Senate
26 March 1958

22^nd Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- ROADS
QUESTION
- TASMANIAN TIMBER INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- TAXATION
QUESTION
- INDONESIA
QUESTION
- SCHOOL SAVINGS SCHEME
QUESTION
- STANDARDIZATION OF RAIL GAUGES
QUESTION
- ST. MARY’S, NEW SOUTH WALES
QUESTION
- JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
QUESTION
- PORT OF ALBANY
QUESTION
- RAIL TRANSPORT
QUESTION
- EUROPEAN IMMIGRANTS
QUESTION
- IMPORTATION OF CATTLE
QUESTION
- EUROPEAN IMMIGRANTS
LIFE INSURANCE BILL 1958
- Second Reading
RESERVE BANK BILL 1957
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMuIIin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 359

QUESTION

ROADS

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport whether it is a fact that recently he met representatives of the States regarding a national roadsplan. Is it also a fact that the only bar to agreement was the lack of finance? If the answers to the foregoing questions are in the affirmative, will the Minister say whether he explored the possibility of the States granting to’ the Commonwealth the necessary powers to assume full responsibility for a national roads plan? Alternatively, since a national roads plan is so imperative, from a defence as well as an economic point of view, will the Government take the necessary steps to make available the requisite finance through the Commonwealth Bank before the bank is mutilated, if it ever is?

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

– Apparently the honorable senator has some misunderstanding of the position as it actually exists. A meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council was held in Perth recently, as one of the council’s regular meetings. The council comprises myself, as Commonwealth Minister for Shipping and Transport, other Commonwealth Ministers having an interest in transport, and Transport Ministers from each of the State governments. At that meeting, certain proposals submitted by road organizations were presented for the consideration of council in relation to what was described as a national roads plan. There was no disagreement in the council. On the contrary, there was unanimity that the road organizations which had made the representations should be informed that the Australian Transport Advisory Council was satisfied that the State road authorities had the necessary plans and could carry out the road construction and maintenance necessary to put into effect a national roads plan - in other words, that the plan was already there and that it was not necessary for one to be presented. In recent years, there has been rather a tendency to present plans in respect of road transport; but the State authorities themselves say quite emphatically that they have the requisite plans, and that view is shared by the Commonwealth.

As to the financial proposals, it was said quite bluntly, as it has been said over the years by the Transport Advisory Council, that a shortage of finance prevented the implementation of a national roads plan.

Senator Sandford:

Senator Hannaford:

– He suggested that negotiations should be instituted between the Victorian Government and the Commonwealth to see whether the standard rail gauge on that section should be given some priority.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– As I stated, I have no official knowledge of what he said although I have seen a reference to it.

Senator Toohey:

– When did he say it?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– The Government will give consideration to the recommendations contained in the Wentworth report when undertaking any standardization work in future.

page 361

QUESTION

ST. MARY’S, NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator ANDERSON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for National Development been directed to an article in yesterday’s “ Sydney Morning Herald “ headed “ Deadlock over Plan to Build £10,000,000

Town “? The article pointed out that a private group of business interests, using overseas capital, was prepared to embark on a £10,000,000 housing scheme at St. Mary’s, in New South Wales, comprising more than 3,000 homes, as well as shops and community services. However, the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board, which is a New South Wales Government instrumentality, has refused to provide water and sewerage facilities for the project, lt has refused, also, the offer of a Joan of £600,000 from the company, which has said to the board, in effect, “ If money is your problem in providing the normal home requirements of water and sewerage, we are prepared to lend you the money to do the job “. Will the Minister make urgent representations to Mr. Cahill, the Premier of New South Wales, in connexion with the matter and request him to investigate this fantastic behaviour of one of the New South Wales Government’s instrumentalities, which is likely to result in the people of the State being denied some 3,000 new homes? Does this position make a mockery of the housing conference that Was called by Mr. Cahill several weeks ago?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I shall answer the last part of the question first. There is no need to cite this particular incident in order to make a mockery of the housing conference that was held in New South Wales, because it was a blatantly political offensive from beginning to end. It achieved no useful purpose other than to permit Mr. Cahill to raise his hands to heaven and again call on the Commonwealth Government to give him more money. I read the newspaper article to which the honorable senator has referred with a great deal of interest. It was the first I had heard of the proposed scheme to build a £10,000,000 town at St. Mary’s. I have asked my department to see whether it can obtain some additional information about the proposal for me. I am not in a position to say whether the proposal is as has been outlined in the press, and I should like to find out more about it before expressing an opinion.

page 361

QUESTION

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the AttorneyGeneral inform the Senate of the legal difference between a university prankster and a teenage delinquent or bodgie when both indulge in breaches of the peace or the destruction of property?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The honorable senator should know from her long experience that a legal opinion on any matter should not be sought by way of a question asked in this chamber.

page 362

QUESTION

PORT OF ALBANY

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. As the residents of Albany in Western Australia are, 1 understand, rather concerned about the non-development of their . port, and having in mind the rapid development of the hinterland, will the Minister inform me what facilities the Government has provided to improve the port facilities there?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The question of port development, as such, is a matter for the State Government. The Commonwealth Government does not embark on any port developmental schemes. I understand that some development has taken place at the port of Albany and that work in this connexion is still proceeding. It might be pertinent to point out to the honorable senator that only recently, as a result of quite “lengthy negotiations, the Commonwealth has been able to free Albany of the restrictions hat were recently imposed on that port by virtue of the operation of the load line convention. Albany is now a free port all the year round. It might also be to the point to remind the honorable senator that during the last twelve months both Esperance and Albany have enjoyed - for the first time in about twenty years - a scheduled two-monthly shipping service.

page 362

QUESTION

RAIL TRANSPORT

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Yesterday, I sought from the Minister for Shipping and Transport information concerning the future of men at present engaged in trans-shipping goods from the Commonwealth Railways to the Western Australian Government Railways at Kalgoorlie and Parkeston. The Minister said that he would have the matter investigated and give me a reply later. I have since received communications from the local district council and the Western Australian Government Railways Employees Union expressing their anxiety about the matter, ls the Minister yet in a position to answer my question? If not, will he do so as early as possible?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I have asked the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner for immediate advice on this matter, but have not yet received it. As soon as I do, I shall be happy to communicate with the honorable senator.

page 362

QUESTION

EUROPEAN IMMIGRANTS

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

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

What action has the Government taken, or does it propose to take, on two urgent problems affecting migration which were raised at the Citizenship Convention in January of this year, viz.: - (a) the denial of opportunities for marriage and family life to many European migrants as a result of the excessively low proportion of single women among migrants, and; (b) the difficulty experienced by migrants in obtaining entry permits for parents and other members of their families?
In regard to (b), will the Government implement the suggestion of the Australian Council of Trade Unions’ president, Mr. Monk, that during the present unemployment difficulties the emphasis be more on family migration and less on single worker migration?

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

– The Minister for Immigration has supplied the following answers: -

I. (a) A basic principle of post-war immigration planning has been that “ family migration “ is “ good migration “. Whilst in recent years it has been possible to concentrate on the introduction of families, this has not always been the case. For instance, in the early years of the postwar schemes, it was necessary to introduce a number of single male workers to meet the labour demands of Australia’s essential industries. Typical examples were the building industry and associated industries, as well as the work force required for new developmental projects and for communications and transport. With the greater degree of balance which has subsequently been achieved between the supply and demand for labour, and the gradual overtaking of war-caused backlogs in the essential industries, it has been possible to reduce the emphasis on the worker component of the migrant intake and to restore family migration to its proper place. An examination of the 1954 census figures shows that the unbalance of the sexes was greatest in the case of migrants from southern European countries.

Policy changes were introduced early in 1956 in respect of full-fare immigration to Australia from the southern European countries. One of the objectives was the correction of this unbalance between the sexes. There was naturally a timelag before the results of the new arrangements became apparent in arrival figures. In the second half of 1956, male full-fare arrivals continued to outnumber females, but in 19S7 females considerably outnumbered males. The figures for Italian and Greek full-fare arrivals since June, 19S6, are as follows: -

It is thus apparent that the deterioration of the sex ratio for southern European migrants has been arrested, and that worthwhile progress has been made in reducing the disparity which had built up during the period prior to June, 1956.

The policy governing admission of relatives and friends of migrants does not give rise to any problem of unbalance between the sexes so far as other countries of Europe are concerned. Under assisted passage schemes, increased emphasis has been placed on family migration, in preference to immigration of single males, and family reunions have been promoted by increasing the inflow of “ nominated dependants “ brought to Australia as assisted migrants. A scheme for bringing single women from Greece to Australia to work as domestics has been in operation for some time, and the possibilities of making similar arrangements in respect of other countries are being explored. Additionally, Australian migration offices overseas have been advised that they -should endeavour to increase their selection of single women in occupations for which there is a demand in Australia. Among the displaced persons who came to Australia in the immediate postwar years, there was an excess of males of about 30,000, and it has not been possible to make any substantial progress in rectifying this situation. Nevertheless, as the result of representations by the Australian authorities, there has been a small trickle of dependants from iron curtain countries in recent months, and this has enabled some displaced person families to be reunited. 1 (b). Under existing policy, southern European migrants are not allowed to nominate male relatives, other than dependants. This arrangement was found to be necessary to correct the sex ratio amongst such migrants. Apart from this restriction, entry permits are granted to parents and to other dependent members of migrants’ families, provided that they meet Australian requirements in regard to health and character. When a married man, who wishes to precede his family to Australia, applies for permission to emigrate, an examination is made of his dependants in order to ensure that they also will be eligible for entry at a later date. If he indicates that he proposes, in addition, to call for his parents at a later stage, they also are examined.

The need for flexibility has been clearly recognized in the composition of the programme. Thus, in practice, it is possible to vary the proportion of workers to dependants, the proportion of males to females and the emphasis on particular categories of workers to accord with changing economic conditions in Australia and with varia tions in our employment and other requirements generally. The suggestion to which the honorable senator refers in this part of his question has, in fact, already been in operation for some time, with the result that the intake of migrant workers during the last eighteen months has steadily decreased in both absolute and relative terras, whilst the intake of dependants has grown correspondingly, in relation to workers at least.

page 363

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF CATTLE

Senator SEWARD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

ls it a fact that at a recent meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council it was decided to impose a ban on the importation of cattle from the United Kingdom as from May next on account of certain stock diseases, particularly blue tongue?
Is the Minister aware that certain importations of cattle are at present being made?
Will the Minister explain why these importations are being permitted in view of the fact that these diseases are at present existent in the United Kingdom, and have been for some time?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

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

The Australian Agricultural Council does not have power to impose a ban on the importation of cattle into Australia. Regulations in connexion with animal quarantine are the responsibility of the Commonwealth Minister for Health. The council at its forty-sixth meeting, however, in consideration of the danger of the introduction of certain stock diseases, particularly blue tongue, endorsed the recommendation of the standing committee on agriculture of acceptance of the resolution passed by the biennial conference of Commonwealth and State veterinarians that for an indefinite period no ruminant animal or the semen of any ruminant animal be permitted entry to Australia from overseas.
Yes.
The disease, blue tongue, has not yet appeared in the countries from which importation is now permitted and any immediate danger of its introduction into Australia is therefore negligible. It is accordingly considered that any ban imposed would more appropriately commence after the present season for shipping live-stock ends in May next, in order that forward arrangements already made will be disrupted as little as possible.

page 363

QUESTION

EUROPEAN IMMIGRANTS

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

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

What assurances, if any, are Australian immigration officials permitted to give prospective migrants in Europe, at the time of interview and screening, regarding the possibility of their parents and families joining them in Australia at a later date?
If any assurances are, in fact, given, are they given orally or by letter?
Has the Minister received any complaints from European migrants who claim to have acted upon such assurances to their detriment?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration has supplied the following answers - 1 and 2. No such assurances are permitted. When a prospective migrant is being called forward for examination by the Department’s officers overseas, he is required to bring with him his wife and dependent children; and he is allowed to bring forward dependent parents also, if he wishes to bring them to Australia later. The dependants are then examined with the migrant. If the breadwinner or his wife or any of his dependent children are found unable to pass the examination, the whole family unit is refused permission to come here; if a dependent parent is found ineligible, the breadwinner is warned that this does not prevent his own admission to Australia, but that if he does come here he will not be able to bring the ineligible parent here. The practice of examining dependants at the same time as their breadwinner, even when they are not accompanying the latter to Australia, is based solely on the desire to reduce the number of cases where people come to Australia only to find later that their families cannot join them here. The fact that the dependants may be able to pass the examination once does not, for example, exclude the possibility of deterioration in their health before the breadwinner decides to bring them to Australia - sometimes years after the initial examination. When a migrant already in Australia applies for the admission of his dependants, they are not refused permission to come to Australia solely because of inability to meet the normal high medical standards; special minimum standards are laid down for such cases, because of the compassionate circumstances. The need Cor such minimum standards is in itself a harrier to the giving of assurances (of the kind referred to in the question)long before the dependants are to migrate.

The Minister has not received any such complaints, but he will gladly investigate any that are known to the honorable senator.

page 364

LIFE INSURANCE BILL 1958

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to make four amendments to the Life Insurance Act.. The principal amendment results from recent legal advice that the business carried on by funeral funds comes within the definition of life insurance business contained in the act. The Life Insurance Act, as passed by Parliament in 1945, was not intended to cover funeral funds. It was then, and still is, considered that the control of these funds is a matter for the States, which already supervise similar organizations such as friendly societies, cooperative societies, &c. In addition, many of the provisions of the Life Insurance Act cannot be applied to funeral funds without some difficulty.

To clarify the position, the bill now before the Senate adds funeral benefit business to the classes of business specifically excluded from the definition of life insurance business in the act. There is a proviso to this exclusion in clause 4 (c) of the bill, which provides that any funeral benefit business carried on by a life insurance company registered under the act, is deemed to be life insurance business and, therefore, remains subject to the same supervision as the balance of the company’s business.

In response to representations by members, section 94 of the act, which permits a person to effect a life insurance policy on his own life for the benefit of his wife and children, is being extended to include adopted children, step-children or exnuptial children. This amendment follows similar amendments adopted during the last session of the Parliament in connexion with income tax, gift duty and estate duty. The opportunity is being taken to make two minor drafting amendments. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 364

RESERVE BANK BILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25th March (vide page 357), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales

– Yesterday evening I traced briefly the history of the Commonwealth Bank and I made the point that although legislation had played a considerable part in the development of the bank, nevertheless it had grown, sometimes in ways that were not expected, largely because of the work of the bankers - the people composing it. I think not sufficient attention has been given to that aspect during the debate in this chamber. It has been assumed that this Parliament has the right to treat the Commonwealth banking institutions - there is now more than one bank - more or less arbitrarily, to make it a football of party policy, and so forth. I want to say that although men like Mr. Fisher, Mr. King O’Malley, Sir Earle Page, Mr. Theodore and Mr. Chifley have left permanent marks on the banking structure-

Senator Hannaford:

– Do not forget Sir Arthur Fadden.

Senator McCALLUM__ No, I shall not do that, but I suggest that his great mark will bc made when these bills are passed. Although those men have left their mark on the banking structure, the actual development of the Commonwealth Bank is, as Sir Earle Page said in another place recently, a matter of growth. What we are proposing to do is to meet the latest phase of growth and put into legislative enactment what, to a large extent, already exists.

Much has been made by nearly all honorable senators opposite who have spoken during the debate, and a great deal has been made outside by irresponsible talkers, about the interest of the private banks. It has been assumed in most of that discussion that the private banks merely represent the shareholders. The private banks are the trustees for their depositors, and it is the interest of the depositors that we are representing here to-day, far more than that of the private banks. If honorable senators care to examine the position of all the banks, I think they will find something similar to this: that the amount of money represented by deposits and by loans is always infinitely greater than that put in by the shareholders. That is one of the peculiarities of banking. For instance, in the Bank of New South Wales the capital, according to the last annual report that I read, was £17,560,000. The deposits were £473,863,289, and the loans, including advances of course, were £251,666.000. Therefore, these great institutions represent the interests of all who have placed money with them for safe keeping and of all who have received advances. That means that the whole of our business society and our private life is interwoven with the banks.

The Liberal party, from the moment of its foundation in 1945, accepted the position that this country needed both private and public banking. There can be no reproach of the Liberal party on that score. Honorable senators may say what they like about any of the other parties that have existed in this Parliament, but from its very inception the Liberal party accepted that position, and the Liberal principles have been written into this legislation. It may not mean anything to some honorable senators opposite that they intend to deny to people liberty of choice. I find nothing more satisfactory to me than liberty of choice. It happens that the Commonwealth Bank in Sydney is situated in the same building as are the Federal Members’ Rooms. In order to deal with the Commonwealth Bank, I merely have to go downstairs. So long as I receive the courtesy and consideration that I have always received from the officers of the Commonwealth Bank I shall not go further; but I find it very comforting, Sir, to know that I have only to step across two streets to find the Bank of New South Wales and the Commercial Bank of Australia Limited. Just across the street, on the other side. I think, is the English, Scottish and Australian Bank Limited. If I do not like any of those banks, I can find the Comptoir National D’Escompte de Paris just around the corner. That liberty of choice is of enormous importance. Only on one occasion have I experienced the slightest discourtesy from the Commonwealth Bank and that was from a very junior officer, lt occurred at the height of the legislation over banking, when some rather young and brash people thought that there was going to be only one bank. I do not want that kind of thing to occur again.

To refute this foolish story that we are mutilating the bank, emasculating it, or trying to kill it, let us look at the Commonwealth Banks Bill. Clause 28 provides that -

The Trading Bank shall carry on general banking business.
It is the duty of the Trading Bank to develop and expand its business.

What becomes of the argument we have heard that the Commonwealth Trading Bank has been asked not to take custom from other people? As if the provisions I have already read were not enough, clause 28 also contains a special provision which removes even the excuse that the object of the legislation is to prevent the Commonwealth Trading Bank from interfering with other banks. It is -

The Trading Bank shall not refuse to conduct banking business for a person by reason only of the fact that to conduct that business would have the effect of taking away business from another bank.

That provision strikes a death blow at virtually the whole of the case that is being put by the Opposition. I say in addition - and this was raised on the Opposition side - that we have improved the position of every one of the component parts of the Banking Corporation by increasing its capital. If that is killing the bank, then it is killing it by kindness.

It has been said that this new structure is unnecessary. I will admit that the bank is operating, and I will also admit that, in their present form, these small parts of the bank which are attached to the central bank are doing their work very well; but I submit, Sir, that the time has come to change that position. The time has come for a more consolidated and creative statute. That is what is being done in concentrating all the trading parts under a banking corporation with, I admit, a quite elaborate organization - an organization which some people say is not immediately necessary. But after all, with a growing lad it is better to have a suit slightly too big and slightly in advance of what he wants than to have one that is too small. I am sure that our banking system has arrived at the stage where these further measures are necessary. They are not so much acts of the Liberal party as acts of all the interests concerned, because these bills have been considered for months and, as we know, that is one of the reasons for the delay. One of the greatest problems of all - that of staff - has been solved very carefully and very well by allowing a common staff to all parts of the Commonwealth Bank except the Reserve Bank, which will need a very small staff for what I might call its operative part. That will be a highly specialized staff which, as another speaker has pointed out, ultimately ought to be drawn not only from the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, but also, if the necessary talent exists there, from the private banking system of the community.

Sir, we do not disguise the fact that the main purpose of this bill is to set up the Reserve Bank. It is because the setting up of that bank might involve some unsatisfactory arrangements that we have gone farther and have overhauled the whole banking system. Why do we need a separate reserve bank? We need it for one reason - to inspire and to maintain confidence, because confidence is the very basis of banking. Without confidence, the whole banking system evaporates. Why were there tragic losses in the ‘nineties? There is no person in Australia who can look back to the ‘nineties with more regret than I do, because I was a member of a family whose business was almost destroyed, as a result of the bank failures of that time. Why did the banks fail? They failed because of lack of confidence. There waa one great bank in New South Wales which did not fail, but it is the bank which, for some reason or other, happens to be the target for frequent attack from honorable senators opposite. That bank never closed its doors. The societies which caused, or which at any rate were the immediate precursors of the tragedy of the ‘nineties, were not the banks but the new land and building societies - an unco-ordinated mushroom growth. But once we have an impartial central bank set right above the others, such a growth will be impossible, because the central bank will indicate the policy that is necessary to prevent that growth.

Two matters of importance are to be conceded to the private banks. One is the separation of the central bank from the Commonwealth Trading Bank. Surely no one can deny the justice of that. In what sphere of society is a man allowed to be both judge and advocate? In the early days of the colonies we had a curious official who was known as a judge-advocate. I do not know exactly how he carried out his functions, but I understand that it was his duty to act as does the AttorneyGeneral, and to attend to the drawing up of indictments, and then to sit down’ solemnly in judgment on the persons indicted. But that system has gone for ever.

It is a truism that to-day a judge must be a judge and a judge only, and that ought to be true of this great banking body.

Somebody has dragged in the name of the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank, and has assumed that, because he read a paper in a purely philosophic atmosphere - and, thank heaven, in this country people can discuss principles in such an atmosphere without committing themselves to this group or that group - he is a partisan and can be quoted by one side or the other. The other day, I was discussing the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank with one of his colleagues. That person said, “Do not forget that the Governor of the bank is now a banker. Whatever opinions he may have expressed eight years ago, he has been, during this Government’s occupancy of office, a banker and a banker only.” And I believe that. He would be a very peculiar man indeed if he did not take pride in and feel a strong sense of duty in the new task that .is to be put before him, because he will have an opportunity that no on else has had in history.

It is most important that any business be left in the hands of the people who know how to handle it. That concept is often obscured in partisan conflicts. In the Middle Ages a craft was called a mystery. I respect no person more than the skilled craftsman. Now that we have machinery and assembly lines the craftsman, nevertheless, is still the basis of material production. Where would all the factories be without the fitters and turners, skilled competent tradesmen? Where would all the machinery be without the engineers? In any form of activity the craft of a man is something learned by years of experience. I followed one calling for many years, I believe with some little degree of success, but I laugh now when I think of the futilities and failures of my early years. Any craft is a mystery. Banking is a mystery, and the Commonwealth Bank has succeeded because the men guiding it have insisted that they are not routine public servants but bankers, and in the practice of banking they act as any other craftsman would.

I give not only my vote but also my heart and mind to this legislation. I have voted on no measure of which I feel more proud. To honorable senators opposite I say, “ You may defeat this legislation tomorrow or next week; you may bury it “, and there comes into my mind words uttered by Mr. Gladstone when he introduced the Reform Bill in 1868 -

You may bury the bill but this will be its epitaph: “ Exoriare aliquis nostris ex ossibus ultor “ - “ From our bones will arise an avenger “.

If honorable senators opposite bury this legislation to-morrow, an avenger will arise from its bones and banking will take the form we have laid down for it, A clause here or there may be altered, but that is all that will happen. The legislation establishes the form that banking in this country will take, and whether it be to-morrow or next December, these banking bills will become law.

Despite what honorable senators opposite may say, it is not we on this side of the chamber who are the reactionaries on this occasion; it is they who have interrupted the steady growth of the Commonwealth Bank by their obstinate attempt to nationalize the banks. Nobody in this country, except perhaps a few fanatics, ever wanted complete nationalization. Most members of the Labour party wanted only the Commonwealth Bank to progress on the lines proposed in this legislation, the right to choose the bank, government or private, with which they, will conduct their business.

In full confidence, therefore, I support this legislation. Whether it becomes law now or in a few months does not matter. The Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden), who,

I regret to say, intends to resign his office - but, I hope, not as a public figure in the life of this country - has left behind him a monumental piece of work, and whether or not he remains as Treasurer until the legislation is put on the statute-book, it will be a monument to him and to all members of the Government parties who have brought it before the Parliament.

Senator CAMERON:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

.- These bills should be considered in the light of the circumstances responsible for bringing the Commonwealth Bank into existence. Those circumstances have been referred to briefly by Senator McCallum. I remember the ‘nineties very well indeed. I remember going to a bank on a Saturday morning to cash the weekly wages cheque for my boss, and on the Monday the banks closed. In those days there was no appeal to the Parliament or to the depositors. The banks were a law unto themselves; they closed and thousands of people were ruined; they lost their homes or their equity in their homes, and were evicted on to the streets. The next stage was the exodus to the west, and the establishment of soup kitchens everywhere.

At that time approximately 23 banks were in existence. Since then the number has been reduced to six or seven. The banks that remained open were guaranteed by the government. I remember seeing a notice in red letters on the front of one of the banks - “ Depositors’ funds guaranteed by the Government “. Had the banks then been controlled by the government, that state of affairs could not have come about. What was the reaction of the people? Over the years, there developed a want of confidence in the banks and the people demanded that a government bank be established. Indeed, that course was advocated by the Labour party of those days. When Andrew Fisher advocated the establishment of the Commonwealth Bank, the proposal was treated with sneers and jeers, and the opponents of Labour said, “ What does a miner know about banking ?” Senator Courtice reminds me that the socalled Fisher flimsies were said not to be worth the paper they were printed on! But despite these sneers and jeers and hostile propaganda, eventually .the Commonwealth Bank was established.

The super-intellects, the representatives of the private banks, said that it was impossible for the Commonwealth Bank to carry on. They did all that was physically and politically possible to prevent the bank from continuing. Nevertheless, it did continue and, much to the astonishment of the pessimists of the time, people of prestige occupying responsible positions, the employers’ federation and the like, it prospered.

During both world wars the Commonwealth Bank did a magnificent job compared with what the private banks could have done because it had the backing of the Government. There was cohesion, which was entirely lacking in the private banks. During the second world war, drastic action had to be taken to prevent the private banks from doing what was being done almost everywhere - capitalizing on the war in their own interests. Even the Menzies Government had to bring down national security legislation to prevent the owners of land and capital from robbing the people during war-time. When honorable senators opposite speak disparagingly about the nationalization of banking, they should remember that nationalization was actually introduced during the war years by their own Government because the owners of land and capital - particularly capital - stores and that sort of thing could not be trusted. They were made amenable to the provisions of the National Security Act. When I was Minister for Aircraft Production, my department had the power to examine the books of private companies. In one instance it was proved that certain companies had overcharged the department something like £1,250,000 by faking the books, and the companies were compelled to refund that amount. I do not engage in character assassination, and I would not give names, but it is obvious to me that many firms worked on the principle that they had inherited of robbing thy neighbour.

The Commonwealth Bank has grown in stature, and I ask myself what is the reason for the introduction of the measures now before us. The reason is that the private banks are now being placed in a position that is regarded as desperate. In an effort to stabilize themselves they are attempting, by indirect means, to obtain control of the Commonwealth Bank. There is increasing unemployment in the community, and soup kitchens again have made their appearance in Sydney and Melbourne. I remember the soup kitchens of the ‘nineties, in 1907, 1920 and in 1930. Now, in 1958, despite the Government’s claim that it has made wonderful progress, hundreds of men and women have been reduced to the level of paupers. They have to obtain a ration of soup and a few sandwiches from the soup kitchens every day in order to keep alive. That has been the overall effect of the banking system and the system of private ownership - the private monopoly ownership of land and capital.

Senator McCallum said that the monopolies contained the elements of negation. That is perfectly true. The monopoly banks do contain the elements of negation. That is the reason why there is so much opposition to these measures. The people realize, from their long and costly experiences, that a bank is merely a trader in credit. Years ago, any one who said that the banks obtained millions of pounds for practically nothing by creating credit, would not have been believed. Now the truth of the statement is admitted by the bankers themselves. I have in mind the case of Mr. V. C. Vickers, the Governor of the Bank of England from 1910 to 1919, who resigned because of the fraudulent attitude of the board of directors in going on the gold standard again. I noticed an article in this morning’s “ Sydney Morning Herald “ under the heading, “ Bank Rate Highest Since Depression Era “. It reads -

The number of people declared bankrupt last financial year rose 40 per cent, to 1,200 - the highest number since 1931-32 in the depression period.

That is a sign of the times, and it indicates what is really happening. Unemployment is increasing, the number of bankruptcies is increasing and poverty is increasing. What do we propose to do? At page nine of the nineteenth annual report of the National Bank of Australia Limited issued in November last, Mr. Giddy had this to say -

The severe variations in our export income and in the volume of imports we can afford present a very special - and a very difficult - complication for Australia in pursuing stability. Fluctuations in export income cannot be avoided.

That was a criticism of the Menzies Government. He went on -

These problems make it vital that our oversea exchange reserves should be carefully conserved, for it would be a calamity if they were to run down so far that room for manoeuvre was lost.

This is significant -

Then, at some stage, adjustments might have to be so drastic that maintaining business and industry without significant unemployment could be impracticable.

This gentleman is chairman of the company which publishes the Melbourne “ Herald “. We do not hear very much about these people associated with the “ Herald “ because the banks are, more and more, gaining control of the monopolies. They have become the largest shareholders, with the object of starving out the small competitor. Honorable senators may be interested to hear this comment by the Chairman of the National Bank of Australasia Ltd. made on 27th November, 1957 -

I shall make only brief reference to our accounts. For the first time in the bank’s history, our assets exceed £300,000,000. At f 35 1,226,088, the total is £34,696,449 higher than last year.

And what one can say of the banks can be said of other large enterprises also. As, at one end of the social scale, they become bigger and richer, at the other end poverty and unemployment increase. Mr. F. F. Knight, a member of the board of management, in seconding the adoption of the bank’s annual report had this to say -

We are heartened to hear the Chairman say that he commends the proposals of the Government in the bills now before the House to establish a proper Central Bank.

They are heartened because they can see the whole economy becoming more and more unstable. Their purpose is the control of banking in the way envisaged in these bills.

On 30th October, 1957, I directed the attention of the Senate to the menace of growing inflation. Honorable senators will recall that this Government was voted to office on its promise to put value back into the £1, but the £1 has lost value ever since. On 1st April, 1957, the Chancellor of the Exchequer produced in the British Parliament figures showing that the purchasing power of the £1 sterling had depreciated since 1914 by 78 per cent. In money terms, it has depreciated by 15s. 8d. Thus, sterling is to-day worth in England only 4s. 4d., as compared with £1 in 1914. If one allows for the exchange rate between Australia and the United Kingdom, and reduces that figure by 25 per cent., one sees that the Australian £1 is worth, at most, 3s. 4d. as compared with 1914. That state of affairs cannot continue indefinitely. No one realizes that more than does Mr. Giddy himself - as is seen by his specific reference to inflation. He realizes that whether you foster inflation, or deflate, you will now have trouble - and the banks are trying to run for cover. Of course, many of these gentlemen do not fully understand the effect upon the economy of banking practices. The late Montagu Norman was Governor of the Bank of England from 1919, when Mr. V. C. Vickers resigned, until his death in 1944. During the 30’s he attended a bankers’ dinner at which a situation, very much like that confronting us now, was under discussion. He said -

The difficulties are so vast, the forces so unlimited, so novel, and precedents so lacking, that I approach the whole subject not only in ignorance, but in humility. It is too great for me. I am willing to do my best.

That is the mental attitude of the average banker. He may excel in banking, but have not the slightest idea of the economic structure of society or the factors that cause depressions. The present growing unemployment, accompanied by worsening inflation, is not by any means peculiar to Australia. I should like to read to honorable senators a comment about the state of affairs in America from - not a newspaper with Labour sympathies - the Boston “Globe” of 26th July, 1957. It reads-

The Federal Government is giving away more food than at any time in American history - to Americans. About 17,000,000 Americans are receiving free food, and this is 4,000,000 more than in 1939. A lot of the free food from Uncle Sam goes into school luncheons, to charitable institutions and public welfare agencies, but there are 3,900,000 families who receive the donation also. “ Fortune “ magazine had this to say on 4th November, 1957 -

Today, some 17,000,000 Americans live in dwellings that are beyond rehabilitation - decayed, dirty, rat-infested, without direct heat, or light or plumbing. Prosperity itself is the major reason.

Bankers here, like their colleagues in other countries, can see the chaos of world-wide depression approaching, and are asking themselves, “ What shall we do in the circumstances? “ They are in the same category as a number of people I know. They can see effects, but they do not understand causes, or, if they do understand causes, they have not the moral courage to direct attention to them. Dealing with the subject in the light of cause and effect, I ask: What brought the Commonwealth Bank into existence? The very state of affairs that is developing to-day, although it was not so serious then, brought about its establishment. There was indifference to hardship in the community then, and this Government is indifferent to unemployment now. The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) says, “ There is only 2 per cent, of unemployment; there are only 80,000 people unemployed. What does it matter? “ The unemployed people are men and women - human beings - just as he is. They are living in a state of semi-starvation and poverty, but his attitude is, “ Only 2 per cent, of the population are unemployed. What does it matter? “ The same attitude is being adopted in America, which has a population of between 150,000,000 and 160,000,000. It is world-wide.

If these bills become law, the whole of the banking system will be handed over to the privately owned banks, which are operated for profit and for nothing else. They certainly are not operated for the benefit of the people, as honorable senators opposite would have us believe. If control is handed over to the private banks, they will be more than likely to adopt the attitude that they have adopted periodically for decades. They will deliberately, maliciously and more ingeniously create widespread depression.

Liberal party supporters in this and other parliaments speak about our adverse trade balance and falling prices. By implication they say, “ We are not to blame “. 1 say that they are to blame, because they have deliberately ignored what is happening. Honorable senators opposite do not care how many people are living in poverty, depending on soup kitchens. It does not matter to them provided that the people living in those conditions take things quietly and do not cause any fuss. I have always tried to persuade them to make a fuss about their conditions. 1 have in mind an occasion in 1926 when the unemployed virtually took possession of Parliament House in

– I shall have something to say on that very issue. History is repeating itself to-day. In 1953, when the last banking legislation was before the Parliament, honorable senators who sit opposite to-day uttered the same cry - “ Hands off the Commonwealth Bank “. In 1953, they said, “ Take your hands off the Commonwealth Bank; it is the acme of perfection “. In spite of their protests then, the Government went ahead, amended the legislation and strengthened and developed the Commonwealth Bank. Now the honorable senators who condemned any alteration to the banking legislation in 1953 are lauding and applauding the amendments made at that time.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Tell us what you did to the primary producers.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Pearson). - Order!

Senator Hendrickson:

– Tell us what happened to a number of the primary producers.

The functions of the Development Bank are -

to provide finance for persons -

for the purposes of primary production; or

for the establishment or development of industrial undertakings, particularly small undertakings, in cases where, in the opinion of the Development Bank, the provision of the finance is desirable and the finance would not otherwise be available on reasonable and suitable terms and conditions; and

to provide advice and assistance with a view to promoting the efficient organization and conduct of primary production or industrial undertakings.

Clause 73 contains a provision that will make history in this country. It states - (1.) In determining whether or not finance shall be provided for a person, the Development Bank shall have regard primarily to the prospects of the operations of that person becoming, or continuing to be, successful and shall not necessarily have regard -

Senator Hendrickson:

– The sting is in the tail!

Senator WADE:

– Of course, the honorable senator does not like what I am saying. This provision is of great importance to those of us who have the interests of the country people at heart. The final words of paragraph (1.) of clause 73, to which I have referred, are -

. and shall not necessarily have regard to the value of the security available in respect of that finance.

I suggest, therefore, that that is a mostfarreaching and thoughtful provision.

It is reasonable to pose the question: Just how will this Development Bank affect our rural industries? Honorable senators opposite may be interested to know that farm incomes, during the last twelve months, have fallen at an alarming rate. Do they appreciate that in the last twelve months the total of such incomes has fallen to £370,000.000, the lowest figure for many years? ls that not a matter of national moment? I say quite bluntly that I believe that the Federal Government has a responsibility to maintain and promote production in the interests both of our internal and our external economies, with the ultimate objective of eliminating import restrictions. I suggest that that is our target. The wool industry, yesterday, to-day and to-morrow was. is and will be our major industry.

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What about Japan?

Senator WADE:

– I shall have something to say about Japan in a moment, and I shall speak with some authority. It is estimated that, by the end of the current wool season, the wool clip will be down by 370,000 bales. In New South Wales, where the drought has been most severe, there will be a reduction of 210,000 bales. In the little time that I have left, I propose to discuss the way in which I believe this legislation can help our wool industry.

In my opinion, there are markets for Australian wool that have not yet been explored. Quite recently, I had the great privilege of being chosen to be one of a parliamentary delegation of goodwill to Japan. As honorable senators know, Japan is one of our main wool buyers. Naturally, the thoughts of the members of the delegation turned to the question, “ What is happening to our wool ?” In our approach to the Japanese wool problem, we must ask ourselves, “ If we expand our economy, What effect will it have on our trade with Japan ?” Let me say at this stage that 80 per cent, of all the wool that Japan imports is consumed in Japan. We were told, on the best authority, by responsible people, that in the Japanese home market to-day there is a great potential looming up for Australian wool.

For decades, perhaps for centuries, the Japanese peasant has been the underprivileged person of that country. Rice has been his main product. Every square foot of arable land seems to have been sown down to rice. Over the years the Japanese peasant suffered adversity as a result of his crops being attacked by pests, and his income was precarious. But the progress of science has almost assured him of a satisfactory rice crop. Dust and sprays have eliminated diseases which formerly took their toll, with the result that to-day the Japanese peasant is casting aside his old cotton garment and is demanding better garments with a wool content. Those facts have been placed before us by responsible people who declare that there is a potential market in Japan for any increase of our production of wool.

Senator Hendrickson:

– What has that to do with the bill?

Senator WADE:

– I shall tell the honorable senator right now. I thought that perhaps, on this issue, he was not seeing as far as I was seeing, so I shall come right down to his level. If we want to obtain a greater market for our wool, we must search in Australia for increased means of production. This banking legislation - I refer particularly to the principles contained in clauses 72 and 73 of the Commonwealth Banks Bill - would encourage thousands of young men to go into areas that have a good rainfall but which are covered with forests and big timber. It would encourage young men who would have the will, the know-how and the heart to do the job if they could get financial backing to tide them over a lean period. I remind any cynic who may be listening, and any one in Victoria who is interested, that recently in western Victoria 28 blocks of land were thrown open for closer settlement. The number of applicants was 440.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Shame on the Government!

Senator WADE:

– Shame on the Opposition, which is seeking to throw out this legislation, which would give at least 412 more men some hope in the future!

Now let us consider the position of the mixed farmer, who plays such an important part in our community. For many years, the wheat-grower has been our second largest earner of export income overseas. But drought is his nightmare, with the result that he is seeking a diversified form of farming so that it will not be necessary for him to put all his eggs in one basket. If he can overcome the nightmare of drought by tapping underground supplies of water, there is a future for him in mixed farming. [ should like to quote to the Senate an extract from the Warracknabeal “ Herald “, which is a journal of some standing. The issue of 1 1th March stated that on 14th March there would be a demonstration at a place called Batchica. The report reads -

The demonstration has been arranged to enable farmers interested in underground water supply to see equipment in action.

The bore on Mr. Rogers’ farm is 174 feet deep and has a six inch casing.

There is nothing new or novel about that. The report further states -

One of the main discussions at the demonstration will be the financing of boring in the Mallee and Wimmera-

A very costly process - an there are so many farmers who have pui bores down or who are waiting for them to be pui down.

The report states that Mr. Rogers has 40 acres of lucerne and is feeding a flock of sheep. I asked Mr. Rogers, “ How many sheep are you feeding ?” He said, “ I am feeding 900 “. He is feeding that number of sheep on 40 acres of lucerne, and on roughage on the rest of the property. I also asked him, “ Under the same conditions, how many sheep could you keep on your property if you did not have lucerne ?” He told me that he could run only 250. That is elementary, but I submit to the Senate that those figures are an indication of the tremendous potential that exists in this country. I say again that the defence and development qf this country go hand in hand.

My time has almost gone, and unfortunately T shall not be able to refer to the position of the young man who wants to start a business of his own. I had wanted, too, to furnish the Senate with data relating to the plight of young men who wish to build their own homes. Let me say, in conclusion, that I believe this legislation to be of such importance to the future of Australia that 1 want to cast my vote for progress, for development, and for the defence of Australia by voting in favour of the measures.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– Before proceeding to deal with the provisions of the bill, I wish to refer to the speech that was delivered last night by

Senator Wright. In fact, throughout my speech I shall be referring to his remarks. Senator Wright, obviously with a prepared brief - let me be fair immediately and say that it was a brief prepared by himself - in appealing to the cross-benchers-

Senator Kendall:

– We on this side of the chamber think before we speak.

Senator WILLESEE:

– Well, you have improved since the last session; you have learned to think. Senator Wright appealed to the cross-benchers to agree to the second reading of this measure and, to use his own words, to debate it for one or two months in committee. I think the honorable senator will agree with me that the purpose of a second-reading debate is to enable members of the Parliament to deal with the general principles and ramifications of a measure and then in committee, if they agree with the general principle, to make minor amendments if necessary. What Senator Wright fails to understand is that the three parties which comprise the Opposition are completely opposed to the principles of the bill and not merely to minor clauses in it. So there is no point in allowing the bill to go to the committee stage.

Last night. 1 broke a long-standing habit of mine and interjected when Senator McCallum said that, if amendments were presented to the Parliament, the Government would consider them. I was rude enough to ask, “ Would the Government present them to the private banks before its representatives came back into the chamber? “ I did not say that in order to be facetious. When I tried to ascertain why the banking measures were before the Parliament, I examined all the documentary evidence that I could find and conducted all the research that my limited ability would allow, but I could come to only one conclusion as to why they had been introduced. In coming to that conclusion, I can refer to no better authority than the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) and the comments that he made during his secondreading speech. I am sorry that the right honorable gentleman has been forced to introduce this legislation as the last major piece of legislation that he will introduce as Leader of the Australian Country party. I shall quote one or two examples from his speech and then ask honorable senators whether they disagree with the conclusions at which I have arrived. I refer not to any honorable senator hostile to this legislation, but to the very men who are presenting it on behalf of the composite Liberal and Australian Country party Government of Australia. He stated -

There is one main reason why the Government has decided to separate the central bank from the rest of the Commonwealth Bank group - and it is entirely a practical reason. Experience has shown that there cannot be full harmony within the Australian banking system, nor that close co-operation which ought to subsist between the central bank and the trading banks, unless and until this separation is effected.

Where does the disharmony exist? It exists because the trading banks have refused to obey the law of the land as it stands to-day and to co-operate with the central bank and the Commonwealth Bank group. In a latter passage the Treasurer said -

There must be mutual understanding between the central bank and the private banks, mutual confidence and a will to co-operate.

That emphasizes his first point. The next paragraph reads -

The private banks have consistently maintained that they cannot enter into fully confidential relationships with the central banks so long as it has, under its control and operating as an adjunct to itself, a major trading bank which is a competitor of theirs.

A little later the Treasurer said he thought he should put before the Parliament the reasons why the banks want the existing system altered. These are prompted by memories of 1931 when the Commonwealth Bank Board stood over the Government. Honorable senators will note the same ideas inherent in the sentence I shall now read, this time coming from the private banks -

They recognize the need for a strong central bank and they say that, if it functions-

Stand and deliver, in other words! as a true central bank, they are prepared to accept its leadership.

That means that even if this legislation is not suitable to the private banks, they reserve to themselves the right to say whether or not they will carry out their part of this bilateral agreement on banking.

Again quoting from the Treasurer’s second-reading speech -

These may be substantial advantages of the association-

He had just dealt with the advantages then flowing from this link between the two banks, and, incidentally, he is admitting it in that sentence - and yet, even from the stand-point of the central bank, they may be greatly outweighed if the association debars it from attaining close, effective cordial relations with the private banks and the full confidence df their many customers.

I have quoted that passage rather at length, first, because I want to lay it as a base for my remarks, and, secondly, because I have not heard it controverted in argument to-day. This legislation is before the Parliament solely because of the demands of the private trading banks. That is admitted over and over again by no less a personality than the Treasurer himself. Where are these demands going to stop? In 1947, after the bank nationalization issue, the trading banks were prepared to co-operate fully with the central bank provided the bank nationalization legislation was not proceeded with. In 1951 their demands became a little stronger, and in 1957 they increased the pressure again until their plan to divide the Commonwealth Bank and set up a Commonwealth Bank Board was finally successful. The requisite action was taken at the behest of the private banks. We now have before us their next demand. I wonder whether, at the end of these negotiations, they will repeat to the Prime Minister that famous phrase, “We have no more territorial demands “. We know just how much reliance can be placed on such a statement.

I wonder what requests came from the Commonwealth Bank to alter the association between the two organizations because - mark my words - if those who guide the destinies of the Commonwealth Bank had uttered one word in support of this legislation it would have been incorporated in every speech from Liberal and Australian Country party senators from the beginning of this debate, but we have heard not one word in that regard.

Senator Wade:

– We do not divulge a confidence.

Senator WILLESEE:

– It would not even be a confidence because I shall repeat a statement made by Dr. Coombs, the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank, that has already been made public. This statement is not confidential; it was included in a public document a copy of which anybody may peruse in any library throughout Australia. Dr, Coombs’s voice is the only voice that has been heard from the Commonwealth Bank. He said - [t is important to realize that, by the direct influence which the Commonwealth Bank exercises over the family of banks of which it is the head, it is able, within limits imposed by their commercial (and, in the case of the Commonwealth Trading Bank, competitive) character, to influence their policy so that they contribute directly to the achievement of the objectives of central bank policy - (a) the stability of the currency; and (b) the maintenance of full employment. There can be little doubt that this direct link gives to the Commonwealth Bank a source of strength which can be of particular value in times when the economy is threatened with declining activity and employment.

It seems passing strange that when unemployment is the greatest worry, not only in Australia but also in other countries of the world - and has been so during the postwar period - we should have legislation of this kind before us.

During the debate last night Senator Wright, when explaining the changed attitude of his leaders, said that time brings many changes, but it must be remembered that the Prime Minister in 1953, when dealing with the general trading bank activities cf the Commonwealth Bank, said -

They act as a source of information to the central bank. They enable the central bank to have an instrument by which it may give leadership in banking policy. It has a great number of advantages that I need not discuss at this stage.

The Prime Minister certainly is consistent because he did not discuss them at this stage either, five years later.

Senator Spooner is a member of the Government who makes very definite pronouncements. In volume 221 of “ Hansard “ he is reported to have said -

The Government subscribes to the view that was expressed by the Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems that the use of trading bank activities as an adjunct to central banking policy is in keeping with the Commonwealth Bank’s central bank function, and is to be approved.

If, as Senator Wright said, time changes many things, it certainly moves slowly because - and I should like any honorable senator to correct me by interjection if I am wrong - the Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems was held in 1936, and this pronouncement was made in 1953, nearly twenty years later. I wonder why there has been a change over the last five years? The reason is not difficult to find when one examines the pronouncements of Mr. Menzies and Senator Spooner in 1953, Dr. Coombs’s reactions and the attitude of the Government to-day. There is indisputable evidence that there is one reason, and one reason only, why this legislation is now before the Senate. It is as plain as a pikestaff also that the arguments against the central bank, if examined apart from the pronouncements made by the leaders of the Government, are against a central bank altogether.

Senator Hannan:

– There is not a shred of evidence to support that statement.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I should hate to be charged with murder and have the honorable senator defend me because plenty of evidence exists to support my statement. The honorable senator should examine the whole of the legislation. On the question of whether the legislation is acceptable to the banks, in the “ Bank of New South Wales Review” of May, 1957 this statement appears -

It is welcome news to the trading banks and ail those who have striven to safeguard the free enterprise system.

This legislation seems to be very popular at least with the banks, even if one believes what leaders of the Government said to the effect that the private banks did not know the legislation was to be introduced and that, they did not put any evidence before the Government to support it. There may be some honest senators left who will say “ Yes “, we are introducing this legislation for the private banks. What about it ?” At least honesty would be on their side.

I return to my bible, the Treasurer’s second-reading speech. In dealing with the present set-up he said -

The private banks have made is plain that they do not criticize the way in which the central bank has used the powers and functions it has under present legislation. On the contrary, they have been at pains to commend the competence, integrity and impartiality of the central bank.

In other words, there is no complaint at all by the private trading banks about the treatment they are receiving from the central bank. I go on and finish the quotation. We all know it. The banks fear that a hostile government in the future may do something that will affect them adversely. I put this to you, Mr. President, and to the

Government, as a principle of legislation: Is not the Government violating a principle when it says, “ There is nothing wrong in the community to-day. Everything is fine and dandy, but we are going to tie the hands of a future government irrespective of the mandate that it receives from the people “?

Senator Gorton:

– No.

Senator WILLESEE:

– Senator Gorton says that that does not violate a principle. The position is that when bank nationalization was threatened in 1947 the trading banks, quite justifiably, were frightened and they did all in their power to prevent it, as any other group of business people would try to protect their interests. They fought back, and they won. The High Court of Australia, the highest court in the land, said that so long as the Australian Constitution stays the way it is - and we all know how hard it is to alter the Constitution - bank nationalization can never take place in this country. That decision was upheld by the Privy Council. I was amazed to hear Senator Wright, whom I regard as mentally genuflecting whenever he hears the names of those courts - I do not hold that against him, because the rule of law is a great thing in any country - say that there could be nationalization by stealth. He knows, as a prominent lawyer, that those two courts would not allow anything of the kind to happen under their umbrella. Let us look at the protection given to the banks under this bill. There is no protection at all unless, as Senator McManus pointed out, the Government is trying to scramble the eggs with the intention of then saying, “ You can now do your damndest to unscramble them “. Just as this bill repeals the 1945 and 1953 legislation, so the time will come when every word and every line of this bill and the related measures will be repealed by a Labour government. There is no more protection in this measure for the private trading banks than the protection which has been laid down by the High Court of Australia and upheld by the Privy Council, except the working of democracy itself. If any government exceeds its mandate from the people, who are its masters, the people can deal with it. That is the way in which I understand democracy works, but this Government and the trading banks do not want to see it work in their particular spheres.

Senator Wright, after making out his case in relation to the committees, dealt with the matter of great public interest. He said that in 1947 so much public interest was aroused that finally it caused the defeat of the Labour government. That may be so. I think there was a fair amount of public interest aroused in 1947, but it was helped along by a pretty efficient propaganda machine: But the 1945 act - the principal legislation - did not cause the defeat of the Labour Government in 1946. If this bill became law to-morrow, I do not think it would cause a rift in the community; and if we came’ back as a government and repealed the act, a rift would not be caused. I seem to remember another example of the point I am making. With apologies to the author for one or two alterations, this is how it reads -

Do they, fasting, trembling, bleeding,

Wait the news from this our city?’

Groaning “ that’s the second reading “!

Hissing “ there is still committee “!

If the voice of Spooner falters,

If McKenna does indict,

Do they tremble for their altars?

Do they, Wright?

Over the years, there has been quite a lot of comment about the great public interest. There was a storm of disapproval from the other side when Senator McKenna traced the weakening of the Commonwealth Bank by this Government and suggested that, in good time, the Commonwealth Bank could be sold out. Nobody would have dreamed that the Government would sell out its shareholdings in Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited and Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Proprietary Limited. Who would have thought that when the one competitor in whaling in Western Australia demanded the sale of the assets of the Australian Whaling Commission, the assets would be sold? I think that Senator McKenna’s line of thought was completely logical. Do not let us kid ourselves that the private trading banks would not do anything they could to get their competitor down; they would do anything at all.

Senator Hannan:

– Who would be crazy enough to compete against the Development Bank?

Senator WILLESEE:

– You have not got it yet. Let us deal with the suggestion that bank nationalization could be introduced by stealth. The Government says that it is putting the Commonwealth Bank on an equal footing with the trading banks. That is the best example of pseudo fair reasoning that 1 have heard. The Government will license the Commonwealth Trading Bank and a private bank in exactly the same way and ask, “ Is not that fair? “ The Government will then turn round and say to the Commonwealth Trading Bank, “We are going to take from you half the profits you make, but the private bank can do with its profits as it will “. I was intrigued about this until I noticed in the “ Australian Quarterly “ an article by a bank officer. I presume he was a senior officer. He said -

Why does not the Commonwealth Bank go out into the common market place and raise its capital the same as private banks and other businesses do.

We see the line; it becomes a little clearer. If the Commonwealth Bank is continually robbed of capital, the day may come when it will have to do as this man suggests. I wonder, Mr. President, who would be the people that would subscribe to it. I wonder who the people would be that would buy shares in the bank. I am sure none of the private trading banks would buy the shares. By this means the Commonwealth Bank would be slowly eaten away, until there would be nothing left to do but sell it.

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

– The Government could completely by-pass the Parliament.

Senator WILLESEE:

– Yes. It is interesting to follow the lines of argument, quite apart from the ostensible purposes of this bill. It has been argued, particularly by Labour people with memories of the 1890’s and the 1930’s, that there must be a government bank which will run against the trade cycle, not in the interests of certain people, but in the national interest, because the trading banks have to run with the cycle, and have to answer to their shareholders. This talk of harmony is completely incompatible, because modern economists say that the government bank must run against the trade cycle in times of inflation as well as in times of deflation. The private trading banks can never do that because they must be ever mindful of their shareholders.

There is one point that intrigues me in relation to the Reserve Bank. The Government says that the link is very undesirable, although it did not say that in 1953. Dr. Coombs has made out a complete case that it is desirable. Senator Wright has said that there must be a completely independent bank. The first thing that the Government does is hang onto the Reserve Bank the Rural Credits Department - something which immediately, even if it does not offend in the practical sense, surely offends the instincts of the purist who seeks a completely independent banking institution.

The next myth built up by the Government is that in no way must information trickle down to the Commonwealth Trading Bank from the central bank. An examination of the relevant bills shows that we still have the old board, against which we fought for so long, but now will have to contend with another board as well. We have one in connexion with the Reserve Bank and one in connexion with the trading side. They are supposed to be separate and distinct but lo, when one examines the legislation, one finds that the Secretary to the Treasury is on both. Whatever he may do in connexion with the Reserve Bank one day he is supposed to forget when he is dealing with the Commonwealth Trading Bank the next day. He is supposed to say to his colleagues there, “ Look, chaps, I advise you not to do that, but I cannot tell you why. It is something I learned at the Reserve Bank meeting.” How can you have complete separation when there is a double pipe-line running between the two boards? After all, these boards will give effect to Government policy, and will control the day-to-day activities of the banks.

– Never mind whether it has done it. It has the power to do so under the existing legislation. Is the argument of the Opposition that a government ought to have the legal power to imprison people without trial, just because it has not done so up to the present? If a government of the same political persuasion as the honorable senator did come into power, people could well be imprisoned without trial, as members of the Australia-First movement were under a previous Labour government. I believe that it is wrong in principle for a government to have the power to discriminate. If that is wrong in principle, the power ought to be removed. It can be removed without in the slightest degree lessening the power of the Commonwealth Bank to achieve the objectives for which it is set up. One of those objectives is the issuing of banking directives for the control of the credit of this country, not political directives intended to drive a bank or banks out of business by discrimination. That, then, is the only difference proposed for the central bank.

What is the difference for the Trading Bank? It has been pointed out before - I do not need to labour it again - that the Trading Bank, under this legislation, will be in possession of all the powers which it now has, subject, again, to direction by Parliament, through the Treasurer, for the good of the country. The aims of providing for full employment and the best economic interests of Australia will be written into its charter, just as they have been written into the Commonwealth central bank’s charter ever since it has been in operation.

Senator O’Byrne:

– That has been dropped in this legislation.

Senator GORTON:

– The honorable senator will find it in the legislation if he reads it. There is no diminution of the Trading Bank’s powers - none whatever.

Nobody has claimed, and nobody can claim, that an attack has been made upon the powers of the Savings Bank in this proposed legislation. The only way the proposed legislation will alter the existing legislation, as far as I can see, is that it will write in a provision which was not there before, in relation to the Savings Bank making money available for housing purposes. I cannot imagine that the Opposition can object to that. It cannot say that anything in this legislation reduces the power of the Savings Bank.

That, in a nutshell, is what this legislation does. It strengthens the Commonwealth central bank, but does not allow it the power of discrimination. It leaves the Trading Bank with its present powers. It leaves the Savings Bank with its present powers, but adds a direction in relation to the making of money available for housing. There is also the provision for special accounts deposits, which, as I pointed out previously, strengthens the central bank and prevents discrimination. Those, in a nutshell, are the things proposed by this legislation. They have not been attacked as such, as I said at the beginning. They have not been attacked because nobody can really object to those things, except insofar as they offer protection to the private sector of banking.

Although those things have not been attacked, honorable senators opposite say they are prepared to turn down the proposed Development Bank, which, as the legislation is now framed, could become the biggest bank in Australia. It could become the most powerful instrument for the development of Australia and, as I have shown before, it could become the factor by which the interest rate of hire purchase - about which we have heard so much - could be set in this country. If honorable senators look at the legislation, they will see a clause which provides that this bank. besides starting off with a capital of £21,000,000 and besides having certain borrowing powers written into its charter, can get unlimited funds at the discretion of the Parliament, through the Treasurer. How could that system work in an industrial finance department? It is clear that if a government thought that too high an interest rate was being charged on hirepurchase transactions involving tractors or other machinery for developmental purposes - whether primary purposes or for the setting up of small secondary industries - it could direct the Development Bank to make loans for those purposes at a set rate of interest, and provide sufficient money to make that rate of interest the ruling rate for all lending institutions of that kind in Australia. I would have thought, in view of what we have heard about the evils of hire purchase and high interest rates - remarks with which I agree - that the Opposition would be in agreement with this proposal.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator GORTON:

– Before the suspension of the sitting, I was endeavouring to point out precisely what is proposed by the legislation now before the Senate, and I shall briefly recapitulate. It proposes a central bank which has the same Governor as at present, the same board as at present, but with greater powers than it has at present. The legislation also proposes a trading bank with precisely the same powers as the present trading bank has. It also proposes a savings bank with precisely the same powers as the present trading bank has. The central bank, the trading bank and the savings bank all are, under the proposed legislation, as they are now, subject to the direction of Parliament, to use their resources in the best economic interests of Australia and for the development of Australia. This legislation differs not at all in those respects from the legislation which is at present on the statute-book and which the Opposition has agreed during this debate has resulted in the Commonwealth Bank’s advancing from strength to strength as regards funds, depositors and its influence on the community generally.

I have pointed out, too, that a new departure is proposed, in that the bills under consideration seek to establish a development bank which will be able to take over the Mortgage Bank Department, the industrial finance, or hire-purchase department of the present Commonwealth Bank, and which will be freed from the restraints at present imposed on the Industrial Finance Department of the Commonwealth Bank, as the new bank will be able to make loans for a longer time than is at present possible and to a greater extent than is at present possible. I have pointed out that under the proposed legislation the funds which will be available to the new Development Bank are, subject to the discretion of Parliament, virtually unlimited and that consequently this bank, provided Parliament agrees that it is in the economic interest so to do, could make available sufficient funds to tie and limit the interest rates which could be charged for hire-purchase transaction on all forms of farm machinery, or machinery used in small manufacturing businesses. All these facts which I have stated cannot be denied.

What, therefore, is the objection to the proposed legislation? I think the objection stems from only two heads. One is that the present central bank, although it will have more power over general credit policy, will not have power under the new legislation to discriminate between bank and bank, lt will not have power to discriminate between one private bank and another, or between the Commonwealth Trading Bank and another bank That is one head of objection; but, be it noted, that does not in any way affect the powers of the central bank to carry out its proper banking business.

The other head of objection is that the central bank will no longer be engaged one removed in direct trading activities. Tn short, we will no longer have a bank which seeks, through its governor, to be both a player in the game and the umpire in the game. If that is not in accord with all the tenets of fair play, then it is difficult for me to know what fair play is. I repeat that the only two objections are (hat the central bank will no longer be both player and umpire in the trading bank business and that it will no longer have the power to discriminate between bank and bank. We are asked to believe that because of those two things people are prepared to turn down a new development bank which they have spoken of in highly glowing terms and to refuse to give the necessary strengthened powers to the central bank which they have also suggested are a good thing for the economy of the country.

Those cannot be the true reasons why this proposed legislation is opposed, but the things which flow from them could be the real reasons. The things which flow from them are that in future it will be very much harder for a government, which may feel so disposed, to drive the trading banks out of operation and out of business, not by legislation -

Senator Cooke:

– By competition.

Senator GORTON:

– Not by competition but by discrimination against one bank or the other, because all the rights of competition which are now existent will continue to exist under the legislation; indeed, with the new Development Bank, there will be more opportunities for the central banking corporation to compete than exist under the present act. So it is not a question of competition, nor is it a question of legislation. It is a question of underhand economic direction and regulation, not by the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank on his own initiative, but by the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank under direction from a government which could replace the present Government and which would have the power to instruct him to discriminate against one or all of the private banks to drive them out of the field and prevent competition.

I am violently opposed to a situation which would permit of the private trading banks being driven out of the field of banking in this country. I am not opposed to it because of any love of the banks as such. I have no cause to love the banks as such; indeed, quite the opposite. I am not opposed te it because of the banks’ shareholders. I am not opposed to it even because of the banks’ depositors. But I am opposed to it because I believe it is the right of every individual to have a choice of sources when seeking to negotiate a loan, and to negotiate that loan for his business without political direction as to what he shall be able to borrow. More importantly, I believe it is the right of every individual to be able to negotiate a loan without the risk of political intimidation which would be present if there were only one source of funds in this country and if that source were dominated by whichever party happened to be in power.

What was the reason why the people of Australia rose up before against the proposal that there should be only one source of retail lending in this country? I emphasize that I am referring now to retail lending, not credit control. The people opposed it because they had the sense to see that if there was only one bank and if that bank was under the direction of the government, they could be vitally affected in two ways. First, it would be completely competent for a government to say to that bank, “ You may make advances for growing wool, but not for dairy farming “. It would be competent for such a government to say, in relation to a particular district of this country, “ You may make advances for the purpose of growing wheat, but not for the purpose of irrigation farming, because our experts in Canberra think that this district is economically suited only for one or the other, and consequently we are going to prevent you, as an individual, from borrowing to do anything that we think is uneconomic “.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Does not that position exist to-day?

Senator GORTON:

– lt does not exist today, because the purpose for which a person borrows money depends on the judgment not of the Government, or of one trading bank, but of five or six competing institutions, any one of which is liable to take a different view from the others. Individuals may go from one bank’ to another and have their propositions decided on the judgment of the manager concerned, not on that of some far-off official or department acting through a bank to put a particular economic policy into operation. That is one reason, Sir, why the people rose so violently against the Labour proposition. (Opposition senators interjecting) -

Senator GORTON:

– Yes, violently, as honorable senators opposite have good reason to know; a violence expressed through the ballot box; a violence which flung the then government from this side of the chamber to the other, and which, if I may say so, will keep it there.

This is not, however, the worst thing that could flow from having only one bank, sub ject to political direction. That, after all, bad as it might be in the case of the individual, stems from a real economic attempt to use funds for the best purpose, as seen by somebody who thinks he is entitled to direct the whole country. Far more serious things than that could happen. With one bank manager and one bank, would it not be possible - has it not happened in other countries - that a man could be approached and told, “ Unless you cease your activities against the present government, unless you stop getting up and saying that what it is doing is wrong, I am afraid I will have to ask you to reduce your overdraft “. That would need to happen only once or twice, and the effect throughout the business world would be to consolidate the position of the government in power. I hear objections from the other side of the chamber to the effect that that could not happen. It is precisely what is happening in Hobart now, in another sphere, in relation to waterside workers who. because they objected to paying what those in charge said they must pay, have had their livelihood taken away and are being kept from work, although I thought the Opposition said the United Nations had held that every one should have the right to work.

Those are the reasons why I support this legislation. I do not want that sort of thing to happen. The Opposition objects to this legislation because it wants things of this sort to happen. The members of the Opposition have said so publicly by way of interjection and in other ways. That can be the only reason why they oppose this suggestion that the central bank should be strengthened, the Trading Bank and the Savings Bank left as they are, and a great new Development Bank brought into being, a bank which could overcome the evil we heard Senator McManus speaking about so violently last night, but a bank which he is not prepared to support. He prefers to leave the situation so that the economic life of every individual can be at the mercy of a government. The government that might at some future date succeed this Government, if the Australian Labour party is still under its present leader, would, in my opinion, take every advantage possible in order to exert pressure against those who opposed it. I support this legislation. If it is not passed now, I venture to prophesy that it will become law within a year-

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

Irrespective of what the Treasurer said, irrespective of what the Prime Minister said in 1953, and irrespective of what the secretariat of the Country party said, when the banks cracked the whip and said, “We want the pay-off”, this Government bent the knee. When a Labour government, whether in the Federal or the State sphere, introduces class legislation, supporters of the Government are up in arms about it. But when it is a question of class legislation which adds profit to the monopolies, to the banks, to the insurance companies, and to the press through the granting of television licences, to say nothing of admitting my friend Krupp into Australia, the Government bows to the will of its own parties.

Senator Kendall:

– Tell us why you do not like the banking legislation.

Senator KENNELLY:

– We shall get on to that in my own time and way. I have until thirteen minutes past nine in which to speak. Why is the press so vitally interested in the reporting of these debates? Why is the press so vitally interested in slanting its reports of these speeches? Would this be one of the reasons? The directors of the newspapers controlling press policy are also directors of the private banks? Mr. Vincent C. Fairfax, director of John Fairfax and Sons Proprietary Limited, which publishes the “ Sydney Morning Herald “. is also a director of the Bank of New South Wales. In my own State, Mr. H. D. Giddy, chairman of the company which controls the Melbourne “ Herald “, the Melbourne “ Sun “, the Adelaide “ Advertiser “, and the Brisbane “ Courier-Mail “, is also chairman of the National Bank of Australasia Limited, ls that the answer? How can members of my party, or any one opposed to the private banks, expect to read a fair report of the speeches on this legislation when the people who are at the top of the newspaper world are also financially interested in the outcome of the legislation? We say, therefore, that it is impossible to get a fair go from the press in the reporting of these debates.

What are the main changes to be effected by each of the three principal bills? The Reserve Bank Bill will separate the central bank from the Trading Bank and Savings Bank. The Commonwealth Banks Bill will set up a corporation, eight of the eleven members of which will be private businessmen, to control the Trading Bank, the Savings Bank and the Development Bank. The Banking Bill, dealing with Commonwealth control over private banks, will abolish the present system of control through special accounts and put in its place a new system which cannot be applied quickly in the event of a national crisis. The legislation will separate the central bank from the Trading Bank, the Savings Bank and the Development Bank, and will make a major change in the present organization. One would think, at least, that arguments would be advanced as to why such proposed changes are to take place.

When the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), who is in charge of the legislation in this chamber, read, with the exception of the first two paragraphs, the speech of the Treasurer in another place, he did not give us the reason why the change is to be made. All he said was -

Experience has shown that there cannot be full harmony . . within the Australian banking system, nor that close co-operation which ought to subsist between the central bank and the trading banks, unless and until this separation is effected.

Those are airy words that do not mean much. This proposed separation cannot be proved to be in the interests of the people. Later in his speech the Treasurer said -

This lack of confidence in the present structure on the part of the private banks and their customers is undoubtedly the crucial fact in the whole issue.

Yet we find the Minister in charge of the legislation in this chamber saying -

The private banks have made it plain that they do not criticize the way in which the central bank has used the powers and functions it has under present legislation. On the contrary, they have been at pains to commend the competence, integrity and impartiality of the central bank.

Senator Wright:

– From what is the honorable senator reading?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am reading from the speech of the Treasurer. If the honorable senator cared to read the speeches of the Treasurer on this legislation, instead of acting, he would know that I have read the printed speech correctly. Obviously no reason has been given for the proposed change. The embarrassment exhibited by the Treasurer in another place, and by the Minister in charge of the legislation here, reveals that the Treasurer is ashamed of the proposals.

In 1951, Sir Arthur Fadden said -

Part of the strength of the Commonwealth Bank, as a central bank, is, however, derived from the direct contact with the financial and industrial system which it maintains through its trading sections.

That view was repeated in the circular distributed by the secretariat of the Australian Country party in 1957 to which I have already referred. In 1953 the Prime Minister said - .

We believe that the Commonwealth Bank’s general trading activities have great merit because they act as a source of information to the central bank. They enable the central bank to have an instrument by which it may give leadership in banking policy. It has a great number of advantages that I need not discuss at this stage.

Has any specific reason been advanced for the change of mind, or may I say the change of heart, of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer of this nation? No! They are doing what they are told to do. The private banks ordered this change and, therefore, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, important as they are in the political life of this country, fell into line just as the youngest back-bencher does.

A further fault in the Reserve Bank Bill is that it will continue the existing bank board, partly comprised of private businessmen, which was set up in 1951. The Opposition has always believed that the nation’s bank ought to be controlled by one man who should not be subservient to businessmen who have outside interests. Surely in recent weeks we have read sufficient about the directors of the Bank of England who have outside interests. We have the case of Lord Kindersley, director of the Bank of England, chairman of Lazard and Company Limited, an underwriting firm, governor of the Royal Exchange Assurance Company and chairman of the British Match Corporation. On 2nd and 12th September, 1957, he discussed Great Britain’s serious financial condition and proposed remedies, including a possible increase in interest rates, with the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. On 16th September confirmation was given that interest rates would rise as from 19th September. Between 13th and 16th September, the three firms I have mentioned between them disposed of gilt-edged securities worth £2,000,000! Is it any wonder that we are sceptical and afraid that this nation’s interests will be jeopardized when the Government appoints private people to be controlling directors of the people’s bank - people who have outside interests, as is evidenced by the report which is available in the Library. As I have said, the people I mentioned disposed of gilt-edged securities worth £2,000,000 and their rake-off, if I make use the term, was a cool £50,000. That was not a bad week’s work, even for the lord to whom I refer.

If we turn to page 21 of the committee’s report, we find another example in the person of Mr. W. J. Keswick, another director of the Bank of England. He is also a director of Matheson and Company Limited, which carries on business with agencies in Hong Kong and the Far East. On 4th September he was informed by the deputy director of the Bank of England regarding possible remedies to England’s financial situation, including the raising of the bank rate. On 6th September, he was asked by his Hong Kong office for advice as to whether it should sell its securities. All I can say is that the people who run these firms must be mind readers. He was told about it on the 4th, and on the 6th - only two days later - he was asked by his Hong Kong office whether it should sell its securities. God forbid that I would ever hint that by some telepathic medium the Hong Kong people got to know what was in the mind of the deputy director of the bank.

Senator Kendall:

– It was in the newspapers.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Oh, it was, was it, and the newspapers stated on the 4th that the bank was going to raise the rate? No, they did not! You had better have another guess, because you are pretty wide of the mark. Now, listen further. On the morning of 16th September, Mr. Keswick drafted a telegram advising his office in Hong Kong to sell its securities as money would be tighter. In the afternoon he attended a bank meeting at which the increase of the bank rate was finalized. On the 17th he sent the telegram to Hong Kong. It was perfectly all right; the whole thing was perfectly white washed by the commission, but how remarkable the incidents dovetailed! On the 18th, authority to sell was received from Hong Kong and that day, after the normal closing of the exchange, more than one million pounds worth of securities were sold. On the next day the bank rate increase was announced publicly. Were there any grounds for suspicion? One of the partners of the purchasing jobbers is a Mr. Spooner. Is not that remarkable, too? He said that he felt uneasy about the circumstances in which the sales to his firm had taken place, and therefore he said - and the report admitted - that a sinister construction could be put on Mr. Keswick’s actions. One can only marvel at the story. Despite the facts that I have mentioned, Mr. Keswick was cleared of any charge of improper conduct. What I am concerned about is that it is remarkable that two days after he advised his officers in Hong Kong that something might happen, they asked him whether they should sell their securities. No, it does not work in ordinary life. It may work in the higher financial circles; I do not know about that.

I come now to the measure which hands over the running of the Trading Bank, the Savings Bank, and the Development Bank to a majority of private people who will be the directors. On a board of eleven members, only three will be Commonwealth representatives. Of course, Senator Gorton did not mention anything about the executive committee consisting of five members in charge of each bank. The Commonwealth is permitted to have only one representative on the committee in charge of the Trading Bank and the Development Bank, and two on the Savings Bank Board. It is true that the Government has not yet sold the Trading Bank and the Savings Bank, but it has done the next best thing. The Government will put its friends in control. Having some knowledge of what control means, one can imagine what will happen, if experience of the present bank board is any indication. No doubt, there will be representatives of like calibre on the boards. Let us have a look at some of the Commonwealth’s appointees to the Commonwealth Bank Board. One, G. H. Grim wade-

Senator Hendrickson:

– Who is he?

Senator KENNELLY:

– He is a director of Commonwealth Industrial Gases Limited, Courtaulds (Australia) Limited, Cumming Smith and Company, chemical manufacturers, and Drug Houses of Australia Limited. To ensure that he has not any spare time, he is also a director of Perpetual General Insurance Guarantee Limited. Another Government appointee was W. A. Gunn, who is a director of Rothman’s of Pall Mall. Another Government appointee is A. E. Symons, of Waters Holdings Limited. Yet another - and may I say with respect that this possibly was for services rendered - is none other than Professor Hytten, that notable professor who said that a pool of unemployed was needed.

Senator Hannaford:

– He said nothing of the kind.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Of course he did. It has been found that businessmen connected with monetary enterprises, whose directors sit on controlling boards of the private banks will, of course, look after their own interests. Of course they will! I shall quote an example of how they do so. I have personal knowledge of the following case. In Portland, a young farmer wanted to buy 246 acres of land at £1 1 an acre. The total price was £2,706. He was £400 short. The man went to the “National Bank, the Commercial Bank, and the Australia and New Zealand Bank Limited. All they did was to advise him to contact their hire-purchase sections or to go elsewhere. On the other hand I read in the press only a few days ago that the same National Bank had lent £3,000,000 for Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited to build their new ore ship. Why? No doubt because Mr. L. Darling is a direc tor not only of Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, but also of the National Bank of Australasia Limited.

Let us look now at the proposal to establish the Development Bank, of which Senator Wade - the Australian Country party member - spoke earlier. First, I will compare it with the existing legislation. Clause 72 of the Commonwealth Bank Bill provides -

The functions of the Development Bank are -

to provide finance for persons -

for the purposes of primary production;

If we look at Part XI. of the present act we find that the function of the Industrial Finance Department is the provision of finance for the establishment and development of industrial undertakings, particularly small undertakings. If the two are compared, it becomes apparent that if five words are added to the existing provision the aims of the Government would be given effect. My colleagues and I would support such a move. It would give the Government everything that it says it desires in the way of a development bank. With respect, we have heard a lot of nonsense about this bank. We challenge you to amend the existing legislation by adding five words “ for the purposes of primary production “.

Senator Hannaford:

– Is the honorable senator addressing the Chair?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I would rather talk to the butcher than to the block. The third bill deals with Commonwealth control over the private banks. It replaces the special accounts system by a system of statutory reserve deposits, and specifies that amounts of more than 25 per cent, can be called up only after 45 days’ notice- The reasons given in support of all this are pitiful and unconvincing. The private banks have said that there should be a change because, under the present system of special accounts, a Labour government could nationalize them by stealth. Government supporters know as well as I do that the banks cannot be nationalized unless the Constitution is altered. The High Court has said it; the Privy Council has said it. I ask Government supporters to help us alter the Constitution. If that help is given we shall be very grateful. We are told that the central bank could act unfairly, calling up special deposits from the private trading banks but not from the Commonwealth Trading Bank. The Treasurer has admitted that that has never happened. The financial editor of the Melbourne “ Herald “ said on 26th November, 1957, that the case of the Government on this point is absurd. The outcry against such a subterfuge would abolish any government irrespective of colour. The delay occasioned by the giving of 45 days’ notice could be too great if Australia were faced with an ‘economic crisis. We believe that the present system, under which the central bank controls both private banks and the Commonwealth Trading Bank, ought to remain.

The legislation contains no proposals whatever relating to hire purchase. We are told that the Government has no power in this field, but it has not tested this opinion. The only way to find out is to take a test case to the High Court or the Privy Council. I do not know whether the Government has the power it needs or not, but if it were earnest about its professed attempts to stop the racketeering that is taking place in the hire-purchase field it could at least do the decent thing and put up a test case. 1 propose to inform Government supporters why they will never do that. All the private banks have entered the hire-purchase field. The National Bank has Custom Credit Corporation Limited; the Bank of Adelaide has Finance Corporation of Australia Limited; the English, Scottish and Australian Bank has Esanda Limited; the Commercial Bank has General Credit Limited, and the Bank of New South Wales has the Australian Guarantee Corporation. That is why there will not be a test case. Government supporters need not shed crocodile tears over people being slugged 15 per cent, or 20 per cent, interest on the £300,000,000 that has been loaned to finance hire purchase. In this, I join with Senator McManus. I am not opposed to hire purchase as such, but I am opposed to its misuse. The Government could, if it wished to do the right thing for the people, test the position and at least attempt to save them from being bled white. Under the Constitution, it has control of bank interest. There is .a doubt whether it has also control of interest upon hire-purchase borrowings, but I assure Government supporters that the Australian Labour party will support any bill for a referendum on that score. There need be no fear that we will waste any time in doing so.

The Government is very eager to protect the private trading banks, but would it not be at least decent if those banks paid the same wages as does the Commonwealth Bank. The private banks served their latest log on the Bank Officials’ Association on 16th September, 1957. Again they were bad judges- They received a promise that this legislation would be brought down after 1949, but they had to wait until 1958. No doubt they were promised early in 1957 that the legislation would be brought down, so on 16th September of that year they served a log on the Bank Officials’ Association, trying to peg the lower rates of pay for their officers for a period of three years.

For the information of honorable senators, let me read to them a comparison of salaries paid to officers of private banks and those paid to officers of the Commonwealth Bank. A man with more than ten years’ service in the Commonwealth Bank receives £1,010 per annum, whereas a man with similar service in a private bank in Victoria receives only £992 per annum. My adviser states -

The very important fact to be noted is that the minimum scale salaries in the Commonwealth Bank reach to the 27th year of service (males £1,400 per annum) and the 16th year of service (females £830 per annum) compared wilh private trading banks - males 18th year of service (highest rate New South Wales £1,253 per annum) and females, 9th year of service (highest rate New South Wales £734 per annum).

I ask honorable senators opposite to tell their friends and backers at the next election not to sweat their employees.

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

– After having listened to Senator Kennelly, I am more than ever opposed to the Senate being on the air. If the debate last night had been broadcast, the public would have heard thoughtful and informative speeches on these measures, but the rubbish that has just been uttered does a great disservice to the Senate. Last night and yesterday afternoon, from the Opposition, from this side of the Senate and from the corners of the chamber we heard some very interesting, thoughtful and informative debate on this matter. When I first became interested in politics a very wise man made a sound statement to me. He said, “ When you go into politics, never overlook the fact that no self-respecting man will be able to go as low as a Labour politician “. After hearing Senator Kennelly to-night. 1 quite agree with that statement.

I do not propose to deal with all the rubbish uttered by Senator Kennelly, for most of it had nothing whatever to do with the bill. Perhaps only five or seven minutes of the hour for which he was speaking were devoted to dealing with matters connected with the bill. He did say one or two things which I thought were very interesting. Of course, I do not think even his leader agreed with his diatribe on hire purchase. We Tasmanians know a little about what is going on, and I am confident that Senator Kennelly would be completely out of step with his leader on this occasion. That, of course, is nothing new because so many Opposition senators are out of step and out of line to-day.

We all heard Senator Kennelly’s miserable, low attack on the Government about pairs. He knows the truth only too well; he knows the whole story. He knows full well that after the last election, the numbers in the Senate were 30 on the Government side and 30 on the Opposition. He knows that the Government decided, immediately it came into office, that no pairs would be granted. We made that decision because we appreciate that if we want legislation to pass through the Senate we have a duty to marshal our numbers. It should bc remembered, too, that the Opposition has an equal duty to marshal its numbers.

In those circumstances, there can be nodispute as to where the responsibility liesfor bringing Senator Arnold here on that memorable occasion. The Opposition was. responsible for bringing him here. Why, Dr. Evatt flew to Newcastle to see Senator Arnold, and two days before Senator Arnold was brought to the Senate on that occasion, Dr. Evatt published this statement in the “ Sydney Morning Herald “ -

I was pleased to see him looking so well. I am confident he will be able to take his place in the Senate when the banking bill comes up for actual decision.

I repeat, that statement was made by Dr. Evatt two days before Senator Arnold was brought here. Who brought him here? Dr. Evatt and the Labour party brought him here, and they must take full responsibility for it. Surely we have the right to assume that they consulted Senator Arnold’s medical advisers? If they did not have an assurance from his medical advisers that Senator Arnold could travel, then they stand condemned for all time for their action in bringing him here. Now we have this miserable, low-down attack, which is not based on truth. But that is the sort of thing one gets from the Labour party.

shall deal now with the bill because I discard what was said by Senator Kennelly. During the debate yesterday, one or two things were mentioned which I thought merited some reply, because they were interesting points. The first was raised by Senator Byrne, who said that the legislation inhibited the right of future governments to legislate. He said that if this legislation became law it would prohibit legislative action by future governments.

Senator Cameron:

– Then you are not disappointed.

Senator HENTY:

– Not in the slightest. The Opposition says that we are out to destroy the people’s bank and that in doing so we are the tools of the private banks. I shall deal with both charges, because the Opposition has not adduced one scintilla of evidence to support them. Honorable senators opposite have referred to the legislation we passed in 1950, 1951 and 1953, and a perusal of “ Hansard “ will disclose that they said about those pieces of legislation exactly what they are saying about the bills under discussion. They were wrong then, they are equally wrong now, and I shall show just how wrong they were.

– Another “Hear, hear” from 1850. Shades of lavender and old lace! Let us consider what this legislation, which is said to have been introduced at the direction of the private banks, sets out to do. I think the position is very interesting. If anyone in this chamber suggests that any of these measures has been inspired by the private banks I think he ought to examine closely his methods of reasoning. The legislation proposes to provide an additional £2,000,000 capital for the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank and to provide an additional £2,000,000 capital for the Commonwealth Trading Bank - more cash, more customers, more business. Does anyone think that that is inspired by the private trading banks? The provision of this additional capital wilt enable the Trading Bank and the Savings Bank to make housing loans to individuals on Credit Foncier terms, and also to building societies. The present act enables only the Trading Bank to do this. The proposal is that it should be done by the Savings Bank, with its reserves of £700,000,000. More money, more customers, more competition. Does anyone think that that was inspired by the private banks? What nonsense! Honorable senators opposite oppose legislation which aims at providing more housing.

It is proposed also to provide an additional £5,000,000 for the Commonwealth Development Bank. This bank will have a capital of £14,300,000 from the Mortgage Bank Department and the Industrial Finance Department, and an additional £5,000,000 of capital. It will pay no income tax and its entire profits will go back into its own reserve funds to increase the scope of its activities. Do honorable senators opposite think that that was inspired by the private banks? If this is the inspiration that the private banks have given us, then they are building up a great wealth of competition for themselves. But, of course, honorable senators opposite do not believe that for a minute. Their assertion is just a catch cry, a parrot cry, without one fact to back it up.

I listened with great interest to the statement to-night from Senator Kennelly that we were doing away with the present system of calling up deposits and were instituting a new system which would provide that special deposits might be called up at 45 days’ notice, in case of emergency. The honorable senator said that in 45 days, anything could happen. Or course, that is nol the fact. Provision is made for 25 per cent. of the deposits to be called up. The honorable senator overlooked the little matter of the 25 per cent. I remind him that 25 per cent, of the deposits is greater than the special accounts have been with the Commonwealth Bank, since 1953. But, in respect of the proportion above 25 per cent., we suggest that 45 days’ notice is a proper and sensible proposition, because the banks will have their funds liquid when they learn that there is to be a call up of amounts above 25 per cent. They will have to go to their customers and say, “ We want you, within the next 45 days, to reduce your overdrafts by £X “. They will sell some of their Commonwealth securities and make their funds liquid, so that they may stand the call up. Could that be done in less than 45 days? Of course, it could not, unless we wanted to break the banks, which, of course, is the intention of honorable senators opposite.

The suggestion that these measures have been introduced at the direction of the private banks is completely wide of the mark. It is shallow propaganda, and nobody knows that better than those honorable senators opposite who spoke in this chamber last night.

Senator Toohey:

– The Minister is protesting too much.

Senator HENTY:

– I do not protest about this matter. I have a simple philosophy on banking.

Senator Cameron:

– A what?

Senator HENTY:

Senator HENTY:

– Do not be silly. You know what the truth is. That is the absolute truth, and you know it is. You denied a pair to a soldier who was fighting overseas, after giving your word.

Senator Aylett:

– That is a deliberate lie, and you know it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid). - Order!

Senator HENTY:

– The trouble with Senator Aylett is that he talks too much. If he did not talk so much and if what he said was not recorded in “ Hansard “, he might have been able to get away with it. But he cannot get away from what is recorded in “ Hansard “. What I have said is the truth. But let me continue with my speech, because I think I have a few more minutes left. I do not want to take more than half an hour. I believe that quite legally the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is entitled to speak for an hour.

Government Supporters. - No!

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I believe that it is quite legal for him to do so, but we have an undertaking in this chamber-

Senator Hannaford:

– It is a gentleman’s agreement.

Senator HENTY:

– Yes, a gentleman’s agreement - we are so silly as to enter into a gentleman’s agreement - that the Leader of the House shall be allowed to speak for an hour.

Senator McKenna:

– And the Deputy Leader.

Senator HENTY:

– The Leader and Deputy Leader of the Government are each allowed to speak for one hour. When on the air we all observe the half-hour limit.

We have heard in this chamber that the Australian Democratic Labour party and the Queensland Labour party are a little averse to unity tickets. They share to-night, and will again to-morrow, a unity ticket with the Evatt Labour party. All buddies together!

Senator Cole:

– That is a bit silly.

Senator HENTY:

– It may seem silly, but that is what those two parties will do - share a unity ticket with the Australian Labour party to defeat this legislation.

It is rather interesting to note that the policy of the Australian Labour party is to nationalize banking. One of the planks of the platform of the Communist party is to take control of banking. Yet, ranged alongside the defenders of this platform, which is common to the Australian Labour party and the Communist party, we find the Australian Democratic Labour party and the Queensland Labour party defending the same principle.

The parties on this unity ticket stand charged with the fact that they will deny to the people of Australia the benefit of this banking legislation; they will deny to those people who urgently need finance the possibility of access to the £2,000,000 additional capital to be allotted to the Commonwealth Trading Bank; they will deny to the people access to the additional funds to be allotted to the Commonwealth Savings Bank for housing; they will deny to those who are out of work the opportunity to get jobs building those houses; they will deny to the small farmer, the small businessman and the small factory owner the opportunity to expand by use of the £5,000,000 additional capital proposed to be allotted to the Development Bank, and they will deny to honest young Australians with the energy, initiative and the ideas, the right to start on their own and build their own industries with capital supplied by the Development Bank. Those great sections of the Australian people will not forget to judge and condemn the actions of these three Labour parties when the opportunity presents itself at the coming election, which may be sooner than the Opposition thinks.

Senator COLE:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labour party · Tasmania

– I should like to commence my contribution to this debate by stating the official attitude of my party towards this proposed legislation. We believe that the Commonwealth Bank should be used for the greatest benefit of the people of Australia and should not be limited by the policies of private enterprise alone. We believe also that the Commonwealth Bank should develop, having in mind more than the profits arising from the business of banking. The policy of the Australian Democratic Labour party is not directed towards the elimination of private enterprise in the banking field. The legislation now before Parliament does not conform to our policy bec;–se it will make the Commonwealth Trading Bank subject to the reserve deposit plan and restrict the resources of the bank so that it will not be able to carry out its developmental role.

Senator Henty mentioned one matter that got under my skin.

Senator Gorton:

– Is not the Commonwealth Trading Bank in practice subject to the reserve deposit plan?

Senator COLE:

Senator COLE:

– It would have the support of every honorable senator. The Government could also threaten to withdraw the charter of private banks unless they got out of the hire-purchase field. Of course, that would be a very hard thing for the Government to do. It could also approach the matter from the other direction and say to the hire-purchase companies, “ You will be placed under a banking charter, because you are controlling 28 per cent, of the credit in the community “.

Senator McManus:

– At present they atc completely uncontrolled.

Senator COLE:

– I would put them under a banking charter. They would then come under the control of the central bank so far as interest and the like were concerned. I wonder how much money would pour into the hire-purchase companies then! For these reasons, the Government ought not to say that it can do nothing about hire purchase - a deadly killer of our economy at present.

Let us look now at the proposed Development Bank - one of the bright spots in this banking legislation. Last night Senator McManus and Senator Byrne asked1 whether it could be accepted if the other three parts of the main legislation were rejected, but they could not obtain an answer. In the circumstances, we can only vote against the whole legislation at the second-reading stage. 1 will not listen to any suggestion that the Government could not accept the Development Bank proposal on its own. If it really believes that this is. a wonderful scheme - as I do also - the. Government can bring it into being by proposing, later, a simple amendment of the existing legislation. There is already a mortgage bank, but, in matters of credit extension, it follows normal banking practice. The Development Bank proposal, envisages the granting of great discretion in making advances. If the Government brings down a bill establishing such a bank, or submits an amendment to the existing act with that in view, it can depend upon our support. I ask the Government to do that..

Senator McManus:

– If we supported the Government, would it create a unity ticket?

Senator COLE:

– It would be a matter of unity with the “ Libs “.

Senator Wright last night gave us one of the best examples of special pleading that we have heard for a long time. He addressed most of his remarks to Senator McManus, Senator Byrne and myself, and asked us to permit the bill to go into the committee stage. He said, “ There we can make a bill out of it “, but he knows as well as I that, so far as amendments are concerned, we would have our heads chopped off very quickly. His was a very good pleading, and I am rather sorry that we cannot agree, at this stage at any rate, to allow the legislation to pass into the committee stage. I do not think that this legislation will ever be brought in because, as I said earlier, I do not think the Government is very keen about it. I do not even think that the banks are very keen about it. One would have thought that, in the last three months, at least one of their representatives would have come along to lobby us about this legislation.

We are the people who will have the responsibility of deciding whether the bill should be passed or not, but we have seen not a single lobbyist in all that time. I do not know why. That proves to me very conclusively that the banks are not overkeen on the legislation in its present form. If, after an election, the Government were returned with a majority in the Senate, the private banks probably would bring more pressure to bear on it. The Government then would have no excuse. It would have the numbers in this place to enable it to pass the legislation requested by the private banks. If, when the Governmenthad the numbers, this legislation were reintroduced, I feel certain that it would not be in the same form as it is now.

– I do not care whether it is a double or a single dissolution. If the Government has the guts it pretends to have, if the Government really means what it has said, it will go for a double dissolution. If it does not mean what it says, I suppose it will sit back and take it. If the Government is really honest in its contention that this is major legislation, it will fight for it to the utmost. It will go right to the end. When the measures are rejected, as I believe they will be, the only thing for the Government to do, if it is really honest, will be to seek a double dissolution.

I have put forward the views of the Australian Democratic Labour party on the political side. I am sorry that the speeches made last night by Senators McManus and Byrne were not broadcast. Those speeches should convince the Senate that this legislation is not necessary and it would be, as I believe, to the detriment of Australia. The credit resources of Australia must be used for the development of our country, through our banking system. That is one of the main reasons why my party believes that the separation of the Trading Bank from the central bank would be a bad thing. We are determined to oppose the legislation in its present form.

Senator WEDGWOOD:
Victoria

– I rise to support the proposal before the Senate for the reconstruction of the existing banking structure, and to compliment the Government on its action in reintroducing the banking bills. We have just listened to a very remarkable speech from the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labour party (Senator Cole). He commenced with the explanation - I took it down as he said it - that the legislation does not conform to the platform of his party. That statement by Senator Cole followed a statement made by

Senator McManus yesterday who said, “Personally, I do not support the nationalization of banking.” Until very recently both Senator Cole and Senator McManus belonged to a party that had as its sole objective the socialization of the means of distribution, production and exchange. Therefore, they are hardly competent to say that the Government has delayed taking action or, indeed, that the Government senators are insincere in their attitude towards this legislation. Another point was raised by Senator Cole, and I suggest that it has coloured the whole of the thinking and the actions of the Democratic Labour party. Senator Cole invited the Government to seek a double dissolution, but he very well knows that in the event of a double dissolution a Democratic Labour party candidate would need to obtain only about one-ninth of the total vote to obtain a position in the Senate. Therefore, the Australian Democratic Labour party, or any splinter party, has everything to gain and nothing to lose by attempting to force the Government to seek a double dissolution. Senator Wright has just reminded me that the Australian Democratic Labour party would need to poll only a half of the votes that would be necessary to obtain a place in an ordinary election. Senator Cole introduced this subject and I am now giving him the facts. The only thing I can deduce from his argument is that the whole of his party’s attitude towards the banking bills is coloured by self-interest.

I should now like to talk about the legislation itself. As I feel that the Government’s case has been adequately put by other honorable senators on this side, I propose to confine my remarks to what I consider are the fundamental issues. The first is whether the central bank, or the Reserve Bank, as it is to be known, will be weakened by a separation of the functions of the central bank from the Commonwealth Trading Bank. The second fundamental issue relates to the future operation of the statutory reserve accounts system.

Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) weakened his case by applying the age-old technique of attempting to divert attention from the real issue by discussing details instead of directing his remarks to matters of substance. He. and other honorable senators opposite who spoke after him, endeavoured, I submit without success, to establish that the legislation, if adopted, would, in Senator McKenna’s own words, “ damage the structure and prestige of the central bank and reduce the power of the Governor “.. Senator Paltridge and Senator Wright pointed out clearly that nothing could be further from the truth. It is my belief that if these bills are passed, their effect will be to strengthen greatly the hands of the Governor as well as to strengthen the Reserve Bank. Their passage will also enable the Governor to keep closer cooperation with the private trading banks; so that, far from weakening the structure or position of the Reserve Bank, these bills will strengthen them. Further - and I believe this to be extremely important - the Commonwealth Trading Bank will be left free to pursue and develop its competitive trading with other banks.

This afternoon, my colleague, Senator Wade, quoted some very interesting figures which show the tremendous development in the Commonwealth Trading Bank over recent years. In the light of that evidence, it is ridiculous for the Opposition to claim that the proposals under consideration would act as a brake on the expansion of that bank. It is clear to everybody that, in the opinion of the community, the Commonwealth Trading Bank enjoys a position in the Australian financial system that no one would dare to suggest should be reduced or in any way hampered, but I submit there is every reason to contend that it is fundamental to an efficient banking system that the central banking functions should be separated from the multiplicity of trading bank activities. Yesterday, while Senator McKenna was speaking, an interjection was made by, I think, the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), in connexion with overseas experience. Senator McKenna, I believe, misled the Senate in his reply. Recent press reports indicate that the Bank of England, which at that time was helping in the formation of central banks in various parts of the world, notably Ghana, Malaya and Nigeria, advised those States to keep the central bank quite separate from the trading banks. It advised those States “ to keep central banking quite separate from trading banking rather than adopt the Australian system of combining both trading and central banking”. Surely that advice from the Bank of England is a clear indication that a central bank functions much better when untrammelled by direct participation in commercial banking.

The proposals now before the Senate are precisely similar to those which have been adopted overseas without any fear and without any recriminations, and I sincerely hope that we in Australia will prove to be sufficiently mature in financial techniques to adopt those practices. But, quite apart from what is happening overseas, I believe it is only reasonable to assume - and this point was very fully put by Senator Wright - that in the absence of complete confidence between all sections of the banking community, the banking system cannot operate smoothly.

This afternoon, Senator Willesee tried to build his case against the legislation on the argument that it must be dismissed because it is something for which the private banks have been pressing. He even went so far as to say that the only reason these measures were before the Parliament to-day was that the private banks had demanded that this action be taken. We on this side know that that is quite incorrect- Senator Willesee went on to give reasons for any concern that the private banks might have about the present situation and, strangely enough, he said that, after the threat of nationalization, the private banks became frightened and fought back. Of course the banks were afraid; so were the people of Australia. It was because of that fear that the people of Australia put the Chifley Government out of office and returned the Menzies-Fadden Administration. That fear still persists in the minds of many people, and it has contributed much to increasing the prestige of that administration.

Just before the suspension of the sitting, Senator Gorton placed his finger on the real objection the Opposition has to this legislation. He said that the Opposition objects not because the proposals do anything to weaken the central bank but because they seek to make it more difficult for some government which may be disposed to destroy the private banks without acting openly. That objection is easy to understand.

On the other hand, with their recollection of the attempts made in 1947 and 1948 to nationalize banking, and with the continued overt threats to their very existence, the trading banks understandably feel that they cannot reasonably fee expected to confide their innermost business secrets to the head of a trading competitor. Nor can it be claimed with truth that they have enjoyed the benefit of mutual confidences while they sincerely believed that the Commonwealth Trading Bank would be in a position to enjoy an unfair advantage because of its relationship with the central bank. It is because of those factors, and because of the continued threats to free-enterprise banking that I believe the complete separation of the functions of the central bank from the trading bank would clear the way to better cooperation with the trading banks. It is for those reasons that I feel also that far from being weakened, the central or Reserve Bank will achieve greater influence, authority and prestige than it has enjoyed hitherto.

The second point I wish to discuss relates to the change embodied in the bill relating to statutory reserve deposit accounts. Instead of seeing in this proposal something sinister, as has been suggested by Opposition senators, I agree with the statement of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) yesterday, that in the proposed statutory deposit procedure one sees the development of a central banking function to a point which has not previously been approached in Australia.

Like many other honorable senators on this side of the chamber, I have no reason to love the private banks, but I bitterly resent the imputation of Senator Kennelly that this legislation is the pay-off from the private banks. There are people in this Parliament who are not bought off by anybody.

Senator Hannaford:

– On this side, particularly.

Senator WEDGWOOD:

– Definitely. But, Sir, at least I try to be fair. Therefore, I would like for a moment to address myself to the way in which the special reserve deposits system has operated. During the 1939-45 war, the private banks voluntarily lodged with the central bank a substantial part of their assets as an anti-inflationary and patriotic gesture. In 1945, this voluntary arrangement was converted to a statutory one, but the form of its conversion proved unsatisfactory and so, in 1953, a fresh formula was arranged. The new formula required the banks to deposit with the central bank a basic portion of their deposits, plus a further amount up to 75 per cent, of any increase in their deposits. That has placed a very heavy liability on the banks, particularly as the central bank was not required to give prior notice of its intention to exercise its “powers to the fullest extent. In this legislation it is proposed to ensure that the banks will bte given protection against Unfair discrimination and, more importantly still, that the danger of nationalization by stealth-and I repeat the word “ stealth “ shall be minimized.

Senator Kennelly claimed that the banks had ordered this legislation. That was a parrot cry that he took up from some of his colleagues, I would have dealt with this matter myself had not the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) dealt very effectively with it and pointed out that, under the legislation, the central bank will be empowered to call up 25 per cent, of deposits in normal times, and that if it wishes to exceed that limit it will have to give 45 days’ notice of intention. There is, therefore, no limit provided in the bill. The call-up could be 100 per cent., and as the Minister for Customs and Excise stated, surely no member of the Opposition or any sensible person believes that the banks would insist on legislation which gave a central authority the power to call up 100 per cent, of these deposits.

One thing that has not been admitted by the Opposition is that the whole of this legislation gives greater power to the central bank. Surely, even to persons of limited intelligence, inside the Parliament or outside it, it must be apparent that the proposed legislation will give to the Reserve Bank the widest possible scope for effective control. I think that that is the important part of the whole legislation. It also will have the effect of affording some protection to the trading banks, insofar as it requires uniformity of treatment regarding statutory reserve deposit accounts and as between the various trading banks, including the Commonwealth Trading Bank. I am indebted to Senator Wright who, by means of an interjection when Senator Cole was speaking, raised this matter of uniformity. because it is one of the underlying principles of the legislation.

In conclusion, Sir, I believe that the Opposition has failed dismally in its attempts to talk away the obvious benefits that this legislation will bestow. Senator Kennelly, and many other honorable senators from the opposite side of the chamber, wandered far from the subject of banking, either central or private. Indeed, during the whole of this debate the good old red herring has been worked overtime. No solid arguments have been submitted to support the contention that the bills should be defeated. We on this side of the chamber have the utmost confidence in the Government. We are confident that our proposals will lead to a smoother and more efficient working system, which will be free from earlier sources of distrust and divisions of counsel. That being so, we believe that the legislation is in the very best interests of the people and of the Australian nation. I support the bill.

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hendrickson). - Order! Senator Toohey has the floor.

Senator TOOHEY:

– I assume, Sir, that I am not unduly interrupting Senator Mattner. While we are referring to Senator Wright, perhaps we could spend a few moments in making some reference to his speech on these measures. He made a very remarkable contribution to this debate. If he had made that contribution at the St. James theatre in London, he would have brought the house down. But he did not impress the Senate to any marked degree, because we are getting used to him. He played a dual role. On the one hand, he was the plump Jove hurling his misdirected thunderbolts at the Australian Labour party, and then he became an equally plump and seductive Lothario trying to woo the members of the Australian Democratic Labour party and the Queensland Labour party. But he did not do a good job in either role.

I wish to challenge some of the statements of Senator Wright. He said that in 1949 the declared intention of the Australian Labour party to nationalize the Australian banking system aroused a tremendous wave of resistance on the part of the banks’ customers and that it was as a consequence of that intense feeling that the Labour party was defeated at the general election of 1949. I do not know how long Senator Wright has been deeply immersed in the rather tricky pool of politics, but I think that anybody who examined the political scene of 1949 and the role that was adopted by the private banking institutions would not have seen much customer resistance. In fact, I do not think the customers were very much concerned about the position at all. But we did see a considerable amount of activity on the part of the banks themselves. At every political meeting that was held by a member of the Australian Labour party during the election campaign of 1949, there were hired interjectors - mercenaries employed by the private banking institutions - who tried to harass the speakers and to break up the meeting. It was a kind of genteel gangsterism.

Senator Wright:

– Do those employees become mercenaries when they oppose you?

Senator TOOHEY:

– They were mercenaries, and I will tell you why. I am rather pleased that the honorable senator has mentioned that. He wants me to prove it, and I am eager to do so. If he knows anything about what happened on that occasion, he knows, just as we on this side of the chamber know, that, for their participation in that campaign, those employees received something in addition to their ordinary remuneration as bank officers. Let honorable senators opposite not try to deny that. These employees received a very nice bonus indeed.

Senator Kendall:

– From whom?

Senator TOOHEY:

– They received it from their masters, the private banks.

Senator Hannaford:

– How do you know?

Senator TOOHEY:

– I shall quote an instance to indicate how I know. Government supporters do not like this, but it is true. A certain bank officer who worked for one of the private banks in South Australia came to me and gave me £10 towards the Labour party’s campaign funds. He said, “ You would be very amused if you knew where this come from. It was given to me by the management of the bank for which I work so that I could go to interrupt your Labour party meeting “. Let honorable senators opposite not deny that that happened.

Senator Hannan:

– I suppose he has gone over to Hobart since then?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order!

– I admit that I am not a banker, but the hire-purchase companies, which might have a greater knowledge of finance than I, or even the honorable senator, considered the proposition to be sound and were prepared to accommodate the man on their terms. That brings me to the matter of hirepurchase transactions. We are indebted to Senator McManus for raising this question. It is a well-known fact that when the Government came into office the Commonwealth Bank had a hire-purchase section. Admittedly, it did not cover a very wide field and had only certain rather limited and specified operations, but it existed and the Government destroyed it. If the Government were genuine in its desire to take some action in the matter of hirepurchase activities, that section of the Commonwealth Bank could have been maintained and expanded, and could have competed effectively with the greedy hirepurchase corporations that are running riot in Australia to-day.

On the question as to why the hirepurchase section of the bank was destroyed, I suggest that the underlying motive which now impels this Government to act at the behest of the private banking institutions impelled it to destroy that section of the bank when it came into office. There is no doubt about that because the hire-purchase concerns, as well as the banks, said, “ We will not have any competition “. This Government, ever obliging to its financial friends, decided the hire-purchase section of the Commonwealth Bank had to go, and it went.

Senator Henty:

– That is not so. lt is still in operation.

Senator TOOHEY:

– It is not being used; it is being frustrated and blanketed. Hirepurchase business in this country is becoming a national scandal. In other countries of the world, perhaps a little more enlightened than we are, legislation has already been introduced to deal with the hire-purchase concerns which are bleeding the community.

Debate interrupted.

page 411

ADJOURNMENT

Newspaper Report - Iron Ore - Gold-mining. “

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin). - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– I crave the indulgence of the Senate for a few minutes to make reference to a matter of some personal consequence to me. Certain attacks have been made upon me in the press of Western Australia, first of all by two gentlemen, Mr. Payne, the mayor of Bunbury, and Mr. Eadon-Clarke, the mayor of Geraldton, and secondly, by the “ West Australian “ newspaper itself in a leading article on Saturday, 22nd March, in relation to the attitude that I took on the matter of a permit to export iron ore.

I first want to make reference to the attacks by Mr. Payne and Mr. Eadon-Clarke. The latter gentleman wrote to the “ West Australian “, and the other published an article in the Bunbury “ Sun “, on Friday, 21st March. Both objected on the same grounds to my statements in relation to the issue of an export licence. Both gentlemen joined issue with me in regard to this all-important question of our iron ore reserves. They made statements as to what they estimated the reserves of iron ore to be, and their estimates are at great variance with the figure that I stated in a recent speech in this chamber.

I had said that we have iron ore reserves in Australia sufficient to meet our requirements for some 35 years. Mr. Payne and Mr. Eadon-Clarke have insisted in their press articles that we have iron ore reserves for some 2,000 years. Quite obviously, both estimates cannot be right. Mr. Payne and Mr. Eadon-Clarke stated that we have over six billion tons of iron ore reserves in Australia. Both made the fatal mistake of including our low-grade deposits of iron ore. Those low-grade deposits are, of course, well known, not only to myself, but to anybody who has any knowledge of mining.

The unfortunate mistake that both gentlemen made was to include these low-grade deposits in the estimates of our iron ore reserves. If we had to estimate the lowgrade iron ore reserves, that would give us, in fact, iron ore reserves for some 2,000 years, but if we take away the low-grade deposits we find, on the basis of the figures supplied by the Department of National Development, that we have iron ore reserves for only 35 years. In other words, about 90 per cent, of the deposits which Messrs. Payne and Eadon-Clarke included in their estimates are low-grade iron ore.

If either of those gentlemen knows how to extract iron from these low-grade deposits, I think he should inform the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, because neither that very experienced company nor any other mining authority knows how to do- it. .1 shall be most interested to hear from these gentlemen about how it can be done, so that their very obviously new mining methods may be published. As I say, I referred to reserves of high-grade iron ore sufficient to meet our requirements for 35 years. That was mentioned by the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) in this chamber. It is the only type of iron ore in Australia from which we can produce our steel and which can be mined economically.

Senator O’Byrne:

– How did you work out that estimate?

Senator VINCENT:

– I did not work it out. I accepted the figures of the industry and of the Department of National Development. 1 have not measured the reserves. As I say, I do not mind criticism by either of those gentlemen, but T should like any criticism that is hurled at by by my Western Australian friends to be based on fact.

I turn to much more serious critcism, which was contained in the “ West Australian “ of Saturday, 22nd March. The leading article in that issue contains this statement -

Senator Vincent ‘. . . asserted last week that the Slate Government had “ frozen “ iron ore deposits in this State. The facts are that the State Government is trying to put our ore into use by establishing a big industry here; and that the “ frozen “ deposits were traded to the B.H.P. for a song years ago by the McLarty-Watts Government, which, unlike the hard-headed Playford Government in South Australia, did not demand a reasonable quid-pro-quo.

The article continues -

Senator Vincent, though a Kalgoorlie man, had nothing to say about the vital goldmining industry, which, being far removed from Canberra, is neglected.

I strongly object to that criticism on two grounds. In the first place, it is not based on facts. I shall deal briefly with the matter of the frozen iron ore deposits. The “ West Australian “ claims, in effect, that I referred to the deposits at Yampi Sound that are on lease to the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. If any member of the staff of the “ West Australian “ had read my speech to which the leading article refers, he could not have come to any other conclusion than that I excluded those deposits when I referred to frozen deposits. I referred in my speech to iron ore reserves. The B.H.P. was mining ore; I was talking about other ore in Western Australia. I again assert that the deposits that are known and those that are unknown are frozen by the Hawke Government. In effect, nobody can peg a deposit of iron ore in Western Australia and get a mining title to it. The only person who can do so is the Premier of Western Australia himself. He has taken to himself the exclusive right to exploit all iron ore deposits in Western Australia. To that T take very strong objection. Presumably the “ West Australian “ agrees with Mr. Hawke’s policy, obstensibly and very palpably, to set up a State-controlled iron ore industry in Western Australia.

I should like to mention, in passing, that it might not be a very hazardous enterprise to run the State railways, although we do lose £7,000,000 a year on them. It might not even be a very hazardous enterprise to run a State-controlled newspaper. But it is a most hazardous occupation to try to run an iron ore mine. That is my objection to Mr. Hawke’s scheme, which presumably is endorsed by the “ West Australian “.

If Mr. Hawke would throw open to the public every known deposit of iron ore in Western Australia, and encourage efforts to discover deposits, he could expect a sudden development of exploration. We would then undoubtedly be in a position, as every geologist will affirm, to discover appropriate iron ore reserves, from which we could export iron ore.

One of the two published reasons given for Von Krupp’s refusal even to consider the establishment of a second steel industry in Australia was that we happen to be short of iron ore. Yet we have a State Premier reserving to himself the right to mine any iron ore in Western Australia. This has the fatal consequence of preventing the development of our reserves. I repeat, in my speech I referred, not to Yampi Sound deposits - which are not frozen - but to the very large deposits known to have been found in Western Australia, which, to our great detriment, have been frozen by Mr. Hawke. Any one who read my speech should have understood it. I suggest that any school boy could have done so, but the “ West Australian “ has published a leading article attacking me, on the assumption that I was referring to Broken Hill Proprietory Company Limited. That was a most misleading statement. The second aspect of my alleged misdemeanours is put thus -

Vincent, although a Kalgoorlie man, had nothing to say about the vita] gold mining industry.

The speech to which the “ West Australian “ refers was made by me on 30th March, and was devoted to the base metals industry. Where my remarks did apply to gold, I specifically mentioned gold. It is completely incorrect to suggest that I had nothing to say on that subject. As a matter of fact I had a lot to say about it. As reported at page 177 of the “ Hansard “ report I said that a very strong case existed for the encouragement of prospecting in those mining industries where great hazards were being undertaken in difficult exploration projects, and there I referred to both iron and gold. For the further information of the “ West Australian “, I may say that, as reported at page 178, I again referred to gold, and directed attention to the importance of establishing a gold reserve. As reported at page 181, I spoke of the need for interest-free loans to long-established mines which needed re-equipping, and made particular reference to the Sons of Gwalia gold mine in Western Australia. Obviously, the gentleman who wrote the leading article had not read my speech. He made a most unfortunate mistake. It should be corrected because his criticism has been based on false premises. I invite criticism, but I like it to be based on correct information. I suggest that the “ West Australian “ should be a little more careful in future. I have submitted these statements to the Minister, especially as they relate to our iron ore reserves and the remarks of the mayors of Geraldton and Bunbury are so misleading. I think they should be corrected and I invite the Minister, if he cares to do so, to follow me to-night and himself refer to any of the matters that I have mentioned.

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

– Senator Vincent has mentioned this matter to me, and I have obtained some information concerning it. It is set against the background of an application by the Western Australian Government for a licence to export 1,000,000 tons of iron ore. That application is the subject of correspondence between the Prime Minister and the State Premier, but I do not think it would be appropriate to refer to that correspondence at this stage. The mayor of Bunbury, Mr. Payne, has claimed that though in Australia there are 6,203,000,000 tons of iron ore, we are using only 3,500,000 tons annually. He therefore concludes that we have very adequate reserves of iron ore.

The supply of iron ore goes, of course, right to the foundations of our steel industry and, therefore, of our secondary industries. We must have not only adequate deposits, but also deposits that can be used economically. One must take into consideration the grade, and the cost of mining and transportation. To a material extent, these factors are influenced by the size of the particular deposit. My information is that the reserves referred to by Mr. Payne include a deposit of 5,430,000,000 tons of taconite in the Middleback Range of South Aw tralia. This ore contains between 15 per cent, and 35 per cent, of iron, but the ore that we are using at present contains more than 60 per cent. Obviously, we must use three times as much taconite to obtain the same result. That is only the beginning of the story. Before the ore can be used, an economical way of treating it must be found. The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited has been conducting research in an attempt to find such a method, but up to the present has not been successful. Even if it were, treatment costs would be very much greater than they are at present.

Senator Pearson:

– Is that a recent announcement?

Senator SPOONER:

– B.H.P. maintains a constant research programme into the possibility of using the taconite deposits, if only because of their size and importance. Overseas experience is that if this problem were solved successfully there would, naturally, be a big increase in iron ore reserves, but that such iron ore would be essentially more expensive to treat than the deposits at present being used - with all that follows in the way of higher manufacturing charges and so on.

Therefore, the deposit of 6,000,000,000 tons mentioned by Mr. Payne is largely unusable at present. Moreover, if research workers find a method of using it - I hope they will - it will prove very much more expensive than the iron ore which we are using now. If we put the taconite figures to one side we find that approximately 340,000,000 tons are to be found in three major iron ore deposits - Middleback, Yampi Sound and Koolyanobbing. Our information is that, taking into account the present rate of consumption, and its anticipated growth, we cannot expect that our reserves of iron ore - 800,000,000 tons - to last for more than 35 years. That is a relatively short period. The estimate is based on present requirements, without taking account of all the hopes and anticipations we have as to what will happen in the future.

Let us leave those three deposits on one side. The remaining deposits that make up the 800,000,000 tons, as distinct from this taconite, are all small and mainly of low grade, but without doubt the Australian iron and steel industry looks forward to the more economic use of these deposits, not in the distant future, but in the foreseeable future. The fact is that we are constantly receiving inquiries from concerns overseas which want to purchase the iron ore in these deposits, so it is very easy to assume that if it would be economic for people in Japan or elsewhere to use the deposits now, most assuredly it would be economic for us in Australia to use them in the future.

My view is that when Mr. Payne suggested that figure of 6,000,000,000 tons, he painted a completely misleading picture. We must not look at the 6,000,000,000 tons; we must look at what is left after we have taken away the taconite. He has made confusion worse confounded by claiming that comparatively recently two further deposits have been found, one of 43,500,000 tons in Western Australia, and another of 200,000,000 tons in Tasmania. He makes the claim that each of those deposits contains high-grade ore. The truth is that the Western Australian deposit that has been discovered has not been tested. Any figure mentioned at ‘the present time is an indication, not an estimate, of the resources. So far as the Tasmanian discovery is concerned, my recollection is - I should like Tasmanian senators to correct me if I am wrong - that it was not only recently that the deposit was located. It has been known to be there for a considerable time.

Senator Aylett:

– It has been known for as long as I can remember.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The Rio Tinto company is exploring it now.

Senator SPOONER:

– Preliminary investigations tend to suggest that the grade and the impurities present will make thedeposit relatively unattractive from the point of view of the steel industry.

Senator McKenna:

– Is there too much silica?

Senator SPOONER:

– I am sorry, butI do not know. I have discussed this matter with my officers, but I cannot recollect the facts just now. If some honorable senator will tell me where the deposit is, I may remember.

Senator Henty:

– At Savage River.

Senator SPOONER:

– I think that all that is happening at the moment is that the people who are investigating the deposit are keeping their fingers crossed, hoping that it will turn out to be better than present indications show.

I turn now to the criticism of the goldmining industry. I think that Senator Kendall made an apt interjection when he said, “ Why, you talk more about goldmining than I do about fishing!” I think that was an appropriate remark. I want to put on record that we, as the Commonwealth Government, claim that we have treated the gold-mining industry generously, not only by maintaining it completely free of taxation, but also by assisting marginal mines under the Gold-Mining Industry Assistance Act. One interesting fact that the department has brought to my notice as a result of this survey is that at the present time 30 per cent, of the gold produced in Australia is produced from mines which receive assistance under the GoldMining Industry Assistance Act.

I am sorry to take so long, but I find that the information I have is of more than passing interest. I wish to complete the record by saying one further thing on behalf of my colleague, who is under attack. I hope I would come to the assistance of anybody on either side of the chamber if he were being unfairly attacked. Whatever his faults, nobody can accuse Senator Vincent of not being a very strong advocate in the Senate of the claims of the gold-mining industry. I have a recollection that on one occasion he moved an amendment against the Government in order to try to protect the gold-mining industry. I have a vivid recollection of the representations he has made on behalf of marginal mines, and of his representations to obtain an increase in the price of gold. In the circumstances, I am pleased to ally myself with him in refuting the criticisms that have been levelled at him.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.27 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 26 March 1958, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1958/19580326_senate_22_s12/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate26 March 1958

QUESTION

ROADS

Senator SANDFORD:VICTORIA

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

Senator Sandford:

Senator PALTRIDGE:

Senator Sandford:

Senator PALTRIDGE:

QUESTION

TASMANIAN TIMBER INDUSTRY

Senator WORDSWORTH:TASMANIA

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

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator ASHLEY:NEW SOUTH WALES

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

QUESTION

INDONESIA

Senator O’BYRNE:TASMANIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

QUESTION

SCHOOL SAVINGS SCHEME

Senator MARRIOTT:TASMANIA · LP

Senator SPOONER:LP

QUESTION

STANDARDIZATION OF RAIL GAUGES

Senator VINCENT:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PALTRIDGE:LP

Senator Hannaford:

Senator PALTRIDGE:

Senator Toohey:

Senator PALTRIDGE:

QUESTION

ST. MARY’S, NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator ANDERSON:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator SPOONER:LP

QUESTION

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

Senator TANGNEY:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

QUESTION

PORT OF ALBANY

Senator SCOTT:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PALTRIDGE:LP

QUESTION

RAIL TRANSPORT

Senator COOKE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PALTRIDGE:LP

QUESTION

EUROPEAN IMMIGRANTS

Senator McMANUS:VICTORIA

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

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF CATTLE

Senator SEWARD:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PALTRIDGE:LP

QUESTION

EUROPEAN IMMIGRANTS

Senator HANNAN:VICTORIA

Senator HENTY:LP

LIFE INSURANCE BILL 1958

Second Reading

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

RESERVE BANK BILL 1957

Second Reading

Senator McCALLUM:New South Wales

Senator Hannaford:

Senator Gorton:

Senator McCALLUM:

Senator Brown:

Senator McCALLUM:

Senator Brown:

Senator McCALLUM:

Senator CAMERON:Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

Senator WADE:Victoria

Senator Sheehan:

Senator WADE:

Senator O’Byrne:

Senator WADE:

Senate
26 March 1958

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

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

Senator WORDSWORTH:
TASMANIA

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

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator VINCENT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

Senator ANDERSON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

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

Senator SEWARD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

Senator HENTY:
LP

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

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales

Senator CAMERON:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

Senator WADE:
Victoria

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

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

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria