHARGES BILL 1957
- Second Reading
NATIONAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION BILL 1957
QUESTION
- JAPANESE TRADE AGREEMENT
TARIFF BOARD
- Annual Report
QUESTION
- AIRCRAFT ‘PRODUCTION
QUESTION
- SHEEP RAISING IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- NORTH-WEST OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- SHIPPING
QUESTION
- SHIPPING FREIGHTS
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

– This matter comes within the. orbit of my colleague, the: Minister for the Interior, whom I represent in this chamber. I do not think that the honorable senator is quite right in saying, that the tenants have received, very short notice. The Public Works Committee dealt with this matter two or three years ago, and the tenants have been fully aware of. what was happening: for a considerably, longer period than he has suggested. The committee recommended’ that the construction of the new. building be undertaken immediately because a. number of Commonwealth departments were occupying premises belonging to private enterprise, and to other non-Commonwealth. bodies. However, I shall ascertain the: facts relating to the tenancy and pass- them to the. honorable senator.

page 173

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OF IMMIGRANTS

Senator- TOOHEY. - In view of the reply given by the Minister for. National Development to Senator Sandford’s question on. the. numbers of unemployed at migrant centres, are we to take it that he refuses to give the information sought?’

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– It is not my habit to refuse to give information. I am afraid that I do not remember precisely what was asked. I regarded, the. question as somewhat frivolous and gave a somewhat frivolous answer.

page 173

QUESTION

PORT AUGUSTA-BROKEN HILL RAILWAY

Senator SEWARD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for Shipping and Transport give an assurance that before action is taken to construct a broad-gauge railway between Port Augusta and Broken Hill, as part of a scheme to connect the capital cities, the Senate will be given an opportunity to discuss the. matter?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The honorable senator’s question dips somewhat- into the future. Cabinet is at present examining rail and other forms of transport, and. the link to which the honorable senator refers will certainly receive due consideration. The honorable senator will be aware that there is in existence, an agreement between, the Government of South Australia and the. Commonwealth Government relating to the conversion of railways in that State to. standard gauge. One of its terms is that the- order and timing, of any conversion works undertaken in the State shall be a» matter for agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the South) Australian Government. I cannot give’ the’ specific, assurance that the honorable senator seeks, but I shall, keep his request in. mind.

page 173

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator WARDLAW:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister1 for Labour and National Service, upon notice -

Has the Minister’ seen the statement headed “ Maritime Unions’ Hush Money “ in a leading daily- newspaper dated 21st May, 1957, to the effect that- ship owners 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?
Willi the Minister investigate the statement and advise the. Senate on - (a) the truth or otherwise of. the statement; (b) the possibility of stand? over tactics being employed by Australian mari? time, unions; and. (c) the effect such tactics could have on interstate and. overseas freights and charges?. 3: If the statement is found to be true, will the Government take steps to declare such transactions illegal?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied the following answers: -

Yes.
Mr. Justice Foster, in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, in a judgment delivered on 29th May, provided some confirmation of the statement when he said that where an Australian ship is sold to an overseas buyer and an Australian crew is not employed, the maritime unions receive some payment. Following Mr. Justice Foster’s statement, Australian ship-owning interests denied that they had made any payments. Those denials have since been repeated. No representations whatever have been made to me on this matter by any shipping interests.

Who has made any payments and in what circumstances have not yet been established.. The Australian Council of Trades Unions is conducting, some, investigations of. the part played. in this by the. maritime unions. I. am. continuing to follow this whole matter, closely.

page 174

QUESTION

UNIDENTIFIED SUBMAKINES IN NORTHERN AUSTRALIAN WATERS

Senator SEWARD:

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

Is it a fact that an unidentified submarine was recently reported in Northern Australian waters, and that this was the second occasion on which an unidentified submarine was so reported as being in these waters within the last year or so?
ls it a fact that in each case a boat was sent out to verify the accuracy of the report, and, if so, why was not an aeroplane sent, in view of the fact that it could have reached the area specified in a matter of hours compared with a day or more taken by a boat?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for the Navy has supplied the following answer: -

lt is confirmed that there have been two recent reports in Northern Australian waters of sighting by civilians of objects which were reported to be submarines.
On the occasion of the first report a Royal Australian Navy survey vessel, M.S.L.252, which was operating only 8 miles away at the time of the reported sighting, made an intensive search of the area assisted by aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force. After searching for two days no evidence was found that a submarine was or had been in the area. On the occasion of the second sighting the Royal Australian Navy survey vessel, M.S.L.252, was operating some 45 miles distant from the location of the reported sighting. After proceeding to the spot and investigating this report, the captain of the ship, an experienced officer, gave his opinion that the object sighted was not a submarine. In both cases the sightings were in daylight close inshore where a submarine captain would know he would certainly be detected. It is considered certain that the objects were, in fact, large submerged tree trunks or other flotsam. It is by no means uncommon in naval experience that logs and the like often resemble closely a partly submerged submarine. Furthermore, these sightings occurred in poorly charted waters which experienced navigators, surface or submarine, would consider a hazard to the safety of their vessels. Whenever a sighting reported as a possible submarine is received, careful consideration is given to the advisability of surface and air search.

page 174

QUESTION

MERINO SHEEP

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

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

Is it a fact, as recently reported in the press, that the Woolgrowers Association has decided to approve of the sale and export of merino stud sheep?
Is it a fact that such sales could result in undesirable competition for Australian wool?
In view of the dominating position of wool in Australia’s export trade, will the Minister take steps to prohibit such exports?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following information: -

At a recent annual convention at Hobart, the Graziers Federal Council carried a resolution supporting the removal of the existing embargo on the export of breeding merino sheep from Australia. However, many country branches of that organization have since expressed disapproval of the council’s decision.
While there are two schools of thought on the subject, there is little doubt that such sales could result in undesirable competition.
The Government will not seriously consider removing the export restrictions on merino sheep until it is satisfied that a very great majority of Australian wool-growers favours such a move. That is not the position at present.

page 174

QUESTION

MEDICAL BENEFITS SCHEME

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Is it a fact that the subscriptions to some medical benefit societies have been increased?
Is it a fact that in cases of prolonged illness or major surgery people are still left largely unprotected?
Will the Minister examine the possibility of a scheme whereby the Government would accept responsibility for all medical expenses over a fixed amount in any one year, thus protecting persons with heavy expenses and eliminating heavy administrative costs connected with the payment of minor expenses?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– The Minister for Health has now furnished the following reply: -

Yes, but generally for new tables to provide higher benefits.
No.
It is not proposed to vary the present policy.

page 174

QUESTION

POLIOMYELITIS

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On 28th August, Senator Anderson asked the following question: -

Will the Minister representing the Minister for Health inform the Senate whether it is a fact that poliomyelitis experts from the leading countries of the world, including Australia, the United Kingdom and European countries, North American countries, including the United States of America and the Soviet Union, met at a recent conference of the World Health Organization at Geneva? Is it a fact that those experts agreed that there is a new live-virus vaccine which can be taken by mouth and which may well eventually completely eliminate all virulent forms of poliomyelitis in a much more spectacular and dramatic manner than has the Salk vaccine which is a dead-virus vaccine? Will the Minister inform the Senate what action is being taken in Australia towards the development of this new type of live-virus vaccine?

I have now been furnished with the following reply: -

The World Health Organization Expert Committee on poliomyelitis which includes amongst its members representatives from the countries named by the honorable senator, met in Geneva during July this year and amongst other things, considered the development of an attenuated livevirus vaccine for the prevention of poliomyelitis.

Eminent virologists of world standing who were not present at the World Health Organization Committee meeting, have, at different times, expressed doubts as to the safety of such a vaccine. In tests so far conducted it has been reported that’ the virus has reverted to virulence after a few passages through man.

The World Health Organization Committee so far has done no more than recommend that the new vaccine be tested under the most stringent precautions. The Committee recommends that until its complete harmlessness is proved it should be given only to a limited number of selected groups of persons. Meantime, the properties of the strains of virus used should be studied in a number of different laboratories throughout the world.

The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories at present are busy with the production of Salk vaccine and it is not proposed to impede the rate of production of this vaccine by undertaking the study or production of an attenuated virus vaccine until and unless the value of such a vaccine is demonstrated to justify this course.

page 175

QUESTION

TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On 28th August, Senator Wardlaw asked the following question: -

I direct a question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. In view of the great number of new telephone services being installed daily throughout Australia, amounting to many thousands annually, and in view of the buoyancy of telephone revenue, will the Minister consider printing supplementary telephone lists in each State at six-monthly periods, dating from the annual issue, which is available for distribution in August each year? This will not only give an improved service to subscribers, but may result in considerable saving to the Department.

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply: -

Although the Post Office has reviewed from time to time the question of issuing supplementary telephone lists, the conclusion has been reached on each occasion that any benefits which might be gained would not be justified by the substantial expenditure which would be incurred. Experience gained some years ago with supplementary lists, showed that the supplements were rarely consulted by telephone callers and that in many instances subscribers did not bother to retain them.

The main telephone directories in most overseas countries are issued once a year without supplements.

page 175

REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to inform the Senate that I have received a letter from Senator Byrne resigning his position as a member of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee.

Motion (by Senator O’sullivan) - by leave - agreed to -

That Senator Byrne be discharged from further attendance on the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to inform the Senate that I have received a letter from Senator McKenna nominating Senator Toohey to fill the vacancy on the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances caused by the resign* tion of Senator Byrne.

Motion (by Senator O’sullivan) - by leave - agreed to -

That Senator Toohey, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order No. 36a, be appointed to fill the vacancy now existing on the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

page 175

WINE GRAPES CHARGES BILL 19S7

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Wine Grapes Charges Act 1929-1954 by increasing the maximum rates of levy on grapes delivered to wineries and distilleries. The levies or “ charges “ made on fresh and dried grapes used in the wine industry have applied since 1929 and are designed to finance the activities of the Australian Wine Board, that is, its administrative costs and contributions to research and trade promotion. The rates of levy are varied from time to time after consideration of reports or recommendations of the board.

The act at present provides for maximum levies of 10s. per ton on fresh .”grapes. Where dried grapes are used for distillation the rate of levy is 30s. per ton, that is, three times the rate on fresh grapes. ProVision is made in the act for regulations to prescribe rates below the maximum if lower rates are desired. However, the present operative ‘rates are at the maximum, namely, 10s. and 30s. per ton. Since the annual wine grape crop is about 150,000 tons, this ‘levy yields an annual revenue of around £75,000. The act was last amended in 1 954. when .the ‘maximum rate for fresh grapes .was raised from 5s. to 10s. per ton. At the same’ time the board was authorized to use its funds for publicity in the Australian domestic market -as well as overseas. Honorable senators may wish -to know why a further .’amendment is now necessary.

The facts are that the ‘board has found that its publicity activities in Australia and the United Kingdom are producing such good results that it wishes to extend them. Publicity is costly and as a result of light vintages in 1955 and 1956 adversely affecting the board’s income, together with increased commitments for publicity in the United Kingdom, the board was obliged to suspend its Australian publicity campaign in 1956 ‘for lack of funds. This gap in the programme caused considerableconcern in the industry and led to the board’s request to the Government for an amendment of the act to increase the maximum rate of levy.

The Australian Wine Board, which comprises leading representatives of both winemakers ‘and growers, is doing excellent work in trade -promotion and in building a high reputation for our wines and brandies. It is working closely with the newly formed Wine Research Institute and contributes to the funds of the institute. Wine-making in Australia is one of our oldest primary industries, lt has been estimated that the capital investment involved in vineyards and wineries is of the order of £70,000,000. The return to the industry from sales of wine and brandy exceeds £8,000,000 a year. Directly and indirectly many thousands of people, including returned servicemen, are dependent on grapegrowing and wine-making for their employment. tEhe charge imposed on wine grapes is, in effect, .a tax levied by the industry upon itself, for its own -welfare. The money is collected by the Commonwealth and handed over -to - the Australian Wine Board. The increase now .proposed in the maximum levy from 10s. to 15s. per ton on fresh grapes and from 30s. to 45s. per ton on dried grapes is supported by the Wine Board and also by the principal industry organizations, namely, the Federal Grapegrowers Council, the South Australian Cooperative Winemakers Association and the -Federal Viticultural Council of Australia.

The passage of this bill will -enable the board to recommend new levy rates to apply to the 1958 .grape crop and future crops, having in mind the publicity and other activities of the board in Australia and overseas. The new rate could ‘be the ‘maximum or any ‘figure -below the ‘maximum prescribed in the act. If the maximum rate should be decided upon, then, on a vintage of 150,000 tons, the amount collected by way of levy for Australian Wine Board purposes would be £112,500. After providing for its administrative costs the board would be free to use the balance of this money as it thought fit for any purpose calculated to improve the quality or promote the sale in Australia or elsewhere of wine and brandy. The amounts that would be allocated to sales promotional activities within Australia and overseas respectively would be a matter for the board to determine on its own judgment.

The proposal is fully supported by the Government as well as by the industry itself. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Willesee) adjourned.

page 176

SALARIES (STATUTORY OFFICES) ADJUSTMENT BILL 1957

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Attorney-General · Queensland · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The main; purpose of the bill is to provide increased salaries to the holders of certain statutory offices as specified in the first schedule, namely, the- Auditor-General, Commonwealth Railways- Commissioner! the Commissioners of the Public Service Board, Public. Service Arbitrator, and Commissioner and Second Commissioner of Taxation. Provision is also made under section 182 of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act for an increase in the bulk sum from which the salaries and’ expenses of chairmen and members of the taxation boards of review are provided.

Following a general increase in Public Service salaries, in December, 1954, the salaries of statutory. office-holders. were similarly increased as from 1st January, 1955, by Act No. 18 of 1955. As a result of subsequent arbitration, action involving appeal by the Public Service Board to the Commonwealth Court, of Conciliation and Arbitration against an award of the PublicService Arbitrator, a- substantial further increase in Public Service salaries was awarded by the court with retrospective effect to December, 1954.

The Government did not, at that, time, take steps to provide for equivalent increases in the salaries of statutory office-holders, and this has led to a shrinking of’ marginal salary, which the Government now considers should’ be restored with effect: from 1st July, 1957. The. increase, is. £500 in. each case. The additional provision under section 182 of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act is designed, to cover increased- salaries and. travelling allowance for the chairmen, and members of taxation boards of review. The individual salary increase will be £750, and the new level of remuneration will be £4,500. per annum for the chairmen and £4,000 for the members. There are three chairmen and six members of these, boards. The second schedule lists the various acts which will be amended by this bill. h commend: the bill to the Senate.

Senator McKENNA (Tasmania - Leader has no. particular enthusiasm for the measure, but will not oppose it. We recognize that there is a necessity to preserve the margins of our top executives. We recognize, too, that it is essential to pay them well in order to prevent their defection to private industry, but we query whether, under proper government administration, there> should be a necessity for very substantial: increases of this kind on top of the much, higher ones that have been granted in recent years. Pursuant- to this measure, increases* of- £750 and £500 are to be granted- and-, made somewhat retrospective. It is an; indication; I suggest, of how miserably the Government has failed to control inflationin this country that the rises that have taken, place and those, that are now proposed should be necessary. However, I- have- indicated that it is., not the intention of the: Opposition to vote against the measure, and I do not propose to take up- the- time of the chamber, with further comment upon it.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

, - I wish to refer to the terms of the bilL In the first place, I regret what I consider to be an irresponsible attitude on the part of the Opposition to the bill. The actual money involved is not great, but- the officesthat are referred to are. of great importance, not only intrinsically, but also as an- index-, of the trend in other high offices of the Public Service. One of the chief defects of the bill is that it. refers only to statutory.offices but does not, on the face of it, show that there goes step by step with it an executive act which raises the salaries of the holders of probably twice the number of offices that are referred to in the measure.

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

– I do not quite follow the honorable senator.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I shall make the point quite clear. Through the infinite courtesy of the Public Service Board and of my leader, I have been furnished with a statement showing the salaries of- permanent, heads of Commonwealth* departments from’ 1st July, 1947, to 1st July, 1957.. With the concurrence of honorable senators;. L shall have the statement incorporated- in “ Hansard “. It is as- follows: -

lt must be remembered that, accompanying the increases for which statutory provision is made, there will be an increase for the secretary of the Department of Air from £4,500 to £5,000 and for the secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department from £5,500 to £6,000.

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

– Would they not be shown in the Estimates and budget-papers that were before the Senate earlier in the week?

Senator WRIGHT:

– Yes. In my despairing struggle to understand that mountain of figures, my simple mind gets relief by isolating these significant increases into separate terms on a day other than that on which we consider the budget. If it is suggested by my very valued colleague, Senator Byrne, that everything that goes into the budget-papers receives adequate attention during the truncated budget procedures of this legislature, the outlook is dismal, because he has a much keener perception of the significance of these things than have most people. He has come from the recent attempt at the destruction of parliamentary government in Queensland, of which he was a victim, and that I say, with no lack of sympathy whatever, is a cruel reminder of the way in which the parliamentary authority that I am striving to maintain by my advocacy on this bill is being submerged, surrendered and betrayed.

The fact is that the Executive has decided to increase the salaries of a large number of important office-holders in addition to those for which provision is made in the bill. I have referred to the proposed increases for the secretary of the Department of Air and the secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department. All the other heads of departments are listed, and salary increases of £500 from £4,500 to £5,000 and from £5,500 to £6,000 are shown. In a state of liberal government, which, has as its fundamental creed the belief that the independence of the individual is best secured by the right of ownership of a modicum of private property and, against executive and parliamentary act, by the independence of judicial institutions, it is a sobering reminder that those people who, by virtue of executive act and pursuant to the terms of this bill if it is agreed to, will receive an increase from £4,000 to £5,000 a year will suffer a deduction of £505 from that £1,000 for income tax purposes. Those whose salaries rise from £5,000 to £6,000 will suffer a deduction for income tax purposes of £550.

It will be noted that, following the effect of inflation buoying the smaller brackets up into the shearing scales of income tax, which has been maintained steadily during a period of inflation, we are, in fact, offering an illusory increase of remuneration to men of responsibility. To do so is completely destructive, because proper remuneration to men of responsibility in private enterprise and in public office is one of the very things for which every member of the community, particularly the proletariat, should strive.

I am protesting against the waste that is involved in illusory increases of this sort which destroy, as they do, our economy vis-a-vis our trade with other countries. I say these things more in compassion than in anger; but the situation is that the AttorneyGeneral (Senator O’sullivan), who introduced the measure, and those who sit with him adopt an attitude towards it only of regret, because the fact is that all this stems from the control, over which the Government has no power, that is exercised by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission over wage levels. Because of the silly statistical system that is used to measure the cost of living, the thing went haywire between 1950 and 1953 without being arrested. The Public Service Arbitrator, who has been given jurisdiction over the field of service in which the Commonwealth Government has absolute, .unqualified power, has felt completely impotent to do anything but to follow in the wake of the arbitration machinery. It will be remembered that when -the arbitrator awarded the twoandahalf times margin to make allowance for skills within the Public Service, an appeal was .taken to -the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. .The .court reduced :the arbitrator’s allowance to bring the increases more -in line with the ideas of the Public Service Board. As an indication of what happened, in December, 1954, the Public Service Board fixed certain salaries .at £4,400 after the court had decided, following the appeal from the decision of the .arbitrator, that the office-holders concerned .should get £4,750. Under the decision of - the .arbitrator, they would have received about £5,500. I .mention these matters because they display the ineffectual attempt that. has been made to grapple with the situation, first by the Public Service Board, .and then :by the Government, which has authorized the introduction of this bill. What I am pointing out is that, not only:this Parliament but also this Government has lost control of these significant matters.

The next point I want to make is that this is ‘a particularly important factor affecting the mutual relationships between the -State services and the Commonwealth. If honorable -senators consider -an authority such as the -Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority, for which T have-had an abiding enthusiasm from its very inception, they .will .find there .salaries that .are >allied to those of .persons who .live .near .this extravagant .bakery and the Commonwealth budget and, therefore, get the best bread. The rates .paid simply make the salaries offered by the State electricity commissions look silly. ‘If we. compare salaries paid by the States with, those paid by .the Commonwealth, we find this .comparison of salaries paid to the.Solicitor-General in. each case -

I invite honorable senators to compare the salaries -.paid -to the -public service commissioners in the various States. They rs - -That is a -good indication of the relative salaries paid to the public service com- -missioner in each State. We propose to advance the salary df the chairman o’f the

Commonwealth Public Service .Board from £5,500 to £6;000. In my view, this disparity arises from the imbalance that exists between the revenues that are .available to the States and those that are arrogated to itself .by the Commonwealth Government, irrespective of its party complexion. .That is producing a disparity -of remuneration which, of course, will have its effect upon a sense of responsibility. Its effect is to dwarf and starve the State services and create an overwhelming growth in the Commonwealth Public -Service.

Senator Hannaford:

– Does not the honorable senator .think .that the ratio is fairly reasonable?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I certainly do not. If I had the -time to go through other categories of the -Public Service, a similar trend would be found.

The next thing J want, to .say by way of criticism .of .this -bill ,is .not intended :to be an adverse reference to other officers. I am amazed that the. Auditor-General of the Commonwealth is classified for .a salary of only £5,000 when .the chairman of the Commonwealth Public Service Board is to be classified at £6,000. I regard .the Auditor-General as the special authority trusted by. the Parliament to .scrutinize and criticize all government accounts. .It is a tribute to the succession of AuditorsGeneral that we have had, at any -rate since I have been in* this chamber, independent criticism -stemming ‘from ‘the -pen of the Auditor-General year ‘by year. ‘On some occasions, ‘I have -noticed that -he -has reported certain matters for the sixteenth time - faint but pursuing. That we should permit this pseudo state df affairs to continue is a matter not for mirth “but for mellow introspection. However, the Auditor-General perseveres with independent criticism as is ‘his duty. That is- an independence that should be assured, not only by ‘security of tenure, but also by an emolument of office next only to the judiciary. I protest against a classification of the office of ‘the Auditor-General on that inferior status.

I want to say that it .is unfortunate that the bill presents to us the claims for members of ‘the taxation boards of review in the rather half-expressed way that it does. As I understand it, ian .increase is -to be made in a bloc vote. The provision is difficult ito find quickly with any exactitude because it is contained in -clause 3 (2.), which conveys the intention .to us innocently in [these words - (2.) ‘Section one hundred and eighty-two of the income Tax and Social ‘Services -Contribution -Assessment Act 1936-1956 is amended by omitting the ‘words “ Thirty-five thousand pounds “ and inserting in their stead the words “ Forty-three thousand pounds “.

The Minister’s second-reading speech explains that that means that the chairmen and .all members of the boards will be granted an increase of £750. I suppose that those two boards have impressed every section of the community with which they have .come in contact with their judicial independence .and their [complete competence. They are mot judicial ‘boards ‘in the strict sense, but they are so in their ‘factual performance -of ‘authority. 4 am amazed that officers discharging the responsibility imposed on ‘members of these boards are *o be remunerated at the ‘level of :£4,’500 at a time when ‘the ‘Chairman of the Public Service Board is :to :be advanced to £6,000.

As the Opposition ‘is .not opposing the measure, it is useless :for me to move the amendment I Should ;have ‘desired. My attitude could be .crystallized in the statement that -I believe that all the changes proposed ‘in the schedule of the bill, except those that relate -to the Auditor-General and the Commissioner of Taxation, should be .expunged. .As to the others, without singling :them out and without making a personal reference .of any kind, having regard to State levels -of salary, the cost structure -of the nation and the need for somebody to take -the responsibility to stabilize, not merely taxation concessions in ‘budgets “but also the .cost of government: I believe that the proposed increases are unwarranted.

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

.I had intended to express a .point of view on -the same lines as those voiced toy Senator Wright, but with a slightly different conclusion. I -have been concerned for a considerable time by the relative imbalance in the salary levels between Commonwealth public servants and those of the States. A bill of this character, which brings clearly before our consideration an increase in salary (levels of high executive officers, highlights the position which, in my opinion, is :now -developing ,in Australia, and could be -of very considerable and dangerous significance. A comparison between the to.p executives in .the Commonwealth Administration and similar .executives in the State administrations -does -not necessarily delineate ‘the ‘picture to .the best and .clearest effect. It is when ‘-you go down the line, and you see officers of the Commonwealth Public Service holding positions of .considerably less status and importance and involving the assumption of considerably less responsibility than officers in the State public administrations, but being paid the same or a .greater salary, that the real .position begins “to be disclosed.

We are living in a federation with a -new social order in which the intrusion of governments,, irrespective -of political complexion, .is .becoming .greater from year to year. Because of this .increased intrusion of governments into -the ordinary affairs and lives ,of .individuals, ,-the impact, .importance and effect of public ‘administration <is becoming increasingly great. If that is so, .the position will arise ‘in our ‘federation where the ‘States will no ‘longer be able to compete in .the auction for competent, efficient and skilled officers, and will be unable to obtain the necessary complement of competent and skilled public .administrators to keep them going.

Very .easily .the position .could .develop - I -think .it has developed .to-day - wher.e .the Commonwealth ,is .being swamped -by available ability, ‘with .the corresponding and consequent ^effect ,of a denuding ,of the State -public services ,OI -the ability which they should command, to a fair and. comparative .level, with <the central government. When, jas .a -young man, I joined ‘the Queensland Public Service, having passed the junior public examination, it was .a highly ^competitive field of entry. -Boys nominated for entry, and only those in the first 60, 70, or 100, had much chance of appointment. The chances of appointment of the remainder were very remote.

But, to-day, if we were to ask the secretary of a public service union, or a public service commissioner himself, about the position, we would be informed that the State public service is going down to the 500th or 600th applicant in order to obtain the complement of reasonably competent junior officers each year. I do not think that academic or examination qualifications are necessarily the best test of what a man’s capacity will be in any job, particularly in the Public Service, but that is the only test available, and I think we consider it is fair and reasonable. If that is the process which has been developed over the years, the standard of the State public services inevitably must fall, tremendously to the detriment of State administrations, and with a tremendous threat to our system of federation with independent sovereign States.

Senator Hannaford:

– Have increased functions necessitated the employment of greater numbers?

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

– I suppose that would be a factor. I should say that, if there was an intake of 70 boys twenty years ago, the number now required would not be 150. But the Public Service has not increased in that ratio. Where it was necessary to go down to position No. 70 in 1925, it is now necessary to go much lower.

Senator Vincent:

– Would the honorable senator argue that because the States cannot pay their public servants enough, the Federal Government should bring its public servants back to the field?

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

– I am not arguing that; I am saying that a disparity is manifest in the levels of salary offered in State and Federal spheres. It is a very significant factor. I do not suggest that the Commonwealth rates of salary should be lowered, but I go back to the point that was made by Senator Wright, who drew his conclusion purely at the financial level, involving the financial relations between the Commonwealth and the States. If you are to preserve the States, you must also give them the sinews of preservation, whether by direct grants or for the purposes of government to enabling them efficiently to carry on and discharge the responsibilities which are imposed on and required of them by the Australian Constitution.

After all, the salaries which are offering in the Commonwealth sphere not only at the top level but, as I have said, much further down are much more attractive than those payable to occupants of highly responsible executive offices in the States. Other attractions that are available in the Commonwealth Public Service should also be kept in mind. For example, the Commonwealth Public Service superannuation scheme is very much more attractive than most State superannuation schemes, again mostly because of financial considerations. Furthermore, overseas appointments in the Department of Trade or the Department of External Affairs give young officers an opportunity to see the world. All these things are attractions which are not now available in the States to any appreciable extent, and such opportunities as do exist for State officers are becoming fewer each year.

I have had the opportunity of meeting many of the top administrators of the Commonwealth Public Service. They are men who have come from universities. They are highly qualified academically, and they definitely have particular skills and particular abilities, which are being adequately recognized and adequately remunerated in the Commonwealth Public Service. I know that an encouraging proportion of Queensland public servants is attending evening classes at universities at their own expense after normal working hours in order to qualify themselves academically in law, commerce and sometimes in science. A certain number is studying part time in agriculture and some aspects of engineering. Their services go into the general pool of ability that is available to State administrations, but I think the point which manifests itself in a bill of this character and the line of submission by Senator Wright bring acutely to our mind the disparity that is now developing, with all the consequences that could follow it, between the Commonwealth Public Service and the public services of the States.

Ultimately the position must come where governments, State or Federal, will assume more responsibility in the social field and will depend, therefore, to an increasing extent on the advice and support of their public administrators. The State governments will find themselves at a position of considerable technical disadvantage and will ultimately not be able to hold their place against the skilled and expert pressure of the Central Government. If it is the intent of the Commonwealth that we should have a central government and the gradual destruction of the States, then the process is being worked out. But if we decide to maintain federation, money must be made available from the tremendous financial resources of the Commonwealth to the States to enable them to maintain the standard of their public administration and so preserve in the only manner I can see possible the integrity of their sovereignty as was contemplated at federation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 183

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION BILL 1957

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Attorney-General · Queensland · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time. i This bill makes provision for the Governor-

General to determine the remuneration and allowances of the Commissioners of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. In the course of a general review of salaries and allowances the Government considered whether it should continue the present provision for increasing remuneration by amendment to the act, or follow the modern trend in legislation - for these matters to be determined by the Governor-General. It has been decided that the act should be amended so that the salaries and allowances shall be determined by the GovernorGeneral. This decision was made in the knowledge that - (1) it is a common procedure for the remuneration of members of similar bodies to be fixed or amended by the Executive; (2) remuneration is considered at the time of the Appropriation Bill, and from Parliament’s own point of view it is unnecessary to have to consider a. bill to amend the act for a change in remuneration; (3) it is a cumbersome and out-of-date method for Parliament to have to consider these questions’, and (4) the trend in legislation is to provide that remuneration will be fixed by the Governor-General. The exceptions dealt with in the Salaries (Statutory Offices) Adjustment Bill - the Auditor-General, the Commissioner of Taxation, the Public Service Board Commissioners and so on - are responsible to Parliament, and only Parliament can remove them from office, lt is, therefore, consistent that Parliament should fix their remuneration.

When the bill is amended the chairman and members of the Commission will receive remuneration increases in line with the increases approved for the holders of other statutory offices, including those covered by the preceding Bill. I commend the measure to the Senate.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition offers no objection to the passage of the measure.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– I wish to address the Senate on this matter, and to invite the attention of honorable senators - irrespective of party - especially those from the smaller States of Tasmania, Western Australia and South Australia to a number of considerations which I believe to be important. I was rather surprised that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), who comes from Tasmania, should allow the measure to pass without speaking to it. It was a very famous Tasmanian, the late Right Honorable Joseph Lyons, who translated into legislative form the principles embodied in the parent act which the Government now desires to amend.

The House of Representatives has transmitted this bill to us, and I feel that we should examine it very closely. The introduction of this legislation on 19th May, 1933, by Mr. Lyons as Prime Minister and Treasurer, produced a very interesting debate in which some famous men took part. Some of them, I am pleased to say, still grace this Parliament. Mr. Lyons was followed by Mr. Makin, the honorable member for Bonython, and then such men as the former Chief Justice, Sir John Latham, then Mr. Latham, Mr. Prowse of

Western Australia and the late Mr. Rosevear, who was formerly Speaker of the House of Representatives. I invite the attention of the Senate to the remarks of Mr. Lyons,, which are recorded at page 1570, Volume 1.3,9-, of: “Hansard”. said -

The measure is simple. It provides- that a commission o£ five members shall be set up which will conduct its investigations and make its reports entirely free from political or governmental interference.

The act. has. since been amended only twice. Its general, structure has never been amended. That is quite understandable; for this amazing commission has a record which is possibly unique in Australian history. It comprised non-judicial people, whose sincerity or skill has never really been questioned. The. chairman in 1933’ received £300 a year and each member £200, with an allowance of £5 5s. a day for time actually spent in deliberation. In 1951 those figures- were virtually, doubled, the chairman being given £600. and the members £400; and the allowance of the chairman and members being increased to £6 6s. and £5 5s. respectively.. Therefore, for well over a quarter of a century the commission has functioned with but slight alteration, and that only in regard to remuneration.

To-day, we have before, us a fundamental alteration which should not pass the: Senate; without receiving the deepest consideration. If the bill is passed,, the. remuneration of the commissioners will-, depend on-, the wishnot of Parliament but of- the. ministry of the day. It is. very wrong-, in principle for an authority that- is almost a judicial body to depend upon the ministry of the day for pay and- rations.. Mr. Lyons’s seemingly prophetic words - that the commis-sion would- be entirely, tree of political and governmental interference - will no longer apply. Parliament has controlled this aspect of the commission ever since it was created, but if the bill is passed it will do so no longer.

The Leader of the Government (Senator O’sullivan); has referred, to the remuneration of members of- similar; bodies, but no’ body is, similar to the commission. It was, I should imagine, first conceived away back in 19-1.2, when* the High Court denied; the validity, of the. Interstate Commission- and: it became necessary, to do. something- foc what we shall, call, the weaker States. It was the function of the Public Accounts Committee of the day - and at another time of specially appointed commissioners - to make recommendations. The: late Mr. Lyons, put the whole matter on. a firm, basis,, which has. remained firm until, the present - when this bill- has. been put before us. That is why I am stressing that it is- very important that this magnificent structure be not eroded by the: intrusion of the government of the day into the question of pay and allowances for the commissioners. I cannot stress that too much,. This is another attempt to filch power from- the Parliament by relegating it to the- ministry. It is of tremendous importance to- the financial integrity of the States, particularly South Australia,, Western Australia and Tasmania,, that there shall be no alteration of the structure of the act which created this commission.. That is why I am so surprised that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), who comes from Tasmania, is willing to allow this bill to go through without further examination.

Senator Kennelly:

– It does not interfere with the structure of the grants commission; it interferes only- with the wages to be paid to the commissioners.

Senator LAUGHT:

– rt means that instead of the Parliament applying its mind to the. remuneration, of the- commissioners, that task is now in the hands of the. GovernorGeneral or the ministry of the day. I do not agree with that, whatever the political colour of the ministry concerned may be. Let us examine- more closely some of the: comments made by the Minister inexplaining the. bilk I have already- dealt with the first comment - that it is a1 common: procedure for the remuneration 0members of similar bodies to be fixed- or amended by the Executive.. There is- nc body in Australia similar to this commission charged,, as it is, with such, responsibilities.

Senator O’sullivan:

– The Minister probably meant similarly appointed.

Senator LAUGHT:

– The appointment of the- commission: is only one factor. Mr. Lyons, in- the- initial speech on this matter.,, emphasized- the importance of the commission being: entirely free- from political! or governmental interference: The next point made by the.- Minister was that remuneration! is considered, at the time of the: Appropriation! Bill’,, and- from.’ Parliament’s own point of view it is not necessary to- have to consider a. bill to. amend the act for achange in remuneration. I. will agree that, tucked away in the volumes of the Estimates that: will come before, us quite soon, there will be something about this commission, but by that time what is- proposed, for it will be an accomplished fact,, because, it is well known that, without- endangering the Government, the Parliament cannot alter a line or a figure of the Estimates. Thai is the position under our system of parliamentary government. Therefore, I think it, is right and. proper, that this important question of remuneration should’ continue to be dealt with by. legislation, as in thepast.

The third point the Minister made was that it is a cumbersome and out-of-date method for the Parliament, to have to consider these questions. 1 cannot see that in the past the Parliament has worked up any. sweat over this matter. Only one. amendment has been made, in 195.1, so it has not proved to-be cumbersome in the past. The. fourth point made, by the. Minister was: -

The trend! in: legislation is to provide that remuneration; will- be fixed by- the. Governor-General. The exceptions dealt with in. the. Salaries. (Status tory Offices) Adjustment Bill - the AuditorGeneral! the Commissioner of- Taxation and thePuBlic Service Board.’ Commissioners, and so on: - are- responsible tot Parliament; and- only Parlia<ment. can remove, them from office. lu is, there=fore, consistent that Parliament should fix their remuneration.

Why should we relegate these States-, grants, commissioners- to- a- lower stratum; when,, only a few minutes ago* we. dealt with, other- officers; oni the- top- stratum? 1 say that these, commissioners should not; berelegated to- a. lower stratum-.. I> think- thereis an’ analogy between- these commissioners: and one- of the officers- with whomwe dealt’ in’ the last. bill, namely,, thePublic Service- Arbitrator. The Parliament says that: his salary- must be. fixed by legislation. Surely these commissioners are. not less- important-, than the: Public- Service Arbitrator. They arbitrate im matters of finance between the- States and, the Com.monwealth. lt. is most important that these gentlemen who have served” us so faithfully on this commission shall not be treated, as if they were one whit lower in status, than the Public Service Arbitrator when- it comes to the method of fixing, remuneration.

So I ask the Senate to reject this bill and I ask. the Minister immediately to bring in a- further amendment to section 5, which, in black and white, in words and. figures which we can all read, will give effect to the very- fine sentiments expressed in the latter part of the Minister’s speech, when he. said: -

When the- bill- is amended) the chairman and. members, of the commission will receive remuneration, increases; in line, with the increases approved for the holders of other statutory- offices, including those covered by the preceding bill.

By. all. means, carry, out the commendableidea of remunerating these men in line, withthose other- people, but let it be.- done by this Parliament, of which, the Senate is a most: important part, rather than by a ministry, at the’ other end: of . the. passage. Let if be: done. by. this- Parliament. In this Parliament are 30 senators from the three States affected, whereas at the other, end of. the - passage there are possibly not more than four or. five: Ministers from< those* States. We- owe. iti to- the States that” this’ Parliament- shall deal: with; the salaries - of the members of this important commission: I- regret’ that- 1’ cannot support’ the bill awd that V must vote against it-.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

,. - It. is a Happy moment for me to> find such a: lead given to; the: Senate: by. Senator. Laught! on a principle- which I- believe- tobe of: fundamental: importance- to. the Parliament. I think iti is a> cause for. great misery on the: part! of Liberal, party members’ of the Senate that: they have: had preseated! to- them this- bill. The importanceof) this’ commission; should’ nob be - assessed” on the- basis; that: the: commissioners are only part-time officers- The– nature, quality audi importance’ of their, functions should determine; the- security with which we. surround’ them:

The observation about the Public Service Arbitrator is most telling, It. is because’ of the quasi-judiciaL nature of’ his functions that we do not permit him. to be accessible to either the kicks or the kisses of1 the Executive. We do not permit a glass of wine taken late, at night with some Minister to be the means of an. arrangement something^ like this: ‘“Don’t you think these fellows ought to get a. bit of an increase?”.. “Yes, Joe.” “What are you doing, about it? “, and so on. All things that are done by executive arrangement are open to abuse unless the Parliament insists that executive acts be presented to it for its scrutiny.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I submit that this bill involves a constitutional principle of special importance to the Senate. It has to be remembered that when the Commonwealth Grants Commission was set up it had the very important function of adjusting financial relations as between the less populous and the more populous States. The establishment of the commission was the sequel to twenty years’ dissatisfaction because these matters had been adjusted from year to year on no particular principle. As Senator Laught said this morning, the appointment of the commission was due to the fact that Mr. Lyons, who was then Prime Minister, had a particular dislike for the way in which the smaller States were becoming impoverished. He had experience of that when he was Premier of Tasmania from 1923 to 1928. He was able to bring his particular ability to bear upon the matter and he introduced a bill to regularize an institution and import into our Constitution an agency - the Commonwealth Grants Commission - whose function it was to adjust each year the financial relations as between the States. It was not a function of the commission to adjust industrial disputes as between the public servants and their employers nor to adjust industrial disputes as between employer and employee. I mention those two matters because the Public Service Arbitrator and the Conciliation Commissioners have their independence secured in that their salary is fixed by act of Parliament, not by the Executive Council. This Commonwealth Grants Commission had the very important responsibility of adjusting the finances of, and the equity of finance, as between the States.

We should realize that this commission had to approach the task of formulating principles, as it has done to the entire satisfaction of both sides of politics, not only before uniform taxation but also during the unprecedented experience of uniform taxation. It behoves us, then, to give some time to reflection upon the unique importance of the duties this commission discharges in recommending, as it does, the adjustment of governmental expenditure for the purpose of giving to the smaller States those subventions which are necessary to maintain them as fit and proper economic units of a partnership federation. The mere fact that they are part-time commissioners does not detract from the need for surrounding them with the independence that is necessary.

In a federal sphere, when an agency appointed by a government has to undertake the responsibility of recommending adjustments of governmental finance, it is particularly important to isolate the members, during their term of office, from such influence as might at all times be exerted by changes in remuneration. It is obvious that men are motivated by self-interest, whether they be members of governments, members of commissions, or mere men. Ever since the dawn of parliamentary government, it has been recognized, therefore, as one of the contributions to the independence of those agencies, that the remuneration of their members be guaranteed by act of Parliament. Then, any decision made by the Executive Council is subject to the fresh air of debate. That debate occurs not only in one House of Parliament, because one has now for a long time, according to constitutional convention, developed into simply a supporter of the government, and the executive act has to pass the scrutiny of two houses of parliament. The Senate is specially constituted so as to give all the States equal representation in it. Inasmuch as this grants commission is the arbitrator as between the States and the Commonwealth at a time of crisis in Federal-State financial relations, and inasmuch as this Senate has a peculiar responsibility to watch, too, the balance of equities as between the States and the Commonwealth, it seems to me that this is a unique occasion for the Senate to alert itself to the significance of this measure and take a thoughtful decision on whether the fixation of the salaries, travelling expenses and remuneration of the members of this commission should become the subject of executive decision.

The commission, as I think Senator Laught suggested briefly in passing this morning, has its genesis, as it were, in the ashes of a safeguard which was written into the Constitution. I refer to the Interstate Commission. It is simply a political accident that that commission never worked according to the true intention of the Constitution. The extension of a commission such as that is receiving the consideration of people both in Parliament and outside it at this very time, because many of the maladjustments that occurred between the States and the Commonwealth may probably have stemmed from the fact that this Interstate Commission never functioned. Its duty was to supervise the federal legislation to see that there was no undue, unreasonable or unjust discrimination between any States in relation to railways or interstate commerce. One has only to mention road transport and the almost pathetic display of lack of statesmanship in that field over the last six or seven years as an instance of a sphere in which such an agency as the Interstate Commission may have worked most fruitfully.

It was written into the Constitution that the Interstate Commission should be appointed by the Governor-General, and that it should hold office for seven years, and section 103 (3.) provided that its members should receive such remuneration as Parliament might fix. It would be an insult to the people who so thoughtfully compiled that Constitution to suggest that they did not regard that provision as a fundamental guarantee of the independence of that commission, which was designed to adjust between States the equities arising out of interstate trade. But the Commonwealth Grants Commission has the responsibility for moving in matters of finance, at a time when finance is one of the overwhelming problems militating against the development of this Commonwealth.

So one can pass on to an examination of the reasons which the Minister has presented to persuade us to pass the bill. I ask the Senate to give one statement by the Minister most anxious consideration as a reflection on its constitutional outlook. If the Senate accepts his proposition, it will write itself off and become an agency of complete futility, which has surrendered the birthright given it by the Constitution. The first reason, according to the Minister, why the Senate should leave to the Executive the fixing of these salaries and why it should not maintain the Parliament’s right to fix them, is -

It is a common procedure for the remuneration of members of similar bodies to be fixed or amended by the Executive.

I should like the Minister to say what he had in mind when he referred to “ similar bodies “. I would suggest that in a federation this body is almost unique. It has no parallel in Australia. I should like to know what bodies in the constitutional set-up are referred to in the first of this series of apologies for reasons. The second reason advanced by the Minister was -

Remuneration is considered at the time of the Appropriation Bill and from Parliament’s own point of view it is unnecessary to have to consider a bill to amend the act for a change in remuneration.

The framers of the Constitution wished to establish an effective and purposeful Senate, so by section 55 of the Constitution the House of Representatives was prohibited from tacking to taxation legislation obnoxious provisions, which, isolated as a separate act of parliament, would be rejected by the Upper House. As an inevitable growth of responsible government, an Upper House that takes its duties seriously hesitates, even though it disagrees with particular items in a finance bill, to reject the whole bill. Realists that we are, we preserve the parliamentary institutions which are the fundamental feature that distinguishes the free world from the unfree world.

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

– In addition, it may be a bill that the Senate is not able to amend.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Quite so. I am coming to that. The Upper House exercises the greatest restraint as to rejection of the whole of an appropriation bill. Therefore, the Constitution prohibits the tacking of obnoxious provisions to such a bill. I am obliged to Senator Byrne again for reminding me that we can amend only bills which do not appropriate moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government. This item might well come within that category, in which case we would not have the constitutional power to amend, so that, if we wished to disagree, rejection of the whole of the appropriation bill would be involved. Mr. Chairman - or, rather, Mr. President, although you should be called “ Mr. Chairman “ if this bill went through - fancy any Minister suggesting that I have, while the appropriation bill is under consideration by the Parliament, an opportunity of voicing disagreement with a measure of this sort, which is equal, in effect, to the opportunity which we have to-day! The third apology is -

It is a cumbersome and out-of-date method for Parliament to have to consider these questions.

I do not think a Minister penned this phrase. Let us be quite frank about it. It is, most probably, .from the pen of a public servant. That is what the Parliament is coming to. We are told that it is a cumbersome and out-of-date .method for the Parliament to have to consider this remuneration. If so, the criticism applies equally to the fixing of the salaries and emoluments of ‘the other independent agencies of . government, for the independence of some of -whom civil war was fought. The independence df the judiciary in most British countries is based :upon the very fact that removal is required to be assented to by both Houses of Parliament. We have - thank God and our foundation fathers! - an additional safeguard in this country. An effort recently to undermine it in the appeal to the Privy Council in the Boilermakers’ case was ineffectual, ‘I 5am thankful to say. Then we have other agencies, such as the AuditorGeneral and the arbitration commissioners, who have to discharge independent, critical functions, as you, Mr. President, and I do as a matter of duty; if we have faith in this chamber as a place where the people who voted for us -may have -their -views expressed. .It .is -suggested that, to occupy ourselves, as I hope we shall, for two or three hours in the “discussion of this bill - it was ‘thought that it might occupy us for only three or four minutes - is :a cumbersome and out-of-date ‘method of “reminding ourselves and - if the press still has any effect - the country of ‘the principles that are enshrined in parliamentary government. It. is of no use to develop atomic armaments to defend ourselves from: the unfree world, if we surrender the inherent parliamentary rights by which our people .are represented here.

We are told, fourthly -

The trend in legislation is to provide that remuneration ‘will be fixed by the GovernorGeneral.

It is only about 25 years since Lord Hewart, then the Lord Chief Justice of England, referred to this trend. ‘Even then, when it was simply :a matter ‘of stepping down from an act of parliament to a regulation, he referred to it as “ the new despotism “. -Professor :Keaton,. in his book “ The Passing of Parliament which was written in 1953, 1954 or 1955 - certainly recently- points out how it is possible for a disaffected -executive to assume office and, if there is only one -house -of parliament, to pass an act giving to it absolute legislative powers and so overturn .the constitution by an echo of .constitutional means, which Moscow aims to do by revolution.

We are guardians of <these ‘inherited, traditional privileges and, speaking ‘particularly for myself, we are deeply affronted by a statement that the legislative trend is ‘to :provide that remuneration shall be fixed by the ‘Governor-General. “I am reminded of the ^expression facilis decensu Averno - easy is the descent :to Hell. The .’first, step downwards was from :act ;of parliament to regulation. Each ,House of the Parliament maintained, with a spirit appropriate to it, the right to disallow a regulation. But the next device .is not regulation but determination, which needs no publication in the “ Commonwealth Gazette””, which is not subject to the vote df .either House on the question df disallowance, and which becomes operative simply by Executive Council minute. I understand that the Executive Council may be constituted by a meeting of two “Ministers and a secretary.

If .that is the status we are prepared to -accord to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, and if we are willing to put it in the position of being an unimportant functionary of the Executive Council, I deplore the-future-.of this. federation. As at present constituted, the ‘Grants -Commission has been the arbitrator whose recommendations have been accepted by every government since it was originally formed. It has evolved a system of principle which it has steadfastly maintained against all government pressures, including not only executives .in Canberra but also executives in .the State capitals. It has done a work over .a period df years which, for a sense .of responsibility from the viewpoint of fiscal insight and appreciation of .the .purpose of federation, has been tremendously creditable.

I ask the Senate, with its peculiar responsibility to .represent .the States and their proper State interests, not to allow the members of this interstate commission to have their salaries .fixed simply by the Commonwealth executive of the day, whatever its complexion may be.

Senator PEARSON:
South Australia

-I,too,find myself inconsiderable difficultyin regardtothisbill. It isbecause of that difficulty thatI inform theSenate that I cannot cast a silent vote. To do so would not befairtothe Attorney-General (Senator O’Sullivan), who has introduced themeasure, to theGovernment,or to the people who have sent me to this place . I ask theMinister not to push the bill through to-day, becauseIwantan opportunity, whichI have not had thusfar, to sort out my own views on the matter. If the bill must be passed to-day,I must vote against themotionforthesecondreading. Imust dothatbecauseof the difficulty which I have on a matter of principle.

Ihavelistened very carefully to what has been said by earlier speakers who have outlined the circumstances surrounding the work of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, and I agree with most of their comments.The matter of principle which exercises my mind at themoment goes beyond the matter as it affects the Grants Commission which, as has been said,was constitutedtoperform a specialized task. I donotattack the measuresimply because itis perhaps ofimportance tothethree smallerStates, inrelationto which much argument hasbeen advanced. That argument,of course, is quite valid.

I express my sincere regret at the fact that the Minister, in introducing the measure, , has seenfit tojustify it because of what he describes as the modern trend in such matters. If this is themodern trend in relation to such matters, then, aswith a lot of other modern trends,I am oldfashioned enough to believe that we should not slavishly follow it. It is saidthat to do otherwiseis a cumbersome andout-of-date method for proceeding inthese matters,I ask:What is cumbersome about the procedure wehaveso oftenfollowed inthe past of introducing a bill tofix salaries, remuneration andother matters dealing with specificpersons?Usually, the Executive makes up its own mindasto what would befairtreatment for such people and submits its recommendation, in the form of a bill, to the Parliament. Iwould be thelast to delay the passage of such a measure, and I think we all wouldgive it a speedypassage if it were a good piece of legislation.

I do not wish to takeup the time of the Senate unduly, but I dowish toraisethe principle of vesting theauthority to do thesethings simply in the Executive which, asSenator Wright pointed out, so often is constituted by a handfulof persons. Why should not the Government introduce specific measures to deal with these matters? Why should we be asked to waive our rights asmembers ofthe Parliament to examine the salaries and conditionsthat are proposed for any setof people who are doing specific work? It is all very well to say that these matters are before the Parliament when the Appropriation Bill is being considered;but, as Senator Wright again pointed out, I think quite adequately, what opportunityhasthe Senate to amend or to disagree with any specific item, such as the one which is now before us, when we are consideringthe Appropriation Bill?

At the moment, I cannot accept the Government’s approach to this matter, and Iask that we be given further time to consider it. Irepeat that at present Ifeel sostronglyaboutthe matter, as one of principle, that I must vote against the motion for the second reading if it is put at thisstage. I do not like matters that should be properly considered and voted upon by honorable senators to be left in the hands of the Executive without the Senate having an opportunity to discuss them, let aloneto vote against them.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland) [2.44]. -I propose to discuss the bill, but ask forleave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 189

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL (No. 2) , 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4th September (videpage 141.), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill benowread a second time.

SenatorKENNELLY (Victoria) [2.-45].- The Opposition supports the bill. We are pleasedthat atlastthe position of the national service trainee who is anapprentice is to receive consideration. Theprovisions ofthismeasuremeanthatthenational servicetrainee in such circumstanceswill notlosethe time that hespendsundergoing trainingin camp.It willbecredited tohim automaticallyattheend of hisservice.

I am pleased that the Government has introduced the bill. It was thought that the position had been covered by section 19 of the National Service Act 1957 but apparently it had not. After consultation between the Australian Council of Trades Unions and the Department of Labour and National Service, an agreement was reached. It is reflected in this bill. There is only one other body of trainees whom I would like the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt) to consider during the parliamentary recess. I refer to young lads who attend commercial classes at technical and other schools at night.

The Government has arranged now to meet the needs of two classes of young men. In this bill, the Government has provided for apprentices. It has already met the needs of university students as is shown by a list of the dates of training camps that the department was good enough to supply to me to-day. The two last camps for 1957 are to extend from 8th July to 23rd September, and 2nd October to 21st December. In the first part of next year, the first camp will start on 20th January and finish on 7th April. The second camp will begin on 28th April and finish on 14th July.

That arrangement will fit in with the needs of the university students as they are permitted to go into camp at a certain time. Their camp will be held between 1st January and 24th March. The university term will begin on 17th March, so that the most time the university students can miss on national service training is one week. If that is the week when they act the fool in the streets of Melbourne they will not miss much of their education.

I am concerned with the position of other young men. I have some personal knowledge of one case which I shall cite in order to illustrate my point. A young man who is very dear to me lost two years of his studies because of his military training. I agree that he should do his training just as every one else does, but his experience upset me greatly. He went into camp when the training extended over three months. Therefore, he had to give one year away more or less. When he came out of camp, he had to do training at nights. The officer in charge of the unit was good enough to allow his men to agree among themselves, by a majority vote, on which night they would train. The lad to whom I have referred was a bit unlucky because they picked a night on which he had to go to school. That meant that he missed two years of his night schooling.

Many youths who are attending technical schools and classes in accountancy, business administration and commercial subjects generally are in a difficult position. Their terms for the second half of 1957 are: From 27th May to 31st August, and from 9th September to 19th December. In 1958, their terms will be from 10th February to 17th May, and from 26th May to 30th August. I am not asking for special treatment for these lads or for relief from training even under the selective system. I agree that they benefit physically and learn discipline during their military training, and it is good for them in this modern age to be subject to discipline.

I suggest, however, that, as long as the Department of Labour and National Service is satisfied that the lads are attending schools, they should be permitted to defer their training until they have completed their education. I have considered the dates for the camps and for the school terms, and ascertained that these boys cannot fit into the arrangements without a loss of eight weeks’ schooling. I do not believe that any government or any honorable senator wants to penalize these young fellows who will become excellent citizens. They have to learn the hard way by working all day and attending classes at night. We want skilled persons in Australia. A person who is skilled in a trade or profession is much more useful to the nation than is an unskilled person.

I am not asking that these young men be relieved of their training. They might be lucky in the ballot, but I shall not go into that. The Government has made provision for every one else. The university students will not lose more than one week and the needs of the apprentices have been met. Only one class of young men will suffer a disability. I ask that at least consideration be given to this matter, so that these boys will not lose eight weeks’ schooling while they are in camp. I suggest that, on production of a report from the school he is attending, the studies of a lad whose name is pulled out of the ballot - he is forced by law to register - ought to be suspended until the completion of his course, even if that takes three or four years. I realize that it is too late for this matter to be remedied in this bill, but I should like to receive an assurance from the Minister that he will take up with the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt) the question of removing the cause of the grievance to which I have referred.

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

, - in reply - As I understood Senator Kennelly, he made a plea on behalf of those lads whose progress is marked very largely by the passing of examinations at various -stages. An apprentice has to reach a certain stage of proficiency; the efficiency of a university student is measured almost -entirely by the examinations he passes; and certain students do additional technical courses. Without having detailed knowledge of the subject, I think that there was considerable merit in the case that was made out by the honorable senator. This bill protects the position of the apprentice in that the time he spends in camp is taken as being part of the period of his indenture.

The next point made by the honorable -senator was that events are so arranged for university students that they enter camp for national service training during the vacations, that is, at a time when they will not miss lectures. Therefore, if a university student subsequently fails in his examinations, he cannot claim that his failure was due to his absence from lectures through being in camp.

The third category, I believe, deserves at the very least as much sympathetic consideration as the other two, because the lads in that category are going over the track the hard way. I refer to those lads who are pursuing technical college or other trade courses. If a technical student misses lectures because he is in camp, his chances of passing the examination at the end of the year are to that extent weakened. I cannot give an answer to a proposition like that. I imagine that it must have received consideration in some way or another. I can only give an assurance that T will have a talk with the Minister about it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 191

WINE GRAPES CHARGES BILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 176).

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– This bill is probably not regarded as being as important as other bills that we have discussed during the last few days, but to me any industry which in some way or other will build up overseas credits for Australia is one which is of some importance - in fact, a great deal of importance - because it is trite to say that the great weakness of Australia’s trade position is the fact that it is confined to a few commodities. When we exclude wool, we get really alarmed regarding the few industries the products of which can be sold on overseas markets. Some of our large secondary industries are open to criticism because, despite the help that they received in the early days of their struggles, they are to-day not putting back sufficient into the country that helped them so much.

Coming to the matter of wine, and looking through the reports over the last few years, I think such matters as the trends in the export of wine, the rise and fall in the home consumption rate, the amount taken out of bond in the London market, and the way we can compete not only on the Canadian market but on the London market become almost confusing. This is very difficult to determine from reading the reports that have been published. I feel that a great deal more explanation and clarification could be put into the Australian Wine Board’s reports. It is only natural when you get a senior officer reporting on a subordinate officer; I have suffered from this in the past, and can appreciate the position. You can read more in a report from London than in the chairman’s reports to the Minister. Let me balance that statement by saying at least a word of praise for the publicity in London. I think I have produced a hardy annual, in criticizing the Wine Board, since I first directed my attention to this matter about 1950. Looking at the board’s report for 1952-53, I find this comment -

Recommendations have been made to the in-> dustry that certain alterations of our marketing methods should be considered, and these are now under consideration.

Of course, we know that the mills of God grind slowly, and I thought that was long enough when I read it, but I notice that in the latest report- that for 195.5-56 - we seem to be getting, some value for our money spent on the London market. I refer to- the- report’ from London- of Mr:. Mackay,, the overseas representative of- the Wine. Board; hu which he gives some details. He points out that at. least, the board has moved out into.- a lar.gen area of. publicity. In one of the licensed, stores- where: a wine-tasting’ display was provided;. and where people could leave, their orders, the; sales of: Australian wine amounted to: £900: during the. ten days of the tasting display. This was. more than the store had, previously sold in< a year. It is* the: first case in which I have been,able to trace whether or not there has been a direct response to this type of advertising. I pay full. tribute to those who haveworked hard te achieve that success, and Ihope that’ if will continue.

The- 1952 report - another that I have been unable to follow through to any con. elusion - contains a complaint concerning the disadvantageous rates operating against the wine trade in London because* of thedifferential treatment afforded by Gatt. I- would like the Minister to say whether it was possible to do- anything about this matter in- the recent amendments to Gatt.

The report, dealing, with the decline in trade in both the United Kingdom, and- on the home market,, had this to say -

This fall. in. trade, cannot, be attributed, to any decline in quality of our, products, but results-, from economic factors beyond the control of the industry..

My impression Kas always been that where; because of Higher excise rates, there is a decrease in the home consumption of beer, there is a greater demand for wine. 1 have always thought that; in this land of free enterprise, one man’s loss was another man’s gain, and that this would’ have been, a matter, not for complaint, but for- exploitation, by the Australian Wine Board. As tha Minister can. see,. Lam.searching. after know.ledge, for it is very hard to, follow these reports through to their logical conclusion-, and I shall be very grateful if he can say. why the wine industry did not. benefit in the: way I have suggested.

The- question of the duty imposed overseas is a hardy annual in these reports. Successive Ministers have tried’ to- Have it reduced; but’ no one has ever explained whySouth African: wines, though subject to the same, amount: of duty, leave us- for dead,, if I. may. use a graphic phrase, in- the* London1 market: In London one always: finds- that South African wines- are readily obtainable; but’ often when, one asks- for Australian wines, people appear never tohave heard” of them. I realize that animport duty of about 40s. a gallon issevere but; I repeat, it applies to the South African product also.- Sometimes we are told- that South Africa takes advantage of cheaper labour.

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

– Is there- much differences between- the prices1 of. South- African and Australian- wines?

Senator WILLESEE:

-. - I understand that quite apart from the matter of better advertising, there is a substantial difference in price also. I think that, by distributing, wines through fewer importers, South Africa obtained a quicker and better result than did. Australia-. On the other, hand, a survey of the. Canadian, market reveals that, there we compete very successfully with. the. South. African, product-. Perhaps, the Minister, can explain. why this is-so. The important point about, the Canadian market is- that there France seems to be overhauling us rapidly, but an examination of her exports to London reveal that she is not such a serious competitor on the English market. I am somewhat bewildered by the lack of comment on the reports, and as. to the reasons for all these things.. In the 1953-54 report, Mr. Hardy, the. chairman of the Australian Wine Board, made this comment -

The high quality of all. wines, and: brandy for export has been maintained, as indicated by reports received from the board’s inspectors, regarding? the - quality; of all samples examined by them-.

That is a very comforting observation, but when one turns to- the1 statement of Mr. C R. Mackay, the overseas representative of the Australian’ Wine- Board, one finds that he makes three main suggestions, the second of which is: that’ we- should ship special consignments of High quality wines in order to foster prestige: That would seem to suggest that- Mr. MacKay feels that, if we are to compete on the London market, we should” send away Better quality wines.

I am interested in another, matter, on which I commented some time ago, but which later- I’ noticed, or thought, was covered by regulations. If- 1 remember- correctly, a few years ago< we- were marketing our wines under about 500 different brands; and reticulating them through about 200 importers. In 1 954, under Statutory Rule No. 88, a rather elaborate set of regulations was brought down, No. 5 of which read -

The export of wine isprohibited -

except by licensees; . . .

I assumed that that was an attempt to limit the number of exporters and ensure that our wine, brandy and sherry would not get a bad name as a result of inferior shipments. I cannot find anything in the reports to indicate to what degree those regulations were successful or, indeed, applied. I welcomed them at the time, and I should be very interested to know now whether they had any beneficial result.

The reports refer frequently to inspectors examining export wines. I ask the Minister: What is the extent of the power of inspectors? I notice that they existed before the1954 regulations, and werenot appointed by them. Do the inspectors look for an improvement in our wines? Have they the power to recommend to the board that certain wines arenot of sufficiently high standard to warrant their being exported, or do they constitute merely a sort of advisory body which keeps tag on the type and quality of wines shipped abroad?

I do not oppose the bill because, as the Minister has truly pointed out, this tax is imposed at the request of the industry, which realizes thatsomething must be spent on the task ofkeeping its product before the public eye. I notice that the question of the datum line is raised in the earlier, but not in the later, reports. We were told that there was to be anapproach to the British House of Commons for an alteration of the datum point in wines from 27 per cent. to 25 per cent. Frankly, I know very little about it, but if it was of such importance as to warrant approaching the British House of Commons the Minister may be able to tell us why it was done, and what was the result.

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

– I believe it has something to do with the point of maturation.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I think that that is so. However, the Minister has an expert adviser, and I must rely upon the help of the honorable senator, so perhaps the Minister will not mind my asking him questions about the technicalities of wines, which I am afraid I do not yet understand fully. I might end by making two com ments. I notice that in thelatestreport, that of 30th August,1956,Mr. Mackay says this -

The whole trend of wine drinking in Great Britain is.changing; table wines are becoming more popular, mainly because of the price factor. . . .

I understand that quite clearly. Then he says -

Sherry isbeing drunk in preference toport simply because it is more fashionable to do so.

I do not doubt Mr. Mackay’s word, but there seems to be a sort of snobbery that creeps into wine drinking that I just cannot understand.

I havebeen critical of some of these things, but I now end on a happy note. I ram happier this year about the whole picture, but a suggestionImake to the Minister is that onthenext occasion when this wine report isbrought down it might be timely to make a ministerialreport that would gather together all of the stray ends and givethe Senatea much clearer picture of the world export market. It is rather confusing to see one country beating us on the London market while, at the same time, we are ina so much better position on the Canadian market. It is also confusing to see a decline in certain exportswith no reason for it, especially as it. does not seem that any other country is marketing the type of wine thatwe areable to offer.

The wine industry is helping to build up our overseas reserves, and the Minister would do a real service if he were to make a ministerial statement - it hasnot been done for many years - which drew on a broad canvas a picture of the set-up of the industryI wish the Wine Board well and I close on the note on whichMr.Mackay closed when he said -

Thereis every reasonto expect that theconsumptionof Australian wines in the UnitedKingdom will be doubled in three years if the industry can continue to support the overseas trade publicity campaign and the valuable work they are doing.

If this bill, and the increase in wine duties, will help Mr. Mackay to give effect tothat optimistic hope, then everybody in the Senate wishes itwell.

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

– in reply-I am gratified that the bill has received the support of the Opposition. I rise merely to attempt to answer some of the queries posed by Senator Willesee, who

I know has an interest in this industry. I have heard him on one or two occasions take the opportunity to address the Senate when the bill before it has dealt with wine and wine exports. He expressed some concern because Australian wines were not making the impact on the London market that they might make. I think that in the past we have probably not been served as well as we might have been served in our marketing, but in recent years results achieved on the London market have been more encouraging.

Senator Willesee referred to the prominent position occupied on the London market by South African wines, compared with our own. I am advised that that position is slowly being improved and that the sale of Australian wines year by year is showing encouraging progress, compared with South African wines. I am further informed that one reason why South Africa enjoys such success on the London market is that, as Senator Willesee mentioned in his speech, certain wines are fashionable. South Africa produces a certain type of sherry which is very popular both in England and on the Continent. Because it produces that particularly attractive wine, it finds a more ready sale for wines of that class than does Australia. Nevertheless, I repeat that sales of Australian wines are slowly but gradually improving. Last year 1,300,000 gallons were sold on the London market, a slight increase on the previous year.

Representations for a reduction of the British duty have been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer each year since 1949, but so far without success. The provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, to which Senator Willesee referred, prohibit the extension of the 10s. preference which Australian wines enjoy over other wines. The new United Kingdom trade agreement binds that preference at 10s. per gallon. The Australian Wine Board is continuing its efforts to see that Australian wines are bottled and packaged as attractively as possible. The results there, too, are showing a gradual improvement.

I note the request made by Senator Willesee that a ministerial report be made available to the Parliament and to those people interested in wine production and export, and I shall give consideration to that request.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– Has the Minister any details of the Wine Industry Assistance Account? I understand a sum of money has been held in that account for some time and the problem is what to do with it. I think at one stage there was talk of granting scholarships and that type of thing. If the Minister could give me some information, I would appreciate it.

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

– I am informed that the money in the account referred to by Senator Willesee has already been released by act of Parliament to establish the Australian Wine Research Institute, £100,000 having been made available for capital expenditure and £400,000 to finance the activities of the institute. That is now going forward.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 194

NATIONAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION BILL 1957

In committee: Consideration resumed from 4th September (vide page 147).

The bill.

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

– I refer to clause 25, which reads - (1.) There shall be a National Capital Planning Committee to advise the Commission as to the planning, development and construction of the City of Canberra. (2.) The Committee shall consist of -

the Commissioner;
two architects selected from a list of four architects submitted to the Minister by The Royal Australian Institute of Architects;
two engineers selected from a list of four engineers submitted to the Minister by The Institution of Engineers, Australia;
two town planners selected from a list of four town planners submitted to the Minister by The Town Planning Institute of Australia; and
two other persons with special knowledge and experience in artistic or cultural matters. (6.) A member appointed under the last preceding sub-section in the place of a member referred to in paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of subsection (2.) of this section shall be selected from a list of three appropriate persons submitted by the appropriate body.

I move -

In sub-clause (2.) (b) leave out all words after “ architects “, first occurring, and insert: - “, who may be selected from a list of architects submitted to the Minister by The Royal Australian Institute of Architects; “.

In sub-clause (2.) (c) leave out all words after “ engineers “, first occurring, and insert: - “ who may be selected from a list of engineers submitted to the Minister by The Institution of Engineers, Australia; “

In sub-clause (2.) (d) leave out all words after “ planners,” first occurring, and insert: - “, who may be selected from a list of town planners submitted to the Minister by The Town Planning Institute of Australia; and “.

The effect of those amendments would be that instead of its being mandatory upon the Minister or the commissioner to select architects, engineers or town planners only from the list of four names submitted to him by the relevant institution, he would be able, should he so desire, to call upon the services of an architect, engineer, or town planner whose name did not happen to have been submitted to him by those particular institutions.

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

– Do you still intend it to be compulsory for them to consult the Royal Australian Institute of Architects for the supplying of a list?

Senator GORTON:

– Not necessarily. The wording I have suggested is -

Two architects who may be selected from a list of architects submitted to the Minister by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects.

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

– The governing words of the clause are, “ the committee shall consist “. That insists upon the submission of a list.

Senator GORTON:

– That is all right with me. The only objection I have to the clause as at present framed is that it appears to me to be mandatory for the Minister or the commissioner to choose only from a list of four names. I certainly do think that the Minister or the commissioner should consult the relevant institutes, but I consider that he should also have the power to go outside the list so submitted should he desire to do so.

The object of deleting the word “ four “ is merely that it occurs to me that the Royal Australian Institute of Architects itself, or the other relevant institutions, may on occasion find it difficult to confine the list to four names, and may desire to put in either fewer or more than four, and I think the relevant institutions should have the right to decide for themselves in that particular case. The effect of my suggestion is merely to give the institutes more freedom of action in choosing a list and to allow the Minister or commissioner to go outside that list, should he so desire, because circumstances may arise in which some very eminent architect may not be persona grata with a particular institute. I do not say that would happen often, but I point out, for instance, that in America one of the world’s best-known architects, Frank Lloyd Wright, was, for many years - indeed, I think, for most of his life - at loggerheads with his particular institute. Should that occur, it is desirable that the Minister’s field should not be restricted, as it would be if the clause were allowed to stand as at present drafted.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– I second the amendments. I do not propose to repeat the reasons that have prompted Senator Gorton to endeavour to obtain the acceptance of these amendments. Briefly, he has suggested them in order to give greater flexibility to the composition of the committee, and I am in full accord with that proposition. But I think there is a second reason which Senator Gorton has not mentioned but which, I feel, is perhaps more important. It is the reason why I support the amendment.

As the bill stands, it is mandatory for the Minister to take two of the architects, engineers and town planners respectively submitted by the governing bodies of those professions. He has no discretion, nor has he an option. As the bill is framed, he must take them, irrespective of whether he likes it. I suggest that cuts right across the important principle of ministerial responsibility. I feel that in certain circumstances the Minister would be tempted, in the case of some criticism, to say, in effect, “ I had no option. I was forced in the circumstances to accept these men, upon advice, and I disclaim responsibility “. I suggest that is altogether repugnant to the principles of ministerial responsibility. about which we heard in a learned speech by Senator Wright. I feel that in the ultimate the Minister must be entitled to sufficient power so;- that ministerial, responsibility can be; laid fairly and squarely at his door, and I suggest that cannot be done if. the bill stands in -the -rather rigid manner in: which, it. is now before. us. I, therefore, have much pleasure, in .seconding the amend. ments, and.-, trust the: Senate, will, agree -with them-. The: matter has been discussed -with the. Minister, and: 1 understand, he is in. accord.,with. our -views. .

Senator ANDERSON:
New South Wales

– I was not in the. Senate when we began,. the. committee discussion, but I gather we are taking, the .bill as a whole. I wish to make some reference, to the. remarks made, by the- Minister for. Customs . and Excise. (Senator. Henty) when closing the second-reading. debate last night. I shall attempt, by referring -to. clauses to. keep; myremarks relevant so. that I. shall not. incur: the displeasure of the Chair If L fail , in, that attempt;. I shall have recourse, to. the. motion: for- the-, third reading-.

Quite, frankly, I. was amazed- at some -of the remarks made.last.night.by.the-Minister. What I- am -about to say. I propose to link up with clause 11(2.). In my view, the most amazing statement- made by- the. Minister was,that in which he suggested that. the. time of the commissioner surely should, not he.- taken up in carrying . out certain, con:struction works,, on the job. He; said, in effect, that the commissioner should not be occupied in considering the. location. of sewer and water pipes, gutters, and so. on. It is extraordinary that those are among the very matters to arrange which the commission is to be appointed. Clause 11 (2.) reads-

For that purpose,, the. Commission is empowered to provide, or arrange for the provision of, within the Australian Capital Territory, buildings, roads, bridges, works for the supply of water or electricity, sewerage or drainage works and other matters and- things for, or incidental to, that purpose.

Quite frankly, I was amazed at that statement: by the Minister. I’ must join issue with him also on his views on town plan. ning.- On one aspect of town planning, he voiced his disagreement, and said, in: effect, “ That is my idea, and I stick to it “. If we accepted the principles that he enunciated, we should have a little grocer’s shop on any corner where any person wanted to erect one. That would be a complete and’ utter negation of every principle of town planning. It was most unfortunate that the Minister should have made that statement.

Senator Wood, very properly, made, the point that we must have a plan. In a city of over 35;000 people, we cannot have sprawled development, or development which is not in- accordance- with some recognized principle or plan. It is rather interesting to note that one clause provides that the commission must conform to the plan, for Canberra. In essence, there, cannot be any deviation. Clause 11 (5.) provides -

The1 Commission- shall not depart from, or do anything- inconsistent with, the plan of lay-out of the City- of Canberra and its environs published in the “Gazette” …

It -should ‘be remembered that that is a- plan in broad outline only, not such a plan as is essential for- the development- of a-city of this*- kind of; indeed, for- the development of any municipality, or suburb of any consequence. There is, for instance, no specific provision for- green belt or- open: space areas; industrial areas or expressways.Quite clearly, there should be a plan within’ the framework of the broad outline plan. To that extent, I agree- with Senator Wood. It. is. not wise, in politics to make predictions,., but. I. think this, is one that I can make with certainty. One of the first jobs that will have to. be undertaken by the commission will be to ensure that there is a proper, plan within the framework of the broad outline plan; otherwise the develops ment, of Canberra, will not proceed in an orderly fashion and there will be an arrangement such as the Minister wants, with people: making application to build little stores at every corner, a, conflict in types of- buildings, with timber-framed cottages in brick areas, a swimming: pool opposite a church and all sorts of other absurdities.

Clause 7 provides that the Minister may grant leave of absence to the commissioner. Clause 13 (1.) reads -

The Minister of State for the Interior or the Minister of State for Works . . .

It so- happens that at present those two portfolios are held by one Minister, but that may not always be so. I suggest that the definition clause,, clause 2, should .clearly define the meaning of the words “ the Minister “ where they appear in* this legislation.

Flitting! as it were, from clause to clause, 1 come to clause 12’ (2.)) which B suggest is somewhat redundant. It relates- to the determination’ of policy, and- reads -

In the event of a difference of- opinion between the Minister and: the Commission as to the policywhich should be followed by the. Commission in relation- to any matter, the Minister and the Commission shall endeavour to- reach agreement.

– I wish to refer to several clauses, but first I should like the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) to give to the committee a little more information about the associate commissioners. After I had finished speaking earlier, some one said that my speech went to prove that they were unnecessary. I certainly did not intend to convey that impression. I think it is a good thing that the commission should consist of more than one man. Even though that one man has all the authority, it is a good thing that he should be compelled to bring matters before others in order to obtain approval.

I now refer to sub-clause 1 1 (5.). I wish to make a suggestion which I hope the Minister will convey to his colleague, the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Fairhall). I do not intend to propose an amendment >of this measure, because I think the matter I am about to mention can be remedied by an amendment of the regulations dealing with the Australian Capital Territory Committee, which is a joint committee of “both Houses. I do not think that the -regulations should provide that the committee can consider only those matters that :are referred to it by the Minister for the Interior. Senator Vincent referred to this matter during his speech at the second- reading stage.

Senator Vincent:

– Clause 1 1 has nothing to do with the Australian Capital Territory Committee.

Senator McCALLUM:

– I am referring to sub-clause 11 (5.) which reads -

The Commission shall not depart from, or do -anything inconsistent with, the plan of lay-out of the City of Canberra and its environs published in the Gazette on the nineteenth day of November, One thousand nine’ hundred and twenty-five, as modified or varied, whether before or after the commencement of this Act; in accordance with law.

Let me explain to the committee the effect of that sub-clause. As the law stands at present, if there is any departure we must be notified, but only in such a general way - I think by notification in the “ Commonwealth Gazette “ - that it may easily escape the attention of any honorable senator, as has happened in the past. I feel sure that it would not escape the attention of the present senators, because enough of us are sufficiently interested to bring the matter before the Senate; but it would be better if all these matters were referred automatically to the joint committee on the Australian Capital Territory. I should like the Minister to ask his colleague, the Minister for the Interior, not to amend this measure but to amend the authority under which the joint committee acts so that it shall be able to act as soon as such a matter is gazetted. It would mean that the secretary of the committee would be notified and he would have power to call the committee together.

Senator Henty:

– The honorable senator is not referring to the Select Committee on Canberra?

Senator McCALLUM:

– No. I am referring to the joint committee of the two Houses. 1 refer now to clause 25, which deals with the appointment of a National Capital Planning Committee. I have given a lot of consideration to this matter. It is not in accord with the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee, but I think it will work. Objections have been raised to the possible composition of such a body. I think that the Minister for Customs and Excise should listen to the suggestion that has been made, I think by Senator Gorton, that the Minister for the Interior should have a perfectly free hand and should not be compelled to select from a list of four groups.

Senator Vincent:

– An amendment relating to this matter has been moved.

Senator McCALLUM:

– I am speaking to clause 25, amendments to which have been moved. I think the matter could quite easily be left to the Minister. I can visualize circumstances in which he may not get suitable people, although I do not think that situation will arise. I think this clause has been well devised, and is likely to work.

I cannot see how in any way it would alter the spirit of the measure, or the function of the Cabinet, if the Minister were given a completely free hand in the matter.

I do not think there is anything in the point that was raised by Senator Anderson in regard to the Minister, other than this: The bill appears to assume that the Minister for the Interior or the Minister for Works will always be the Minister who is responsible for the development of Canberra. The Senate Select Committee recommended in its report that there should be a separate Minister to administer Canberra. I understand that the Government is examining the functions of all departments, and there may be some re-arrangement. I ask the Minister for Customs and Excise to consider seriously whether, in the event of the administration of Canberra being placed under the control of some other Minister, in the terms of this measure the proposed commission would perhaps be in an illegal position. The relevant provision in the bill refers to “ the Minister of State for the Interior or the Minister of State for Works “. Apparently the assumption is that one of those Ministers will always be responsible for Canberra. The Government might re-allocate the functions of the Ministers of State, and Canberra could be placed under the administration of another Minister. What would happen then?

Senator Henty:

– We would amend the act.

Senator MCCALLUM:

– I do not suppose the point is of any great importance, but I thought I should direct attention to it.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I was interested in the amendment that has been moved by Senator Gorton. The National Capital Planning Committee is to include two architects from a list submitted by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and two engineers selected from a list submitted by the Institution of Engineers of Australia. Is there any bar to qualified persons joining those organizations? Can an ordinary Bachelor of Engineering join the latter institution? Do members have to have some basic qualifications? Does an architect, for example, have to be qualified in some special way? Will the Minister inform the Senate whether a person who is retired from actual practice automatically ceases to be a member of these organizations? Would an architect employed in the Public Service, who was retired on reaching the age of 65 years, be automatically excluded from membership of the institute? If any such obstacles operate, that would only strengthen the case made by Senator Gorton.

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

– One of the beauties of Canberra has been the segregation of the shopping centres, in my opinion. Each centre serves a certain district. In enlightened cities to-day, including Brisbane, where this matter of planning has been left very late, new districts are being built and each has a small shopping centre which is nicely arranged. They are getting away from the wretched little shop on the corner seen in the older cities. Last night, the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) said that he was in favour of the little shop on the corner. Is such a change contemplated in Canberra, or was the Minister merely expressing a personal opinion?

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

.- I should like to take Senator Willesee’s inquiry a little farther. I understand that the Royal Australian Institute of Architects actually confers a technical qualification so that a person who belongs to it can get a practising certificate or become an associate. There are some persons who qualify as architects with a diploma from the Brisbane Technical College. That permits them to practise under State law. They are also entitled to practise if they become a Bachelor of Architecture of the University of Queensland.

Senator Willesee’s inquiry was whether membership of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects conferred similar benefits to those of membership of the British Medical Association without which a doctor cannot practise at all. Does membership of the institute give a person the right to practise, or any technical qualification? I believe there are many technically qualified men who might not be members of the institute, who are not entitled to membership or are not interested in it. I was interested in the question that has been asked by Senator Willesee and would like to have further information.

Senator ANDERSON:
New South Wales

– I was in full flight when my timeexpired earlier and as I did not want to- end -my remarks there, T ta’ke this opportunity of rising again. I was -referring to the National Capital Planning Committee. I do not want any one to think that because I was critical of the composition of the committee I opposed the principle of such a committee functioning. Municipal councils throughout Australia have town planning committees. The members of the committees are not members of the local council but are persons with specialized knowledge drawn from the community. Those who select the members are -careful to avoid the likelihood of head-on collisions between persons in certain -fields.

In Canberra, an advisory committee is to continue to function and, .from time .to time, the commissioner will need to have extraordinary patience on -the one hand and to be strictly dictatorial on the other in order ‘to discharge .his true functions. An effort should be made as early as possible to give Canberra some sort of local government. That would obviate the need for many of the proposals in this bill. I propose -to support the bill and the amendment -that ‘has been moved by Senator Gorton.

I believe also that it is absolutely essential that we should have a master plan for Canberra as early as possible, within the framework of the Burley Griffin plan. In other cities, the people know exactly what is proposed. A master plan can be seen in the municipal council chambers of any municipality in New South Wales and there is also a local plan which is co-ordinated with the master plan. An examination of the plan shows exactly what the zoning will be and whether areas are to be allotted to industries, housing or shopping. That cannot be done in ‘Canberra at present. A person might build a house opposite a park and then wake up to find that the Postmaster-General has built an iron structure opposite. These things have happened in -Canberra, so we must have a plan urgently.

The tragedy of Sydney has been the topsy-turvy development there. Reference has been made to .the creation of a city without a soul. I did not quite follow the intent of that remark. I know this, that if a city is allowed to develop without a proper plan as a basis, there will be narrow streets and traffic congestion, and inevitably, in years to come, it will be necessary to spend millions of pounds to correct the mistakes that are made. I say that the first requirement to .make this bill a success is to have a proper administration within the Burley Griffin plan.

The only other point I wish ‘to raise is the one that was mentioned by Senator McCallum in relation to the Minister. The only alternative to the present provision is to remove the reference to the Minister for Works and the Minister for the Interior. By so doing, we should be completely safe and not have to worry about future amendments.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for ‘Customs and Excise1 · Tasmania · LP

– I shall endeavour to -reply to certain questions that have been asked during the debate. For Senator Anderson’s information, “ the Minister “ -means the Minister who is administering “the act at the time, whoever he may be. I am referring specifically to clause 13. I should say that, when I addressed myself to this subject last night, I was quite aware of the provisions of clause 11 (2.). Apparently the honorable senator did not hear what I said. I said that I hoped the next step to be taken would be the appointment .of a council, which could take over sewerage and drainage works and ‘the like. At present, there is to be only a commission, and no other body is available to take over those functions. Of course, the committee did in fact recommend -the establishment of a council, and when such a body comes into existence it will be able ‘to take that kind of work off the commission’s hands. At present, it is necessary for the commission to do it because no other body is available.

Clause 14 (3.) provides -

When the management or use of any land that has been placed under the control of the commission is no longer required by the commission, the commission shall, by instrument under its seal, surrender the .control of the land to the Commonwealth. -In other words, this provision enables land to be used by -the commission until a project is completed; it can then be handed over to the administration. Therefore, I can see no substance in “the point that was raised by the honorable senator.

Senator McCallum raised a number of matters that are worthy of consideration. At the earliest opportunity, 1 shall take them up with the Minister for the Interior.

An interesting point was raised by Senator Willesee and Senator Byrne, who said that although a man may be qualified as an architect he need not necessarily be a member of an architects’ institute. However, the fact that a man is admitted to an institute signifies that he possesses the necessary qualifications for admission. 1 think the difficulty that was mentioned is cleared up by the amendment, which the Government is prepared to accept.

Senator Kendall referred to the appointment of a commissioner and a town planner and so on. 1 should not be surprised if the town planner’s ideas do not coincide with mine. I consider that small shopping centres should be established at convenient locations. The old idea of the people having to travel long distances to a shopping centre ignores reality.

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

.- 1 am grateful to the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) for his reference to Senator Gorton’s amendment. However, I remind the Minister that the amendment still requires the commissioner to consult the Royal Australian Institute of Architects. I do not consider that this institute should have a monopoly in relation to qualified men. I see no reason why it should be picked out and a statutory compulsion imposed on the commissioner. The institute could be asked to submit a list of names, from which a selection could be made. I wonder whether Senator Gorton still has it in mind that, the commissioner shall consult with this institute?

Senator Gorton:

– To which clause is the honorable senator referring?

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

– I am referring to clause 25.

Senator Gorton:

– Where is the compulsion in that clause?

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

– Clause 25 (2.) provides that the committee shall consist of certain persons. It imposes a compulsion that this institute be consulted; the whole of the provisions are governed by the compulsion. That was the basis of a remark which I directed to Senator Gorton when he submitted his amendment. Additional point was added by the Minister’s reply. Therefore, I suggest there should be an option as to the bodies to be consulted and the appointments that the commissioner shall make from names brought before him by any means.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– The matter raised by Senator Byrne is not quite in line with the amendment, which gives complete discretion to the Minister to select architects or other professional men either from the bodies referred to in the bill or from any other unauthorized body or from individual members themselves.

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

– I am not denying that. The Minister is not required to consult anybody else.

Senator VINCENT:

– The amendment does not require the Minister to consult these bodies. The word “ may “ was deliberately put in the amendment to give the Minister absolute discretion. It is merely a procedural clause for the guidance of the Minister.

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

– 1 suggest that the Temporary Chairman read out the amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Pearson:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– The amendment moved by Senator Gorton refers to Clause 25 (2.) (b). It reads as follows: -

Leave out all words after “ architects “ first occurring, and insert: - “ who may be selected from a list of architects submitted to the Minister by The Royal Australian Institute of Architects “.

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

.-1 do not want to press the point unduly, but it seems to me that the option given to the Minister goes only to the matter of appointment, not to the point of consultation. I shall not press my view, if opinions are held to the contrary. But 1 emphasize that 1 do not want any particular institute to have a monopoly of the right to submit names under any compulsion imposed on the commission. The names of other qualified persons, who may not be members of particular institutes, should be available for submission, and the matter should not be dealt with in a casual manner.

Senator Henty:

– As I see the amendment, the only compulsion operating is that the committee “ shall “ consist of two architects, two engineers and two town planners. Everything else is clearly left to the Minister.

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

.- I sought the call merely to say what has now been said - that the Minister may select some one from a list submitted by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, but that no other institute is prevented from also submitting a list. Consequently, I should much prefer to leave the amendment as it stands.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

.- I think that perhaps something could be done to meet the point raised by Senator Byrne. The compulsion does exist in the first part of clause 25 (2.) which reads -

The committee shall consist of -

two architects selected from a list of four architects. . . .

two engineers selected from a list of four engineers. . . .

No opportunity is given for selection from lists submitted by institutes not named in the bill.

Senator Vincent:

– The honorable senator does not understand the purpose of the amendment.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– As I understand it, the institutes named are the only bodies which may submit nominees.

Senator Vincent:

– That is not so.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– That is the point that Senator Byrne is making and perhaps it might be clarified.

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

.- The Minister has very competent advice on the matter of interpretation, and in the event of his not agreeing with me I should be glad to accept what he says. I merely sought to avoid a position which the mover of the amendment did not want. I think that Senator O’Byrne would also accept the Minister’s technical advice on this matter.

Senator Henty:

– I cannot see anything in the amendment that prevents the Minister from having perfect freedom to choose from lists submitted by any associations or individuals.

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

– He does not now have to consult any one?

Senator Henty:

– That is so.

Amendments agreed to.

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

.- I should like to move the following amendment, which is consequential on the amendments just agreed to. I move -

That clause 25 (6.) be left out.

Senator Vincent:

– I second the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

.- Clause 4 reads: -

– (1.) The Commissioner shall be assisted by two Associate Commissioners, each of whom shall be appointed by the Governor-General.

I move -

That clause 4 be left out.

I do so because, as I said last night, I cannot understand the necessity for a commissioner and also two associate commissioners, merely to administer the city of Canberra. This proposal is likely to create a bevy of topline civil servants for the administration of this city. If that happens it will not be long before they have under them many more employees than any municipality would consider necessary for the administration of a much larger city. It might be said that the associate commissioners would operate as a check upon the commissioner, but the bill gives no hint of this. Subclause (2.) reads -

An Associate Commissioner shall give such advice to the Commissioner as the Commissioner requires and shall perform such duties as the Commissioner directs.

I cannot press the point too strongly. We should have administration that is not only effective but also economical. The present proposal can result only in building up a band of administrators far larger than is needed in a city the size of Canberra. Honorable senators who have served in local government will realize that such a proposal would never be made in any other community, and we should not blindly accept it merely because the Minister has proposed it. If anyone can tell me how a commissioner and two associate commissioners could be fully occupied in this centre, I should be happy to hear what he has to say.

I well remember that when the Senate select committee was studying the plan for the future Canberra, the Melbourne “ Herald “ pointed out the extensive nature. of the duties performed by a certain commissioner in South Africa. These were so numerous as to dazzle anyone who studied them. By comparison, a commissioner would have very little to do here. Honorable senators should consider just how much administration is carried out by a town clerk, who is, in some ways, comparable to a commissioner of the kind proposed. It is useless to say that there will be a great deal of work for these assistant commissioners to perform, because we have been assured that the necessary technical staff will be provided from the departments. Here again, the town clerk is in a similar position, for he can call upon the services of engineers, health officers and so on from the civic administration. Amazingly enough, honorable senators are quite content to accept this proposal without even knowing how much the assistant commissioners are to be paid. When everything is totalled up, there may be a very long list of large salaries to pay for the administration of Canberra.

Senator O’Byrne:

– If they are good men, they should be paid well.

Senator WOOD:

– I am one who believes that a good man should be paid well, but I cannot see why we should pay more men than are required. If one man can run the City of Canberra, he should be given the opportunity to do so. From my knowledge of local government, I have no hesitation in saying that there would be no difficulty in running this city with a single commissioner, mayor or whatever we might call him. Indeed, a full-time commissioner would have a lot of time to spare.

It would be easy to persuade ourselves that these will be complex jobs and that the people occupying the positions will have a vast amount of work to do, but if one takes a trip around a city, how many jobs do we see going on at the one time that would occupy much of the time of a commissioner in deciding whether they should be proceeded with?

Once a decision was made, the matter would be ended for the commissioner. It would then be in the hands of his technical officers. I am sure that if a man who knows how to run a city properly is chosen, it will be found that one commissioner can do the job without the assistance of two associate commissioners.

I stand on the policy on which this Go;vernment came into office, and about which, we feel very strongly - efficiency in thePublic Service, with procedures streamlined; to the utmost. What municipalities throughout Australia can do, we can do here. I feel that the organization proposed in the; clause as it stands would be too expensive: and too cumbersome. I also feel that if only one man were appointed, and he were theright type of man he could work more quickly and arrive at more effective decisions than would be the case if there were also two associate commissioners. Theappointment of the associate commissioners, would mean that the commissioner would) delegate his work to them, with the result that he would have a soft and easy job iri the city of Canberra. As I have said; before, the people of Canberra are a lot: better off than are many of the people wholive elsewhere, and I do not think we should, create any more cushy jobs for top hats ia, this city.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– I must oppose the amendment: moved by Senator Wood. In doing so, T do not wish to disparage in any way the great experience that Senator Wood has. of local government. We appreciate that,, because of his experience, the City of Mackay has blossomed as no other city of its type has blossomed. With the greatest respect to Senator Wood, whose reference: to local government was probably correct,, this is not a local government problem at all. It is as far removed from the problems of local government as chalk is from cheese, or as Senator Wood is now removed? from this problem.

I appreciate the knowledge and experiencethat Senator Wood has, but, quite frankly, ! do not think he appreciates the problem.. This is a problem of planning and constructing the National Capital of Australia. Local government, as Senator Wood knows, it - as a matter of fact, I happen to knowit too - is a very minor element of the problem. It would not warrant the appointment of a commissioner, associate commissioner,, or even a commissioner’s office boy. That work could be done in an honorary capacityby a local mayor or corporation. Wewould not want a commissioner for local government work in this National Capital,, but we are, I hope, planning and constructing one of the finest cities in the world.

It is a momentous and gigantic task, which presents tremendous problems that have no relation to local government. Sewerage and drainage can be done by any technician, but this job calls for great brains, and it would be impossible for only one man to cope with it.

The very essence of this bill is that the work falls into two important divisions, planning and construction. They are two quite distinct functions. What more logical and proper division of responsibility could there be than that the commissioner should be assisted by two commissioners - I assume this is what will happen - one in ^charge of planning, and the other in charge of construction? I suggest that those three .gentlemen will have more than full-time jobs. Civic problems, artistic problems, cultural problems, as well as problems associated with education, sociology, industry and commerce - all of which are outside the field of local government - will form the great bulk of the work of these three men.

While Senator Wood is prefectly correct in saying that the local government of Canberra would not require very much time or effort, the problem of building our National Capital will. In relation to cost and expense, personally I hope that the -Government will appoint the very best three men available and that their salaries and emoluments will be a relatively minor consideration. We should endeavour to obtain -the best possible men, if necessary from outside Australia, and I hope that their salaries and emoluments will be commensurate with the great task they will have to do. I very firmly oppose Senator Wood’s amendment, because I do not think the -worthy senator really understands the problems that will beset this commission.

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales

– I, too, oppose the amendment. I think it would be an affront to the people -who have carefully considered this bill to alter it in this major way. While I may have invited an amendment such as this by saying that I should like the duties of the associate commissioners to be somewhat more defined, I am quite satisfied with the words, “ such duties as the commissioner shall ask them to do “. There is one most important thing to remember. A part of the functions of the commission is to do everything that is necessary for the trans fer of public servants to this city, to provide not only offices for them but also housing, schools and all amenities. Those are functions that local government does not normally undertake.

Furthermore, in local government one wants his town to be a little bit better than a neighbouring town of a comparable size in the State, but here we are building a city that will be compared with Washington or the other great capitals of the world. I hope it will never reach the size of these capitals, but so far as the civic building is concerned it is comparable to them. I hope the amendment will be rejected.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– The Government is not prepared to accept the amendment.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

.- Speaking again to the amendment, I must reply to my colleague, Senator Vincent, who was a member of the Senate Select Committee, and the chairman of that committee, Senator McCallum. I should like to analyse a statement made by Senator Vincent. He has said that the development of Canberra cannot be compared with the development of a city under local government. I desire to refute that statement. There is no difference between the building of this city and the building of any other city.

Senator Henty:

– Except that in the States there is a State government.

Senator WOOD:

– I do not know what a State government does.

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA · LP

– It builds a lot of things in a State.

Senator WOOD:

– I do not know what a State government does so far as a city is concerned, particularly in Queensland. Senator Vincent said that the building of Canberra was entirely different. When we speak of the National Capital, we are inclined to look at problems such as this through rose-tinted glasses. In saying that, I do not want it to be thought that I am not concerned to see the National Capital built up; I am, but my concern is that it be built up in the best, most suitable and most economical way. I do not want money to be wasted upon the erection of some building which would not be as effective to the development of this city as perhaps some other type would be.

The organization that is being set up under this bill will be. responsible, for roads, sewerage,, drainage and all the other, things which- are recognized, as local government functions. It has. to. he remembered also that this is a national capital, and that this authority will also be responsible for government- buildings and housing, both of which are not local government responsibilities. This, question, must not be considered from a purely local government point of view. Local government functions vary as between- States-.. All States, which have tried to establish- uniformity up to date have been unsuccessful: In’ England, for’ instance, the local governing body is responsible- for- housing and schools, while in some of the European- countries- it is responsible even for the police- force; but here it has te be remembered that the proposed commission will have an overall control in building up the area.

I submit that if we aim at simplicity of thought, and action the development of Canberra, will, be an easy matter. It will be as simple as- learning the ABC provided a proper master plan is drawn up. I have already pointed out that the original plan for Canberra was drawn up years ago before we had such complexities relating to transport; social development and public requirements as we have to-day. It is essential that we re-orientate- our thoughts on town-planning and if the Government will stop fooling about with the matter and draw up a proper master plan, then whoever is to be responsible for development will have a simple task in following what is laid down in that. plan.

The commissioners will not need to be highly paid. If we have a proper master plan we shall avoid all this silly nonsense of establishing an expensive structure to look after the development of the city. I say that because of my experience not only in local government activities but also in the preparation of town plans. A proper master plan is essential. With that, it would not matter how many government buildings were being erected. It would even set out how allotments were to be subdivided in residential areas. With a proper master plan, I cannot understand how any one could argue that a matter such as that would be difficult. We, as senators, must-, get- away- from; this, fanciful thinking because we: are : discussing, the: development of the. National. Capital.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
Australia · South

: - I am- amazed at what has- been taking place on the Government side’ with one member of the Government trying to convince another that something- is rights I have- been, wondering- who- is trying to convince whom- on the Government side: I understood- that* the Government had everything arranged. I- understood,’ for- instance, that Senator Wood was contented about the proposal, that Honorable senators on- the Government side- generally were agreed as to what should be done, but, lb’-and-beHold!’- we- find them- trying- to convince one another what is right and’ what is wrong at this late stage-.

I should like to know how many supporters Senator Wood: has. If he has enough, we may be able to embarrass the Government on this bill. It is amazing that after the Government brings down a bill some of its- supporters- should be moving amendments and the. Minister should be saying quite, nicely, ‘’ We are . prepared to accept the amendments “. He does so in order to save further argument amongst honorable* senators on the Government side. Now, after, the bill is introduced, we hear all this argument on the Government, side as to whether this work should: be con? trolled by a local governing body, by one commissioner, or by. one commissioner with- people helping him, and so on. We also have arguments on the Government side as to whether those charged with responsibility for the development of Canberra should carry out their work voluntarily or whether they should1 be paid: And all this after the bill is presumed to have been considered in the Government’s “ caucus “ and agreed to! I hope it was considered properly by the Government parties. It would seem, from what has developed on the. Government side, to-day, that its members, do not know where they are. I suggest that if Senator Wood has three or four supporters perhaps we can send this bill back to the Government for further consideration.

Senator MCCALLUM:
New South Wales

– I should like to make a few remarks, to- restore the atmosphere that I think should exist when we are considering: this bill. I’ do not think Senator 0’Flaherty has contributed anything to the debate. All those who have read the committee’s report will know that Senator Wood presented a minority report. The dissension is not something that has developed only to-day. Senator Wood drew up his own report. He did not sign the majority report. The Government has based this bill very largely upon the majority report of the Senate select committee, and there is no dissension among honorable senators on this side. We believe that the Senate is the place where amendments should be discussed. Far from resenting the amendments, I think honorable senators ought to welcome them because they show that the Senate is carrying out its proper function.

Amendment negatived.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 206

QUESTION

JAPANESE TRADE AGREEMENT

Debate resumed from 4th September (vide page 167) on motion by Senator O’FIaherty -

The the following paper be printed: -

Agreement on Commerce between the Commonwealth of Australia and Japan.

Upon which Senator McKenna had moved by way of amendment -

That the following words be added to the motion: - “ and the Senate expresses its disapproval of the Agreement on Commerce between the Commonwealth of Australia and Japan “.

And upon the following amendment moved by Senator Cole to Senator McKenna’s proposed amendment -

Leave out all words after “ Senate “, insert: - “ requests the Government, under the terms of the Agreement, immediately to restrict Japanese imports to goods the entry of which will not cause unemployment in Australian industries “.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

.- Prior to the adjournment last night I had mentioned the number of textile mills in Australia, the number of persons employed, and the value of their production. In order to keep my remarks in some sort of sequence, I repeat that there are 164 mills, which employ directly 25,000 persons and have an annual production valued at £70,000,000. I know the mill of Bruck Mills (Aust.) Ltd. at Wangaratta, the Returned Soldiers’ Woollen Mill and other mills in Geelong, which is a big textile centre, and the mill at Warrnambool. Both Warrnambool and Wangaratta are remote from wool-selling centres, and therefore to their costs they have to add the cost of transport of raw material. If the Returned Soldiers’ Woollen Mill is adversely affected, as it must be, by competition from the Japanese, how ironical it will be!

The Government has said that these undertakings will not be affected. But Japanese shirts are selling here at 13s. 6d. each. A shirt of, let us hope, the same material and as good workmanship from Australian factories sells at £2 or more. What hope have the manufacturers of getting orders for shirts that must be sold m shops at £2 or more when a comparable article may be obtained for 13s. 6d.? It is just foolish to say that they will not be affected by the treaty. To prove my point, I quote a despatch from Tokyo by Australian Associated Press, which appeared in the Melbourne “ Herald “ of 21st June, 1957. It is headed “ Japanese traders prepare to send textiles “, and reads -

The Japanese textile industry and traders are preparing to take full advantage of the JapaneseAustralian trade agreement to be signed here next month.

This is the most significant part -

Exports of cotton goods to Australia in the first four months of 1957 totalled 15,198,000 square yards. This was good progress.

The report continues, in bold type -

But an alarming situation was developing. Contracts for export to Australia, concluded in May alone, amounted to 15 million square yards.

The treaty came into operation at the beginning of this financial year. That report shows that when the treaty was about to be signed, in the month of May, exports of one commodity alone, cotton goods, were as high as they were in the preceding four months. To think that the Government will persist in this arrangement shocks me. Just as the agreement will affect the production of cotton, rayon, worsted and other textiles, so must it affect toys, glassware, light machinery and crockery.

I direct attention to what my leader said last night. Prior to his speech, a telephone call came from Melbourne. I did not know the caller by name, but he told me what happened in one of the biggest retail stores, Foy’s, in the heart of Melbourne. Certainly the people will buy Japanese goods, but eventually we will find that many of the persons who rely on wages from industries that will be affected will have no money to spend. The Government talks about safeguards. Of what value are the safeguards in the light of what I have read about the quantities of goods that were coming from Japan to this country in May?

If any further evidence is needed, let us look at what happened to Canada, which negotiated a trade pact with Japan in 1954. She received the same familiar assurances that Japan did not intend to export goods which would damage Canadian industry. Japanese trade officials went further and indicated that the Japanese sales target in Canada would be merely to restore the prewar trade ratio of six to one in Canada’s favour. They conceded that a balanced trade, while desirable, was not practicable so far as Canada was concerned. I repeat that the treaty was negotiated in 1954. Early this year the trade relationship was less than two to one in Canada’s favour, and it is expected that by the end of the year a balanced trade will have been reached. Does the Senate think that we will not receive the same treatment as Canada has received?

Senator Spooner:

Senator Wright:

– Of course, they were.

Senator KENNELLY:

– That is right. It does not matter to the Government what our people suffer; it is a case of our being told to do it or of our being frightened of Japan leaving the Western bloc and joining the Asian bloc. We will never keep Japan out of the Asian bloc if we are not prepared to .let her trade with Asian countries. The records show that before the last war 42 -per cent, of Japan’s exports went -to China, whereas to-day less than 5 per cent, go to that country. Because certain Western Powers have great influence in Japan, partly because their troops are spending money there, Japan is not allowed to trade with China, and we must suffer. It is foolish for one nation to tell another not to trade with a certain other nation. We do not affect the politics of a nation if we trade with her. We have not to swallow the politics of China. I am just as much opposed to the politics Of China as is any one ‘else, if those politics mean materialistic communism. Every one knows where Japan’s trade “has gone.

I can visualize the Japanese employers saying to their employees, “ Work harder, we must gain markets “, and our workers here being told to work harder or Japanese goods will “flood Australia. So we have the Japanese workers on the one hand, and our workers on the other hand, competing against each other. It will indeed be cold comfort to the thousands who become unemployed to know that they were human sacrifices offered to the sacred cow of anti-communism.

I regret that the Government has submitted this agreement. It has been telling us continually ;how ‘much the country has progressed while it has been in office. Everybody admits that it has .progressed, but if .would have done so if any government with the welfare of the nation at heart had been ‘in office. I am amazed that the Government should persist with this trade agreement when it knows that the agreement can mean only disaster for many industries in Australia and win bring suffering and unemployment to a great number of Australians.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– On a serious commercial matter such as the trade agreement with Japan that is before us, one feels that the vehemence of Senator Kennelly, who has just resumed his seat, is somewhat misplaced and has served to obscure a clear understanding of the considerations ‘that should govern our decision. In what I am about to say, I will attempt to be brief, for me. My contribution to the debate will be specialized along the lines of the actual mechanics of this agreement rather than an offering to the Senate of immature commercial -or political judgment. I -feel -that I am entitled to ‘take that course because, in matters commercial, I have unqualified .confidence in, .and .admiration for, the judgment of the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen). As to some of the mechanisms that are being used to control trade, such as import restrictions, it is well known here and elsewhere that I am bitterly opposed to them. However, I think that a man would -be very presumptuous indeed to offer criticism, on the evidence before us, of the policy of the Minister for Trade and the government which is responsible for it. Neither would I criticize John McEwen’s judgment on these matters or his ability to take a comprehensive view of the commercial considerations affecting Australia.

Surely it is obvious that in Australia we have built up an expanding economy that is still predominantly agricultural although there is an encouraging increase in secondary production. If we are to take a positive view of the nation’s requirements, we will not be satisfied to fold our arms, reduce the working week, and play two-up or sit back for the remainder of our time with our goloshes at the fender. John McEwen believes that we -have to sell our goods to get their value .back into the pockets of the people. .In a predominantly primary producing country, obviously the first thing to do is to secure, stabilize and expand our markets for primary products, especially when the heat of our internal economic difficulties and errors ‘is being .turned significantly on the primary industries. In marked contrast to .the superficial prosperity of the secondary industries, they have been ailing over the past four or .five years.

It is a tribute to the success of the administration of the Minister for Trade that, while we are securing and expanding our markets for primary -products abroad, our potential markets -for secondary products are expanding. -It is more remarkable still that our secondary products are being sold with economic advantage to .Australia as well as to the purchaser. I speak of such things as the products of our engineering skills which are being exported to countries in South-East Asia and to New Zealand with success which is really arresting. Despite our handicap of a high-cost structure, for which politicians are partly and, indeed, significantly responsible, an expan sion is taking place in the sales overseas of our secondary products. That does great credit to Australia and offers great promise. -Senator Hendrickson. - What does that trade amount to now?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I hope the honorable senator will excuse .me for -not being immersed .in the .details of our trade with any particular country.. I suggest that we examine that .matter another .time. So much for .my preliminary remarks on this matter.

In view of the speech .that was made by the Leader of the ‘Opposition (Senator McKenna) last night, I think it would be helpful -to the Senate ‘to focus attention clearly upon the exact decision that we are debating in this chamber. We are debating whether -or not the Senate should agree to the printing of a paper and, thereby, give its -approval to the policy that -is expressed in the paper. ‘This is a paper expressing an agreement -between two governments. It simply expresses an agreement upon mutual trade .policy for a period of three years and thereafter. The agreement does not apply in either instance to trade organized on the -basis of government ownership or governmentcontrolled trade. It would be a different proposition altogether if the goods (hat were to be exchanged between the two countries ‘-belonged to their governments. That is not the -system in either country. Therefore, the agreement with which ‘we are dealing is simply a ‘declaration of trading principles. The governments concerned undertake, one to -another, to honour those principles on a government level. They will adhere to those principles.

I am thankful that I can .still say, with some reservations, that the law which affects the -individual trader in Australia is still made .by the two Houses of this Parliament. Until we .pass statutes affecting .the entitlement of our traders :to .exchange, or to apply tariffs or import controls, our traders will .not be subject to any .different trading .conditions as a .result of this treaty.

It is a matter of fundamental importance that the law still governs the rights of a trader in Australia. Those rights are affected only when we alter the law by act of Parliament or by an authorized delegated authority under an act of Parliament, such as has been done to an unprecedented degree in the case of the iniquitous import regulations, which have been authorized by this Parliament up to this stage, lt is only in respect of alterations along those lines that the rights of traders can be affected. And so it is not useful. I hope my kindnesses are not misunderstood, but I use the moderate term that it is not useful to submit arguments to us, as Senator McKenna did last night, to the effect that you have a declaration of intention that one party intends to adopt a certain policy, which he says were not words of agreement. It is not useful to enlarge upon the indefiniteness of phrases to the effect that the Japanese Government would use its best endeavours within its constitutional authority to see that exports were conducted in such a way as to avoid damage. Why? Because this agreement between the heads of governments simply indicates their agreement upon principles of mutual trade. When we come to exactitude that fixes contractual obligations, we go to the law of the country, the law which we have the privilege of making and re-making as the entitlement of the trader to exchange, to tariff, and to import control.

Last night, I heard the honorable senator discuss the matter of undue parleying with regard to the disintegration of the agreement due to the dissatisfaction of either party with it. I heard also his novel suggestion that, if the parties differed and Australia decided to go ahead alone, Japan would be free to enter our courts and ask for an injunction against the suspension of the agreement by the Government and there would be more months of delay and arguing. I then interjected, being in search of new knowledge, “ From where do you get the idea that this agreement would be justiciable in the Australian courts? “ I go to the evidence of Mr. Owen Dixon, as he then was - he is now the distinguished Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia - when he was giving evidence before the Royal Commission on the Australian Constitution in 1929. I find that at page 785 of the evidence he made these two statements, which summarize the position in a nutshell -

Under a British system the executive cannot by making a treaty regulate the rights of subjects.

And then I omit certain words - for brevity only -

If a treaty is adopted by the legislature and its terms are converted by statute, it is the statute and not the treaty which affects the rights and duties of persons.

I would not trouble the Senate by restating that position if it had not been for the arguments submitted by the Leader of the Opposition last night that otherwise might induce some misconceived idea into the debate.

Next, may I address myself to the terms of this treaty. One cannot disguise the fact that value comes out of a debate like this from the obviously sincere and apprehensive views expressed by Senator McKenna, Senator Kennelly and other members of the Opposition, as well as Government senators. 1 have indicated that we are naturally concerned with the preservation of our secondary industries. They must be maintained so that we shall continue to enjoy the standard of living that has already been won for our workers and which, by thoughtful policy of the Labour party might be greatly improved, and also because we need, as the result of a tremendous immigration programme - no less than is necessary for the defence of the country - to market our products abroad so that we may get some foreign money with which to buy the wherewithal wanted for our workers in secondary industry. A positive impetus must be given to exports which alone can enable us to finance our imports.

When we realize, too, that some 90,000,000 people are herded together on a few islands in the north Pacific, a very small proportion of whom engage in agriculture, it is obvious, surely, that we should participate in such a market for primary products. And so, far from being overawed by the idea that we have accepted the dictation of Uncle Sam that we should edge our way into this market, it seems to me that we have made this agreement primarily to prevent the increasingly adverse effects that the dumping of surplus products by American export into Japan might have on our market in Japan.

Nobody resents more bitterly than I do the conditions of the Pacific war, in which we were subjected to savage treatment by the Japanese, but we cannot remain at war indefinitely. Now that peace has been restored, do not let us delude ourselves. The Japanese are skilful negotiators. I think that you have to be very shrewd in watching their next move. But China having been lost to the Communist cause, it would create a terrific imbalance in the politics of the Pacific if Japan were to go under the same domination. It has been part of the policy of the free world, in a political sense, to isolate Japan from Communist involvement and to place her on a proper trading basis in order to allow her such social and commercial prosperity as she can gain by the earnings of her working people in proper trade with us. I mention that because I have some anxiety about the impact of the treaty on our textile industry, and in a moment I shall give the reasons that have induced me to accept the proposed arrangement. However, the textile industry has presented its case so widely that there would be no point in my dwelling upon it now.

– I shall willingly oblige. The value of wool exported to Japan is recent years has been as follows: -

I want now to cite some very interesting figures which I have taken from the speech made in another place by my colleague, the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen). For purposes of clarity I shall select only one year - 1954-55. The figures show that we have been maintaining trade with other low-wage countries whose exports are just as disadvantageous, as our trade with Japan has been advantageous, to our trade balance. During 1954-55 imports from the Arabian States amounted to £27,000,000 and exports to £2,000,000.

The relevant figures for other low-wage countries are -

Of course, one recognizes that sometimes trade with’ other countries: is disadvantageous because we must buy certain essential - I emphasize the word “ essential “ - raw materials where we can get them, but only a bankrupt would think of maintaining that attitude in relation to the whole pattern of his external trade-. Any one who thought along those lines would be nothing better than an addicted Micawber.

Briefly, first, the trade treaty removes discrimination against Japanese goods, so that these will now come, not under the general column, but under that relating to most-favoured nations. At the same time, we shall maintain the existing British preference in. relation to tariffs. Secondly, we undertake, in our exchange control, not to discriminate against Japanese goods, reserving: the right - essential to the preservation of national sovereignty - to curtail external exchange if the balanceofpayments position becomes menacing-. Thirdly, we undertake to maintain no discriminatory treatment against Japan on the score of import control - which I was. pleased to hear the Minister say we are striving to remove.

In view of the great interest in British trade which we have witnessed in the ranks of the Opposition, I may be pardoned for emphasizing that British preference is to be maintained completely. I know full well that, within the limits of the agreement, there are certain instances in Which the combined skills of Japan and Australia can produce better goods at better prices, and that, to a certain extent, Lancashire will have to put on its socks and pull them up. That is all a. question of endeavour. It is simply a. statement that we intend to remove any discrimination against Japanese goods, any discrimination that is not applicable to nations other than units of the British. Commonwealth. The tariff has. been the chiefprotector of our secondary industries and has been maintained, since the very first years of federation, as a. national policy by both sides of politics. It is a. recognition of the importance of expanding secondary industry.

– If that domestic producer were the producer of an isolated line such as I mentioned by way of illustration in my opening remarks - and I now make the point that Senator Hendrickson, who is absent at the moment, invited me then to make - I feel sure, after giving great consideration to the agreement, that the agreement, by its express terms, enables the

Minister, if he acts in good faith, to take action to protect the Australian producer, whether he be primary or secondary, big or insignificant. I submit that if we summon to our armoury the safeguards I have mentioned, the tariff, the arresting provisions and the arbitrary and discriminatory import restrictions, the Minister has ample power to preserve the stability of the Australian economy. For those reasons, I ask the Senate to give its approval to this agreement.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– At the outset, let me restate what I believe is the feeling of the Opposition. It is that there is no hostility to a trade pact with Japan or any other country with which mutually favorable arrangements may be made in order to stimulate the free movement of trade and commerce between the countries. After all, Australia, proportionately to population, is one of the great trading nations of the world. Although our population is under 10,000,000, our consumption has been a surprise to other nations, primarily because of our high standards of living. I can remember looking at figures relating to British textile exports to Australia some years ago. Those figures revealed the amazing fact that about 1952 Australia was absorbing and using 42 per cent, of all Great Britain’s textile exports. That is an indication of the tremendous absorptive capacity of the Australian buying public. Australians have a high standard of living, and when they have money to spend they seem to desire to spend it. So I approach this matter with no objection at all to the trade treaty insofar as it is a measure which is designed to bring closer trade relations between two nations.

The problem that we of the Opposition face is: What is to be the cost of this trade treaty to the Australian public and the Australian manufacturers? Before I develop that thought, I want to say that I object very strongly to the manner in which this matter came before the House of Representatives and the Senate. Perhaps I am naive, but I thought the proper thing to do would be to ratify this agreement by act of Parliament, not to present it, as it was presented in the other House, as a paper and to move for the printing of the paper. The procedure was even worse in this chamber, because the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), having read the paper, did not even move that it be printed. An agreement as important as this should be ratified by an act of this Parliament.

Senator Wright, in one of the less effective speeches that he has made in this chamber, if I may say so, made some interesting references with which I shall deal. When the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) was speaking on this matter last night, he referred to the delaying tactics that might be adopted by Japanese exporters who felt that some action by this Government was unfair to them. Senator McKenna said that, under section 75 of the Commonwealth Constitution, they could approach the High Court of Australia. The High Court, according to the Constitution, has original jurisdiction in all matters arising under any treaty. Senator Wright, having by interjection queried that jurisdiction, stalked, not majestically - that is ona term that we could never apply to him - but angrily from the chamber, and apparently found a part of the Constitution that he had overlooked. In his speech this afternoon, he told the Senate that no agreement existed. He said that all that had happened was that two countries had got together and that all we were discussing to-day was a paper expressing statements of policy and trading principles agreed between the two countries. The only explanation of that rather futile effort by Senator Wright is that it was made in order to cover up the fact that he had spoken quite inaccurately last night and had realized afterwards that the treaty was an agreement and that people did have rights under the agreement to apply to the High Court for an. injunction.

Senator McCallum:

– Who could apply? How would it come before the High Court?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– An individual or the Japanese Government could apply, i do not think that we could argue that there is not an agreement. Senator Spooner, in his opening remarks said -

Agreed minutes which are also annexed set out specific treatment which has been agreed for major Australian exports on entry into Japan.

Later he said -

These commodities will now receive reasonable access to the Japanese market as a matter of contractual right.

I do not think we can argue reasonably that there is not an agreement between Australia and Japan in this matter.

Senator Vincent:

– Under which law?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– The common law, the law of contracts, with appeal to the Privy Council under our own Constitution, which the honorable senator, as a legal man, has doubtless skimmed from time to time.

This is the way in which the Government has presented this paper, in letters so large that even those who run may read. I was very interested in Senator Wright’s development of an argument in relation to the admittedly small but very important optical industry developed in Tasmania since the early years of the war. Senator Wright opened his speech by being complimentary to the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen), as is his right. I will not detract from those compliments. I think that the Minister for Trade is trying with all his capacity to do a good job. He is working very hard at it, but I would not, in my praise of him, go as far as Senator Wright went, because in my opinion certain things could be done for the trade of this country that have not been done. If Senator Wright decides to be complimentary in his references to the Minister, that is all very well, but the admiration he has for the Minister is not a sufficient safeguard for the Australian manufacturers, who face very serious trouble just around the corner.

What is to happen to this optical industry in Tasmania? Who will say whether it is a worthwhile industry? Will it be the Minister? Only a handful of trained men are involved in the industry. Their loss might pass without a sigh except from those persons seised with the importance of the optical industry, the men involved and their families. Who is to decide whether it is a worthwhile industry?

Senator Henty:

– Would it not have a defence aspect?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Of course, it would.

Senator Henty:

– Would that not be taken into consideration?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I do not know. That is the Government’s problem. The Government has to decide which industries are worth while. I want to know whether Senator Wright would stand aside and. let. that industry die. In his opinion itmay be a worthwhile industry, but in the Government’s opinion it may not be. After all, if there is one industry that the Japanese have developed to the highest possible pitch, it is. the optical industry.

Despite the great range of development by the Germans, who originated this, industry 60 or 70 years ago, in my opinion the Japanese have outstripped them in knowledge and technical advancement. Evidence of that can be seen in their cameras, which are not only relatively cheap, but also excellent. The Nikon camera is standard equipment for the great American photographic magazine “ Life “. That shows the quality of Japanese production. The- days when the Japanese dumped’ rubbish in Australia have gone. What we will get from Japan will be not only cheap, but also good, and, price for price, it may even be better than what comes from some of the countries of Europe to which we have looked in the past and which have a name for producing quality materials. We must never underestimate the Japanese in any field. That is my- opinion, formed after having been in that country. The Japaneseare men- of great capacity, ingenuity, industrial ability,, and energy. In addition, they have an industrial organization in which they pay the workers a pittance, compared’ with- what we have to pay to Australian workers. I’ still pose the question: what is going to happen to the optical industry in Tasmania?.

To- my mind, there is- a great point that the Government has overlooked: This is more- than a problem between the Australian Government and the Japanese Government. The important problem that this- Government will- have to contend with, once the agreement goes racing along, is- the cupidity of the Australian importer, the man who is licensed to import goods from overseas-. If those licences, are free of contractual obligations to the United Kingdom and Europe, he will place them in Japan. We read in this morning’s “ Canberra Times “ about the rush at Foy and Gibson in Melbourne for woollen twin, sets which were, retailing at 51s. against the Australian article at’ 67 s.

Senator Henty:

-*- They were bought long; before the agreement was. in- existence.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I am giving the- Senate an idea of the problems that will have to be faced.. Let- me say, under the protection of the Senate, that the mark-up on those twin sets sold by Foy and Gibson would be nothing like the normal mark-up, but would be at least twice as great. The profit that is being made on these goods from Japan, because of the lower import price, is terrific. This kind’ of thing appeals, to the cupidity of men in business. I am not being unduly, critical, because I know they are in business in order to. live and that, as soon as one importer imports a line which is. sent to a retail store, another retail store around the corner has to fit into the picture or become bankrupt. It is as simple as that; it is a question of selfprotection. Once this kind’ of thing starts,, it cannot be stopped.

What I have- said is true not only of textiles but of any other manufactured goods. Let us consider the position in relation to aluminium ware for- the kitchen. The Australian aluminium ware industry has developed- to such a degree that it can handle all our requirements. But if importers in Pitt-street or Swanston-street want to bring in aluminium ware and sell it at half the price of the Australian product, will’ they worry if 50 or 60 men are dismissed at an aluminium factory? They will not worry-. There are retailers andwholesalers in- this country who have built up- their businesses by importing- cheap foreign equipment. Let’ us take as an example–

Senator Sheehan:

– Woolworths?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Noi The honorable senator could not have been, more wrong in mentioning Woolworths,, and. I take advantage of this opportunity to say so-. However, let us consider Woolworths. Their normal business is to import approximately 85 per cent, of what they sell if they can obtain access to overseas markets. We cannot keep Woolworths out of the Japanese trade. They are in if already, and they will” remain in it to the extent of whatever licences are- available. Let us consider, on the other hand, a firm like Coles, which commenced- business- by selling goods that cost no more than 2s. 6d-. Coles is a great Australian firm which, over- the years, has, adopted the constant policy of purchasing nearly- the same percentage of Australian goods as Woolworths have imported. Coles- will, give an. Australian- manufacturer as much as 10 per cent, or 1.5 per. cent, more for his product than the price at which they can buy overseas, because they know that in the long run they will build up the prosperity of the people who come into their stores. But there are others in the community who are not so long-sighted, who see the profits of today and hope that tomorrow will be all right.

The only safeguard against the possible effects of the agreement was to fix quantitative levels. As the agreement stands, how can we stop the flood of Japanese goods once they start to come in?’ It. has been the policy of this Government to import as much as possible; it says that to do so is deflationary. An important matter to remember is that £1 spent in Japan buys sometimes more than- double the quantity that can be bought on the European markets. We cannot compete with Japan unless we safeguard our own. industries. Senator Wright complimented the Minister for Trade, but I do not think I could be more critical of him than I am. I think he has done the job as would a fifteen-year-old schoolboy.

What d’o the Japanese want?’ They want a bigger- share- of our- money. They did not want parity; they knew they had no chanceof getting it. 1 repeat that all- they wanted’ was a further share of the money that we had- available to spend, overseas-. What, we should have done was to tell Japan that her export of certain commodities to Australia would be fixed at certain levels because similar- commodities- were- being- producedin Australia.

The Government says that to import, goods is deflationary, but that is how it got. into trouble in 1952. It. got into trouble because,, in its, pursuit of a conscious policy of deflation, it allowed- in too many goods. The Government does not seem to be taking, into account- the large number of people who are. already unemployed. It is estimated that. 60,000 people are unemployed, although.- it. is very difficult- to obtain a correct figure.

It does not take even a flood’ of imports, to affect local’ industries. I’ am not speaking now of well-established businesses that have been operating in Australia for 50 or. 60. years and. which have tremendous reserves; I am speaking particularly about. textile industries, that have been in operation for ten, fifteen or twenty years, and which, have not had- time to- accumulatetremendous reserves. Those businessescannot take too; large a shock. That is apparent from- a lot of’ the balancesheetsthat have been published during the lasttwelve months. Many of those businesses are having a difficult time. The edge on which they balance is not as secure, as many people who do not: study these, matters, think.. There are honorable, senators, opposite.-, including Ministers,, who are or have, been in business,, and. who will be the first, to admit that, things do not need to go toofar wrong before the situation becomes critical;. Some. of. these- Australian industries, need only a. little knock to place them, in. serious, trouble.

– The Japanese must have met great competition from the manufacturers of Sierra Leone. What did they have - a spinning wheel?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– The Japanese put the British out of the market there.

They knocked out the British manufacturers, not the spinning wheels of the poor natives of Sierra Leone.

Senator Spooner:

– We are talking about Australia.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– But you are not thinking about Australia. What happened in the United States and Canada? President Eisenhower had to take action against imported woollen worsted fabrics. Imports from Japan rose from 200,000 square yards in 1951 to 6,000,000 square yards in 1956. President Eisenhower ordered a duty to be placed on imports in excess of 14,000,000 square yards to protect local industries.

Senator Gorton:

– That restriction was not imposed solely against Japan.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– That does not matter. We have to protect Australian industries. If we can persuade the Government to do that, we will be doing a good job. The Americans are protecting their own industries, and that is the fundamental task of this Government. What did it do to develop an export trade in butter with the United States? It agreed that after we had exported 25,000,000 lb. to the United States, the tariff should be raised from 7 cents to 14 cents per lb. That was done simply for the protection of the American industry.

What protection will we have here when this flood of Japanese goods begins to flow into Australia? Honorable senators have been told what happened in Canada in similar circumstances. Those countries were faced with the same situation, and they are much stronger economically than we are. When the Japanese opened negotiations with the Canadians, the Japanese trade officials set the Canadian sales target at a level high enough to restore pre-war trade. The ratio of trade was then six to one in Canada’s favour. The trade agreement with Canada was negotiated in 1954. The ratio has now gone to two to one, and balanced trade should be reached in 1957.

Nobody can stand against this flood of Japanese goods. It is not as though the Japanese products were rubbish. If they were, they could be ignored, but the Japanese are making goods of top quality equal to those produced anywhere in the world.

Senator Scott:

– What about steel? Are the Japanese producing steel cheaper than ours?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– As a matter of fact, they are not. I have an interesting letter here on Japanese competition in the United States. It is from the “ American Ceramic Industry Journal “. This is an extract from the letter -

Members of the United States Potters’ Association, who make close to 90 per cent, of all the semi-vitreous dinner ware made in this country, produced 27,466,000 dozen of pieces in 1948. There has been a steady decrease each year since then, with the exception of 1950, until in 1956, the total shipment of domestic potteries amounted to 17,721,000 dozen.

Earnings in 1948 for these same plants were 4,150,350 dollars after taxes. This figure rapidly decreased until, in 1954, there was a net loss for all plants of 1,107,882 dollars. The net loss was slightly less for 1955, and no improvement is expected to be shown when 1956 figures are in. .

What has all this accomplished? If the motives behind .your program are to help the Japanese, you have not even succeeded in doing this. Seventy-five per cent, of the cost of making American pottery is in labour; Japanese labour costs are barely one-tenth those in this country. Therefore, as far as the Japanese themselves are concerned, their pottery could be sold in this country at far lower prices than it is and still be profitable.

Is this fair? The Japanese labourer, whom we are apparently committed to uplift, is still working for next to nothing; the American importer is making a huge profit at the expense of the Japanese, and the American pottery industry is dying a horrible death.

That is why this must be stopped. The importers will make a fortune. Referring to the ceramics, the letter continued -

The Japanese worker can’t get much less than 15 cents an hour; the importer might have to settle for a smaller but perfectly reasonable profit, and may be the American pottery industry can turn some of its multi-million dollar losses into a small profit before it is totally extinct.

Another, factor to which I. should like to. refer, relates, to our prospects of prosperity in future. As everybody knows, there is the: possibility that Great Britain will eventually join the. Western Europe free-trade, pact. She. has explored the possibility already. Iti is as plain as a pikestaff to. me. that, once that happens; Great Britain, whether she likes it or not, will be forced, to buy much larger quantities- of foodstuffs from. Western Europe.. I- know she; has, stated that if- she- does join- the pact, she will maintain the status, quo in, her trade relations in foodstuffs with some of her dominions, but she is not in this pact yet, and I believe that once she is she will be forced to buy a larger proportion of her food from the Western European nations. That is a factor of the future that we cannot possibly ignore because it means, in the hard realities of trade, that we shall be selling her less of our foodstuff!

We- must not. forget a further possibility of the future which, cannot be denied, by. honorable: senators opposite. History has always shown, that with the lessening of world tension there is always a corresponding drop in the prices of world commodities. That has always happened in this world, and 1 think it is reasonable to assume - I emphasize that I am talking ofthe future - that in due course world tensions will decrease. There are signs of italready, and there are corresponding signs of a drop in world commodity prices. The price of lead has dropped, and the prices of scheelite, rutile and copper are dropping. lt is not beyond the bounds of possibility that when the now rather alarming- possibility of World. War III. has gone, the price of wool may drop. We must not overlook that fact. We must look a little to the future, and- who- would be so dogmatic as to- assert that the price of wool will be maintained indefinitely.. Our economy, whether we like it or. not, is linked not only to wool, but to the high price of wool. Surely we will be wise to take out an insurance policy on our overseas, trade; surely we have to do it..

The third factor in relation to the futureis that- we must reconcile ourselves, whether or not we like it or would, change it, to- theinescapable truth that we shall have the greatest difficulty im altering our- economic structure to- enable the- Australian manufacturer to play a more predominant part in our export market. Our economy is linked to a- high wages- level, with, which I have no quarrel; and’ to a very high standard of living, of which I entirely approve. Having, regard, to those facts, and to other, factors which- 1 shalL not canvass; it is perfectly, obvious to me - and I hope to. everybody else - that, at least in our time and perhaps for many generations ahead, we must accept the truth that our economy is linked not’ to the export of manufactured goods but to a continuance of the export of a, very, high level of primary produce. Those aspects, of our future economy, 1 think, are worthy, of consideration. They all’ point, together with the other matters L have referred, to, to the fact that we must confirm this agreement with Japan.

I want to make some reference to the case against this treaty: Senator McKenna opposed’ the provisions of the agreement and endeavoured by his arguments to show that its provisions permitted a state of affairs to- arise- whereby Australian manufacturers would be- seriously injured. I join, issue with the honorable- senator on that point. Article 5 makes perfectly clear that the Australian Government can- take unilateral action even if a particular producer is only threatened with serious damage. In other words, there need not be the importation of one additional” Japanese shirt. If the Australian Government,, in its discretion, comes to the conclusion that a particular manufacturer will- be seriously damaged, the Government can take unilateral action to prevent the importation of that shirt.

Senator Toohey:

– Yes, but will it?

Senator VINCENT:

– I shall” deal with that, because I concede that there is a potential weakness in- the administration of the agreement. I do not think that it will occur, but I’ shall make brief mention of How I think the Government’ might act in relation- to the- administration’ of the provisions relating to- this aspect of serious damage. I think I- would Be right in saying that that aspect of the agreement wouldbe looked’ after By the Department of Trade, and that the- machinery used would’ be the import licensing control machinery. I mustadmit’ that up to- date I am- not quite sure that1 that machinery has worked as efficiently as it should work. I think that improvements could’ be made in it and I shall, with great- respect, suggest some to the Minister.

I’ suggest that although the present licensing machinery has succeeded in its- broad task of maintaining our overseas balances, it has- brought to- light many instances of individual injustice. Also, the machinery has been, too- slow in working. There are other objections, including the fact that it is: administered- to far too great an extent by the civil” service- of this country: I suggest that a much more efficient instrument is- necessary- to- give- proper effect to the provisions of the agreement. I do not, for one moment, admit that those provisions are not all that is claimed for them by the Government; they are, and I am perfectly satisfied with them, but that is not the whole story. What is to happen when an Australian manufacturer claims that he might be injured? 1 suggest for the Government’s consideration that some different form of machinery is desirable in the circumstances, because we are now departing from a very interesting part of the policy of this Government in relation to import control. Heretofore, import control has been used, as I understand it, exclusively for the purposes of maintaining overseas balances. Now it is to be used - I think I am right in saying - for the purpose of protection.

Senator Courtice:

– It cannot be.

Senator Wright:

– I hope not.

Senator VINCENT:

– That is my reading of the agreement. If I am wrong, I will stand corrected. I suggest that an impartial body should be appointed to make decisions in relation to the agreement.

Senator Courtice:

– It cannot be done.

Senator VINCENT:

– I think it can be clone. Both the industrialist and the Department of Trade should appear before this tribunal and the decision should be made as quickly as possible. There should be absolutely no delay. Both sides should be entitled to know the other’s case. The decision should be final and binding unless it is altered by Cabinet itself. Finally, if a manufacturer has made a bona fide application which, for example, is endorsed by the Chamber of Manufactures, I suggest that the Japanese goods concerned should not be admitted until the case is disposed of. That is quite a reasonable suggestion. If those elements were incorporated in the import licensing control machinery the manufacturer would not only get justice but he would feel that he was getting justice, which is just as important.

I offer those remarks to the Minister for his consideration because cases of individual injustice have been brought to my notice, and we do not want a recurrence of them. So far as the treaty is concerned, I repeat that it could not give better protection, as a document, to any section of the community. I think I have advanced sufficient reasons - they are perfectly satisfying to me and I trust that they will be accepted by the Senate - why this agreement should be accepted.

In conclusion, I wish to congratulate the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) on the completion of what must have been a most difficult task and a most complicated series of negotiations. 1 think he did a magnificent job for his country. I believe that the critics, apart from one or two in the Opposition but most certainly those critics who come from our manufacturing industries, will before long with us acclaim this agreement as a very statesmanlike act. I have very much pleasure in supporting it.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

.- I desire to support Senator Cole’s amendment, which appears to me to represent a constructive and commonsense attempt to deal with a situation which, whether we like it or not, has now become an accomplished fact. For that reason, I prefer Senator Cole’s amendment to that of Senator McKenna, which seems to me to be purely of a negative character. In our amendment, we have endeavoured to crystallize the attitude towards the agreement of the Australian Textile Workers Union, which is one of the parties vitally concerned and the members of which are most likely to suffer from any unemployment that may result from the agreement. In a letter which I received, and which no doubt other honorable senators received, from the union, appear these words -

We desire that our attitude should be fully understood. We do not oppose imports of goods from overseas, Japan or any other country. This must be part of the policy of any Government, in the interests of international trade and a balanced economy. But the welfare and protection of Australian secondary industry is also in the interests of a balanced economy, much more so in fact, than that of overseas countries. Therefore we say, as we have always said, “ Those goods which are manufactured in quality and quantity by local industry to meet the requirements of the local market and keep our workers in constant and profitable employment should not be imported from overseas countries”. Imports, in our view, should be confined to goods and raw materials which cannot be procured locally, and there is surely a sufficiently wide field here to satisfy even the rapaciousness of the importing community.

That is the view of the union, and I compliment it upon having adopted a very fair attitude towards the problem. As I said earlier, the party that I represent has endeavoured, in the amendment, to place before the Senate a crystallization of the union’s views.

It is interesting to note, by the way, that much the same thing has been said during the past week by the representative of the other side of industry, the Chamber of Manufactures in Melbourne. That representative, in a public statement, urged the Government to compile a list of those goods which could be imported from Japan without undue competition against goods made in Australia. In view of the fact that the unions and the employers seem to be as one on this matter, I urge the Government to give every consideration to their suggestion. 1 congratulate the union upon its fairminded approach, because, too, in some quarters attempts have been made to prejudice people against trade with Japan on racial grounds or by raking over once again the embers of the atrocities that were committed upon our soldiers during the last war. We all deplore those atrocities, but wc cannot keep them in mind for ever. We must bear in mind that, if we continually bring up those atrocities, the Japanese may say that they are balanced by the fact that Japan has been the only country so far to have suffered the horrors of atomic warfare. Just as we bear in mind the atrocities that were committed on our troops in Burma, so the average Japanese bears in mind the fact that not only Japanese troops but also thousands of non-combatants, including women and children, died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in circumstances of inconceivable horror. Therefore, I suggest that we should not continue to bring up these old, unhappy far-off things.

Certain facts must be borne in mind. We must remember that the Japanese must live, that to live they must eat, that to eat they must have food, that they must be able to pay for that food, and that they cannot pay for it unless they are able to export their manufactures. The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) has pointed out that over the past five years Japan has bought £425,000,000 worth of goods from Australia and that we in return bought £65,000,000 worth from Japan - a ratio of more than six to one in our favour. He further said -

In fact, because of our import restrictions and because of our specially severe restrictions against Japan alone, imports from Japan were only £A.12,900,000 in the trading year ended 30th June last. In the same year, our exports to Japan were £139,000,000, so the ratio in our favour this last year was about eleven to one.

Any one who has the instinct of reasonable fair play will have to admit that such a situation could not be expected to continue and that an agreement to take up some of the lag between imports and exports was necessary in the interests not only of Japan but also of Australia.

I have heard Ministers say - they would not be human if they did not do so - that the prosperity that we have enjoyed during the last few years has been due to their own good government.

Senator Courtice:

– Surely the honorable senator does not believe that.

Senator McMANUS:

– I do not believe it. I believe that one of the biggest factors in the prosperity that we have enjoyed in recent years has been the fact that we have been favoured with amazingly good luck in the wonderful prices we have received for our wool. Therefore, I suggest that we must consider what would happen if nothing were done to help Japan and if eventually she reached a condition of bankruptcy in which she was unable to buy our wool, our wheat, or even our sugar. If that happened, and if Japan withdrew from the wool sales, the effect upon the prices would be catastrophic, and the effect on our national economy would be the same. Will any one say that, if Japan were forced by bankruptcy or near-bankruptcy to withdraw from the wool sales, the drop in our national income would not result in substantial unemployment?

We must also consider the fact that, if Japan found that she was unable to carry on reasonable trade with the democracies, obviously she would be forced into the orbit of the iron curtain countries. It is not necessary for me to point out how dangers to this country would increase from the addition to the already swollen populations of those countries by another 100,000,000 people from Japan.

It has been suggested that one of the reasons for Japan’s troubles is that she no longer has access to the red China market. “That -may be ‘true, but ‘I also point out that, if we force Japan away from the democracies and back onto the red China market, the people to whom she will have to go for that trade will drive a much harder bargain than is being driven by other people. You know as well as I know that the condition of opening that trade to Japan in .quantities which would be >of any real use to her would be Japan’s practical integration into .the iron ,curtain scheme of things. In those circumstances, I think it is perfectly logical and right, and also fair and just - as well as in our own interests - that we should go as far as we can to assist Japan to remain within the .circle of the democratic States. ;i believe, of course, that that would be a big ,factor for .peace. All of us know that one of the principal causes of the great wars of the past has been the economic factor. In an attempt -to break her economic bonds, Japan has previously gone to war.

Senator Grant:

– And she will try “it again. -Senator McMANUS. - I -agree. I have no doubt .that it we refuse to give Japan reasonable access to the world’s markets, she will be .forced .to try to obtain a place in the sun «by force of .arms. The other point I wish to make is the standard of ‘ living in .Japan. The standards there are .low, but if we refuse to trade with Japan they will .go lower still. The people who will suffer if Japan is cut off from the world’s -markets will be those who are .the workers. We have heard a lot about the workers in this country and-others, but those who are true -socialists would readily recognize that -the Japanese who works in the .coal mines, on the docks and in the factories ;is, in the view »of socialism, just as much a worker as the -man who carries out his employment in .Australia, Great Britain and other countries. Therefore, if we want to raise the standard of living in ‘Japan, we have to .give her access to the world’s markets so that her national income can .be maintained, and so that she can buy food which is one of the most essential factors in the standard of living.

Therefore, .the party I support believes that we have to admit the right of Japan to a reasonable share in trade with Australia, but we say that we should concentrate that trade on those goods which can he imported and which will not compete unduly with Australian industry. We believe that the Government should direct its attention to -compiling lists of those goods and, if possible, give special facilities, for their importation. Senator Cole set out a number of types of goods which he believed would come within this category. I support the .point of view that Senator Cole put forward to the effect that if we did that we would be able to increase our trade with Japan without undue effect upon the employment of our own people.

As I have referred to the remarks of Senator Cole, I trust I will be pardoned a brief reference to a suggestion made by Senator Kennelly that I would feel uncomfortable under the leadership of Senator Cole because of some remarks that he made. I should have thought that, of all the days in .the ‘year, yesterday was the most inappropriate for a member of the Opposition ‘to raise the question of members of this Parliament being uncomfortable under their leadership. As the question has been raised, I will say that, as the rank and file of our party in this Senate, I have no intention of moving a vote -of no confidence in Senator Cole, and I am prepared to say that even at the risk of revealing the secrets of our -caucus. I am in entire agreement with Senator Toohey that, as happened yesterday, .for obvious reasons if I .did propose such a ‘motion, I would have grave difficulty in finding .a seconder.

I want to conclude by saying that I am quite happy with Senator Cole’s leadership. He does not write to Molotov and he is not interested ‘in Petrov. I find him courageous, and he ‘has a quality ‘that I appreciate^ - -he sticks to his mates. In those circumstances, ! am quite happy to be with him. I am quite ‘happy to support the amendment ‘that he moved and which, as I have stressed earlier, crystallizes the views on this important matter .of the union most likely to be affected.

Senator MAHER:
Queensland

.- The ‘Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Kennelly) this afternoon glumly forecast blue ruin and the most dreadful calamities for our manufacturing industries. His object, of course, was not to analyse the trade agreement between Australia and Japan on its merits, but to stir up panic among the workers in our .manufacturing industries. That dog will, not ‘bank with .the Australian people. The Leader of the

Opposition (Senator McKenna) has. submitted, an amendment which proposes to add to the motion for the printing of the paper the following words: -

And’ the Senate expresses its disapproval of the Agreement on Commerce between the Commonwealth of Australia and Japan. 1 oppose that amendment absolutely. To be logical and consistent, Senator McKenna should have added these words to his amendment -

And calls for the continuance of trade, discrimination against. Japan.

His proposed addition to the motion would then- read -

And- the Senate- expresses its disapproval of the Agreement on. Commerce between the Commonwealth of’ Austalia- and-. Japan, and calls for the continuance: of trade discrimination against Japan.

Does Senator McKenna want it. that way? Does he; want. Japan- one; of our- best customers, a. near neighbour, and a: great Pacific trading- power - to- remain completely isolated? Will anybody speak, up. for him in his: absence and1 declare where the Opposition stands on that important, point?. Does the Leader of the Opposition want Japan to be deprived of equal trading rights with all: other/ foreign, nations? The very nature of. his- amendment suggests that Senator McKenna nob only disapproves- of the agreement between- Australia and Japan, but wants to deprive Japan of equal trading rights with other foreign nations and wants to continue the discrimination that has been exercised against Japan- over the past two years. The Leader of the Opposition should declare to this– Senate where he stands, orelse the- Deputy Leader of the Opposition, or somebody competent to speak for the Opposition; should- say where they standon this point.

– Japan does not have to buy our wool. She has done without it before. She ‘has searched the markets of South Africa, Argentine, Brazil and other countries where wool is grown. She has made do with what she could buy in those markets. I have been led away from my main point, which is that our manufacturing interests would .be severely handicapped if there were a heavy fall of imports. Australia needs overseas credits. That is why this agreement with Japan is so essential, not only to the general economy of the country, but to the whole of our people and to the maintenance of the stability df our -manufacturing industries.

Secondly, a heavy fall in our exports would .gravely weaken the whole Australian economy and injure, -not .only manufacturing interests, ‘but .every .section of .the community. The greater is the volume of our export wealth, the greater will be .the amount of .money that we can .accumulate overseas and the greater will be the prosperity of Australia. First and foremost, as an economic advantage .to this country, we must expand .our export trade. That is of paramount importance. The expansion of our trade with .Japan will increase our national prosperity and will help us to maintain the present .flow >of immigrants -to this .country. Each immigrant ;has a cash value. Immigration creates a greater demand for .the products of our -secondary industries.

Our woollen manufacturers have been very concerned about the impact of the Japanese Trade Agreement on their local market. -I was informed before the session commenced ‘by Queensland woollen manufacturers that the Australian woollen mills ranked fourth in the purchase of -wool at the Australian wool auctions held from year to year. This is good, and I am sure that nothing will happen in terms df this agreement -to retard the. progress of this important Australian manufacturing ‘industry. There is abundant ^evidence that it has little to fear ‘from this agreement. The Minister for for Trade ;has stated that since ‘1954 there has been no licensing discrimination against woollen goods from Japan. The signing of ‘the treaty has not altered the status quo of the -past three years in any important particular. There ‘has been no importation of ‘wool tops from Japan. -Senator McCallum. - What ,are they?

Senator MAHER:

– I am not an expert in the manufacturing processes of wool. As a matter of fact, although I .have been growing wool for many years, I still find that even those in the grazing industry have much to learn about this miracle fabric, wool. .As in life itself, one is never too old to learn. As far as I understand it, wool tops represent the first stage in making worsted yarns and worsted piece goods. Two distinct products of wool manufacturers - worsteds and woollens - are covered. They are the higher types df fabrics, so that when we speak of wool tops I think it can be fairly said that we are referring to the top quality of the wool which is utilized for the best types of fabrics. There are other divisions like woollen yarn, which is a rough thread compared with the wool tops. Then there are woollen piece goods, which are used largely for overcoats and outer garments. They are frequently blended .with cotton and other fabrics to make up an article which can be sold at a cheaper rate to meet a wide demand. My .answer to Senator McCallum, then, “is that wool tops, as -I understand the industry, would represent the top line of wool for manufacture into the valuable fabrics.

There has been no .importation of wool tops from Japan whatsoever since 1949. Woollen yarns are in ‘much the same position as wool tops. There has been no importation from Japan in recent years, and there .is no basic tariff change under this agreement. As to blankets, there has been no discrimination against ‘Japan for the past three years but the importation of blankets from that country during that period was infinitesimal. Last year, the total importation of blankets from all over the world represented “only 3 per cent, of the Australian .market, and the value of Japan’s .share -of the blanket trade in this country was only £342.

Now let us look at woollen piece goods. This item includes all piece goods, even those with a wool content of as little as 2 per cent. ‘Over the last three years, with no discrimination whatsoever against Japan, the value of total importation df woollen piece goods into Australia from all sources was £5,000,000 of which Japan’s share amounted to only £2,000.

To emphasize the position, let me say that last year the value of the total importation of woollen piece goods by Australia was £1,000,000. Of that sum, only £500 worth came from Japan. There was no licensing discrimination against Japan during that period.

The matter can be considered in another way. Over the last three years, the total Australian market for woollen piece goods was 94,000,000 square yards. Of that total, only 6,000,000 square yards was imported from the whole wide world, thus leaving 88,000,000 square yards to the Australian woollen industry. Japan’s share of the 6;000,000 square yards was very small indeed.

One important reason why I think our woollen manufacturing industries will -not be seriously affected is .that Japan buys Australia’s ‘wool -mainly to -meet the needs of the local or domestic Japanese market; that ‘.is to say, to .meet the needs of the Japanese people. On past -.performances, Japan has not exported woollen fabrics to any great extent, and that is why I say that our Australian woollen industry has very little ‘to fear from Japanese competition. I ‘ask for ‘leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 233

TARIFF BOARD

Annual Report

Senator HENTY:
LP

– J lay on the table the following paper - tariff. Board .Act- ^Annual report .of .the Tariff

Board for year 1956-57, together with summary o’f recommendations.

Copies of the report are not yet available for distribution to honorable senators. However, I expect copies to be available in roneo-ed form later this evening.

page 233

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT ‘PRODUCTION

Senator McMANUS:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it a fact that a number of former employees at government aircraft factories, who refused to be downgraded in their jobs and gave up their employment at the factories for this reason, have thereby been deprived of their furlough benefits?
Have the Department of Defence Production and the Treasury justified this action on the ground that there is .a .legal right, in any employer to downgrade an employee with or without his consent?
If so, will the Prime Minister arrange for the Department of Defence Production and the Treasury to study (a) the decision of the Full Bench of the New South Wales Industrial Commission of 19th December, 1956, in the case of the Journalists’ award, (b) the decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria in the case of O’Connor v. The Argus and Australasian Limited, and (c) the decision of the Full Court of the New South Wales Supreme Court in McCarthy v. Windeyer - all of which decisions support the right of a worker to refuse to work in a grade lower than that to which he was appointed?
In view of these decisions, will the Department of Defence Production and the Treasury, as an act of justice, grant furlough benefits to employees of government aircraft factories who exercised their right to refuse downgrading?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– During the recent parliamentary adjournment the Acting Prime Minister advised the honorable senator by letter as follows: - 1 and 2. Nine persons employed at government aircraft factories who had eight years’ service and were thus entitled if retrenched to furlough payments were given notice of reduction in classification. They refused to accept this and submitted instead their resignations. Employees who are not retrenched within the meaning of the act are eligible for the grant of furlough upon resignation, and subject to the other provision of the act, only if they have completed at least fifteen years’ service with the Commonwealth or, after age 60, a period of eight years’ service. 3 and 4. The decisions will be referred to the law officers of the Crown for advice of their effect upon the administration of the act.

The Prime Minister has now informed me that the decisions have in fact been referred to the Crown law officers for their advice.

page 234

QUESTION

SHEEP RAISING IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator SCOTT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, upon notice) -

Is it a fact that many sheep stations in the north-west of Western Australia have been abandoned, mainly because of their inability to carry sufficient sheep to operate as economic propositions; and that the numbers of sheep carried on some stations have fallen from 20,000 to 300? 2.Is it a fact that the State Department of Agriculture has established an experimental research station at Abydos Station, near Port Hedland, with a view to finding ways of reestablishing the pastures?
Are any Commonwealth officers co-operating in this work; if not, will the Minister contact the State department with an offer of assistance?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The following reply has been furnished: -

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization does not know whether it is a fact that many sheep stations in the northwest of Western Australia have been abandoned mainly because of their inability to carry sufficient sheep to operate as economic propositions : and that the numbers of sheep carried on some stations have fallen from 20,000 to 300.
It is true that the State Department of Agriculture has established an experimental research station at Abydos Station, near Port Hedland, with a view of finding ways of reestablishing the pastures.
No Commonwealth officers are at present co-operating in thiswork However, the C.S.I.R.O. has for some years been associated with the Department of Agriculture of Western Australia in the Kimberley Research Station on the Ord River, about 60 miles from Wyndham. A number of crops and pastures have been studied at that station, both with and without irrigation. In addition, for over fifteen years C.S.I.R.O. has had a Pasture Research Unit located at the Institute of Agriculture, University of Western Australia, and has investigated problems of pasture establishment and utilization in the southern portion of the State. If the Department of Agriculture of Western Australia considered that C.S.I.R.O. could assist it in some particular phase of its work in the re-establishment of pastures in the Port Hedland area, a request from the department would naturally be most carefully considered. I should like to say, though, that C.S.I.R.O.’s resources are far from unlimited and that constant demands are being made upon the organization for additional work in a wide range of subjects.

page 234

QUESTION

NORTH-WEST OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the Government of Western Australia has placed before the Prime Minister a report of an all-party committee of the Western Australian Parliament dealing with the development of the north-western areas of Australia, together with a request that the matters raised therein receive the attention of the Commonwealth Government?
Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Government has neglected to give attention to this matter?
On what date was this report and request for action placed before the federal Government?
What action, if any, has the Government taken in the matter?
Will the Minister arrange for the papers relating to this subject to be tabled in the Senate?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The following replies have been furnished: - 1 to 5. A deputation representing all parties in the Western Australian Parliament waited on the Prime Minister and other members of the Government in June, 1955, to put forward a number of detailed poposals for the development of the north-west of Western Australia. The Commonwealth Government has acted on two of these proposals. It joined with the State in subsidizing the operations of the blue asbestos mine at Wittenoom and more recently provided additional taxation concession for persons living in remote areas. No final decision has been taken on the remaining proposals, but there have been exchanges with the Western Australian Government. During the recent visit of the Premier to Canberra, the position was discussed with the Treasurer, who indicated that further consideration would be given to the matter after the Prime Minister’s return from overseas. That is now being done. I would remind honorable senators that, although it is some time since these proposals were put forward, the Commonwealth has not been unmindful of the needs of Western Australia. In the meantime, it has provided £2,000,000 by way of special assistance to that State’s loan programme, and recently has offered to increase its contribution to the comprehensive water supply scheme by £1,000,000, and to increase the rate at which the Commonwealth’s contribution is to be made available. I see no reason for tabling the papers in the Senate.

page 235

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– On 3rd September, Senator O’Byrne asked a question without notice concerning the use of government-owned ships by Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited and by the Japanese Government. I am now in a position to furnish the following answer: -

There are no Commonwealth-owned vessels used exclusively for the purposes associated with the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. Nineteen of the ships operated by the Australian National Line, consisting of twelve river class, three lake class, two “ T “ class and two “ I “ class, carry B.H.P. cargoes such as iron ore and steel products in the course of their normal trading operations. These ships also carry other cargoes not associated with the operations of B.H.P. such as coal, wheat, &c. I have already indicated that no Commonwealth-owned ships are on loan to the Japanese Government. It does occur to me, however, that the honorable gentleman was seeking information on charter. Two ships, “ Bulwarra “ and “ Baralga “, are on six months’ charter to Japanese firms and in the course of their employment by the Japanese have engaged in the carriage of scrap iron and nickel ores from New Caledonia to Japan.

Senator McMANUS:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice -

Is it a fact that Mr. W. Bird, Victorian secretary of the Australian Seamen’s Union, has admitted that certain shipowners made payments to Australian maritime unions in return for permission to man certain ships voyaging between Australia and overseas countries with nonAustralian crews at less than Australian award rates?
If so, will the Minister make inquiries and advise the Senate - (a) What shipowners made such payments? (b) What unions received such payments? (c) What ships were involved? (d) Did the sum involved in respect of the Commonwealth ship “Tyalla’’ exceed £3,000? (e) Was this payment included in the price obtained by the Shipping Commission for the “ Tyalla “, and, if not, why not? (f) Does the Government propose to stop these practices, which appear to constitute a form of blackmail and threaten the conditions and employment of maritime unionists?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows: -

I have seen press references to statements that such payments have been made, but I cannot personally affirm that Mr. Bird has made the admission attributed to him by the honorable senator. 2. (a) (b) and (c) I cannot add anything to the answer in parts 2 and 3 of Question 26 appearing on Senate notice-paper No. 20 supplied by the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service on 4th September, (d) and (e) There was no provision in the sale price of “ Tyalla “ for any payments to unions. Once the sale had been completed at the agreed price and the vessel was handed over to her new owners, the responsibility of the Australian National Line for the vessel ended, (f) With my colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service, I am continuing to follow this whole matter closely.

page 235

QUESTION

SHIPPING FREIGHTS

Senator ARMSTRONG:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice -

In view of the fact that charter rates for ships are being cut throughout the world, what are the grounds upon which overseas shipowners trading to Australia justify their continuing increases in freight charges?
Is it a fact that the charges have this year been increased by 18 per cent., despite a 12 per cent, drop in the value of goods shipped?
Is the Government satisfied that these increased charges are justified: if not, what action does it propose to take to remedy the situation?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I have referred the question to the Minister for Trade who has informed’ me as follows: -

Liner rates are based on costs of operation and are fixed on an annual basis while charter rates fluctuate freely according to world supply and demand for charter tonnage. Charter rates are being cut because the excessive demand relative to the availability of tramp shipping has been relieved.
Liner freights on rates from Australia to the United Kingdom and Continent were increased by 14 per cent, in February, 1957. Shipowners have announced that no increase in existing rates will be sought before September, 1958.
Freight rates for the carriage of liner cargoes from Australia to Europe are settled in negotiations between duly organized group of shippers and shipowners within the framework of the Australian Overseas Transport Association. When the Australian Industries Preservation Act was amended in 1930 to enable this procedure to be followed, no basis was established for government participation in these negotiations. The increase in February this year was negotiated under these procedures. Producer-exporter interests are now reviewing their organization with a view to improving its effectiveness and a committee of the Australian Overseas Transport Association is examining the constitution of the association.

page 235

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator O’sullivan) agreed to-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until! Tuesday, 1st October, at 3 p.m., unless sooner called together by the President by telegram or letter.

Senate adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 5 September 1957, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1957/19570905_senate_22_s11/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 5 September 1957

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS

Senator McKENNA:TASMANIA

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

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS

Senator LAUGHT:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

QUESTION

CIVIL DEFENCE

Senator HARRIS:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator O’SULLIVAN:Attorney-General · QUEENSLAND · LP

QUESTION

HOUSING FOR DEFENCE PERSONNEL

Senator ANDERSON:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator SPOONER:LP

QUESTION

SOIL EROSION

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

Senator SPOONER:LP

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT LOANS AND FINANCE

Senator ASHLEY:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator SPOONER:LP

QUESTION

DIESEL FUEL TAX

Senator VINCENT:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator HENTY:Minister for Customs and Excise · TASMANIA · LP

QUESTION

MICA

Senator BROWN:QUEENSLAND

Senator SPOONER:LP

QUESTION

NUCLEAR BOMB TESTS;

Senator PEARSON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OF IMMIGRANTS

Senator SANDFORD:VICTORIA

Senator SPOONER:LP

QUESTION

ORD RIVER RESEARCH STATION

Senator HARRIS:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator SPOONER:LP

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH1 PROPERTY

Senator WOOD:QUEENSLAND

Senator HENTY:LP

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OF IMMIGRANTS

Senator SPOONER:LP

QUESTION

PORT AUGUSTA-BROKEN HILL RAILWAY

Senator SEWARD:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PALTRIDGE:LP

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator WARDLAW:TASMANIA

Senator SPOONER:LP

QUESTION

UNIDENTIFIED SUBMAKINES IN NORTHERN AUSTRALIAN WATERS

Senator SEWARD:

Senator HENTY:LP

QUESTION

MERINO SHEEP

Senator HANNAN:VICTORIA

Senator PALTRIDGE:LP

QUESTION

MEDICAL BENEFITS SCHEME

Senator WILLESEE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator COOPER:Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

QUESTION

POLIOMYELITIS

Senator COOPER:CP

QUESTION

TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES

Senator COOPER:CP

REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

Senate
5 September 1957

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA

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

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Attorney-General · QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator ANDERSON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator SPOONER:
LP

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

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator VINCENT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · TASMANIA · LP

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

Senator HENTY:
LP

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator SEWARD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

Senator WARDLAW:
TASMANIA

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator HENTY:
LP

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

Senator COOPER:
CP

Senator COOPER:
CP

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

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Attorney-General · Queensland · LP

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

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

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

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

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

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

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Attorney-General · Queensland · LP

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

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

Senator PEARSON:
South Australia

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

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

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

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

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

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

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

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

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

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

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

Senator ANDERSON:
New South Wales

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

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales