Senate
18 September 1958

22nd Parliament · 3rd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 22nd Parliament
  3. 1958

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.

page 423

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator COLE:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for National Development the following questions: Is it the policy of the Government to provide moneys for co-operative housing societies so that houses may be built more rapidly than under the State housing commissions? What percentage of housing moneys allotted to the States is set aside for co-operative housing societies? What amount of money is set aside this year for co-operative housing societies in Tasmania? Is that money to be used almost exclusively by the State Agricultural Bank as an approved society instead of being allotted to registered co-operative building societies? What is the attitude of the Tasmanian Minister for Housing in regard to granting moneys to the registered co-operative building societies? Will the Minister for National Development advise the State Minister that the moneys so provided by the Commonwealth are expressly voted by the Federal Parliament for ‘ co-operative housing societies and not for State institutions?

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

– In answer to the first question, I inform the honorable senator that it is the policy of this Government to support co-operative building societies. Indeed, that is the main point in the Government’s housing policy. In reply to the second question, I inform the honorable senator that this year 30 per cent, of the total moneys made available under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement is to be advanced by the States to building societies. The third question relates to the amount of money that has been provided for Tasmania. I am sorry, but I have not the figure in my mind. The last three questions relate to the State Agricultural Bank, the attitude of the Tasmanian Housing Department, and what this Government intends to do about it. The position in Tasmania, in brief, was something like this: Honorable senators may remember that the permanent building societies in that State thanked us very much for the offer of financial assistance, but refused to accept it because they believed in running their own affairs in their own way. We made an arrangement with the Tasmanian Government to the effect that it would give certain guarantees that the building societies needed to enable them to expand their activities. There being at that stage no other building societies in existence in that State, we said that the moneys could be made available until such time as those societies were formed and commenced to operate. The situation has now been reached in Tasmania that a series of cooperative building societies want their share of the 30 per cent, of the housing funds. It is quite definitely the policy of the Commonwealth Government that those building societies should obtain their share of housing moneys, and we have to relate that policy to the arrangements that have been made with the State governments.

page 423

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

– I preface a question to the Attorney-General by saying that, on 8th October last, I asked him about a writ for £1,000,000 issued by the Commonwealth against Huddart Parker Limited and the Adelaide Steamship Company Limited in respect of money allegedly owing for the cost of repairs and reconditioning undertaken on two steamships belonging to those companies. In reply, the Minister said that he would ascertain the position and let me know. I now ask him: Has he completed his inquiries, and if so, can he advise the Senate of the results?

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

– Speaking from recollection, I understand that the matter is still in the process of negotiation. However, I undertake to let the honorable senator know the exact position before the Parliament rises.

page 423

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Senator McCALLUM:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior seen a number of letters that have appeared in the “ Canberra Times “ deploring the depredations of dogs in Canberra? Will he direct the attention of his colleague to the report of the Select Committee on Canberra, presented three years ago, which recommends that Canberra be given a measure of local government, and that among the powers so conferred there should be power to deal with dogs? I may say that the relevant reference is contained in Appendix K, sub-section B, item IS, at page 121 of the report.

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

– I shall invite the attention of my colleague, the Minister for the Interior, to the matter raised by the honorable senator. I must say that I feel that a local government body would be a much more appropriate body to deal with the depredations of dogs than is the National Parliament.

page 424

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– I wish to ask the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral some questions without notice, and I preface them by saying that away back in 1932 the popular honorable member for Brisbane, Mr. George Lawson, commenced a campaign for the building of a new general post office in Queen-street, Brisbane. Later, after further representations, Mr. Archie Cameron, who was then PostmasterGeneral,., consented to the building of a new post office. Plans were drawn up, circulated and approved. I now ask the Minister: How is the project progressing? If it is not progressing at all, has the plan to build a new post office been abandoned?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I should have imagined that the honorable senator, as a Queenslander and a Brisbaneite, would have noticed that considerable building work has been done on the General Post Office in Brisbane, particularly on the Elizabethstreet side. Some hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent on it. As for destroying that very attractive architectural gem, the part fronting Queen-street, there has been a lot of controversy among many people in Queensland who would be very loath to see that very historic and attractive feature demolished. I do not know what the future holds, but I personally should be very sorry to see the main part of the General Post Office demolished.

page 424

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Shipping and Transport been drawn to an article appearing in a recent issue of the journal “ Waterfront “, to the effect that in Adelaide preliminary plans have been announced for the building of new wharf and ramp accommodation to serve roll-on roll-off types of vessels? Those vessels will, I hope, engage in the Kangaroo Island-Eyre Peninsula trade. Has the Minister anything to state about the steps being taken to procure the necessary roll-on roll-off type of vessel? Are Australian shipbuilding yards taking an interest in supplying such a vessel at a competitive price?

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

– Yes, I have been aware for some considerable time of the interest shown by the Adelaide company in the construction of this type of vessel for the Kangaroo Island trade. It is a development which I noticed with considerable satisfaction. An approach will be made, quite shortly I understand, to the Australian Shipbuilding Board, and tenders will be called for that vessel. It is hoped that Australian shipbuilding yards will compete and will obtain the business. There is no doubt about the technical ability of Australian yards to produce this type of vessel. The Newcastle shipyard is at the moment building a passenger-cargo ferry for the Bass Strait service, and quite shortly now we will have another order lodged, tenders having been called, for a cargo ferry that is to go into service in the Tasmanian trade.

page 424

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General in this chamber - the Leader of the Government, who is himself a Queenslander. I preface the question by referring to a decision of Cabinet rejecting the recommendation by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board that new applications be invited for the Brisbane and Adelaide commercial television licences. I should like to point out that the board’s report implied that these new applications should be sought from parties other than the Melbourne and Sydney newspaper and radio interests that are tending to dominate commercial television in Australia. Will the Leader of the Government tell the Senate whether Cabinet’s decision should be construed as evidence that the Government favours control of commercial television by newspaper and radio organizations? Should it also be construed as a direction to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to favour newspaper and radio applicants in the future allocation of television licences in other States?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– It is amazing what people can read into a simple statement. The recommendation of the board after inquiring into this matter was that one application be granted in Queensland and one in South Australia. The Government does not favour monopolies, and we made it perfectly clear that in the view of the Government licences for two stations in each State should be allocated. The reference was sent back to the board accordingly. It is as simple as that.

page 425

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I preface a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service by pointing out that many statements are made by the Opposition to the effect that when the Labour party was in office from 1946-49 it achieved a condition of full employment in this country. I base my question on those remarks. In view of the fact that many honorable senators opposite are continually misleading the Senate by claiming that under a Labour government there was full employment in Australia from 1946 to 1949, will the Minister obtain from the Commonwealth “ Year-Book “ information . as to the percentage of Australia’s work force that was unemployed during the years I have mentioned? I understand the figure is approximately 1.5 per cent., which is the approximate percentage of unemployed in Australia to-day.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I know that the honorable senator is interested in this matter. I refer him to my answer to a question asked in the Senate earlier this week which indicated that the level of unemployment, at the present time, is lower- in Australia than in any other country in the world. I gave the statistics country by country to establish the soundness of our position in relation to the world scene. If the honorable senator would like me to refer to the “ Year-Book “ again to ascertain the sorry record of the Labour party when in office, I shall be glad to do so.

page 425

QUESTION

STANDARDIZATION OF RAIL GAUGES

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Does the Minister for Shipping and Transport recollect that the report of the Clapp commission recommended the standardization of rail gauges throughout Australia, and that two subsequent committees of this Parliament listed that work as a matter of urgency? In the circumstances can the Minister inform the Senate of the present position regarding the conversion to standard gauge of the line between Fremantle and Kalgoorlie? Can the Minister give any date on which it is expected the Government will have that work commenced or will make an advance to the State Government to enable it to undertake the work?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– There is. something of the long arm of coincidence about the honorable senator’s question, because to-day I shall have the pleasure of introducing a bill which will provide for the standardization of the railway between Melbourne and Albury. The Government’s policy on this matter has been made plain on a number of occasions. We Have demonstrated our earnestness by. engaging in this work, and have said that, as and when the results become apparent, we will look with close and increasing interest at other work of this nature. The honorable senator will know that the Commonwealth has an agreement with South Australia in relation to rail standardization, and that we have exchanged correspondence - with Western Australia regarding the FremantleKalgoorlie section. The matter generally is very much in the mind of the Government. I am sure it will be apparent to any one who considers the question for a moment, that the wisest and most prudent way of tackling the job of rail standardization in Australia is to undertake first that portion of the work from which the results can be apparent immediately. That is precisely what we are doing.

page 425

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator ANDERSON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Works. Will the Minister ask the Commonwealth Experimental Building Station, which is located at North Ryde, New South Wales, to prepare a statement setting out every recommendation that it has made regarding the variation of the New South Wales Building Act and Ordinances relating to the construction of homes in that State? Will the Minister also ask the officer in charge to make an estimation of the saving that could be effected on, say, a 10-square home on present building costs in New South Wales, if the recommendations of the station were implemented?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I have visited the experimental station at North Ryde. It is doing very good work. I shall bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Minister for Works. I feel sure a good deal can be done in streamlining and bringing up to date local government regulations throughout Australia with a view to reducing the cost of building. A great number of regulations still exist in many municipalities which are out-dated and outmoded and their abolition would lead to cheaper and speedier building in Australia. I shall have much pleasure in bringing this question to the Minister’s notice.

page 426

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– In view of recent statements from both prominent public personages and the press making pessimistic forecasts on the future of the Australian coastal shipping trade, which forecasts cause some public concern, will the Minister for Shipping and Transport, with the assistance of his departmental advisers, prepare and make available a considered review of the circumstances of the industry which could vitally affect Australia’s future?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The matter of the Australian coastal shipping trade is continually under review both in my own department and, of course, by the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission, whose report, incidentally, I hope to table next week, or at least, before Parliament rises. I am sure that report will give to the honorable senator much of the information which he seeks. The Australian Coastal Shipping Commission keeps this matter under continual review, and, I repeat, so does my department. Everything considered, the position in Australian coastal shipping, compared with that which exists in other parts of the world, whilst at the moment having one or two fiat spots, is not in any way as bad as is the case in most other countries.

page 426

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator ROBERTSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Is the Postmaster-

General aware that in the repair and extension of telephone and telegraph services in the city and suburbs of Perth, huge, unsightly poles are being erected in the streets? These poles, I am sure honorable senators will agree, are an actual disfigurement of the streets. They also prevent from coming to maturity, the beautiful trees which the local government authorities plant in an endeavour to beautify the streets. Will the Postmaster-General give consideration to placing telephone wires underground, as is the custom to-day in most developing countries?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I shall be very happy to bring the honorable senator’s suggestion to the notice of my colleague, the Postmaster-General.

page 426

QUESTION

MILK

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry whether it is correct that the price paid to dairymen for milk, based on butter-fat content, in the districts of Adelaide is 3s. 3 id. per lb., in Perth 4s. per lb., and, in the Mount Gambier district of South Australia, 3s. lOd. per lb. Will the Minister please explain why the dairyfarmers receive these differential rates of payment for the butter-fat content of their milk?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I shall be pleased to refer the honorable senator’s question to my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry, who, I have no doubt, will explain the whole situation quite satisfactorily.

page 426

QUESTION

CONSTITUTION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– As chairman of the Constitution Review Committee, the Attorney-General has said on several occasions that he hopes to present the report of the committee to Parliament before the session ends. Is that still the AttorneyGeneral’s intention?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– Unless the session collapses unduly early, I am very confident that the report will be tabled. It will not be as elaborate as the committee would like, but the substantial recommendations will be, I hope, laid before the Parliament before it rises.

page 427

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN AIR SERVICES

Senator KENNELLY:

– Yesterday, the Minister for Civil Aviation read a reply to a question I had asked concerning the alterations made to airline services under the rationalization provisions of the Civil Aviation Agreement Act. That answer, no doubt prepared by the department, did not give the information I sought. Will the Minister direct his department to prepare another answer setting out in full the information I asked for in my original question?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I regret that the answer supplied to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has not been to his satisfaction. I shall have another look at the question and see what further information I can give him.

page 427

QUESTION

AIR SAFETY PRECAUTIONS

Senator SCOTT:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

Are there any regulations in force at present requiring hostesses of air line companies to see that all passenger seats are adjusted to an upright position before the landing of a plane?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– Orders are presently being promulgated making it mandatory for cabin attendants to adjust seats to an upright position before the landing or taking off of an aircraft to minimize the risk of injury to passengers during rapid deceleration.

page 427

CIVIL AVIATION (DAMAGE BY AIRCRAFT) BILL 1958

Motion (by. Senator Paltridge) agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a bill for an act to approve ratification by Australia of the Rome Convention on Damage caused by Foreign Aircraft to third Parties on the Surface, to give effect to that convention, and to make provision with respect to the liabilities of certain operators of aircraft in respect of damage on the surface to which that convention does not apply.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of the Civil Aviation (Damage by Aircraft) Bill is to approve ratification of the Rome Convention; to give effect to the convention within Australian territory and to extend its main principles to aircraft engaged in international flights over Australian territory which are not otherwise subject to the provisions of the convention. The text of the convention is set out in a schedule to the bill.

The convention was adopted by a diplomatic conference which met in Rome in October, 1952 to deal with the problem of damage caused on the surface by aircraft engaged in international air navigation. Australia is one of the twenty-six signatory States, having signed the convention on the 19th October, 1953. The convention, which is expressed to come into force as soon as five signatory States have deposited their instruments of ratification, came into force during 1957. Canada, Egypt, Pakistan, Ceylon, Luxembourg, Spain and Ecuador are parties, while it is believed that other States, including the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Holland are likely to ratify the convention in the near future. The purpose of the convention, as set out in its preamble, is firstly to ensure adequate compensation for persons who suffer damage caused on the surface by foreign aircraft while limiting in a reasonable manner the liability of operators, and, secondly, to unify to the greatest extent possible the rules applying in the various countries of the world to the liability incurred for such damage.

The convention is based on a system of strict or absolute liability, the only exceptions being contributory negligence on the part of the persons suffering the damage, or where the damage results from armed conflict or civil disturbance or where the operator has been deprived of the aircraft by act pf public authority. It covers damage resulting directly from actual contact, fire or explosion, including damage caused by a person or thing falling from an aircraft. The convention attaches liability to the operator of the aircraft, who is defined as the person who was making use of the aircraft at the time the damage was caused, provided that if control of the navigation of the aircraft is retained by a person from whom an aircraft is chartered that person shall be considered the operator.

The system of strict liability is coupled with a limitation of liability. The limit in respect of an accident increases with the weight of the aircraft but the rate of increase becomes progressively lower as the weight increases. In addition to the over-all limit, there is a sub-limit of approximately £15,000 Aust. (500,000 gold francs) in respect of the death or personal injury of any one person. One half of the over-all limit is set aside to meet claims for loss of life or injury, but to the extent that it is not absorbed it is available for property claims. By way of example the over-all limits applying to foreign aircraft likely to be operating in Australia are: -

These limits greatly exceed the amount of surface damage so far experienced in any civil accident, not only in Australia but elsewhere, so that any reduction of the compensation payable to persons suffering damage, due to the limitation provisions, would only arise in the most exceptional catastrophe. In addition, the operator is not only strictly liable whether negligent or not but he is deprived of any limit if it is proved that the damage was caused by a deliberate act of the operator or his servants done with intent to cause damage. The convention contains a very detailed chapter on insurance but it does not establish a mandatory system. Firstly, each State must decide whether it desires to impose an obligation to insure, in respect of surface damage, upon foreign aircraft entering its territory. But if it does so decide, then it is obliged to accept the insurance as satisfactory if certain specified ‘ conditions are fulfilled.

The most important of these conditions are, firstly, that the insurer is authorized to effect the insurance under the law of the State where the aircraft is registered or the insurer has his principal place of business; and, secondly, that the financial responsibility of the insurer has been verified by either of those States. Another matter of great importance in relation to insurance is the provision of the appropriate currency to meet claims. Many attempts have been made in the past to devise some machinery which would guarantee that the claims of victims would in all cases be met in their national currency.

The new convention has, on this point, adopted a realistic approach. It was recognized that national treasuries could hardly be expected, in relation to this particular matter of damage caused by aircraft, to give an unconditional assurance, in the convention, that the necessary currency would be. made available. On the other hand, it is well known that, in practice, commercial self-interest, founded on the desire to obtain or retain insurance business, secures that in fact claims are always met. It has, therefore, been thought sufficient to provide that if any claim is not satisfied by payment in the currency of the State where the claim is made, the insurer in question may be regarded as not financially responsible.

The provisions which I have outlined are of the greatest general interest. They are supplemented by a number of detailed and carefully worked out rules concerning the form of security permitted, certificates to be carried, defences available to the insurer, and the circumstances in which there may be a direct sight of recourse against the insurer.

Actions under the convention may be brought only in “ a single forum “, namely, the courts of the place where the damage occurred. The severity pf this rule is mitigated, from the point of ‘ view of the operator-defendant, by an elaborate ‘system of safeguards against procedural abuses, and in particular an obligation is cast upon contracting States to ensure that he is notified of the proceedings and has a fair and adequate .opportunity to defend his interest. A further obligation is cast upon the State where the action is brought - that is,-, the victim’s State - to ensure that all ‘ actions are consolidated before a single court, thus relieving the operator of a multiplicity ; of proceedings in different countries and ensuring that the limits are applied, These safeguards have been imposed in the interest of the operator but the victim is given as a quid pro quo an automatic right once he has obtained a final judgment to have the judgment enforced in the first instance in the State where the operator has his residence, and if assets in that State are insufficient, in any other State in which the operator may have assets. These provisions are, of course, of great benefit to victims.

I turn now to a brief examination of the provisions of the bill.

Part I. deals with preliminary matters such as date of commencement and definitions. Part II. gives the convention the force of law and contains a numberof additional provisions necessary to supplement and give proper effect to the provisions of the convention itself. For example, under the convention the general rule is that an action may be brought only in the courts of the contracting States where the damage occurred, and the State where the action is brought is obliged to take all possible measures to consolidate actions arising out of the same incident for disposal in a single proceeding before the same court. The provisions of Part II. relating to jurisdiction and consolidation of actions are designed to give effect to this obligation. The convention also leaves it open to each State to apply its own rules as to who may bring such actions, what are the various claimants’ respective rights, and precisely what elements of damage are recoverable. The bill, therefore, contains supplementary provisions for this purpose.

The usual regulation-making power is included to authorize regulations necessary for carrying out and giving effect to the convention. There are a number of specific procedural and evidentiary matters which could not be conveniently provided for in the bill or the need for which will only be determined in the light of experience. The regulation-making power expressly includes matters of this nature. For example, Chapter III. of the Convention, as we have seen, leaves it to each State to decide whether it will require foreign operators to insure against liability under the convention. If a State so decides, its insurance requirements must comply with the principles laid down in the convention. In the event of Australia requiring such insurance a number of detailed rules will be necessary in relation to such matters as the carriage in aircraft of documents relating to insurance, the exercise of discretionary powers provided for in the convention, for example, to decide whether the insurance effected is satisfactory or certificates will be required from appropriate authorities as to the financial stability of an insurer, and the form of documents required in connexion with insurance. These requirements can be prescribed by regulation.

Part III. of the bill extends certain of the basic principles ofthe convention to two further classes of aircraft engaged in international air commerce, namely -

  1. Australian aircraft on the domestic portion of an international flight; and
  2. foreign aircraft of a noncontract ing State in flight over Australian territory.

Australian aircraft engaged in international flight are governed by the convention on all stages of their international flight over the territory of contracting States except when flying within Australia. It is obviously reasonable and desirable that Australian aircraft engaged in international flights, particularly Qantas aircraft, should be subject to the same rules of liability and the same insurance requirements during the whole course of their international operations.

The bill does not apply to damage caused by aircraft engaged in purely domestic air transport, but the desirability of further extending its provisions to all damage caused by aircraft is receiving careful consideration.

Adoption of the convention will be of advantage to Australia’s international operator since eventually it will establish uniform rules of liability in many countries over which Qantas operates, thus facilitating insurance arrangements and ensuring a limit of liability in the event of an unprecedented catastrophe. It will also be of substantial advantage to Australian victims of damage caused by aircraft, since they will be able to recover from foreign operators, without proving negligence and without the necessity of suing in foreign courts, up to relatively very high limits. For these reasons, I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 430

RAILWAY STANDARDIZATION (NEW SOUTH WALES AND VICTORIA) AGREEMENT BILL 1958

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a bill for an act to approve an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States of New South Wales and Victoria in relation to the standardization of a railway between Sydney and Melbourne.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The bill before the’ Senate seeks the approval of the Parliament to an agreement which has been negotiated between the Governments of the Commonwealth and the States of New South Wales and Victoria for the construction of a standard 4-ft. 8i-in. gauge rail line between Albury and Melbourne. The Government regards the agreement which has now been reached as the most significant and practical step yet taken by any government to put into effect any of the many proposals which have been made from time to time for the unification of the Australian railway system.

Standardization proposals in themselves are not new. As long ago as 1921 a royal commission strongly recommended the standardization of the Australian railway system at a cost which was then estimated at £57,000,000. In March, 1945, Sir Harold Clapp presented a most comprehensive and well documented report on the same subject, and more recently the Government members committee on rail standardization also made a full report on the matter. A committee of Opposition members also examined the question. I do not propose to traverse the various reports nor the recommendations which were made in them, except to say that they have all in varying degrees emphasized the fundamental weakness of our railway system arising from the numerous breaks of gauge and have recommended that action be taken to correct this position.

The Government approved in principle last year the construction of a standardgauge line between Albury and Melbourne, and following this decision negotiations took place with the States of New South Wales and Victoria, culminating in the agreement which is now before the Senate. Practically all of the standardization work will be undertaken in Victoria, but obviously New South Wales will also derive great benefits from the new line, and the Government of that State is therefore prepared to contribute towards the cost of the projection an amount equal to the contribution to be made by the Victorian Government. The project is one of major importance and its total cost is estimated at £10,726,000. The whole of this amount will in the first instance be financed by the Commonwealth.

The agreement is quite a straightforward document and its main provisions may conveniently be dealt with under two headings. Dealing first with the finance proposals, as I indicated previously the initial finance will be undertaken by the Commonwealth, but the agreement provides for the States to each meet 3/20ths of the cost. The States’ portion will be amortized over a period of 50 years, with interest payable on the amount outstanding at the end of each financial year at the rate of interest payable on the last Commonwealth long-term loan raised in Australia in the relevant year of expenditure. The estimated costs of the various sections of the work are set out in the second schedule to the agreement and provision is made for any rise or fall in the estimate over the period during which the work takes place. The States are required to submit an annual budget of proposed expenditure for each financial year, and provision is made for audit by the State Auditors-General, who are required to report each year to the Commonwealth Auditor-General.

The route of the new line is set out in the first schedule to the agreement which, it will be noted, follows as far as practicable the existing 5-ft. 3-in. line. The second schedule sets out the work to be done and the standards to be adopted in carrying out the work. These are in accordance with most up-to-date railway practice and will be such as to provide a line capable of handling the heavy traffic and high speeds which the new line is expected to attract. Honorable senators will be interested to note that, among other things, provision is made for automatic power signalling, with centralized traffic control over the new line which will not only contribute to safe working but will further facilitate the provision of fast services over the new route. The schedule also provides for additions and alterations to freight handling facilities, construction and conversion of locomotives and rolling-stock, and other work necessary for the efficient operation of the line. Each of the contracting States is required to prepare detailed plans, specifications and estimates of cost for all work carried out, and these will be made available to the Commonwealth and to the other State.

Based upon the preliminary survey which was undertaken in 1956, it was estimated that the whole work could be completed within four years of the date of commencement. It is the aim of both the Commonwealth and the State governments to have the work completed as soon as possible, and it will be noted that clause 10 provides that the work should be executed as expeditiously as possible and in the most economical manner. This clause also provides that in suitable cases public tenders shall be called for the carrying out of the work and this provision is expected to enable substantial parts of the project to be carried out quickly and at minimum cost consistent with the standards laid down. In the interests of expediting the completion of the project, the Commonwealth, in 1956, made available to Victoria on a £l-for-£l basis funds for the preliminary survey of the line and to the same end has also made funds available to Victoria for the commencement of the work prior to the final acceptance of the agreement. In 1957-58, £470,000 was provided for preliminary work, and in the current year an amount of £1,700,000 will be provided. As a result, work has been proceeding on the new line and it is hoped that it may be possible for it to be in operation somewhat earlier than the four years originally estimated.

When the new . line is completed it is confidently expected that railway operating costs between Sydney and Melbourne will be substantially reduced. The elimination of transhipment costs, the more effective use of locomotives and rolling-stock, improved track facilities, permitting higher speeds and modern techniques of construction, should all combine to confer operation economies on the line. It is expected that, with an increase in the volume of traffic handled, additional revenue will accrue to the Victorian and New South Wales railways, and the introduction of centralized traffic control, to which I referred earlier, will give maximum safety and speed in the handling of trains.

One of the’ most compelling reasons for the building of the new line is, of course, the elimination of the transhipment point at Albury. The new line will remove the congestion and delay which has for so long impeded the free flow of railway traffic between the two largest cities in Australia. It is difficult at this stage to estimate the total savings which will accrue to the railways as a result of the improvement in efficiency and reductions in operating costs, but it is conservatively considered that it will be not less than £1,700,00.0 annually. Furthermore, it is expected that, as a consequence of the improved efficiency, faster times and reduction in damage at the Albury transhipment point, substantial additional traffic will be won for the railways. This again is difficult to estimate, but might be as high as an additional 500,000 tons per annum.

The financing by the Commonwealth of the new standard-gauge line between Albury and Melbourne further demonstrates the awareness of the Government of the importance to our national economy of making our transport services as efficient as possible within the limits of the capital funds which are available. I need hardly remind the Senate of what the Government has done towards the improvement of our civil aviation facilities, which are second to none in the world, of the achievements of the Australian National Line, which is operating a most efficient coastal shipping service, of the increasing provision which has been made to the States for road construction and maintenance under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act, and of the efficient operation of the Commonwealth railway system which has been strikingly improved by the conversion of the system to diesel operation and by the construction of a standard-gauge line from Stirling North to Maree.

The construction of a standard-gauge line between Albury and Melbourne, in association with the States of Victoria and New South Wales, further demonstrates the willingness of the Government to give practical expression to its policy of improving Australian transport. The cost of the project is substantial, but so too are the benefits which will be derived from it, not only in terms of savings in direct costs but also in improved efficiency, quicker services and greater convenience to the travelling public. The measure, I am sure, is one which will receive unanimous support from both sides of this chamber, and I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 432

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Precedence

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) proposed -

That Government business take precedence of general business after 8 p.m. this day.

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

– Then I rise to say a few words in connexion with the motion standing in my name. We know that the Parliament is coming to its conclusion, and we know also that the Senate has not sat a great deal during this sessional period. It has been the subject of some public criticism, much of which I think was completely unjustified. We realize, too, that the date for the general election has been announced and that there is a considerable amount of legislation emanating from the Budget. We know that other important Government legislation must receive the attention of the Parliament before it is dissolved. Nevertheless, I wish to protest. In view of all the circumstances, it is to be regretted that honorable senators will not be given opportunity for further debate of motions standing in their name.

The motion that I have placed on the notice-paper concerns a very important social and economic problem which, very soon, will be challenging governments and arbitral tribunals. It relates to the question of equal pay for the sexes. That is obviously a matter which is causing considerable concern at the moment. There is tremendous interest in it, not only on the part of women’s organizations, but also on the part of organizations of employers and employees. My idea in. moving for the appointment of a select committee of the Senate to investigate this problem, arose from the fact that nobody can say what the actual implications of the wide introduction of equal pay for the sexes will be. Arbitral tribunals which have to deal with the matter, and governments which will have to initiate legislation in connexion with it, will have to do so despite the fact that in this country there has not been collected sufficient information or data on which such bodies could reasonably be expected to make a finding which would be in the best interests of all concerned.

It is not to be thought, Mr. President, that even the women’s organizations, which are asking that this matter receive close attention by appropriate authorities, are themselves convinced that the ultimate effect of the introduction of equal pay for the sexes necessarily will.be of benefit to them. I feel that they also have some views on what would be its ultimate implications. I thought, therefore, that a select committee of the Senate drawn from all parties - particularly as we have a number of senators here representing the female sex who could act on such committees - would be extremely appropriate. I thought that in co-operation with State authorities and all interested parties and organizations such a select committee would enable us to collect and collate a body of facts which could then be available to any organizations, any tribunals, and any governments presented with this problem for immediate resolution. For that reason, I had hoped that I would be given an opportunity to debate this motion and that senators from all sides of the chamber would participate in the debate.

I realized, of course, that time was running out for this Parliament, and I framed my motion to provide that the report of such a select committee should be presented to the Senate by 30th June, 1959, notwithstanding any dissolution of the House of Representatives. I realized also that an inquiry of this magnitude could not properly be completed in that time but I chose 30th June, 1959 because it is the date on which a number of senators may conclude their parliamentary terms. I thought that if the report was not presented by then, the committee could be reconstituted and the inquiry could proceed in perhaps altered circumstances. For those reasons, I am disappointed that as a result of the onrush of events and the limited time left to this Parliament we will not have an opportunity to discuss the motion.

The motion deals with a subject which will be extraordinarily important. The implications of equal pay for the sexes - social, domestic and economic - are vast, and 1 think that they are comparatively unknown. There are organizations related, say, to kindergarten, religious and social activities all of which would have a most cogent and relevant point of view to express.

I think that it would be a courageous government - a government that is possibly stepping where angels might well fear to tread - which would for any purpose introduce legislation for equal pay for the sexes without being fortified by some body of expert opinion that might lead it to know where any decision, legislative or administrative, might be taking it in this new and virtually unexplored field.

For these reasons I enter my protest against the motion to defer private members’ business in favour of government business, and I trust that when the Senate resumes after the general election, and this motion is again put on the business sheet, a proper opportunity will be given to the Senate to discuss it. I trust, too, that given the goodwill of all parties the matter will be the’ object of the cooperation of the appropriate authorities, governmental, semigovernmental and private. I think that this would achieve a tremendously effective purpose and would be a definite guide for all those who very soon will be challenged on this matter in all fields of public activity.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I want to add my protest to that of Senator Byrne against the action of the Government in moving for the deferment of private members’ business in favour of government business. I do so because I think that one of the most important motions that can be moved in a deliberative body like the Senate is the motion to suspend the Standing Orders. Yet this very motion is treated more lightly in this chamber than any other motion. When a body like the Senate formulates a set of rules to govern its conduct, or when any body in the community formulates a set of rules to govern any section of society, that body should seek to adhere to those rules as closely as possible.

Senator O’sullivan:

– But it is a sessional, not a standing, order that is concerned.

Senator WILLESEE:

– No set of rules or regulations laid down to govern the conduct of a body such as this should be thrown lightly to one side.

The motion “ That government business take precedence of private business after 8 p.m.” has been submitted so frequently in the period of nearly nine years that I have been here that the position has become farcical. Senator Byrne’s notice of motion on the business paper deals with a most important subject, but I should like to refer also to the notice of motion standing in Senator Armtsrong’s name on the business paper. Unfortunately, I cannot say how long that notice of motion has been there, because the date is not shown on the business paper, but it must have been there for for about eighteen months or two years.

Senator O’sullivan:

– Senator Armstrong has refused opportunities to debate it.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I do not think that that is quite the case. The fact is that he has met the Government’s convenience from time to time. I think that that would be a more correct way of putting.it. With the end of this session within the next two or three weeks, the items on this business paper will go completely overboard. If the Government has any intention to encourage private members, it should resist at all times this tendency to defer private members’ business, and resist also the trend to concentrate all the regulatory powers of government in the hands of the Executive. If the Government does not want motions by private members to be discussed, it should say so frankly and we could then have a look at the sessional orders. To give an example of the time that a notice of motion by a private member can remain unattended to on the business paper, I refer to Senator Gorton’s notice of motion, which was lodged on 19th November, 1957, that date being shown on the business paper. If there is unjustified criticism of the sittings of the Senate, do not tell me or anybody else that we have not had ample opportunity to debate and dispose of these items, given the will to do so!

Mr. Tonkin, the Deputy Premier of Western Australia, on his return the other day from a trip abroad, said it was very probable that Baron Krupp would be coming to Western Australia in order to establish a steel industry there. Notice of motion No. 1 on the business paper in Senator Armstrong’s name, relates directly to steel production yet that notice of motion has been allowed to remain on the paper, without discussion, for about two years. I say that we are probably equally culpable for allowing the Government to get away with this without protest. If we are to allow only the Government to initiate legislation, we are acting in a completely wrong manner, and it is time we had a look at the sessional orders.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Western Australia

– I should like to sympathize with Senator Byrne because he is not to be allowed to propose the motion standing in his name but I am particularly glad that it will not be discussed under its present heading. I belong to most of the leading women’s organizations in Australia, I have done a tremendous amount of research into this matter, and I know that not one of those organizations makes the demand, “ equal pay for the sexes “. The bill relating to this subject is wrongly named. The demand by women’s organizations in Australia is for equal pay for equal work or the rate for the job and those who are facing a general election in the coming months will find that this is the very question that they will be asked when they are invited to declare their attitude to it. The women’s organizations have not asked for equal pay for the sexes for many years. That was the first cry, of course, when the suffragettes started their work in London, but we have, I hope, advanced a little since those days. So I should like to say that while I sympathize with Senator Byrne because he is not able to bring his motion to fruition in this Parliament, I am hopeful that that fact will now give the Government time to reconsider the name of the bill and present it to the new Parliament under its proper guise.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 434

STATES GRANTS (SPECIAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) 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:
New South WalesMinister for National Development · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to authorize the payment to the States in 1958-59 of a special financial assistance grant to supplement the amount payable under the formula embodied in the States Grants (Tax Reimbursement) Act 1946-1948.

At a meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers in Canberra last June, the Commonwealth offered to make available to the States in 1958-59 a special financial assistance grant sufficient to bring the total tax reimbursement grants for this year to £205,000,000, or £15,000,000 more than the corresponding grants received by the States last year. As the amount payable under the formula this year is estimated at £174,600,000, this offer involves the payment of a special financial assistance grant of £30,400,000, or £6,300,000 more than the corresponding grant last year. The precise amount will not be known until the Commonwealth Statistician completes his calculation of the tax reimbursement formula grant later in the year. The whole of this special financial assistance grant is to be distributed among the States in the same way as the grant payable under the tax reimbursement formula.

Last year the formula grant amounted to £165,855,000. In addition, the States received a special financial assistance grant of £24,145,000 making a total tax reimbursement grant of £190,000,000. During the course of the year, the Commonwealth also made available, outside the normal tax reimbursement arrangements, an additional assistance grant of £5,000,000 to assist the overall financial positions of the States. I might point out that the payment of a special financial assistance grant which is greater than last year’s grant, and which will increase the total tax reimbursement payments by £15,000,000 is being proposed in a year when our income tax revenue is expected to fall substantially. Whereas last year we received £650,000,000 in income tax revenue,’ we expect to receive only £610,000,000 this year. Especially in these circumstances, the proposed increase in the tax reimbursement grants represents a very generous contribution to the resources of the States in 1958-59.

With the concurrence of honorable senators, I shall incorporate in “ Hansard “ a table which compares the estimated tax reimbursement grants to the States in 1958-59 with the corresponding payments made last year. The table reads -

I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 435

EXCISE BILL 1958

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27th August (vide page 246), on motion by Senator Henty -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition does not oppose this measure, the main purpose of which is to provide for the repayment of excise duty that has been paid on goods that have ultimately been incorporated in other goods which, in turn, have been exported. In effect, the original goods on which excise duty was paid have become merged in the goods that were ultimately exported. Apart from that main provision, which seems to be necessary, the bill is purely a machinery measure. I feel that it calls for no special comment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 435

COAL INDUSTRY BILL 1958

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17th September (vide page 368), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second tune.

Senator ORMONDE:
New South Wales

– The Opposition supports this measure, but I should like to make a few comments on it that I think are relevant. The purpose of the bill is to protect the rights of a public servant who is to be appointed to the Joint Coal Board. The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) might have a look at the position of the staff of the Joint Coal Board which has been reduced from about 400 to about 150. ‘ Members of the staff have no protection in the sense that they are not members of the Public Service, being precluded from the Public Service by some special provision in the act. I do not suggest that the people who have left the employ of the board over the last five years have been harshly treated, but I direct attention to the fact that they have been given no opportunity of applying for jobs in other sections of the Public Service of the State or of the Commonwealth. I think that is an injustice. I know that the Minister has been approached by members of the staff, at least by letter, as have the State authorities in New South Wales.

They fear that the employment position with the board may worsen and, naturally, they seek protection.

I shall now make a few comments about the coal industry itself. This Government has been fortunate in having peace in the industry - a state of affairs not enjoyed by the Chifley Government - but it is risking the continuance of that peace by not applying to the workers in the industry the same principles as it applies to the employers. The miners federation could quite easily drift back to its previous unsettled condition when it was uncontrollable and full or anarchy. I do not criticize the Government too harshly for that state of affairs. I remember John Curtin saying on one occasion that the capitalist class will not work without profits. I agree with the principle that there must be profits in any industry.

The Joint Coal Board was established because production in the industry had reached a very low level. I was the public relations officer of the board until a few months ago. My job was to interest miners in returning to the industry. We even advertised in England for miners to come to Australia to help us out of our troubles. On the other side, of course, we also tried to interest employers and investors - and we did. Many men put their money into the coal-mining industry to open up new mines and develop open-cut mines. On the mines becoming surplus, in most cases, the mine owners were compensated. There was a great drive for production from 1946 to 19S0. Production did rise; then there was a slight drop, a small depression in 1951. Because of a little over-estimating by the coal authorities in connexion with production, the drift started. Senator Spooner probably knows more about this than I do. This drift meant, of course, that those men who had put their money into the industry and lost it had to be compensated. And the Government authority did not hesitate to compensate them. I do not know the exact amount of money involved, but I do know that every open-cut operator was given substantial compensation for going out of the industry. In many cases, Sir Garfield Barwick, who is now the member for Parramatta in another place, acted as assessor and referee in connexion with the claims made. And here let me emphasize that I freely admit that those claims were legal and justifiable. I do think the Government had an obligation to help these people out financially.

Yesterday, the newspapers referred to the capital invested in building up the coal industry, in mechanizing it. It is true that money was invested in mechanizing the industry, but the people who live in Redfern, and the people who live in the suburbs of Melbourne, are really the ones who met the cost of mechanizing the industry because they had to pay an increased price for coal. Under the cost-plus system operating in the industry, the price went up and up and up. Every additional cost was added to the price of coal. Eventually, the increase reached 80s. or 90s. a ton. My predecessor in this place has told honorable senators many times how costs went up under the cost-plus system.

This cost-plus system was a device of the employers, and I am not saying that it was not a necessary system. If we were to have coal, we had to get it profitably, and that system was necessary in those circumstances. But there was a group of people who were not getting the same tangible assistance. I refer to the miners.

The Government is now faced with the necessity for doing something for the miners if it does not want the industry to slip back to where it was. The miners must Be given some partnership in the industry. Remarkable changes have taken place, as I think Senator Spooner will agree, for I have seen him presiding at conferences conducted on what might be called a unity ticket system - conferences of Communists, A.L.P. members and so on. It was an unprecedented situation. Just imagine the leaders of the Miners Federation, Communists and nonCommunists, sitting in conference under the chairmanship of Senator Spooner, month after month, bringing forward plans illustrating to the colliery owners how the coalmining industry could be rehabilitated! I never thought I should live to see the day when members of a militant organization, Communists and non-Communists, would be conferring, under the chairmanship of Senator Spooner, with the colliery proprietors, telling them how to run their industry.

I am not saying the representatives of the employees were right all the time; but the colliery owners had only one approach, that is, that a mine must pay, and that if it doss not pay it is no good. I submit that we must give some consideration to the position of the workers in this industry, and I have a suggestion to offer in that direction. I submit that just as the Government had a legal obligation to the open-cut operators, so it has a moral obligation to the men employed in the industry, although I know it is a matter of history that the workers usually have been only a secondary consideration in these matters. To put it another way, the miners are not partners in the industry.

The other day, J. and A. Brown sacked 300 men at a week’s notice. I should like honorable senators to pay particular attention to what I am about to say because it is important to these employees. It affects the men who were asked to co-operate in order to increase production. This company knew six months ago that the mine was to be closed, yet, despite the fact that it is situated on an isolated coal-field in a place in which it is impossible for the employees to get work in other industries, the company closed the mine after giving the men only one week’s notice. Why did it do that? The reason given is that if the workers were told that the mine was to be closed they would go slow, or leave to go to other jobs. The company did not want the men to leave because it had planned to close the mine on a certain date and wanted a full complement of employees in the mine right up to the closing day.

I do not think it is sufficient answer for either Senator Spooner or the Government to say, “ Yes, but there are other jobs “. Of course there are other jobs, but they are to be obtained only in places situated a long way away from the mines. What about the equity in his home which the miner has? What happens to his home if he is to seek employment some great distance away? It must be remembered that we appealed to these men in the first place to go to the coalfields. Both Senator Spooner, acting for the present Government, and the last Labour government, worked to bring men into the industry. In order to encourage miners to go to the fields, they established co-operative building societies through which miners were enabled to obtain their own homes. Although it is wonderful to have one’s home, a home is of little use if it is of no economic value. This happens when one is required to seek employment elsewhere.

I realize that something revolutionary must be done. I realize that it is not the usual practice to help workers in the way I suggest, but I submit that the miners have a special case because they work in isolated areas. They must have a special case because the Government passed special legislation in 1946 to deal with the coalmining industry. This legislation was necessary. Coal-mining is a vital primary industry. Coal was urgently needed at that time, and the legislation was justified. But something happened which I never thought would take place. The workers co-operated and, with the aid of mechanization for which the consumers paid most of the cost, produced more coal, but, as production increased so did the prospects for the workers decrease. .. Something has happened to a group ‘of 22,000 men. The present helpful attitude on the part o’f the Government is welcomed, but I do not think it goes far enough. Unless the Government does something more tangible, the union will be handed over to the complete control of the Communist party.

I suggest that the Government will have to do one of two things. First, I suggest that it will have to provide other work on the coal-fields. It is of no use saying that there is work to be had in Newcastle. There may be jobs in Newcastle, but it would take two hours to reach from Abermain and Cessnock. It is of no use Senator Spooner saying, for instance, that there are good roads over which the workers may travel speedily. These men will have to be compensated for the loss of their homes.

The real cure, of course, is to establish heavy industries on the coal-fields. It is of no use whatever inducing such people as David Jones Limited to open up a pocket handkerchief industry on the coal-fields. What is needed are heavy industries in which the cost of transport is not a great consideration. For example, I refer to such industries as those producing big agricultural machines. In such cases as that, it does not matter whether the products have to be transported 20 miles or 100 miles to the coast. If such industries as these cannot be established, then something else will have to be done. Here again, I must admit that I cannot deny that it was necessary to subsidize the mechanization of the industry, but, in actual fact, this subsidy was paid by the consumers in the form of a higher price for coal.

The suggestion I offer now is one with which the colliery owners do not agree, but I submit that it is one solution to our problem. I refer to a levy on coal. After all, if the miners are prepared to work as they are doing, breaking all records in the production of coal, I submit that it would not hurt the consumers, who have already paid for the mechanization of the industry, to pay another 6d. a ton for coal. If that were done, I feel confident that it would do much to retain for the miners jobs in their own industry or at least give them some compensation for having to go to other districts where jobs might be available. I suggest to the Minister for National Development and the Government generally that this proposition deserves consideration. I think that what is suggested can be put into practice. The Joint Coal Board has put the proposal before the coal owners but it has not been very well received^ The principle has been established for the benefit of the coal owners; it should be established for the benefit of the mine workers also.

The country still depends very greatly upon the coal industry. Coal production is in top gear, but machines cannot run by themselves. The men are working them now and if the Government wants that state of affairs to continue it must make some real effort to do something for the miners as well as for the coal owners.

Also, the Joint Coal Board, or the Government, should set up within the Department of National Development some sort of an organization for surveying the fuel needs of Australia - our coal needs, oil needs and hydro-electricity needs. As far as I know, no such co-ordinating body exists in Australia. Of course, in the United States and Great Britain such bodies do exist. We could well do with something of the kind here.

Probably I have spoken for too long, but in all seriousness I do urge the Government to do something to acknowledge the cooperation that it is getting from the miners federation in the present crisis, which has been brought on by the prosperity in the industry. There is prosperity for the owners, but depression for the mine workers. It is of no use to say that men are not out of work. They are out of work. If a mine worker is taken out of his mine and his home has lost its value, or if he has to take his family away, or travel back home at the week-end from a job in some isolated part of New South Wales, he is not receiving justice. I will leave it at that and merely say that we support the bill which has also, of course, been approved by the New South Wales Government.

I know the gentleman who is to be appointed to the Joint Coal Board, and am sure that he will do a very good job. I know that he is in the Senate precincts at the moment and I hope that he will take note of what I have said. I have had a lot of experience in the coal industry. Despite what the Leader of the Government has said, in 1949 the Chifley Government handed over to the incoming government a soundly based industry, which was readymade for development. The necessary mining machinery and equipment to increase coal production had already been ordered and was on the way here from overseas while Mr. Chifley was in office. In short, the present coal supply position is attributable to the foresight of the Chifley Government and the McKell Government of New South Wales.

Senator Spooner:

– Mr. President-

Senator Willesee:

– Mr. President- (Senator Spooner having received the call from the Chair) -

Senator Willesee:

– I hope the Minister realizes that in speaking he will close the debate.

Senator Armstrong:

– Surely the Minister is not going to do that. He will close the debate. 1 wish to take a point of order, Mr. President.

The PRESIDENT:

– I suggest that the honorable senator rise and state his point of order in a proper manner.

Senator Armstrong:

– When Senator Willesee rose to take part in this debate, Senator Spooner rose also. I pointed out that if the Minister were allowed to speak he would close the debate. When you gave no indication that you would call Senator Willesee he resumed his seat. Senator Spooner remained standing. I am wondering whether you would be prepared to allow the debate to be closed while there was a speaker on his feet.

Senator Spooner:

– I should like to speak to the point of order. The Senate still has before it the Estimates and Budget Papers. An arrangement was made with the other side that only bills which were not to be debated would be taken in preference to the Estimates and Budget papers, and that those bills that were to be debated would be put at the bottom of the business paper. With great respect, I considered that Senator Ormonde’s speech was out of order in that it did not relate to the provisions of the bill, which merely creates a set of circumstances in which the Commonwealth may appoint an officer to the Joint Coal Board. I felt that if I took that point of order the President would uphold me, but I did not do so because I had been assured that bills such as this would not be debated. I then sought to speak briefly in closing the debate, as had been agreed. In those circumstances I believe that I am entitled to be called.

Senator McKenna:

– As the Minister has said, the Government and the Opposition had agreed that only bills which would not provoke debate should be dealt with at this stage. Senator Ormonde was not aware of that, because it was an agreement between the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition. The honorable senator indicated just before he rose that he wished to speak freely and I suggest to the Minister that some misunderstanding may arise if discussion of the very important matter which he has raised is not permitted. Perhaps the Minister might be prepared to postpone consideration of the bill, allowing an Opposition senator to secure the adjournment of the debate after speaking briefly on the bill. Apparently there would be at least one more speaker from this side, and in the interests of amity in the Senate the Minister might be disposed to allow him to speak. Unfortunately, I cannot assure the Minister that there will not be other speakers from this side, but he may, nevertheless, meet Senator Willesee’s obvious wish to address the Senate.

Senator Spooner:

– I suggest that Senator Willesee speak, that I should reply briefly, and that the bill be then taken through its remaining stages. Any further debate on the subject-matter of the bill could be reserved until the appropriate Estimates are before us next Tuesday.

Senator Aylett:

– What about the point of order?

The PRESIDENT:

– I shall rule upon it in due course.

Senator Willesee:

– Because of the amazing attitude adopted by the Minister, I wish to speak to the point of order. First, he said that Senator Ormonde was out of order in speaking as he did. Surely the Minister has been here long enough to know the Standing Orders. If he believed Senator Ormonde to be out of order he had a perfect right to take a point of order which, if sustained, would have caused Senator Ormonde to resume his seat. To use this weak excuse and attempt to criticize Senator Ormonde in this way after the honorable senator had resumed his seat is either the height of impertinence, or of stupidity, on the part of a supposedly responsible Minister.

Senator Kendall:

– Sit down, you young pup!

Senator Willesee:

– Will you be quiet or go back to your psychiatric treatment!

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Willesee:

– Senator Kendall is the one who should be called to order.

Senator Kendall:

– I rise to order. I object very strongly to the remarks that have been made by Senator Willesee. Our Standing Orders require us not to speak in derogatory terms of any honorable senator. I suggest that Senator Willesee’s remarks concerning Senator Spooner should be withdrawn.

Senator Willesee:

– I was referring to the practice of bringing in bills according to an agreement which requires that days of prior notice be given. I wished to refer to a small item in what is more or less a Public Service bill of only three clauses. I expected that my remarks would occupy about two minutes. The attitude that, because of some agreement between leaders, private members have no right to speak on bills, has been growing in this Parliament ever since this Government has been in office. We have just seen an example of it in regard to the regulatory powers which I mentioned earlier in the day. It is completely wrong and dictatorial of the Government to adopt that attitude. For the Minister to raise a point of order is most amazing indeed.

Senator Buttfield:

– Don’t you stand by an agreement made by your leader?

Senator Willesee:

– That is about the most stupid interjection that I have ever heard.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Willesee:

– With great respect, as I understand the Standing Orders, a senator who is on his feet should have the protection of the President. I am generally a most gentlemanly fellow in this place, but I take the view that if anybody interjects while I am speaking, he must take the consequences. Senator Kendall is an amazing person.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! You are discussing the point of order; you are not discussing Senator Kendall.

Senator Willesee:

– I make the request, Mr. President, that you have a look at the Standing Orders. It is your duty to keep order in the Senate at all times. The best way to keep order is to prevent interjections. If I do not get protection from interjectors from you, Sir, I will deal with them myself. The attitude adopted by the Minister is most amazing. This is a simple, small bill, and one about which there cannot be a great deal of controversy, yet he wants to gag discussion of it.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I refer to Standing Order 403, which states -

Every Senator desiring to speak shall rise uncovered, and address himself to the President.

Even when an agreement has been made between party leaders with the object of enabling the machinery of the Parliament to run smoothly, we must have regard to the Standing Orders. We must maintain our right to enter into any debate.

There is another standing order which provides that when the proposer of a motion speaks for the second time to the motion, he closes the debate. Therefore, to give the call to the Minister in these circumstances was virtually to gag the debate on this bill. I agree that there must be some machinery by which bills can be disposed of more or less in accordance with a time-table. It is the prerogative of the Government to use that machinery, but I think that when an honorable senator indicates his desire to make a contribution to the debate on a bill, we should not take away his right to do so. Standing Order 403 is designed to give every senator the right to contribute to a debate.

Senator McKenna:

– I wish to make a personal explanation. In view of what has been said, it seems that I did not explain adequately the arrangement that had been made. The arrangement between the Leader of the Government in the Senate and myself was that at this stage, with the Estimates pending, there would be put up for consideration bills in respect of which there seemed to be no promise of debate. The arrangement was that bills that were likely to give rise to debate would be put lower down on the list. It was not a matter of curtailing debate; it was a matter of putting lower down on the list bills that might require debate. This bill has emerged as one that may require debate, so I invite the

Minister to consider the position in the terms of the arrangement that has been made. That might resolve the difficulty.

The PRESIDENT:

– A considerable amount of heat has been generated over this matter. Some of the language that was used came very close to being unparliamentary language, but I saw no reason to intervene. I regret that that should have occurred in the discussion of a point of order. I point out that usually I am given a list of the senators who wish to speak to a bill, but on this occasion the Whips did not give me a list of speakers. If you wish me to depart from the established practice of taking notice of the lists supplied by the Whips, I will do so. You need not worry about that. I do not want to deny any senator the right to speak. After Senator Ormonde had spoken, I saw Senator Spooner standing and I called him. I am not denying anybody the right to speak. I do not want to prevent debate in any way. I am only doing what is the normal thing. You must be fair about this. You can get all sorts of fancy ideas and you can read a lot into the Standing Orders, but what happened was that, not having a list showing that other senators wished to speak, I turned to the Minister and gave him the call.

Senator Sheehan:

– I wish to take a point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– Under what standing order are you taking the point?

Senator Sheehan:

– Under Standing Order 403. I agree entirely, Sir, with what you have said about an unofficial arrangement, but I suggest that, as the President, charged with the duty of seeing that the Standing Orders of the Senate are observed, you cannot take notice of an unofficial arrangement made between the Whips if observance of it would contravene the Standing Orders. In the conduct of the business of the Senate, the Standing Orders are paramount.. As the President of the Senate, you must protect the rights of senators. Once the point has been raised, I suggest that you are duty bound to carry out the provisions of the Standing Orders and give a senator who has risen an opportunity to address the Senate. An honorable senator did rise and seek the call. If you were to carry on as is now proposed, the effectiveness of the machinery of the Parliament would be impaired, and only becauseofanunofficialarrangement made between two honorable senators. The rights and privileges of the Senate and of senators could, so to speak, pass into the hands of the two men who made ant arrangement if that principle were upheld. Once the point has been raised, Mr. President, youhaveonlyoneduty,andthatistosee thateffectisgiventothe Standing Orders:

Senator Benn:

-Iwish to say, with respect, that in my view the’ standing order in issue is not Standing Order 403; but Standing Order 405, which reads as follows-

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

Therefore, in certain cases there liesonyou, Mr President, the responsibility of deciding which senator rose first in his place to speak. Inthepastwehavehadnodifficultyunder this standing order; andIdonotseethat thereisanynecessitytoinstall photographic apparatusfor the purpose of deciding, which of two senators rose first in his place to address the chamber. It is a matter that is left to common sense. Since this point’ of order has been under discussion, further informationhasbeensuppliedto the Senate abouttheparticularbill.Inmymind there isabeliefthatanarrangementwasdefinitely made between the leader of the party of whichIamamemberandtheLeaderofthe Governmentabouttheorderofdebate.I honestly believe thattheleaderofmyparty understood that the bill would not be the subjectofextensivedebate.Hemadethe arrangement believing that tobeso,butwe findnowthattherearesenatorswhohave somethingtosayaboutthebill.My experienceofthewayinwhichyouconduct our proceedings inthischamber, Mr. President,leadsmetobelievethatyou would not preventanysenator from discussinga bill,providedhisconductandhisremarks’ were consistent with the Standing Orders. Whatdecisionistobearrivedat? I say that we must go right back to Standing Order405andthatyou, Mr. President, must exercise your judgment asto which Honorable senator rose in his place.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!I Have exercised my judgment.. I called Senator Spooner because he was the first honorablesenatorwhomIsawrisetohisfeet

Senator Armstrong:

-On the point of order,. Mr. President,Ithinkthatavery importantprincipleisinvolved.Idonot know whether it is as plain toyouasitis to me. You, in having called Senator Spooner, took a step that would conclude the debate, even though another honorable senator who desired to speak to the bill was on his feet. If a Minister wants to conclude a debate without replying; he may move that the question be put. But, when a Minister incharge of a bill and another honorable senator rise to their feet at the same time, it is contrary to the Way in which the business of the Senate has been conductedtogive the call to the Minister. Apparently, you, Mr. President, saw Senator Spooner first; but you were quickly corrected by Senator Willesee who directed your attention to the fact that he, too, was on his feet.Ido not think we should argue about who rose first; no one could prove that. The fact that you saw Senator Spooner first justifies youractionuptoa certain point. But, if you persistin giving the callto the Minister, whose reply automatically will close the debate, even though another honorable senatorwason his feet, youwillnotbe conducting the businessof thischamberinthewayinwhichithas been conducted formerly.

Senator Henty:

-In speaking tothe point oforder, Iwanttomakeonlyoneobservation.SenatorWilleseeindicatedthathe wishestoraiseonlyasmallpoint.Within averyshortspaceoftime,theSenatewill be resolving itselfintoacommitteetoconsiderthebill.Surelythehonorablesena torcouldraisehispointatthat stage.

SenatorSheehan: -Thatisnot the question. Thequestioniswhetherweshould not follow the ordinary procedure.

Senator Henty:

-Thatisyour opinion?. It happensnottobemine.Youmadeyour decision, Mr. President,, and made it in accordancewiththeStandingOrders.I thinkyouwereperfectlyright.Isuggest thatthedifficultycouldeasilybeovercome if Senator Willesee were toseekhisinformation when the Senate goes into committee:

Sitting suspended from 12.47 to 2.15 p.m (Senator Spooner having risen)-

The PRESIDENT:

-IcallSenator Spooner.

Senator Spooner:

-IgivewaytoSenator Willesee.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– The bill before the Senate is a very small measure which, perhaps, is more concerned with the Public Service than with the actual operations of the Joint Coal Board. I am very interested in this matter, and, in the past,I have dealt with some such cases in the Public Service. As the Senate is aware, the purpose of the bill is to protect the interests of members of the Commonwealth Public Service who might be called on to serve with the Joint Coal Board without being servants of the board. I know of cases in which officers of the Public Service have gone outside their direct line of promotion in order to take up other duties and have consequently dropped out of the Third Division. As honorable senators are no doubt aware, appointment to the Third Division is dependent on success at examinations. Such appointment is coveted, because it leads to the senior administrative posts of the Public Service.

The Public Service Board, on many occasions, has been bedevilled by the need to decide how to deal with cases in which officers have moved from the Third Division to other occupations. Of course, rules and regulations have been prescribed by the board, but nevertheless anomalies have arisen and officers have been treated unfairly. I must say that, in respect of the cases about which I have made representations to the board, I could not have been treated more fairly. However, I suggest that, for the guidance of the Public Service Board and officers of the Public Service who may be concerned, the Minister should clearly state, if he is in a position to do so, that the rights, including seniority, of a Third Division officer who is employed by the Joint Coal Board will be protected. Honorable senators might think that this position would be covered by the policy of the board, but, in practice, that has not been so in respect of various sections of the Commonwealth Public Service. I do not know much about the operations of the Joint Coal Board, but I should like the Minister to indicate what the position will be of the person who is selected. Senator Ormonde seemed to indicate that an officer had already been selected, and that he approved of the selection. Will the Minister inform us of his present salary range, his proposed salary, and the duration of his appointment with the board?

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee.

The bill.

Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesMinister for National Development · LP

– I have ascertained that the proposed appointee, whose name I do not intend to disclose, because the appointment has not yet been finalized, is a Second Division officer.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 442

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1958

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17th September (vide page 368), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator HENDRICKSON:
Victoria

– The Opposition does not intend to oppose the amendment that the bill seeks to make, but on behalf of the Australian Labour party I wish to make some suggestions to the Government. It is proposed to increase the allowance to orphaned children of deceased contributors to the Superannuation Fund from £1 10s. to £3 a week. I suggest that the Government could have been a little more liberal, in view of the fact that the superannuation fund is so large. In my view, an orphaned child, particularly a child of fourteen or fifteen years of age, is entitled to receive approximately the same allowance as that made to an age pensioner. I hope that on the next occasion that this matter is under review, the Government will give it more favorable consideration than it has received this time. After all, only a few children are involved, and it would not cost much to increase the allowance still further. To do so would make the lot of these children so much easier. However, as I have said, the Opposition has no objection to the amendment, and it supports the bill.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– As Senator Hendrickson has indicated, this bill has the complete endorsement of the Australian Labour party. I think that the remarks of the honorable senator were pertinent, particularly in relation to the amount of the allowance. This bill is concerned with one of the most important principles that are embodied in superannuation schemes, namely, that children who have been orphaned by the death of both parents should be adequately protected financially. I think that that principle should underlie all superannuation schemes that the Government controls. That, of course, is not so at the moment, because some of the schemes that the Government administers give no protection to orphaned children. It is ridiculous to think that a superannuation scheme should be introduced for the purpose of protecting the family unit, but that when the very worst thing that could happen to a family unit comes about - the death of both mother and father - the children are left unprotected.

Senator Hendrickson has stated that in his view the amount of the increase is not sufficient, and probably, in these inflationary times, that is a good argument. I conclude by saying that if the principle of protecting the orphaned children of deceased members of superannuation schemes is good for the scheme under discussion, it should be embodied in all other such schemes that the Government administers.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 443

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL1958

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17th September (vide page 368), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator HENDRICKSON:
Victoria

– The amendment proposed by this bill is similar to that proposed by the Superannuation Bill with which the Senate has just dealt. Although the increase that is proposed is a little more generous in this instance, the Opposition believes that, in view of the enormous amount of money that is made available for defence each year, the allowance to orphan children of deceased pensioners, particularly children of fourteen or fifteen years of age, could well approximate the age pension. Naturally, we have no objection to the proposal to increase the allowance, because that conforms with Labour policy. We do not oppose the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 443

APPROPRIATION BILL 1958-59

In committee: Consideration resumed from 17th September (vide page 422).

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Motion (by Senator Spooner) agreed to -

That clauses 3, 4 and 5 and the First Schedule be postponed till after consideration of the Second Schedule.

Second Schedule.

Motion (by Senator Spooner) agreed to -

That the proposed votes in the Second Schedule be considered in the following order: -

Parliament, £1,082,000.

Prime Minister’s Department, £2,931,000.

Miscellaneous Services - Prime Minister’s Department, £3,481,000.

Department of External Affairs, £2,376,000.

Miscellaneous Services - Department of External Affairs, £1,667,600.

International Development and Relief, £4,984,000.

Defence Services - Other Services -

Economic Assistance to support defence programme of South-East Asia Treaty Organization member countries, £600,000.

Attorney-General’s Department, £1,835,000.

Miscellaneous Services - Attorney-General’s Department, £21,800.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, £6,075,000.

Miscellaneous Services - C.S.I.R.O., £129,000.

Department of Defence, £1,088,000.

War and Repatriation Services, £78,995,000.

Department of National Development, £1,517,000.

Miscellaneous Services - Department of National Development, £834,200.

Australian Atomic Energy Commission,

£1,574,000.

Department of the Treasury, £10,516,000.

Miscellaneous Services - Department of the Treasury, £432,700.

Refunds of Revenue, £25,000,000.

Advance to the Treasurer, £16,000,000.

Department of Works, £3,374,000.

Department of Trade, £1,848,000.

Miscellaneous Services - Department of Trade, £527,000.

Department of Social Services, £3,253,000.

Miscellaneous Services - Department of Social Services, £1,435,000.

Department of Labour and National Service, £2,161,000.

Administration of National Service Act, £160,000.

Department of the Army, £63,512,000.

Recruiting Campaign, £330,000.

Department of Health, £1,712,000.

Miscellaneous Services - Department of Health, £1,263,000.

Payments to or for the States, £1,750,000.

Department of Civil Aviation, . £11,389,000.

Department of Air, £59,302,000.

Department of Supply, . £21,757,000.

Department of Snipping and Transport, £1,189,000.

Miscellaneous Services- Department of Shipping and Transport, £1,973,000.

Construction : of Jetty for handling of Explosives, £550,000.

CommonwealthRailways, £3,993,000.

Department of PrimaryIndustry, £1,593,000. Miscellaneous Services - Department of Primary Industry, £736,000.

Bounties andSubsidies, £13,500,000.

Department of Territories, £293,000.

Northern Territory,£4,938,000.

Norfolk Island, £31,000.

Papua and New Guinea, £12,136,000.

Cocos (Keeling) Islands,£33,000.

Department ofCustoms arid Excise,£4,230,000. Miscellaneous Services - Department of Customs and Excise, £27,700.

Department of the Interior, £4,993,000.

Miscellaneous Services- Department of the Interior, £417,000.

Defence Services - Other Services -

Civil Defence, £300,000.

Postmaster-General’sDepartment, £98,067,000.

Broadcasting and Television Services,£8,475,000.

AustralianCapital Territory,£3,559,000.

Department ofImmigration,£2,008,000.

Miscellaneous Services - Department of Immigration,£9,615,000.

Department of the Navy, £42,401,000.

Parliament. Proposed vote, £1,082,000.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

– I refer to Division No. 1 and Division No. 2 in the Estimates forthe Parliament, which deal with the proposed votes for theSenate andtheHouse of Representatives. Quite recently adverse comment appeared in news- papers all overthe Commonwealth regarding the time which the Senate has devoted to business placed before it. I think it was stated in one press article which appeared to have been syndicated throughout the Commonwealth, that this chamber had sat, since the beginning ofAugust, for no longer than 30-odd hours.

Senator Wade:

– It was 34 hours.

Senator BENN:

– Well, that is 30-odd hours. The question was asked why this chamber did not sitlonger than that. I do not think that we sit here unnecessarily. However, Mr. Chairman, thereare many subjects which could be debatedmore fully in this chamber. I have in mind, when making that statement a matter that was before theSenateatthe beginning of this sessional period. I referto the debate on the Middle East situation. You may recall,

Mr. Chairman, that thatdebatewas initiated when the Vice-PresidentoftheExecutive Council (SenatorO’Sullivan) read tothe Senateastatementthat had been madeby the Ministerfor ExtemalAffairs (Mr.Casey) in anotherplace. The Leader of myparty spokeon the matter,and subsequentlya secondmemberofthispartyspokeonit; butnoothermemberofthepartyhadan opportunityofutteringonesyllableonthat importantsubjectinthatdebate.

Inseekingthecauseofthatsituationwe findthatwehavethreemembersofthe cornerpartyinthischamberwhoare priviligedtoplacetheirnamesonthelist ofintendingspeakersinadebateinthe samewayasthemembersofthispartyand theotherpartiesinthechamberare privileged. Thereare five distinctparties in the Senate atpresent.Ifitisnecessaryfor metoenumeratethem,Ishallsaythatthey aretheAustralianLabourparty,theLiberal party,theAustralianCountryparty,the D.L.PandtheQ.L.P.Thegeneralinter- pretationofthatsituationbythecitizens oftheCommonwealthisshownbythefact thatwhenpeopleoutsiderefertoitthey say, “ThereistheAustralianLabourParty andtheanti-Labourparties”.Perhapsthat isafairstatementofsituation.Weon thissidesay,”ItisLabourversustherest, includingtheCommunists.”

It is too late in the life of this Parliament tochangetheexisingposition,butifthe samepositionregardingpartiesexistin the new Parliamentsome change will have to be made in the calling of speakers. The reasonI say that, is thatif the speaking order were decided on a proportional basis the corner party would have one in every ten speakers on this side. Why the Government regardsthe corner party’s members as belongingto this side of the chamberI do not know, because their attitude and policies are altogether different from those of the Australian Labour party, and there- f ore they . should definitely not be classed as members of the AustralianLabour party.

SenatorO’Sullivan.-Bang go the prefer ences!

Senator BENN:

-So therego the prefer- ences,eh?MayI saytotheLeader of the Governmentthatonedistinguishedmember oftheQ.L.PinQueensland,whowasfor manyyearsamemberoftheA.L.P,and was ‘Queensland -Attorney-General for six or seven years, said ‘only ^recently that he would not recommend to his supporters -that they give their preferences to the Liberal party. He said, “There is only one Labour party, and that is the Australian Labour party “. He said that any one who had supported ‘his party in the last election and -was intending to support it in ‘the forthcoming election should give his preferences to candidates representing the Australian :Labour party.

Senator Mattner:

– That would be the last .preference.

Senator BENN:

– Well, now, you have nothing to boast about!

That is only one .matter with which I wish to deal. Now I want to refer to transport, because it was only recently that the press saw fit to highlight the subject of the transport of members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. The whole question of transport by motor vehicles was brought into the light. Ministers are entitled to use Commonwealth cars - there is no special privilege in that - and departmental officers should also have authority to use those vehicles, whenever it is necessary for them to do so for official purposes.

Members of Parliament have been placed “in an unfair .position because of the way this matter has been dealt with -by a section of the press. According to press statements, every member of Parliament had the right to use a car when he feels so inclined. We in this chamber know that our use of government vehicles is very limited. We are given transport from the airport to Parliament House on arrival at Canberra, and from our hotel to the airport when departing for our homes. “When we arrive .at ‘our home airport, we are entitled to free transport by government vehicle only if we arrive after 8 p.m. If our arrival time is before that hour, we are required to use the airline company coach to travel to the city depot, and from there we have to pay for a taxi, or other means of transport, to our home. That practice “has existed for a number of years.

Apparently some sections of the monopolistic press are making such excess profits that they are able to have two classes of employees at their command, one section handling general news -matters and the other ‘comprising ‘spare men who can .be -directed -to any ‘particular task. at any time. On the last occasion ‘.that <I left Canberra ~,to travel to <my home in .Brisbane, I noticed a person at the airport counting the number of cars arriving and .the number of members of Parliament and public servants occupying ‘those cars. .The statement .1 made a moment ago regarding ,the two sections of -employees of :the newspapers is borne out by the fact that on .arrival .at the airport in .’Brisbane I found two journalists and -one photographer spying on members of ‘Parliament as the planes arrived to .see -what -cars were -occupied to -transport the members to the .Clay. The monopolistic -press is actually converting honest journalists into snoopers. The supply of news items to be placed before the .public must be -particularly .limited when the press has to stoop to spying -on .members of Parliament.

We know that the charge for Commonwealth cars associated with the Parliament is debited ‘to the votes .in the divisions now before us. The accounts are properly kept, and every mile travelled by members of Parliament in Commonwealth cars is accounted for and debited to these votes.

It has been mooted that a move will be made at an early date to construct a new Parliament -House in Canberra. Those who have a broad knowledge of affairs in this city will endorse that proposal immediately because the premises we occupy are rather cramped. Although the chambers are sufficient for our purposes, office accommodation is limited. The facilities that were good enough 30, 40 or 50 years ago are not good enough to meet the present demands. Insufficient space is available in the House of Representatives to seat the visitors to Canberra who come from all over the Commonwealth and even from overseas. We must bear in mind also that because of the rapid development of the Snowy Mountains scheme, that project will be the chief tourist resort in the Commonwealth and .people, on their way to the Snowy no doubt will call at Canberra to have a look at Parliament House. Demands are being made constantly for more space to be made available for the National Library. The building we now occupy -could be used to great advantage to accommodate the National Library, as well as other branches of Government departments if the proposal to ‘construct a new Parliament House is proceeded with.

I now turn to the matter of the system of proportional representation. The abolition of the Senate is the policy of the Australian Labour party and all members of the party adhere to that principle. Should a referendum ever be held for the purpose of ascertaining the people’s wishes regarding the future of the Senate, I will be the first in the field campaigning for its abolition and the first to return to my home after our objective has been achieved. However, while the Senate is in existence - I can see now that it may exist for many years - we have to abide by the Constitution which provides for a Senate. Such a branch of the legislature is necessary to finalize legislation passed by the House of Representatives. We have to observe the constitutional requirement as long as it exists.

In my view, the proportional representation system is a fair method of electing persons to the Senate. A moment ago I mentioned that we have five parties represented in the Senate by persons elected under the system of proportional representation. While the Senate remains in existence, it would be very unwise to change that system.

I wish to deal now with the problem of absenteeism as it affects the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid). - Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator MCCALLUM:
New South Wales

– I did not intend speaking on the proposed vote now before us, but Senator Benn’s statement that he would campaign for the abolition of the Senate demands some reply. Not only would I campaign for the retention of this chamber, but I would also regard any attempt to abolish it as a deadly blow to the Commonwealth in which we live. The Senate is justified because Australia is a federation, and if we did not have a Senate constituted on the basis of this chamber, Australia no longer would be a federation. I am satisfied that the people of this Commonwealth, particularly those in the smaller States, are determined that Australia shall remain a federation. That means that the Senate shall remain.

As there is some prospect of certain constitutional alterations being proposed, I want to say that, while not committing myself in advance until I have had an opportunity to read those proposals, I will oppose anything that seriously diminishes the power of this Senate. Any proposal should preserve the Senate to perform the functions that were intended for it by the Constitution. Those functions are, first, to preserve the relative positions of the States, secondly, as part of the Parliament, not only to consider legislation but also to initiate it, and thirdly, to be a house of review and, in particular to review regulations and the matters that come, not from the party in power nor from the public, but from the Public Service. This Senate is the one sure safeguard against bureaucracy, and anyone who advocates its abolition is inviting us to become a purely bureaucratic State.

On another matter raised by Senator Benn, I should say that I read with a good deal of perturbation an article in a Queensland paper attacking the Senate as a donothing body, as something in which nothing ever originates. I am one of those who think that things could be debated, possibly at times, at greater length, and that matters which sometimes are left over at the end of the session should have been debated; but, having made that qualification, I deny entirely the charge that this Senate, as a body, consists of idle people who live at an extravagant rate at the public expense, and who do nothing except give a few hours’ service in this chamber.

That statement came from the press. After all, it would be absurd to say, after counting the number of words that appear in print, that a pressman, drawing a large salary - as some pressmen do - was an idle person. I often notice the gentlemen sitting in the press gallery making copious notes, and, when I open the various newspapers next day, I find that not one word about the proceedings has appeared. That does not mean that the pressmen did not do their work; they did their part, but somebody farther on said it was not to appear in print.

Senator Kennelly:

– I suppose it did not suit their boss.

Senator McCALLUM:

– That is probably right. It depends, of course, on who the boss is, and I am very doubtful as to that in connexion with some of the newspapers. Sometimes the boss is some obscure person who is not a shareholder, but who, somehow or other, appears to have tremendous power on a particular journal. The point is that there is much that members of this Senate do. We have committees. For example, I point out that there is a select committee sitting at the moment. I am not a member of it, but I attended some of its sessions, and the members of that committee were certainly working hard. I do not know what the result of their labours will be, but there was no want of labour on their part.

I think 1 have a right to remind honorable senators, too, that three years ago we had presented to us the report of the Select Committee on Canberra. That report was the result of at least one year’s hard labour on the part of the members of the committee and of the officer’ who so ably assisted us.

Another charge was that nothing ever originated in this Senate. I should say that, resulting from the report of the Select Committee on Canberra, the policy being pursued at present by the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Fairhall) in connexion with the Australian Capital Territory did originate in this Senate. As the honorable senator knows, the federal capital was stagnating, and what was being done was almost entirely the wrong thing, but, as a result of the report of that select committee, the policy has been reversed.

If Senator Wood were here, I would not need to say what the committee on regulations is doing. He probably will be here, and I hope he will have a few minutes to say something on this matter. As all honorable senators know, since Senator Wood became chairman of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, that committee has done a great deal. What it has done is not apparent in the one resolution in which we disallowed a regulation, but I submit that the work of that committee has resulted in a change in the whole attitude of the departments towards the regulations. It is common knowledge that some years ago an officer would approach the head of his department with a regulation and, when the officer-in-charge suggested that it was not quite in accordance with the act, the officer submitting the regulation would laugh and say, “But they never read the act”.

That position has altered. This Senate does consider very carefully the regulations, and a new spirit of carefulness has arisen in the departments.

Arising out of what Senator Benn said, 1 think the remarks I have made were necessary, and I personally will always insist that this Senate is an integral part of the Parliament, not an unnecessary addition, that its preservation is essential and that, when we come to vote on the Estimates for the Parliament, we senators need have no -shame as to the part we have played.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

.- I was interested in the remarks made by Senator Benn as to the opportunities given in this chamber to the members of the corner party, as he described it, to speak. I was pleased to note that he did not object to our being given opportunities to speak. He suggested that we got opportunities out of proportion to our numbers as parties.

I suppose this was intended to be a house of review, a States house, not a parties house, but we all recognize that, due to the operation of events, it has become a party house, and we accept the situation. 1 take it that Senator Benn is not complaining that he personally does not get more than his fair number of opportunities to speak in this chamber - I should say that he probably speaks more than anybody else. I take it that he is complaining from the party point of view and, having totted up the opportunities, he suggests that the three senators in this part of the Senate might perhaps logically receive one opportunity in ten to speak. I doubt whether the Standing Orders prescribe any such form of allocation. That is a matter for the good sense and determination of the Senate, and I am prepared to leave it at that.

I should say that we certainly get less than a fair allowance of what is known as the glamour session. It is months since I have spoken over the air in the evenings, and we have been content to give the members of the Labour party more than their reasonable opportunities, I should think. There has not appeared to be any objection, at any rate.

If Senator Benn thinks we should get only one opportunity out of ten to speak, I should think his sense of justice ought to lead him to advocate that we get one position out of ten on the committees of the

SenateI noticed thatwhenitwassuggested that, I should bea member of the Library Committee, Senator. Benn’s sense of justice did not induce him to vote, for me, on the ground that we are entitled to one. position in ten; he and the. members of his party came along and. voted against our receiving representation. I leave it to SenatorBenn’s sense of justice, if he feels so strongly on the question of opportunities to speak, to say whether he will carry the one-in-ten principle into the question of representation on committees - we do not even receive that number, and he has not objected to it- and whether he will carry the one-in-ten principle into the matter of representation on the parliamentary associations or Commonwealth associations abroad. Onevery occasion when a member of the corner parties has. been nominated for one of those visits,I have not the slightest doubt that Senator Benn voted in the firm conviction that we should have no opportunities to participate in such visits. If we are to talk about: one in ten, we. should carry the principle the whole way, and I look forward to Senator Benn. seizing the opportunity in the new Parliament, to make a forthright stand’ for justice for the corner parties, in the other matters to. which I have referred. As for his suggestion that his party alone is entitled to be called “ Labour “, let me say that whether you are Labour or not depends on the principles for which you stand and upon the way in which you serve those principles.

When he says that something: must be done about thesituation in the Senate; I suggest to him. that the place to doit is not necessarily here. Let the people decide whethertheywanttodoanythingaboutit They will have their opportunity; within the next month or so; and weare quite satisfied toleaveittothem.Ifthepeopledecide thattheDemocraticLabourpartyandthe Queensland. Labour partyshouldberepre- sentedintheirplace,theirdecisionwillhave to be accepted.. Such parties are just as entitled, to put forward the. ideas and. principles of those whom they represent as are any, other parties.

I do not think any one need have any apprehensionthattheSenatewillbe abolished.SomeyearsagoIwasadelegate toanAustralianLabourpartyfederalcon- ferenceheldinAdelaide.Attheconfer- enceamotionwasproposedinstructingthe

Australian Labour party to abolish, the Senate when it was next in power in both Houses. When it was learned that this matter was coming forward, there was a sudden appearance of senators from all directions. I had rheumatism in the shoulder for days because so many senators cried on my shoulder at the prospect of the party’s policy being put into effect. When an amendment was carried that abolition should, instead, take place “ at the appropriate time “ there was joy and happiness in every hotel within 100 yards of the conference chamber. As some senators- said, “ There never will be an appropriate time “. There is as much chance of the Senate being abolished at the instigation of Senator Benn’s party as there is of the New South Wales Legislative Council being abolished - even though the Australian Labour party has a majority in both Houses in that State. I do not believe that even that snake among the chickens, Mr. Tom Dougherty, will be able to achieve that end.

Senator Robertson:

– In Western Australia they say, “Thank God for the upper house “.

Senator McMANUS:

-I do not necessanily go thatfar. I merely say that. I have afeelingthatonthedaywhenthe proportional representation system was. introduced and it became certain that a number of senators could always be sure of being returned all prospects of Senate abolition disappeared.

I agree wholeheartedly with **Senator Benn's** reference to the. attitude to this House of a section of the press. Not all sections of the press would share the view thattheproceedingsintheHousearenot worthwhile.Idoubt,forinstance, whether, it. would be shared by the representatives of, the press who: report, the proceedings here, and arebestinaposition tosaywhetherthatoccurshereisworth while.Inmyexperience,mostofthe attacksontheSenatecomefrompressmen whoarerarely,ifever,inthisHouseto hearforthemselveswhathappens.Ihave heardpressmenwhoregularlyrepostthis Housesaythattheyareimpressedbythe mannerinwhichitcarriesoutitswork. Iknowthatanumberofthemdisagreewith theattacksthataremadeuponthisplace. IentirelyagreewithSenatorBennthat manyofthoseattacksareunfairandnot calledfor.Isitnotnaturalthat,whenthere are only 60 senators, the proceedings of this House should be shorter than those of the other House, which has 124 members? I have spent some time in another place in order to study the matter for myself, and 1 believe that the conduct of proceedings here merits approbation rather than attack. I look forward to the day when some of the critics of the Senate will spend a little time in the press gallery seeing for themselves what actually goes on here. {: #debate-23-s3 .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia -- i rise to direct attention to iwo matters. As regards the abolition of the Senate, up to a point I agree with **Senator McManus.** It is true that for many years the abolition of the Senate has been on the platform of the Australian Labour party, but it was put there because the old system of State representation had broken down. At one time, because of the -party system and the method of election, there were in this chamber 35 anti-Labour senators and one Labour senator. That made a farce of the proceedings. When the wheel of time turned and we had 33 Labour senators and three anti-Labour senators the position was equally .farcical. The Labour party brought down its proportional representation plan to give the minority some representation in this "House. On the whole, the plan has worked out quite well. It is much more just in its application than was the old system of all in, all out. At one time it was possible for a party supported by 50.1 per cent, of the electors to obtain 100 per cent, representation in the Senate. Therefore, though the abolition of the Senate has been a plank of our platform for many years, we realize that the Constitution requires the holding of a referendum and the approval of a majority of the people in all of the States. In the circumstances, I do not think it likely that that will happen. I am one who would like to see these objectives which are incapable of fulfilment, and devoid of merit, removed altogether from the platform. That is, of course, a matter for party decision. I repeat, it became a plank of the party platform at a time when the method of representation in the Senate was most undemocratic. The second matter to which I wish to refer is the conveyance of members of Parliament and others. I am primarily concerned with the conveyance of members of 'the Senate. I do' not know who .designed members' identification discs, but he took no cognizance of the fact that there are women in the Senate, and that they have come to stay. These bulky and useless things replaced the former gold passes, or medallions, which not only gave certain rights of free transport but also possessed 'a certain dignity which at least placed the members of the Commonwealth Parliament on a footing equal to that of members of the State parliaments. I do not know how many honorable senators carry these things around with them. They certainly weigh down one's handbag or pocket. They are not even good from the point of view of identification. I should like to ask the Minister what economy has been achieved by the withdrawal of the gold passes previously issued to members of the Federal Parliament. J have in mind that many .members of this chamber and the other place, because of their service as Ministers, or long membership of the Parliament, already are entitled to, and possess, life gold passes. It is, therefore, not a question of 1'84 gold passes having to be issued. What other economies have been effected? I feel that the amount now paid out for transport is altogether out of proportion to the amount that was paid out before gold passes were withdrawn two years ago. I may be wrong in that regard. Moreover, the.payment that was made by the Commonwealth to the State railways departments in respect of travel on 'those passes was more or less a book 'transaction, and in return, 1 suppose, the 'Commonwealth received payments from the States in respect of members of the State parliaments who used the Commonwealth railways. Instead of having gold passes, we now have voucher books, which are, more often than not, a nuisance. It is so easy to leave them at home or lose them. We have to go to the transport officers here to get vouchers when we are leaving Canberra, and when we are leaving our own States to come to Canberra we have to obtain vouchers from departmental officers to cover extra luggage if we are travelling by air. This involves a waste of time and, therefore, of money. The saving resulting from the withdrawal of gold passes and the issuing of these discs if I may so call them, has 'not 'been 'commensurate with the 'inconvenience involved. Thirdly, I should like to speak about the office accommodation available to honorable senators in their home towns. For the past three or four years, I have had to change my office at least three times. I should like the Minister to go to Perth and inspect the offices in which we are housed'. They are not even noise-proof. If we were not honest people we could listen to conversations that go on in nextdoor rooms, because there are only light partitions between the rooms. The rooms are also inadequately ventilated and have no natural light. They do not conform to health standards, although I am sure the Commonwealth is paying a high rent for them. I should like to know whether anything can be done to improve the standard of the accommodation provided for members in the capital cities. It is in these rooms that we have to interview our electors. If a fire were to break out in the Perth building, which has a long corridor with only one egress, there could well be a few vacancies in the Senate and the proportional representation system could easily be upset. {: #debate-23-s4 .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN:
Queensland .- A little while ago, I referred to a proportion of one to ten when dealing with the time occupied in debates by the corner party and the Australian Labour party. At that time I did not know that **Senator McManus** had a chip on his shoulder about the nonrepresentation of his party in groups of parliamentarians who go abroad in connexion with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Allow me to state now that representatives are elected by the joint parties, by the House of Representatives and the Senate. Therefore my party has no say, other than by exercising a vote, in deciding who should go abroad. The abolition of the Legislative Council ot New South Wales is problematical, and I am not greatly concerned about it. I do know, however, that Queensland abolished its legislative council in the 1920's and that the State has gone along quite well ever since. I am also aware that the Holland Government in New Zealand abolished the Legislative Council in that country, and although the Holland Government left the country in a bankrupt state the people are still surviving. I wish to deal briefly with the subject of absenteeism as far as it affects the Senate. I know that absenteeism can be due to various causes. Honorable senators become ill, just as citizens outside the Parliament do. In that case, they are unable to attend. Those who become ill and cannot attend the sittings of the Senate for that reason are absolved entirely from the criticism I am about to make. I know also that on occasions honorable senators have urgent private business which requires their attention. In such cases, they are entitled to be absent. Recently the absence of a certain senator from this chamber was brought to my notice. I do not know whether I am in order in mentioning his name, but I refer specifically to **Senator Wright.** I have had a look to see on how many days the Senate has sat since the commencement of the session. We came here on 5th August and, according to my recollection, we sat on the following day and on Thursday, the 7th. In the following week, we sat for three days, and then we sat on 26th, 27th, and 28th August. I have no recollection of having seen **Senator Wright** in this place on any of those days. He may have been here on one of those days, but I have no recollection of having seen him. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- I rise to a point of order. I think it would be in better taste if the honorable senator postponed his remarks about **Senator Wright** until the honorable senator is here to reply to them. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- I was coming to that point. {: .speaker-KNU} ##### Senator Hannan: -- Would you have the same objection if **Senator Wright** were appearing for the Com. unions in Hobart? {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- I am not dealing with that. I could deal with his absenteeism last year, if I wished. I know how susceptible you are on this subject. {: #debate-23-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! I ask the honorable senator to discontinue his attack on **Senator Wright. Senator Benn,** if you have any complaint to make about **Senator Wright,** you have an opportunity to move a substantive motion to censure him. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- I thank you, **Sir. I** asked for your opinion. {: .speaker-KAF} ##### Senator Wade: -- Your action is quite unforgivable. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- That is what you think; that is your own moral conception. You do not know any better. I shall now speak in a general way and shall not refer to any honorable senator in particular. We take it that, prior to coming into the Senate, an honorable senator has some business or occupation. When he comes here, it should be possible for him- to give the whole of his time to the service of his country and be entitled to the money that the citizens provide, by way of taxation, for the payment of honorable senators. He may have been engaged in a profession or business which really requires him - if he is going to continue in it - to devote a substantial portion of his time to that business or profession, and he may devote only a proportion of his time to the service of the Senate. There may come a time during his period of service in the Senate when he will be called upon to decide whether he will serve as a senator or whether he will carry on his business or profession as a private citizen. If he puts the welfare of the country first, if he is a true patriot, he will come here and sacrifice his business or profession. I would say that it is his duty to do that. Honorable senators may say that there is nothing in the Constitution or in any act to prevent a senator from carrying on his business or profession. We may ask ourselves why the founders of the Constitution did not provide for such a situation. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- Actually, they did. Under the Constitution, if an honorable senator is absent for two months, his seat is forfeited. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- If he is absent for certain periods without leave, yes. I grant that. But, in the case I am dealing with, where a senator is in good health and is not prevented from coming here to serve as a senator- {: .speaker-KAF} ##### Senator Wade: -- You are still attacking him. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- Well, you can rise and defend him. What are you talking about? Instead of grizzling there like a cockey you could rise to your feet and defend him. {: .speaker-KAF} ##### Senator Wade: -- Yes, in the interests of common decency. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- *I* am being decent enough. I am coming to the point of indecency. You cannot see the indecent part of the man's conduct. You said a while ago that I should wait until he is here. How long have I to wait to have my question answered? I have not even mentioned his name. It is not my fault that he is not in his place. If you had a sense of decency, you would say that **Senator Wright** should be sitting in his place at the present time. {: .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator Maher: -- The contract is between the electors of Tasmania and the honorable senator about whom you have spoken. ' ' {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- That involves the Constitution of the Commonwealth. Evidently the founders of the Constitution could not foresee a situation such as that which has existed in this chamber during the past two years. If a man is absent from this chamber and is receiving payment for his outside services, is he entitled to the parliamentary allowance that is fixed by the law of the Commonwealth? Is he entitled to engage in the business in which he was engaged before being elected to the Parliament and at the same time to receive payment {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator Kendall: -- I rise to a point of order. Standing Order 418 provides that personal reflections on members shall be considered highly disorderly. I should like your ruling, **Mr. Chairman,** on whether **Senator Benn's** remarks about **Senator Wright** come under that heading. If they do, can they be withdrawn? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Under that standing order, any reflections on, or indecent remarks about, an honorable senator are definitely out of order. If any honorable senator takes offence at remarks that are made, he has the right to ask for them to be withdrawn. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- I have another matter with which I wish to deal. I refer to the provision that has been made for the Library. {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator Kendall: -- **Mr. Chairman,** I ask for your ruling on my point of order. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKenna: -- The Chairman has given his ruling. {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator Kendall: -- There has been no withdrawal. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! I said that, if any honorable senator took offence at the remark that was made and asked for a withdrawal, I would deal with the matter. {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator Kendall: -- I asked for a withdrawal, and I again ask for it. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- **Mr. Chairman,** I was dealing with the Library. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable senator must wait untilI deal with the question raised by **Senator Kendall.** {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- I thought you had given your ruling, **Mr. Chairman.** {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! I emphasize the point that, under the Standing Orders; if honorable senators want to object to offensive words, they must do so at once. **Senator Benn** may proceed. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- I note that provision has been made for £67,400 for the Library. I assume that that amount is to be spent on library facilities: in Parliament House. I. have noticed an improvement over the last two years; in the library facilities that are provided for membersof the Parliament. That improvement commenced soon after the President took office. That improvement has not gone ahead rapidly; but, even though it has proceeded slowly, it is all for the good of members. I have noted, too, that the Library room is being extended and that further facilities arebeing provided. My purpose in raising this matter is to congratulate the President upon his efforts to have the library facilities improved. {: #debate-23-s6 .speaker-L8E} ##### Senator CAMERON:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP -- I was very interested in theremarks that have been made about the Senate. My mind goes back to the. days before federation. At. that. time there were separate State governments, and it was discovered that they were working at cross purposes. That gave birth to the idea of federation which, led to the formation of the Commonwealth Parliament, consisting of' the Senate and the House of Representatives. The point Iwanttomake is that it was rapidly changing economic conditions which forced into being the political superstructure which we now know as the Commonwealth Parliament. Since the Parliament came into being, conditions have changed, and pressures which will bring about a further change are building up. Reference was made to the press. In the pre-federation days, the press was a very different proposition from what it is to-day. It was then much more forthright. To-day we have a monopoly press; which hasbeen forced into being by conditions over which outside people have had no control. Not only in Australia, but alsoinother countries, hundreds of small newspapers have been priced; out of existence. The press is becoming increasingly monopoly controlled, which means-, in: effect, that the freedom of the press is being curtailed or denied. What can be said about the press can be said also about primary and secondary production. We are livinginahighly, mechanized, and monopolistic age in which the whole; superstructureofmanagementisbeing changed.Totheextentthatmonopolies, gaincontrol,thepeopleofthiscountry andofothercountriesarebecomingmore and more class-divided. It is not a question of whether we are to maintain the status quo so far as the Senate is concerned it is a question of adapting ourselves to the position in the future. If I were asked to say in one word what isthe whole process of life; Iwould say " adjustment". You either adjust yourself to changing- conditions or you' put up with the consequences. We Have adapted ourselves to changing conditions byadopting proportional representation and enlarging the numbers of the Parliament. We did so: because pressure outside forced, that change upon us. The position, as I' see it, is that the people of this country are becoming more and more' divided into classes. To the extent that they become' so divided the tendency is for parliaments to harden more and more, into oligarchies. AsI have said previously, political democracy begins and ends on election day.. After that, the Government becomes moreor less a dictatorship.Iamnottheonlyonewho saysthatthatisso.The press of this Countryalsoissayingit.Irefertothe " Financial Review " ofAprillast,inwhich a similar statement was made. That is true, too, of other countries. We pay lip service to democracy, but actually, governments are assisting in every way to bring into Being political dictatorships.. Unless thepeopleofthiscountryconsiderthe problem from that point of view, the politicaldemocrazythattheyknewbefore federationanduntilWorldWarI.will steadily diminish. ThedictatorshiptowhichIhavereferred iscomingmoreandmoreintoevidence. Take banking and the control of finance; for example. Actually; those who control bankingandfinancebehindthescenesare becoming more and more dictators. We are living> in a rapidly changing world from every, point of; view. For. the moment,, we. are concerned with, the political superstructure. Unless this process of' change is kept in mind; the; liberties thats we desire to maintain will be slowly taken away, from us, as- they have been to date. Occupying the positions we do, we i should keep > these things in mind and remember, that we are. not the masters, of. the situation. If we study the policies of this Government and of other governments, we shall, see that they are more concerned about the. pressure that has been brought to bear against, them than anything else. This system of government works on the principle, of the wheelbarrow - it. goes just- as far, and as fast, as we push it. That applies to most governments. I; have made these remarks to challenge the idea, that you. can maintain the status quo. You cannot live in a changing, world and maintain the status quo. All experience proves that that is so. Any. one who has read history, particularly the History of, English-speaking, parliaments, will know of the change that has. occurred and , is still occurring. AIL I hope is that the collective intelligence of" the people will make the changes, for the better, not for the worse. {: #debate-23-s7 .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and' Excise · Tasmania · LP : - I have been' interested' to hear some of the remarks, made' during the discussion of this section of the Estimates. r was particularly, interested! in, **Senator Cameron's** statement' that we are not masters of the situation, and: in. his. remarks- about the Senate, because I. place - at the door of the Opposition the blame for dealing, to the Senate one of the- most grievous blows that it has ever received' as- a legislative body: **Senator Cameron-'s** remark that-' we are not masters of? the situation' brought- to my mind the time when- the Opposition, as a body; was forced by an- outside executive, which had" no authority whatever, from- the people; to- come into this chamber- and completely reverse the vote- that- the party had' already given. The fact that a- political" party could apply itself- for' some months to objecting to the; provisions, of at certain bill andi then, at; the bidding; of its* twelve masters, of; the; outside, executive, who> have no; responsibility' to; the.- people; come; into the Parliament andi reverse: its vote, indicates- the . severity* of) the: blow, to- the ; Senate. I. think that( Sena-ton Cameron's- statement about .not being masters of the situation was perfectly true. I wish to. deal for a moment or two with a: point raised by **Senator Benn.** I think that. the. honorable senator would not. have been, nearly so worried about **Senator Wright** appearing in a court, case ih Hobart had **Senator Wright** been appearing for the other side. I suggest to **Senator Benn** that there is one thing we can guarantee. Ifr is that **Senator Wright** will receive treatment no different, from that which" **Dr. Evatt** received when he walked out of the Ho.use of Representatives,, went to Melbourne and' defended the Communists in the . Petrov case. He was able to walk out. while the House, of Representatives was sitting, and' appear for the Communist party. **Senator- Aylett.** - I' rise to order, **Mr. Chairman:** *A* few moments ago, you ruled that it was out of order for an honorable senator to launch a- personal attack- on another member- of' the- Senate. Is it not equally OUt' of order- for- an honorable senator to launch- a personal and false attack on- a. member of the House of Representatives? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- There is nothing offensive in stating that an honorable member appeared in a court. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- I have nearly, finished my remarks, **Mr. Chairman.** I wished, to point out- those things in reply to, matters raised by honorable, senators opposite. I think that it is wise to keep these, matters; in perspective and to look at both sides of the picture before we start to make wild statements, that sometimes redound very much to our, disadvantage when, they are considered ih the cold light of the facts. As for. the. press, I. agree, with the remarks of **Senator McManus.** I think that if more members of-' the* press who- offer criticism of this place were- to come here and! listen to the debates, with the possible exception of those that take place on. Wednesdays before election- time, they would' learn- a great deal- about the- work of the Senate. The debates that take place when the: proceedings are not being; broadcast are often some 6ft the most; constructive/ that! one could hear in any Parliament. I think that most of the criticism comes from people who do not hear the debates in the Senate. {: #debate-23-s8 .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968 .- I want to advert for a few moments to some observations that were made by **Senator Benn.** In the first place, I agree with his comment regarding the nature and constitution of this chamber under the system of proportional representation. I think it is common ground that this is a far better and a far more effective chamber than it was in the old days, when you could get that complete disproportion in representation to which **Senator Tangney** has referred. From that comment stem one or two thoughts that I think should be presented to the committee about the proportional representation system and its part in the deliberations of the Senate. **Senator Benn** suggested that the three of us who sit in the corner of the chamber might receive an undue proportion of debating time or undue preference in the use of the available time. I think that if this is to be a proportional representation chamber, the important consideration is that the points of view thus represented should find expression. I would not suggest, therefore, that the opportunity to speak should be related in any sense to a numerical basis, whether it be one in ten or one in fifteen or anything of that nature; nor, for that matter, do I suggest that, say, in my particular case, I should go one for one with members of the Government parties or members of the Opposition party. I do not think that that would be proportionate, nor would it be fair to either of those major parties. For that reason, I have never in any circumstances insisted on that, because I think that common sense dictates that the major parties, representing as they do the major point of view, should have the major opportunity of expressing that point of view in this chamber. However, my mind goes back to the debate on the banking measures, when it was important that those who had differing points of view to express should be able to express them at the earliest possible moment. As **Senator Henty** has remarked, there is perhaps more political value in speaking when the proceedings of the chamber are on the air and when there might be thousands of listeners following the debate. Therefore, it might have been an effective proposition in such a significant debate, which was arousing such great public interest, to try to persuade the President to let me speak while the proceedings were on the air. I did not feel that, in those circumstances, that was the right course for me to pursue. But I felt that I had a case to present, expressing perhaps a separate and different point of view, and that it should be expressed for the benefit of the Senate and the nation as early as possible. It was a case that could not be presented, in my view, within the agreed period of time on the air, which is half an hour for a private member like myself compared with one hour to which leaders of parties are entitled. So I felt that it was my proper responsibility to speak as early as possible, and that happened to be when the proceedings were on the air. That did not occur because the proceedings were on the air, but because T felt that the case had to be put properly and early and in the way that was necessary. So I elected to speak on Tuesday, a time which emerged later as the crucial day of the consideration of the measure. So I say that when **Senator Benn** makes the point about the system of proportional representation in the speaking order it is a point that is validly made. I put my view to those who control the speaking order in this chamber that, allowing for the distribution in numbers between the various parties, no man on his own should stand pari passu with any other man in the major parties, particularly in debates when different points of view are likely to be expressed and when it is important that they be expressed early. That consideration should be taken firmly into account when opportunities for speaking are being given. That is the only canon I would apply in my case. I have never, since I entered this Parliament - including when I was in the Australian Labour party - sought the air myself, because apart from the fact that I think that such a practice stultifies debate, I also think it very often impedes the opportunity of presenting a full and conclusive point of view. In addition, I strongly doubt its political value and effectiveness. I have often thought that proper parliamentary consideration and deliberation within the walls of this chamber, with the consequent publicity which may or may not be given to it in the press and other organs of publicity, are much more important to this chamber and the nation than any alternative personal political advantage that may lie in presenting a case on the air. For that reason I think that **Senator Benn's** observation is validly made. My point of view, and I think the point of view of the Democratic Labour party, is that we would not unduly press for the extension of any rights we have, but that we would ask for them to be preserved with due regard to the considerations that I have suggested, especially in regard to those things that are most important and which ultimately affect the best performance and best deliberations of this chamber. I think that you will find, **Mr. Chairman,** that, if those canons are followed, the Senate will benefit from the differing and complementary points of view presented reasonably early and reasonably fully, and without prejudice to the choice of the speakers for the major parties, and, therefore, of the major points of view in the community. {: #debate-23-s9 .speaker-KQQ} ##### Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia -- I refer to the proposed provision of £1,500 for a publication concerning the Parliament of the Commonwealth. I should like the Leader of the Government **(Senator O'sullivan)** to tell me the purpose for which this publication is to be compiled. Is it to be in the form of a text book of a high academic nature, or is it to be a book for popular distribution? I think that whatever the nature of the proposed publication is to be, the proposal is excellent, because I believe it is important that a book of some sort dealing with the Parliament of the Commonwealth should be made available for sale not only in leading bookstores of the Commonwealth but also in Canberra generally. Recently I visited Westminster, where I found that there is a most readable book on the British Parliament available to the public. In Washington there is available a number of easily readable books on the United States parliamentary system. I believe that the increasing interest in parliamentary institutions is due to the excellence of such publications and I regret very much that at present there is no book on the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. So I welcome the inclusion in the Estimates of this item, although it may be only a token item. It may be an item connected only with research that might be required for the preparation of such a publication. I should like the Minister to let me know the purpose of that proposed expenditure. I now make one other reference to, as ii were, educational information about the Parliament. I suggest that it might be possible to have a dozen colour transparencies made of the parliamentary institution. Some of them could be of this chamber and some of the other place. People who are keen on showing colour slides could include a set of slides dealing with the Parliament, which would be a memento of their visit to the National Capital. The slides would be most colourful. The slides of the Senate would be predominantly red in colour, and those of the other chamber predominantly green. There could be transparencies of the Parliament building itself, and some of the national treasures that are housed herein. I feel that the result of this would be a quickening of interest in this parliamentary institution, its structure, its buildings and so on. After all, **Sir, we** aim to build a finer and more adequate structure some day. The Australian people will become interested in Parliament as an institution if more accurate and colourful information can be given about the Parliament itself. T welcome the item that is appearing for the first time. I should like some clarification by the Minister, when he replies, on the matters I have raised. {: #debate-23-s10 .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator BROWN:
Queensland .- I wish to refer to **Senator Benn's** statement regarding the opportunity to speak that is given to senators on both sides of the chamber. He stated quite clearly that during a debate the Queensland Labour party and the Australian Democratic Labour party are grouped with the Australian Labour party when the call is being allotted. My party comprises 27 senators while the two parties on my left have three members in all. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- Your party was glad of their assistance yesterday. {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator BROWN: -- I was delighted when they stood up against the reactionary Liberal-Country party Government. It showed that there was at least some glimmering of commonsense ; and understanding of the , political situation when they sided with us.They are coming back to the true path. {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McManus: -- The honorable senator does not mention the occasions when his party has sided with the Government against us. {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator BROWN: -I donot remember any such extraordinary occasion. After myyearsofserviceinthe Labour movement, my action in voting with the Liberal party must have been completely and entirely warranted.I have no trouble with my conscience . about that matter. I was pointing out that thereare 27 true Labour men - members of the Australian Labour party -in Opposition while on my left are twopartiescomprisingthreepeople. ever,occasionshavearisen,particularly when the proceedings ofthe Senate were being -broadcast, when the call has 'been givento two members of my party, five members of theGovernmentparties and twomembersofthepartiesonmyleft. When one works outthe proportion of speakers to members of the respective parties is it fair- {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- It is probably not true either. {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator BROWN: -- It is true. The Opposition Whip can substantiate my statement. The Government regards the members of the parties on my left as members of the Australian Labour party. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- They are in opposition. {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator BROWN: -- The call has been given in this order- **Senator McManus,** a member of , one of the Government parties, **Senator Byrne** and then another member of one of the Government parties. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968 -- I do not think that has happened. {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator BROWN: -- It has happened. I remember that on one occasion I was to take part in the debate but deferred to **Senator Grant,** who had been viciously and wrongly attacked by the " Sydney Morning Herald ". I asked our Whip, " Will I have the opportunity later to speak? " The Whip replied, "1 do not think you will have a chance nowbecause you gave away your opportunity to SenatorGrant ". On that occasion the call wasgiven tofive speakers on the Government side and to two on this side ofthe chamber. SenatorKendall.- Wehave two parties onthis side of the chamber, too. {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator BROWN: -- I will agree that nominally the Government is comprised of two -parties. **Senator Benn** raised the question of a senator who, while receiving money from the Crown, absents himself from the chamber and accepts a brief in a court case or participates in some other business undertaking for which he receives payment. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! I have ruled against that matter being mentioned. SenatorBROWN. - I think any honorable senator should be permitted to deal with this generalprinciple of whether or not it is right, fit and proper that senators, while absenting themselves from this chamber, should carry out other work for which they receive certain emoluments. Do you mean to tell me, **Mr. Chairman,** that a senator has not the right to discuss a matter of that nature in this chamber? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! If the honorable senator has any complaint to make against another honorable senator, he can make his complaint on a substantive motion. {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator BROWN: -- I am not making any complaint against anyhonorable senator. I am dealing only with the general principle. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable senator mentioned the case of a senator appearing in court and accepting money. {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator BROWN: -- I withdraw the words " appearing in court ". It could be a case of a Labour party senator going down a coal mine. It does not matter to me in the slightest. I am dealing with the general principle of whether it is fit and proper for a senator, while receiving money from the Crown for performing certain work in Canberra, to absent himself from that work and carry out other dutites. Any honorable senator should have the right to discuss that general principle. I do not see why honorable senators opposite should get excited and hot under the collar when an honorable senator on this side brings that principle forward for discussion by the chamber. {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator Kendall: -- Does the honorable senator apply the same principle to members of the House of Representatives? SenatorBROWN. - I am speaking now of the principle. I did not say whether I was in favour of it or not. 1 was asking why anyhonorable senator should not have the right to raise that principle in this chamber without calling down upon himself the heat and anger of the gentlemen opposite. {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator Mattner: -- What does the honorable senator think about the matter, anyhow? {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator BROWN: -- About 25 years ago, **Sir Walter** Massy Greene absented himself from this chamber for about nine months, and I asked a question as to whether it was rightthat a senator should be permitted to absent himself for that length oftime when he was not sick or absent overseas, but, instead, was doing other work. **Sir Walter** Massy Greene spoke very angrily to me in King's Hall and said, "Brown, I want you to know thatI have done splendid work for Australia, and "I think I have the right to absent myself from the chamber for a few months, if necessary". I replied, " Ido not think you have that right. I think it is your duty as a senator to attend to your work in the Senate if you are not ill." I agree with **Senator Benn** that honorable senators who are well paid by the Crown should not he permitted to absent themselves from the chamber in order to work in other callings for which they are also well paid. That is my opinion, and I have a perfect right to express it. The leader, deputy leader, whip and rankandfile member of the Queensland Labour party, **Senator Byrne,** is not enamoured of the right of honorable senators to speak over the air. He thinks, in his own charming way, that the press will attend to our speeches, that the press will let the people know what we are saying, and that we should be content with that. When **Senator Marriott** suggested the abolition of the broadcasting of the proceedings of the Senate, I opposed him and said that the press did not report 'the speeches made inthisSenate.I do not blame the press for it, but they do not report our speeches. That being so, I fail to see howthe public is toknow what is being said. Why, theremay be words of greatwisdom said here and thepublicof Queenslandwould not be permitted tohear them! I 'know, of course, that thepeople could buy " Hansard ", but I do not think any one buys "'Hansard ". A certain number of copies could be given to them - I think each member is entitled to 35 copies - but those who are given them now do not read them. One of my friends who is a printer was sorely troubled because he felt that I had neglected my duty by not sending him a copy of " Hansard ". He almost shed tears because I had neglected to do so. I saw to it that " Hansard " was sent to him from then on, and, when I visited his printery two years later, I saw in a corner, still in its original wrapper, every copy of " Hansard " which had been sent to him. Not one 'had been opened! " Hansard" really is not read. Generally speaking, the people do not read of the work of the Senate. **Senator Henty** said that we do splendid work. I think we do sometimes, but it is only by means of broadcasting that we get our words before thepublic. I am fully infavour of the broadcasting of the Senate proceedings. The members of the public are not forced to listen, but, in our democracy,they should have the right to listen if they want to do so. {: #debate-23-s11 .speaker-KAL} ##### Senator WARDLAW:
Tasmania .- I thinkI am in order in protesting emphatically against the attack on **Senator Wright** by **Senator Brown** and **Senator Benn.** {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator Brown: -- I am not attacking **Senator Wright.** He is a friend of mine. {: .speaker-KAL} ##### Senator WARDLAW: -- I thought the honorable senator was attacking him. **Senator Benn** certainly did attack **Senator Wright,** and I object, especially as the attack was made in **Senator Wright's** absence. **Senator Benn** said he had not seen **Senator Wright** in this chamber for some time. As a matter of fact **Senator Wright** was in this chamber yesterday, and, if **Senator Benn** wanted to attack him, he should have done so while **Senator Wright** was here and had the opportunity of defending himself. **Senator Wright** has a very fine record of service, especially as a member of the ConstitutionReview Committee, onwhich he hasserved for 60 days during the last twelve months. That service was performed outside 'the ordinary sitting hours ofthe Senate. He has also served as chairman of the committee which is inquiring into payments by shipping companies to the maritime unions. These things should be taken into account. The circumstances surrounding his absence on this occasion are very special circumstances indeed. {: .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator Maher: -- And what he is doing is essentially public in character. {: .speaker-KAL} ##### Senator WARDLAW: -- That is so. I should say that **Senator Benn** deliberately waited until **Senator Wright** was not in the chamber before he made his attack. He did that because he knows, as we all do, that **Senator Wright,** if he were here, would have been able to defend himself only too well, on occasions such as this. I have spoken because I wanted to register my protest at the attack. I think it was in very bad taste and deplorable in the extreme. {: #debate-23-s12 .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN:
Queensland **.- Senator Wardlaw** was permitted to discuss a matter to which I referred some time ago. I submit that there is a vast difference between the service rendered by an honorable senator in this chamber and that rendered by him in a private capacity outside the Senate. When an honorable senator is serving in this chamber, he is serving the public of the Commonwealth. For that service, he receives an allowance which is fixed by the Parliament. When he is engaged in some undertaking outside the Senate, when he is doing work which could very well be performed just as efficiently by other people, when he is receiving a fee for that work, and when at the same time he is receiving the allowance payable to all honorable senators as members of the Senate, I say the whole thing is dishonorable and immoral. **Senator Wardlaw** did not deal with that aspect of my argument. {: .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator Maher: -- Does **Dr. Evatt** take fees when he appears on behalf of the Communists? {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- That is a paltry interjection. Can you tell me when he did that? {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- He appeared in the High Court to challenge the Communist Party Dissolution Act. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -I am not concerned about that, but let me emphasize here and now that I am forthright about these matters. Iholdthefirmbeliefthatwhatappliesin one case applies equally in another. If you have any interjection to make now, **Senator Maher,** make it. {: .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator Maher: -- I say **Dr. Evatt** absented himself from the House of Representatives and defended the Communists. Now you go into caucus and attack **Dr. Evatt.** {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- **Senator Wardlaw** mentioned the work being done by **Senator Wright** in connexion with a certain case. I am not concerned with that case or any aspect of it, nor am I going to be concerned about it. I say that the work **Senator Wright** is doing in connexion with it could be performed equally as well by somebody else. Public service within the Senate is the first demand on a senator's time. He is bound to render that service, and, for it, he is paid an allowance. It is futile for any honorable senator on the Government side to try to convince me that this honorable senator who wishes to be looked upon as a taipan amongst the chickens has any special qualifications for the work he is now doing. Speaking colloquially, Tasmania is only a tinpot State; its budget is no greater than that of the Brisbane City Council; and certain persons who are at the top of certain trees in that State would not even be known if they were practising in theiT particular profession in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. We would never hear of them! I pass now to the matter of parliamentary printing. We do know that the greater part of the printing carried out for the benefit of members of Parliament is done at the Government's printing works in Canberra. The splendid speeches delivered by all honorable senators to-day will be published in " Hansard " to-morrow at about 10 a.m. That proves to those of us who are observant that Parliament is an industry. Engaged in that industry are many clerks, reporters, cleaners, journalists, printers and others. Too few of us take the time or even bother to find out how the printing is actually carried out. I recommend that all honorable senators take the time off some morning when the Senate is not sitting to go down to the Government printing works and ask permission to go through them. If they do, they will find that the Government Printing Office here is like Topsy - it just " growed ". Generally speaking, the work is carried out in a very efficient manner in the circumstances, but the time has arrived for the construction of a new printing establishment so that machinery may be laid out efficiently and the work of all engaged there may be done far more easily and under more comfortable working conditions than at present. {: #debate-23-s13 .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Attorney-General · Queensland · LP -- I should like to say a word or two about an item mentioned by **Senator Laught** involving the expenditure of £1,500. In February, 1957, 50,000 copies of the publication, " The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia " were printed for sale, at ls. a copy, to persons visiting Parliament House. It is expected that this issue will be completely disposed of during this financial year and these funds are required to cover the cost of printing a further 50,000 copies. Proposed vote agreed to. Prime Minister's Department. Proposed vote, £2,931,000. {: #debate-23-s14 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The committee has before it now the proposed vote for the Prime Minister's Department. Are there any requests? Proposed vote agreed to. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator Benn: -- Do I understand that the vote for the Prime Minister's Department has just been passed? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- That is so. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator Benn: -- I scarcely had time to turn the page. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Having called a proposed vote it is not my duty to wait in the expectation that some honorable senator will eventually rise. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator Benn: -- If that is your attitude, **Mr. Chairman,** I might just as well close my copy of the bill and allow you to proceed. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- If the honorable senator does not rise at the appropriate time I cannot prolong matters indefinitely waiting for him. Miscellaneous Services - Prime Minister's Department. Proposed vote, £3,481,000. {: #debate-23-s15 .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN:
Queensland .- The proposed vote for Miscellaneous Services covers many matters. When one considers the lengthy adjournments of the Senate one finds it difficult to understand why this allimportant Appropriation Bill should be dealt with at the speed of a jet plane. {: .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator Maher: -- The race is to the swift! {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- Yes, but in this case the laggards have not even had time to nominate. Proposed votes involving the spending of millions of pounds are being approved without first receiving proper consideration. {: #debate-23-s16 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! That is not correct. I put the question, " Are there any requests? " quite clearly and no-one rose to speak. It was, therefore, my duty to pass to the next matter for consideration. The order in which the proposed votes are to be taken is set out clearly in the sheet which the Government has circulated. That order has been approved by the committee, and all honorable senators should be in a position to rise without hesitation if they wish to speak to any item. It is not my duty to sit here and wait for honorable senators to rise. The estimates before the committee are those contained in Divisions Nos. 214- 216 - Miscellaneous Services. {: #debate-23-s17 .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia -- I should like, first, to refer to item 15, "Surf Life Saving Association - Grant, £5,000 ". This grant has remained static for some years. It is totally inadequate for the work that is being done by life saving clubs on our beaches, or for the instruction which they give to persons who wish to help in the saving of life. The members of the Surf Life Saving Association do marvellous work which should have the approbation of every member of this Parliament. Even if the grant were raised to £50,000 it would1 be little enough by way of recompense for their great work for Australia. As I said last night, they give up their week-ends and keep themselves fit in order to help save life on our beaches. We pride ourselves on being lovers of the open-air life, and in the summer spend much of our time on the beaches. There would be a much greater toll of lives but for the work done by these men, who give up their time to raise funds for the purchase of equipment. Last year we had in the west an unfortunate tragedy in which lives were lost. simplybecause inadequate equipment was available.Itisterribletothinkthatsuch things can happen, andtheseclubs should belivingfromhandtomouthwhen they do their job so unselfishly and without thought of reward. Is. it intended that this grant should remain static for ever? I repeat; it is most inadequate for. the purpose for which it is intended. {: #debate-23-s18 .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator BROWN:
Queensland : - I should like to refer to the research work of the National- Library, which is covered byDivisionNo.14 of the estimates for the Prime Minister's Department. The librarydoessplendidwork but is gravely understaffed in some respects. The TEMPORARYCHAIRMAN **(Senator Pearson)** -Thevoteforthe Prime Minister's. Department hasalreadybeen dealt with. The committee is now considering Division No.214 -Miscellaneous Services. {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator BROWN: -Perhaps, then, I might be permitted to refer to the Commonwealth Literary Fund, the grant for whichis set out initem 8 of that Division. Undoubtedly the- administration of that fund calls forreasearchofakindandI cannot, emphasize too strongly that research work is. useless if, because of inadequate staffing, information cannot be supplied with speed. On occasion Ihave sought information from the National Library, but before it has become available the particular legislation in which I was interested, has been passed. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- To what item is the honorable senator speaking? {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator BROWN: -I am referring toitem 8 - " Commonwealth Literary Fund (for Payment to the creditof the Commonwealth Literary Fund Trust Account), £12,000 ". Surely we are entitled to further informationupon that subject. If I wished to make some research into the Commonwealth Literary Fund Ishouldgotothelibrary and seeone of the research officers. That section does splendid work but I have been informed by, the officers that they cannot do as much as they would like to do because their numbers aretoofew. I believe that the standard of debate here and in another place would reach a higher plane if one could always go into the library and get a ready answer to problems involving research. With only two or three men doing thework, that is impossible. The levelof debate would be raised if library research work were fostered by the appointment of more staff to the National Library,. There was another item on which I wanted to speak, but as you have ruled, **Mr. Temporary Chairman,** that we have passed the barrier, I cannot speak onit, so I will sit down. {: #debate-23-s19 .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator MAHER:
Queensland -- There are two items on page 96 with which I wish to deal. The first isitem 20, " Royal Australian Historical Society - Grant, £500", and the second is item 24, "Royal Historical Society, Victoria-Grant, £500". I take it that the grant to the Royal Historical Society, Victoria, relates specifically to Victoria, and also -I am open to correction on this - that the grant to the Royal Australian Historical Society relates to New South Wales. We have a very fine historical society in Queensland, which is doing work at least equal in efficiency to that being done by the historicalsocieties of New South. Wales and Victoria. The Queensland society is recording all facts and items of interest connected with the early pioneers and the progressive development of Queensland since it was known as the Moreton Bay settlement. Next year Queensland will celebrate the centenary of its foundation as a State. It will celebrate 100 years of progressive development. The Queensland Historical Society is doing work at least equal to that done by other historical societies in Australia, yet. I see no mention of any grant to the Historical Society of Queensland. I would be glad to know from the Minister whether the grants mentioned are shared with other States, or whether they have specific application only to New South Wales and Victoria,. When grants are made to societies in two major States, the same consideration should be given to societies of the same character in other States. {: #debate-23-s20 .speaker-KQQ} ##### Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia -- I wish to refer to item 15. "Surf Life Saving Association - Grant, £5,000 ". I would support any suggestion for an increase in that grant. Recently I have had something to do with the Surf Life Saving Association and I can assure the Senate that it is a magnificent organization. The young men associated with it are prepared to risk themselves in order to save others. Over: the last 5.0. years; . possibly liOO.000. lives have; been: saved: as the. result of the work of this. organization. It. is very interesting to note that the Australian.- association trains people- from other, parts, of the world. I believe that the £5,000 to be made, available will be used purely for administrative purposes, the- actual equipment used by the association being provided by the young fellows themselves This organization is expanding. In South Australia-, thenumber of clubs increased by 50 per cent, during the last year. A. strong case exists for the Government to. consider, increasing the amount of the grant. While I am on my feet, I wish to deal with an item of an entirely different- character. I refer to item 35, where provision is made for the- expenditure this year of £l',300' on the exhibition-- of Australian paintings at the1 Venice Bienniale. I' passed' through Italy recently and- read in the press, an extraordinarily fine announcement about' the exhibition, being held in Venice. Particular- reference' was made to Australian paintings that were exhibited. Our ambassador; Mr: McGuire, was", in- Venice at' the time dealing; with this art exhibition. Ir stress to the Senate the importance of. exhibiting- examples of. Australian' culture,, particularly' our- better paintings', in the- largeEuropean cities. However, I' sound one note- of warning. *Tn-* some of tHe Australian legations- and" embassies F saw some, horribl'e examples-- of Australian1 art From- a1 perusal1 of- thesepapers ifr. would' seem that the Prime Minister's Department is keen- to promote the exhibition of Australian art overseas1, but *Ti* feel' that those' responsible- should' have a good look at some of the paintings1 that' are' exhibited ih our- embassies and' legations' throughout the* world! They are alleged' to Be By Australian* artists. In the Australian Embassy in Brazil1, the officers' were not game to hang; the- picture' that had Been' provided. It was a picture entitled'" Siesta; ",' and' depicted a1 stupid, semi-drunken1 person- reclining under a' verandah-. It' had been- painted' By a modern artist. As far as' I can see, such paintings- do- not properly portray Australian culture: Ih' Paris, there is a' glorious Hans Heysen painting hanging in the Australian Embassy, a: painting which could- be an inspiration' to the connoisseurs of art in that capital7 of the art world. Whilst commending the Government for. its. interest in this, exhibition in. Italy; I say that it. would' be well, to look, at the specimens, of Australian: art- that we have, sent abroad for permanent exhibition. {: #debate-23-s21 .speaker-KAC} ##### Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia -- I refer to items 1.1 and 12, dealing, with historical memorials of. representative men. and historical and other paintings. I have raised this, subject before, in this, place,, without, very much success. I notice that, it is proposed to cut- by almost one-half the appropriation for historical memorials of representative men-. Whereas last year we spent the sum of' £4, 130; this year we areproposing to spend* only £650. I wouldbemost grateful if the Minister would explain the- reason for that reduction when he replies: The* wretchedly small' amount of £650' is being- provided for this importantitem: The sum: of £2,000. is being provided for the acquisition of- historical-, and, other; paintings: I. would1 think that that is* probably the smallest sum that* any- govern?ment in the- world, would provide in one. year, for the. acquisition, of< works of art. Quite frankly, I think we should be. thoroughly ashamed, of-, ourselves, if we allow, the grant to- be passed; at- that level. We have: hardly a-, decent, work, of art in Canberra.. We have, not, a, decent piece, of statuary or, a. decent, bronze.. In. fact, this is; one of. the most inartistic places in Australia.. That is a. great reflection on. us, as members of the Parliament and- on* those who are responsible, for that state of affairs. If we turn, to Division No. 214; item 36, we note that we as a parliament are asked to provide the sum of £50;000' towards the holding of the Olympic Games in this country; yet we cannot afford' more than £2,000 in this' year- for the acquisition of works of art!' That, **Sir, I** suggest indicates just what we in this country think of art. It is a- terrible reflection on all- concerned that we cannot afford, and1 apparently do not wish, to do anything- about this- matter. We are allocating a paltry £2;000 for the acquisition of- works of art- in a country, that produces- some of the finest art in the world in- many forms and' in the greatest profusion: **Senator Laught** referred to certain exhibitions with: which. He did not agree. T do. not know what, they- were, but we can go> to any respectable city- in: the world and see in that city more works of art done by Australians than we can see in Canberra. To think that we will be spending £2,000 this year and that no one appears to be concerned about it is a sad reflection on us all. 1 should like the Leader of the Government **(Senator O'sullivan)** to say that some consideration will be given to the matter during this financial year so that next year we will get down to taws and see whether we can do something about providing an art collection for the National Capital. Now . I wish to refer to Division 214 - Prime Minister's Department, item 26. I note that we are to donate the sum of £20,000 to the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust which, in the field of theatre presentations, has done some very fine work and also some very poor work. The money that is spent is by no means commensurate with the scale of effort or the standards that have been achieved. But I think much better work could be done in our national theatre than is being done, and I suggest that we should not spend more money there until the standard improves. We have had the spectacle of the trust importing somewhat indifferent artists from overseas - artists who were not comparable with Australia's professional artists. I cannot understand why we do not get the best artists from overseas to act in our national theatre. 1 suggest, for the consideration of the trust, that, if we cannot get the best artists, it should not be content with second-rate importations. If the Leader of the Government chooses to reply, I ask him to indicate what proportion of the Commonwealth grant is to.be spent in the administration of the theatre. I have heard criticism from people who claim to be knowledgeable in these matters that far too much of the grant to the Elizabethan Theatre Trust is being absorbed in unnecessary administrative expenditure. Therefore, I ask the Minister: Can he inform me what is the. total amount of grant that will be made available to the trust this year from federal and all other sources? Can he indicate how much of that money is being spent in administration and how much will be related to the actual production of stage work? {: #debate-23-s22 .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia -- In Division No. 215 - Australian Security Intelligence Organization, we have the bald item " Administrative expenses,. £499,000". I do not know whether any schedule relating to this matter appears elsewhere. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- No. It is not customary to provide a schedule. {: .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator TANGNEY: -- Is the Commonwealth Investigation Service distinct from the organization to which I have just referred? {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- They are two separate organizations. {: .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator TANGNEY: -- A schedule is provided for the Commonwealth Investigation Service? {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- Yes. {: .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator TANGNEY: -- Now I wish to address myself to the proposed vote for the Commonwealth Office of Education. Very few people understand the part that this office plays in the field of education. When one speaks about education, most people think only of the various State educational systems. There is a great public demand for Commonwealth aid in the field of education, and people are prone to think that the allocation of £1,605,000 will be used in some way to assist the States in the provision of educational facilities. But that is not so. The Commonwealth, apart from its interest in tertiary education at the university level, in the giving of scholarships to university students, and in the rehabilitation of ex-servicemen at the various universities and technical colleges, plays no part in education. I have read some of the reports of deputations that have waited on the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** and the reports of various State education conferences, and it seems to be thought that what is required by those who are pressing for Commonwealth aid in the field of education is that the Commonwealth Government should assume responsibility for education and that education should more or less become uniform throughout the States. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Commonwealth is not asked to administer our educational system. It is much better to leave that to the State authorities. What is required is that more attention be given by the Commonwealth to the needs of the States. The States receive grants from the Commonwealth for the provision of various services, including education; but the point is that the grants that are given for general purposes are not sufficient to enable the States to carry on their educational activities as they should be carried on. More than £1,500,000 is to be provided for the Commonwealth scholarship scheme. In addition, £12,190 is to be provided for Australian International Awards, including South-Eeast Asia scholarships. But, when we look at the provision for the Australian Council for Educational Research, we find that only £7,500 has been allocated. The same amount was allocated last year; so apparently this is a fixed sum, as is the case with the life-saving organizations about which we have just been hearing. Is there any reason why the sum should be fixed? I should have thought that, as educational needs grew, there would be need for greater expenditure. That sum will provide only the salaries of three or four officers. I think it is quite inadequate. Provision has also been made for a contribution towards the cost of adult education publications put out by the University of Sydney. Sydney and Melbourne are the only two cities that receive any grants for such purposes. Only the bigger universities are being assisted by the Commonwealth in the publication of adult education pamphlets and so on. Western Australia has an excellent adult education system. In fact, for over 30 years Western Australian pioneered the holding of residential schools for adult education. Those schools were kept going by the voluntary efforts of graduates during the war years when the staff was away on military service. For 30 years there has been no break in the work of the adult education branch of the University of Western Australia. I wish to know whether the financial provision that is being made for the University of Sydney is the result of an application by that university and whether other universities which apply for such assistance will be granted the same degree of consideration as the University of Sydney has received. It is pleasing that the work of the Colleges of Nursing has been recognized by the Government, but I should like to know why the proposed grant this year is £3,000, instead of the £4,000 that was allocated last year. The grant of £3,000 seems to me to be very small in view of the fine work that is being carried out by the Colleges of Nursing throughout Australia. The provision of slightly more than £1,500,000 for the Commonwealth Office of Education, under Division 216, seems to me tiny, compared with the expenditure that should be made in the various fields of research. {: #debate-23-s23 .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP -- Supplementing the remarks of **Senator Tangney** about the Commonwealth Office of Education, 1 should like to know whether its work overlaps that of the State Departments of Education, and whether we could be given a brief outline of all its functions. I find that there is a lack of knowledge of its functions, and such an outline would, in my opinion, be well worth while. I join **Senator Tangney** in expressing concern at the reduction of the grant for the Colleges of Nursing. I feel .that this is a tremendously important grant, because it is designed to assist those who are doing very fine work in training people for a most wonderful profession. I believe that whatever assistance we give to the Colleges of Nursing will be of untold value and benefit to the community in the years ahead. Like **Senator Tangney,** I should like to know the reason for the reduction. {: #debate-23-s24 .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria .- I would like to have information regarding the work of a number of organizations in the field of science which receive grants from the Government. I refer, first, to Division No. 214 - Prime Minister's Department, item 13, "Special Investigations on scientific matters - Publication of results - £855 ". The grant last year was £100, but evidently there was no expenditure. I should like to know the nature of the scientific matters with which the proposed vote is concerned. I also refer to item 17, " Social Science Research Council of Australia - Grant - £3,500", and item 18, " Australian Academy of Science - Grant - £10,000". The vote for the Australian Academy of Science has been included in the Estimates for several years. I refer also to item 27, " Australian Academy of Science - Contribution to Central Committee International Geophysical Year - £452 ". I do not know the nature of the activities of those organizations, and I should like -the Minister, if he can, to tell the committee what they are. Is there any way of coordinating the efforts of these bodies? As honorable senators know, scientific matters seem to be pre-eminent to-day in the minds of most educational authorities, and we should have an idea of the functions of such scientific bodies. A contribution of ?452 to Australia's scientific activities during the International Geophysical Year seems very small, but I have no doubt that there is a good reason for the provision of such a sum. We have been given to understand that there has been great activity during the International Geophysical Year, and I am wondering how we come to be getting out of it so lightly. Perhaps other provision is made elsewhere in the Estimates. I should be delighted to learn that the small amounts that are shown in Division No. 214 were sufficient to meet our commitments for International Geophysical Year research, but I feel that they are far from sufficient. {: #debate-23-s25 .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Attorney-General · Queensland · LP .-I inform **Senator Sheehan** that 'the proposed vote of ?452 does not represent the whole cost of the Australian contribution to International Geophysical Year research. That is merely our contribution to the Australian Academy of Science, which organizes scientific endeavours or enterprises. The proposed provision of ?452 for the Australian Academy of Science has nothing to do with the cost of exploration work at the South Pole. **Senator Tangney** referred to the contribution to the life-saving clubs of Australia. There is no question that these clubs are doing splendid work. In 'this Budget, as honorable senators may have noticed, there are no great increases in grants, except in such cases where increases have been found to be necessary by virtue of increased numbers, or additional obligations or undertakings. The basic contributions in respect of. general services have not .been altered. **Senator Maher** inquired about the proposed grants to the Royal Australian Historical Society and the Royal Historical Society of Victoria. Approval -has been given for a ^-Commonwealth grant of ?500 per annum to .the .Royal Australian Historical Society in support :of its work on Australia-wide history, on the condition that the New South Wales Government also makes a grant of not less than ?500 per annum. Approval has been given for a Commonwealth grant in aid, of ?500 per annum, to the Royal Historical Society of Victoria on the condition that the Victorian Government makes a grant of not less than ?500 per . annum and that the society devotes a substantial proportion of .its work to the history of Australia. **Senator Laught** also asked about the grant to the life-saving clubs, and the remarks that I made in relation to 'the comments of **Senator Tangney** also will apply to his queries. The basic contributions are not being increased this year - but not because the splendid work the clubs are doing is not appreciated. Reference has been made to item 35, " Exhibition of Australian Paintings at the Venice Bienniale, 1958- ?1,300 ". The explanation of the item is that the Commonwealth decided to sponsor the exhibition of a collection of Australian paintings at the -Venice Bienniale. The exhibition is expected to cost approximately ?1,600, which will include the cost of the assembly in Australia, freight to and from Venice, and the expenses of the Australian Commissioner for the 'Venice Bienniale. The expenditure during 1957-58 amounted to ?313. **Senator Vincent** raised the subject of the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust. The grant is not made specifically for administration or production. The general intention of the Commonwealth is to assist the Trust in production work. How much of the grant goes into administration and how much into production is something we would not know because, I should imagine, the grant would be incorporated into the Trust's general funds. **Senator Vincent** also mentioned item 1 1, "'Historical memorials of representative men - ?650". Paintings of GovernorsGeneral, Prime Ministers, Presidents of the Senate, Speakers of the House of Representatives and other distinguished Australians are financed from this vote. The provision for 1958-59 does not include cover for commissions for paintings, as there are no outstanding recommendations from the Art Advisory Board to the Historical Memorials 'Committee to have a 'portrait executed. The provision of £650 is necessary to cover the expenditure of theArt Advisory Board as follows: - Allowance to chairman, £100; travelling expenses, &c., of Art Advisory Board, £450; incidentals, £100. The provision in 1957-58 was £1,130, and was made up as follows: - Allowance to chairman of board, £100; travelling expenses &c. of board, £587; incidentals, £128, commission, portrait of the Speaker, £315. {: .speaker-K28} ##### Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP asked about the functions of the Commonwealth Office of Education and wished to know whether they overlapped those of State Departments of Education. This is a hardy annual; I have answered similar questionson a number of occasions over the years. The question was in two parts, and the answer to the first partis as follows: - The functions of the Commonwealth Office of Education are set out in the Education Act (No. 55 of 1945). They are - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. to advise the Minister on matters relating, to education; 1. to establish and maintain a liaison, on matters relating to education; with other countries and the States; 2. to arrange consultation between Commonwealth authorities concerned with matters relating- to education; 3. to undertake research relating to education; 4. to provide statistics and information relating to education required by any Commonwealth authority;, and, (f)to advise the Minister concerning the grant of financial assistance to the States and to other authorities for educational purposes. They shall include such other functions in relation to education as are assigned to it by theMinister. The answer to the second part of the question is - No. The Director of the office, in accordance with the functions expressed in the act,has established and does maintain a liaison on matters relating to education with the States as well as other countries. In his continuing liaison with the States, the Director is able to arrange that overlapping as between the States and the Commonwealth Office,is avoided. The office doesnot carry out research which is being done by States. They work together in a complementary manner on migrant education - teaching English and the ways of Australian life to newcomers to this country - and they work together in international matters. Everything possible is done to avoid overlapping: {: #debate-23-s26 .speaker-KNR} ##### Senator HANNAFORD:
South Australia -- I should like to make a few comments on item No. 18, which has already, been referred to by **Senator Sheehan,** I think, and also, in association with that item, on item No. 27 and the item No. 37. Theyall relate to the grant that is being made to the Australian Academy of Science amounting to £10,000, plus the further amounts that are listed also. In this connexion, I want to say that on my arrival in Canberra, the other day I had occasion to drop a visitor in the vicinity of Acton. Passing through that suburb we saw a. rather strange-looking building that reminded me quite strongly of one of those cupola-like fortifications that were used in World War I. and. probably World War II. as protection against either shells or bombs. I should like to ask the Minister whether that building is being erected under the auspices of the Australian Academy of Science. Nobody appreciates more thanI do that at this stage of ourhistory we must pay a great deal of attention to the development of our knowledge of the sciences.I think if was **Senator Vincent** who referred to another branch of science, and I was wondering whether, since we have heard talk here to-day about the artistic appreciation of a city such as Canberra, what sort of artistic appreciation we are getting in this city when we have a building such as the one I have mentioned. I may be misjudging the building. I may be wrong in my assessment of its artistic value, but to my way of thinking, at this stage anyhow, that building does not add very materially to the beauty of Canberra. SenatorO'Sullivan. - Where is it? {: .speaker-KNR} ##### Senator HANNAFORD: -- Over at Acton. I am not sure whether it is in the course of being built on behalf of the Australian Academy of Science. {: .speaker-KT8} ##### Senator McCallum: -- You mean the inverted saucer? {: .speaker-KNR} ##### Senator HANNAFORD: -- That is how one could describe it. I do not know whether **Senator McCallum** was in the chamber when I described it earlier as being like one of those cupola-like fortifications that were used in World WarI. as protection against shells or bombs. I have the idea that it is modelled on plans similar to those used for a big Sydney building that is in course of erection. I do not think it is very artistic. I may be wrong, but that is my opinion of it. I do not know whether part of the grant we are making to the Australian Academy of Science is being used for the erection of the building, but I believe that the grant that we do make to the academy is extremely worth while. We must develop in the field of science. If the proposed grant to the Academy of Science will further our knowledge of the sciences, it is fully justified. The proposed contribution of £452 to the Central Committee International Geophysical Year, while being small, may be regarded as an affiliation donation. It is a gesture that shows Australia's interest in furthering scientific knowledge, and as such it should receive the support of every thinking person in the community. We all should realize the results that have been obtained to date and the world-wide attention that still is being given to the International Geophysical Year by all countries of the world, not only the democracies, but also the Soviet Union and her satellite countries. They all are taking part in the search for knowledge in the sciences. When one thinks of what has been done in a country the size of Australia in the field of nuclear science alone, and when one has in mind the tremendous value of the knowledge that we have gained in the use of nuclear energy for defence and peace-time purposes, one must give his support to that search for knowledge. When we realize how little is the sum of our knowledge of the secrets of the universe, we see that only a beginning has been made in our search for the key to unlock them. What do we know of the weather? We know no more about that subject to-day than we did 50 years ago! Even though we receive our meteorological information, we are still largely in the dark about the causes of our weather changes. Whether we will ever understand the reasons for those changes remains to be seen. But we are continuing our search for knowledge by means of our studies in Antarctica at the present time. The many fields of science cover every aspect of our life to-day. I feel that grants of this kind, to the Australian Academy of Science in particular, and to the universities, colleges and other institutions generally, are well worth while. I should like to see the amount of this grant increased substantially. Will the Minister inform the committee of the branches of science with which the academy is dealing at the present time, and also of the particular function of the academy? {: #debate-23-s27 .speaker-JYY} ##### Senator O'FLAHERTY:
South Australia -- Before making my request of the Minister, I should like to refer to the building mentioned by **Senator Hannaford.** One must certainly have a taste for art to understand the structure. I am reminded of- the young lady who saw a man half dressed for the first time and thought he was most unattractive, but when she saw him fully dressed thought that he was a handsome fellow. Although the building looks rather ugly now, I remind the honorable senator that it is only half completed. I have seen completed buildings of a similar character and have been amazed at the change from ugliness during construction to beauty on completion. I suggest that the honorable senator wait until the building is dressed up a little before coming to a final decision about its appearance. The request I wish to make is related to item 13 - "Special Investigations on Scientific Matters - Publication of Results, £855 ". Will the Minister state whether it is possible for honorable senators to receive copies of such publications? We sometimes come in contact with people who are extremely interested in such matters. They ask about the latest publications and the honorable senator concerned has not the faintest idea what the person is talking about. He then has great difficulty in ascertaining which publication deals with the particular advance in science about which he was asked. I shall be glad to hear the Minister's reply. Apparently the amount of £855 is to cover cost of forwarding to honorable senators copies of the articles that are printed. {: #debate-23-s28 .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Attorney-General · Queensland · LP -- In reply to **Senator O'Flaherty,** the proposed vote of £855 is to ensure that worth-while publications are not lost for all time. The merit of a particular article decides the number of copies to be printed. It might be decided to print only 20 or 50 copies of a particular article, and when the type has been broken up it would not be worth while re-setting for publication. However, I am certain honorable senators will have no difficulty in obtaining copies of publications which it is decided should be widely distributed. I would not urge all honorable senators to have their names placed on the list of persons to whom copies of the publications are to be sent because, with all the goodwill in the world, we all know that we do not have the opportunity to read all the literature that is sent to us. {: .speaker-JYY} ##### Senator O'Flaherty: -- A good deal of money would also be saved if that procedure were adopted. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- That is correct. It would not be wise to have a large number of publications printed in anticipation of a demand that does not eventuate. I do not think any honorable senator will have any trouble in obtaining a copy of any particular publication he wishes to have. {: #debate-23-s29 .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER:
South Australia -- I should like some information from the Minister on item 1 7 - " Social Science Research Council of Australia - Grant, £3,000". Can the Minister indicate the work carried out by that council? {: #debate-23-s30 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
New South Wales -- I wish to make some observations regarding item 31, " National Radiation Advisory Committee - Expenses, £3,000 ", but I am somewhat confused as to whether that matter falls within the proposed votes with which we are now dealing. Last year an appropriation of £4,000 was made for the committee, but only £1,645 was expended. During this year I asked a series of questions regarding the dangers associated with X-ray radiation. Two rather opposite points of view were expressed, one by the Minister for Health **(Dr. Cameron)** and one by the Minister for National Development **(Senator Spooner),** who controls the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, as to the degree of seriousness of the effect of exposure to radiation. Following that, a special committee has been set up. I do not know whether the Prime Minister's statement led to that move, or whether it was coincidental. This committee has come to some conclusions which have been widely publicized. The State governments have set out to introduce regulations to meet the situation. That, of course, is the pattern of our federal system. The point I want to make is that I am not completely satisfied that the States, in their own sovereignty, are really viewing this problem in its proper perspective. I shall discuss the position in New South Wales first, because I represent that State in this chamber. The New South Wales Hospitals Commission, as a result of advice from the Department of Health in Canberra, issued a circular No. 1101. I know all the details in this instance because I happen to be a director of one of the bigger hospitals in Sydney. That circular was headed, " The hazards of X-ray radiation ". It lays down a certain pattern which hospitals are obliged to follow in connexion with X-ray exposure. That is very good; but where the system falls down is that there are tremendous fields of professional people in private practice who are outside the purview of the hospitals commission and all of whom use X-ray equipment. I refer to such people as medical practitioners, radiologists, dentists, and even people selling shoes. I think we now .have the lastnamed group covered, but that is not enough. Whilst the commission is requiring government departments to take certain precautions, I do not think there has been enough done in the ordinary field in New South Wales to issue the fairly strict regulations which I understand this committee envisaged. In Victoria, in to-day's issue of the Melbourne " Age ", a fairly well-known journal in that State, appears an article relating to regulations being brought down at this point of time for the control of the use of X-ray equipment. It points out that- >Injury to humans from radiation may occur from exposure or deposition of radio-active material in the body. The article proceeds to state the various illnesses that could follow and says, in relation to the regulations which are being brought down, that - >The legislation adopted in these States was based on a model bill suggested by the National Health and Medical Research Council. That is very good. It goes on to say - >However, some doubt has arisen as to whether this legislation goes far enough, and two Commonwealth committees are at present examining the possibility of additional control. That, Ithink,isthecruxof thematter. I merely wanttosuggesttotheLeaderof the Governmentthat,at theCommonwealth level, weshouldbeproducinga patternof legislationforusenotonlyby theCommonwealth initsownTerritories,butby State authorities. Weshouldbeproducing something which couldbe used byallthe Statesasabasis foruniformlegislation throughout Australiain connexion with this problem. I do notwant to openup the controversial sideof this subject,butIthinkwe all agree that thereis a problemconnected with radiation. The matter is inextricably tied upwith medical science, and allI want to say here isthatitis desirable that we have uniform regulations in connexion with it. Isuggest also that theCommonwealth committee to whichI have referred is the ideal body,with theresources oftheCommonwealth behind it, tosuggest a patternof procedure for the States as well as the territories oftheCommonwealth. Proposed vote agreed to. Department of External Affairs. Proposed vote, £2,376,000. SenatorBENN(Queensland) [5.10]. - Aglance at this vote indicates that the Department ofExternal Affairs administers embassies, legations, trade commissions, commissions andconsular representation abroad. Tothe layman, those terms are meaningless, but we inthis chamber are fully awarethat inarapidly-changing world it is essential to have such offices abroad, that itis necessary forthe Commonwealth to be in constantcontact withallthe countries at whichthose offices are established. The embassies are in the United States of America, the Republic of France, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Indonesia, the Republic of Ireland, Japan, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of the Philippines, Thailand, Burma, and theRepublic of Italy. That gives some indication of the spheres in which these offices exist. The legations are in the United States of Brazil, Israel, Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia. High Commissions are established in Canada, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, the Union of South Africa, Ceylon,Ghana, andMalaya. There is aCommissionatSingapore and wehaveconsular representation inother places.It isestimatedthat these offices will costus£2,400,000 this year.Of course, it iscostlytohaverepresentation on such awidescalebut no -onewill argue that any one of these officesis unnecessary. They are situated many miles apart, and, it is almost impossible to supervise the spending ofmoneyby them. The department, and theGovernment, naturally haveto rely a good deal upon whatever knowledge of book-keeping or matters relating to finance the officers appointed to these offices abroad have.It will be observed that recently the Auditor-General went abroad and that, while he was away, he calledin at variousoffices. Upon his return, hehadthis to say to the Parliament - >In my report for the year 1956-57, I mentioned thatpast weaknesses in financial controls had not beenovercome despite actiontaken by the department to effectimprovements. We can take it from thatstatement that certain things hadbeenbrought tothe notice of the Department of External Affairs and thatthe department had done itsutmost to have certainminor irregularities ironed out and to see that, generally,thecontrol of finance would be satisfactory to the AuditorGeneral. TheAuditor-General's report continues - >Iacknowledged,however,that overseas posts of the department faced certain difficulties owing tolack of staff trained in accountingduties and alsobecauseof unusual business practices and standardsinsome overseas countries. > >Following my attendancein Londonlast September ataconference of auditors-general of BritishCommonwealthcountries, Ivisited overseas posts in Paris, The Hague, Bonn, and Geneva where my officers carried out audits and closely examined the procedures -and practicesin operation,notonly inthe embassiesand consulates,but alsoatimmigration centresandtrade commissioner posts. The Auditor-General also states in his report - >Onmyreturnto . Australia,Ifurnished the DepartmentofExternal Affairs (and other departments) witha comprehensive statementon matters notedduring the inspections and with audit reports by my officers onindividualposts. Steps were immediatelytakenby theDepartment with a viewto remedying theunsatisfactory features brought to notice. These included - > >Examination,inconsultation withthe Public Service Board, ofstaffingand organization at overseas posts andat HeadOfficewith aview to improving accountingprocedures; > >preparation of accountinginstructions to to conform with andgive effect to the recently promulgated OverseasAccounts Arrangements; (c)developmentoftrainingfor officers prior totaking updutyatoverseasposts. > >Asregards (b)adraftManual hasbeen prepared by the Department in consultation with my officers and officers of the Treasury. > >In connexionwith(c) a trainingcourse attended by elevenofficers priortopostingoverseasas Heads of Chancery or with duties involving accountingproceduresunderthe Overseas Accounts Arrangementshas been held andfurther courses will bearranged onaregular basis. My officers assisted by lecturing atthefirst course and will afford similar assistance at future coursesif so desired. > >The positive action taken,and in course,bythe Department shouldovercomemost, if notall, past unsatisfactoryfeatures and should resultinmore efficient accounting andbetter controlover expenditure at overseas offices of the Department. It should benotedthat mostof the officers in charge of these posts are, in themain, trained to bediplomats,and havemuch less time than ifthey were associated with a business undertakinginCanberra or some other local centre. Despite this,the experience overthe years has been thatthey do their best to keep their accounts in a proper manner.Their methods may not be wholly satisfactory tothe Auditor-General, but they obviously do their best. Ihave quotedfrom the Auditor-General's report to show just how helpful it is from a governmental and finance point ofview, for a senior officer such as the Auditor-General to go overseas. He has reported that he had a conferencewith the officers, and obtained first-hand information from them as to just how the accounts were being operated. When he returnedhe reported to the Public Service Board, whichisresponsible for the efficient staffing of theseposts. The result of all this hasbeen thedevising ofa scheme which will doubtless bear good fruitso far as financial procedure is concerned. SenatorMcCALLUM (New SouthWales) [5.18]. - I wish to direct attentionto DivisionNo. 21 -Embassy - United States of America, and Division No . 22 - Embassy -RepublicofFrance. Divsion21a sets out, in item 1, the salaries and allowances for the embassy in the United States of America, and initem 2 the expenditure upon temporary and casual employees at that centre. Similaritemsareset out in Division 22a, in respect of France. Ihave compared thefigures foranumber of embassiesandIwould liketoknow why it is thatthe proportionateexpenditure upon temporary and casualemployees in the UnitedStatesof America exceeds that upon temporary and casualemployeesin France, and greatly exceeds that inCanada. Thereare doubtless localreasonsf orthis - Icouldgive some myself -but should like to knowjustwhy the figures warysomuch as between the United Statesand some other countries. SenatorLAUGHT (South Australia) [5.20]. - I invitethe attention of the Senate toDivision No. 21 - Legation - United States ofBrazil.The details of salaries and allowances set out in the Schedule to the bill reveal that lastyear there were two External Affairs officers at that centre, but this year there will be only one.Sofar as I can see,no additional officer of a lower status, suchas consularclerk, has been appointed inplace of theExternal Affairs officerwithdrawn. Consequently, Ifeel that Ishould make a general referenceto this whole question of representation in Brazil. OurMinister thereisMr. Donald MacKinnon, a well-known Australian figure who had,some years before he was appointed to his present post, had considerable experiencein the Argentine. We are not adequately supporting such an excellent Ministerwhen we withdraw one ofhis officers. Histerritoryextends fromtheMexican border to the Straits of Magellan, but he is based on the legation inBrazil.He has the task of keeping an eye on a vast and important territory. The withdrawal of one of his officers curtails his opportunityfor movement around these important South American and Central American republics. Some of them, of course, might be described as anything but large, but they all have governments, they allhavea point of view, and they all have a seat in the UnitedNations. Our representatives at the United Nations Assembly contact their representatives in New York, but Ifeel that the Australian representative in the field shouldhave more contact with these republics than he has at present. I should liketosay a word or twoabout South Americaandits importanceto Australia, not so much in the diplomatic field asinthecommercialfield. Twelve yearsagowe had far more numerous representationinSouthAmericathan wehave at present. I understand that in Brazil we had three or four representatives, including the Minister and a press and publicity officer. At present we have only the Minister and one External Affairs officer. Between the two of them they have to do the consular work, the diplomatic work, the publicity work and the press work. Admittedly, the British ambassadors in the other parts of South and Central America are most co-operative but, obviously, a nation such as Australia should consider whether its own representatives ought to have adequate opportunity for movement among the republics of South and Central America. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968 -- Is this the only republic in which we have a resident representative? {: #debate-23-s31 .speaker-KQQ} ##### Senator LAUGHT: -- Yes, we have none in Central America or in Mexico. I understand that Mexico comes under the jurisdiction of His Excellency the Honorable Howard Beale, the Australian Ambassador, in Washington. Let us have a look at the size of some of these republics. Brazil alone is larger than Australia. There are 62,000,000 or 63,000,000 people there. It has everything as far as natural resources are concerned. Two cities in Brazil have a population of over 3,000,000. There is Rio de Janeiro on the coast, and in the upland country, about 250 miles away, is Sao Paulo. That city, with a population of over 3,000,000, is the fastest growing city in the world. Between those two cities there is an air service every quarter of an hour. Honorable senators will realize that these places are tremendously important in world affairs by any standard. I ask the Minister whether it is time to enlarge our representation in this country, or at least to hold it at its present level, rather than to reduce it. Should we not replace the officer who is being removed by another officer, possibly a consular clerk? Further south - possibly 1,500 miles away - is the Argentine with the City of Buenos Aires, which has a population of between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000 people. Although at present there may be no great volume of trade between Australia, Brazil and the Argentine, and no clamour for us to have diplomatic representation down there, the strengthening of the post in Brazil would enable our Minister to move to other places with greater ease than he can move at present. I am not suggesting that we open up new posts all round the world, or even throughout South America, but I do suggest that we should strengthen our existing posts. I realize the difficulty of finding the professional staff required for this work, but I urge the Government to strengthen existing posts. {: .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator Maher: -- Would it not be better to have a trade commissioner there? {: .speaker-KQQ} ##### Senator LAUGHT: -- I intended to deal with the point raised by my friend **Senator Maher.** I feel that hoth types of representation are needed, but we are dealing now with the Estimates for the Department of External Affairs. I think we should strengthen the diplomatic post first, and afterwards the trade side could be developed. In answer further to the interjection, let me say that we have a trade commissioner at Port of . Spain in Trinidad. We have a **Mr. Connolly** stationed in the British area of Trinidad. It should be remembered, however, that to have a trade commissioner in Trinidad, serving Brazil, is like serving Australia from Hong Kong. Brazil is a long way away from Trinidad, with an entirely different class of people and different economic conditions. The time must come - and I hope it will come quickly - when the expansion of our trade with the enormous South American continent will make it imperative for us to strengthen our trade representation there. South America is populated by a predominantly European people - a people with a Spanish and Portuguese background, with strong Italian, Swedish, Swiss and British components. There is also a strong and worthy component from Japan. These people think, live and worship as we do. I feel that we do not pay enough attention to the importance of these countries. Few of us have had the privilege of going to South America. It was my extremely good fortune to be a delegate to the recent conference in Rio of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Then, at my own expense, and with the co-operation of our Minister, I was able to move into three other republics and see the conditions under which the people live. I express my view firmly to the Senate that we should not be retreating from our present representation, but rather should be holding it or even extending it. At one time we had a post in Chile, but about ten years ago we withdrew that post. It may be that we were fully justified in withdrawing that post, but I feel that at this stage we should not retrench any further. I earnestly hope that the Government will give serious consideration to my remarks. There is one further point I wish to mention. I think it would be advisable to raise the status of our representative in Brazil from that of Minister to Ambassador. I understand that the extra money involved would be just chicken-feed. I feel that the status of our representative should be raised because when I was in Brazil I detected that Australia was losing in prestige because it had one of the very few legations there. A number of smaller countries have embassies. I stress the size, and importance of the British and Canadian embassies, and the respect in which they are held. That applies also to the South African embassy. I feel we should seriously consider raising the status of our post there to that of an embassy and raising the status of the distinguished gentleman in charge to that of Ambassador. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968 -- What is the status of the Brazilian representative here? {: .speaker-KQQ} ##### Senator LAUGHT: -- I understand that the status of the Brazilian representative is that of Minister. However, if arrangements were set in motion to raise the status of our representation, I am sure it would encourage the Brazilian Government to take steps in the same direction. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968 -- What other South American republics are represented here? {: .speaker-KQQ} ##### Senator LAUGHT: -- I am not aware of that, but possibly the Minister, in his reply, could give us that information. I understand that Argentine has representation here, but I do not know what the status is. {: #debate-23-s32 .speaker-KAF} ##### Senator WADE:
Victoria .- My mind has been exercised for some time about a matter that I believe warrants a new approach on the part of the Department of External Affairs. Honorable senators on both sides of the chamber have, quite rightly, stressed the importance of trade commissioners and have stated that trade is a tremendously important factor in maintaining peace in the world. I believe that that is particularly true as far as the Pacific area is concerned. The point I wish to make is that this young country cannot at short notice produce many qualified men capable of occupying important positions in neighbouring countries. Perhaps the greatest difficulty is in finding people capable of acting as trade commissioners in other countries who can also speak the languages of those countries. Let me give a typical example. I had the great privilege of going to Japan with a recent delegation. I pay a tribute to our staff in Japan, which is doing a magnificent job. It is of interest to record that our chief linguist in that country has been there for ten years. He expressed no dissatisfaction about that, but inquiries I have made have failed to elicit any information about what steps are being taken by the department to train people to take the place of such officers when they have to -be relieved. I think that the case in Japan is typical of cases in other neighbouring countries. {: .speaker-KT8} ##### Senator McCallum: -- A Japanese course is available at the Canberra University College. {: .speaker-KAF} ##### Senator WADE: -- My friend **Senator McCallum** reminds me that there is a Japanese course available in Canberra, but I have no need to remind the honorable senator that the Japanese language and other eastern languages are very difficult to learn. Does the Government realize that people who are prepared to carry out these tasks should be more adequately remunerated than at present? These. I believe, are matters that this Government and we as a people must face up to if we are to discharge our responsibility in the Pacific. Knowing full well the tremendous effect that trade and commerce will have on our neighbouring countries, we must have trained personnel- ready to step into any situation that arises. The point I wish to stress is that we will not get those trained personnel unless we are prepared to say to people who have the ability and the desire to occupy these posts, " If you are prepared to devote your time to equipping yourselves for these position, we as a people will see that you are duly compensated for the sacrifices you make and the work you undertake." I say that with great sincerity, because I believe the time is fast approaching when we will be found wanting if we do not have trained personnel in these vital areas. {: #debate-23-s33 .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD:
Queensland -- I listened with great interest to the points that were made by **Senator Laught.** Let me say quite definitely that I am in accord with the streamliningof our overseasposts. When parliamentarians go overseas, it is the regular thing for them to be looked after by our diplomatic representatives and to be given the red carpet treatment. We are spending a considerable sum of money on the Department of External Affairs, and I should like to know what we in Australia get f or it. When it comes to a question of world affairs I believe that we should not overrate our own importance.I agree with **Senator Maher** who said by way of interjection, that if instead of spending so much money on the diplomatic side we were to spend much more money on trade promotion and in advertising this country, we would do a lot better for Australia in general. {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Anderson: -- That is what we are doing. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator wood: -- We are not doing it. It. was not very long, ago thata leading American publicist showed me a very important journal in which most countries were featured, but Australia was not even mentioned. **Senator- Kendall.-** Australia is the third biggest trading country in the world. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator wood: -- That is right,but I am speaking abouthis particular journal which is circulated in America, in particular the southern parts of that country) I think we would do muchbetter if we were tospend a lot of thismoney on trade promotion rather than on diplomatic representation. It isvery nicetotalk airily about these things, but I am still to be convinced that we are getting a satisfactory return from the amount of money that we are spending on the Department of External Affairs. What we should be doing is to strengthen Australia's economy, and I repeat that if we were to divert to the promotion of trade and to the advertising of this country some of the money that is spent on certain sections of the Department of External Affairs we would do much better for Australia. It is very easy for parliamentarians who get the reds carpet treatment overseas to gain a good impression of the luxuryof the diplomatic service. We must see in, the proper perspective the position that Australia occupies amongst the great nations of the world in the field of. diplomacy.I am not in. favour of building up the South America diplomatic posts. If the Government intends to streamline them, that is all to the good, particularly if the money saved is to be diverted to a more effective expansion of our trade. SenatorLAUGHT (South Australia) [5. 40]. - I feel that I ought to say something to dispel some of the fears that **Senator Wood** has just expressed. I believe that a flow of trade is something that will come if we retain in the field the excellent men who are presently there and if, in particular, we support them on the consular side. If the office work and the hack work couldbe doneby the lower paid people; the excellent men we have in the field could explore the trading possibilities. As soon as those possibilities were explored the trade experts could move in. . **Senator Wood's** remarks are not likely to lead to an expansion of trade to the degree to which he honestlybelieves that trade should Be expanded. He seems to fail to appreciate the importance of the Australian name, the Australian flag and, the Australian people in the South American countries. I am sorry that he has Been so dogmatic and definite inhis remarks. {: #debate-23-s34 .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968 -- I think it is time that Australia regarded the, importance and the significance of the South. Americanrepublics in a much clearer light than that in which she has regarded them in the past. As to the conflict between the relative merits of consular representation and trade representation, I suppose only some one with- a personal acquaintance of the problems that present themselves could make a sound decision. Inotethatin the estimates, for the Department of Trade there is extensive provision for the Commercial Intelligence Service, which in many cases runs parallel with our diplomatic representation and in other cases is separate from it. For example, in the-Central African Federation apparently we have no diplomatic representation but wehave trade representation. But in most cases where we haveconsular or diplomatic representation we also have trade representation. While we have diplomatic representation in Brazil - **Senator Laught** quite properly complained that the level of personnel is to be reduced - we do not appear to have any particular trade attachment to the legation. If there are opportunities for expanded trade with that great South American republic and if we could take advantage of those opportunities, our post there might act as a springboard from which we could expand our trade with other South American republics. It would seem to me that, if we are to reduce our diplomatic representation there, it might be a good idea to supplant the personnel so withdrawn with a trade representative, in the same way that trade officers of the Commercial Intelligence Service are attached to other Australian legations, ministries and embassies. I note that we have extensive diplomatic representation in Asia, particularly in South-East Asia. I suppose that, from the viewpoint of the diplomatic significance of that area, it is of prime importance to Australia to have representatives there. But I do think that there is a big hiatus in our representation in the South American republics. I agree with **Senator Laught** when he suggests that the raising of the level of our representation in Brazil might be a good first step. Then we could attach to the Brazilian post a trade representative who could make a survey of the trade potential in other South American republics. From that could spring trade and diplomatic representation in those countries. I think that it is important, in view of the trade difficulties that are increasingly presenting themselves to this country owing to a variety of factors that have been discussed at great length during the debate on the Budget and the Appropriation Bill, for us to look for new markets. It appears to me that the building up of trade between the great continent of South America and this south-eastern continent could provide magnificent opportunities for both. As **Senator Laught** has said, the people of South America are a friendly people. If they do not wholly subscribe to our culture, they have, by intermarriage and by migration, substantially adopted it and now look to it with pride and associate themselves with it. For all those reasons, and for the mutual advantage that would accrue to the people of both continents, we should certainly adopt the practical suggestions of **Senator Laught,** who has had a recent oppor- tunity to visit South America. We should also adopt some of the suggestions of **Senator Wood.** We should attach trade representatives to our embassies, and by doing so we . might achieve at both the diplomatic level and the trade level something which would be to the mutual advantage of both continents. {: #debate-23-s35 .speaker-KAW} ##### Senator WEDGWOOD:
Victoria -- I wish to support **Senator Laught's** remarks and to express regret that **Senator Wood** should have sought in this chamber to interpret consular representation as a luxury which serves no better purpose than the entertainment of people, including parliamentarians. My experience in the East leads me to believe that the men who represent us there, and particularly their wives, are doing a wonderful service for their country. They go out to posts in very difficult areas. It is significant that the great nations, such as the United Kingdom and the United States of America, see fit to establish consular representation in nearly every place that one can think of. Not only was I surprised by the amount of work that such representatives do, but also I felt very proud of the work that was being done by our Australian representatives and their wives. I agree that there is a great deal of work on the trade side that could be undertaken, but I do not think that we do ourselves a service by referring to the Consular Corps in the terms in which **Senator Wood** referred to it. {: #debate-23-s36 .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD:
Queensland .- There is no need for any honorable senator on this side of the chamber to be regretful about anything I have said in this connexion. I have said what I think. I made my comments in reply to the remarks of **Senator Laught,** who indicated that trade and diplomacy were tied together. I do not hold with that view at all. The suggestion that the Department External Affairs is chasing trade, to my way of thinking is just pure nonsense. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- Supposing that you get on to the Estimates and have your argument elsewhere. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- **Mr. Leader,** I am speaking in relation to a particular item of the Estimates. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- I thought you were arguing with **Senator Laught.** {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- No. I am entitled to do this, I suggest. We are discussing very important expenditure on behalf of this Government. It is all very well to refer, as **Senator Laught** and **Senator Wedgwood** did, to what Great Britain, the United States of America, and some other countries do. Of course, they are of much greater stature in the world, from a diplomatic point of view, than is Australia, and it is of much more importance for them to be represented in many countries than it is for Australia to be represented. I believe that we have to cut our cloth according to our means and that we have to use our funds in the most effective way, having regard to the total amount that we have available. Proposed vote agreed to. Sitting suspended from 5.50 to 8 p.m. Proposed votes - Miscellaneous Services - Department of External Affairs, £1,667,600; Miscellaneous Services - International Development and Relief, £4,984,000; Defence Services- Other Services - Economic Assistance to support defence programme of South-East Asia Treaty Organization member countries, £600,000; Attorney-General's Department, £1,835,000; Miscellaneous Services - Attorney-General's Department, £21,800 - agreed to. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Proposed vote, £6,075,000. {: #debate-23-s37 .speaker-JYY} ##### Senator O'FLAHERTY:
South Australia -- I come back to a matter that I raised previously to-day. From time to time the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization issues small brochures explaining progress in research it is conducting. . 1 have had quite a number of them, but not all of them. I think that an honorable senator ought to be able to be able to obtain these pamphlets issued by the C.S.I.R.O. so that he can keep in touch with the progress of research being made by the organization. I have one subject in mind at the moment. We are having difficulty on the coalfields at present in relation to employment, not because insufficient coal is being produced or because of the inability of the nation to sell some of its surplus coal overseas, but because of the competition of other fuels with coal. The railways of this country, for instance, are substituting oil-driven locomotives for the coal-powered locomotives of former times. During the war, I raised in this Parliament the question of the potentialities that lie in the gasification of coal in situ, that is using deposits on the site. At that time a method was being used in East Prussia, a place which is now in the hands of the Soviet. The coal was gasified in situ; and the flow of gas from the coal, which was still in the ground, could be turned on and off at will. About 62 different chemicals were being extracted from coal by that method. I believe that the C.S.I.R.O. for some time carried out research into the practicability of gasification of coal in Australia. I think there is a great future in research into the possible uses of the vast quantities of coal that we have in Australia, including bituminous coal, sub-bituminous coal and the shales, with a view to obtaining chemicals that we require. In other parts of the world this is being done on a huge scale, and it could be done here. Perhaps the Leader of the Government **(Senator O'sullivan)** can inform me whether the C.S.I.R.O. has continued research into these matters and, if it has, whether it is possible for me to obtain information about the results. I do not know whether the organization is still carrying on such research, although I think that before its name was altered from " Council for Scientific and Industrial Research " to " Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization ", it was engaged in such investigations. Is it possible, if that kind of research is still being carried out, to obtain some notes or pamphlets from the organization, in order that I may ascertain how far we have gone in this country with the research? {: #debate-23-s38 .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN:
General · QueenslandVicePresident of the Executive Council and Attorney · LP -- I recall that when we were debating the Estimates last year **Senator O'Flaherty** made some reference to the wisdom of spreading as far and wide as practicable the results of investigations by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. This is not a case in which the C.S.I.R.O. would send the results out to every individual about the place. The work of the organization is now so well and so favorably known that any one in a particular scientific pursuit, or in an organization pursuing a particular scientific line, would automatically communicate with the C.S.I.R.O. if he wanted to know certain things. {: .speaker-JYY} ##### Senator O'Flaherty: -- I do not do any of that now. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- With all due respect, the information compiled by the C.S.I.R.O. is not directly meant for such people as the honorable senator and myself, but is intended for those who are scientifically inclined, and information is provided to them, not just as a matter of the mere provision of information, but so that those people with scientific knowledge can use the information for the purpose of assisting in their own experiments. I know that the C.S.I.R.O. receives many inquiries from organizations and is in the closest touch with them. People have told me that the work of the organization is of tremendous advantage and assistance to people who are engaged in scientific work. However. I do not know to what extent the organization is carrying on experiments regarding production of oil from coal. I am not in a position to know at present, but I shall have inquiries made, perhaps during the recess, and I may be able to let the honorable senator have some of the details of what has been going on. {: #debate-23-s39 .speaker-JYY} ##### Senator O'FLAHERTY:
South Australia -- If I were associated with a scientific body I would be able to use its library, but the mere fact that I am not associated1 with a scientific body does not mean that I may not be carrying on some experiments of my own. I might, for instance, be carrying on independent experiments in connexion with uranium, in my backyard, as it were. I think that people outside of scientific associations ought to be able to obtain these brochures and compilations of the C.S..T.R.O. **Senator O'SULLIVAN** (Vice-President of the Executive Council and AttorneyGeneral [8.10]. - I am sure that if anybody such as **Senator O'Flaherty** or I made inquiries personally or by letter asking the C.S.I.R.O. for its views on certain theories which he might entertain, the organization would give every assistance in the matter. Proposed vote agreed to. Proposed vote - Miscellaneous Services - Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, £129,000 - agreed to. Department of Defence. Proposed vole, £1,088,000. {: #debate-23-s40 .speaker-KNU} ##### Senator HANNAN:
Victoria .- I refer to the proposed vote of £23,200 for hire and maintenance of plant and equipment in the Defence Signals Branch - Division No. 133, and desire to make some comments regarding jamming of radio broadcasts. In 1950, the United Nations resolved that no nation should stir up strife or disaffection in another nation by the use of hostile radio signals, broadcasts or propaganda. During the recent crisis in the Middle East President Eisenhower drew attention to the fact that the Egyptian radio was transmitting what he called a daily incentive to murder, assassination, arson and disorder in Lebanon and Jordan, directed at the inhabitants of those two countries. The President stressed the importance of hostile radio propaganda in a country that had a large percentage of illiterate people. As so many Arabs cannot read, apparently a great deal of the recent trouble in the Middle East resulted from the use of the very potent weapon of radio propaganda. Had the forces concerned in the landings in Lebanon and Jordan had available to them mobile radio jammers of sufficient power, a good deal of the trouble fomented by Radio Cairo might have been overcome. For some time the Western nations have been directing informative broadcasts to countries behind the iron curtain, but the Russian radio, for reasons best known to itself, has made a practice of jamming those broadcasts. Honorable senators will recall that last month a false rumour circulated that the Shah of Persia had been assassinated. The report was traced to an illiterate person who had heard an old tape recording of the events when Mossadeq was deposed some years ago, and reported the event in a confused fashion to the press. Peking radio is currently broadcasting a spate of hate directed at the democracies with the object of stirring up trouble in Burma, Malaya and the countries of the East not yet under the heel of the Communists. The Indonesians. our nearest neighbours, also have shown a certain willingness to use the radio as a weapon of propaganda. Under the United Nations charter and earlier mandates, Australia is responsible for the care, management and welfare of a large number of native people, very many of whom are unable to read1 and who, because radio has spread where reading has not, particularly in New Guinea, would be an easy mark for hostile radio propaganda. Our own station, Radio Australia, has done a magnificent job in building up goodwill on the positive side. My remarks are directed to the necessity of being prepared to use radio jammers from the defence point of view should this unfortunate course become necessary in the near future. Having regard to the amount of £23,200 which has been set aside for the hire and maintenance of plant and equipment in the signals branch, it is quite obvious that the branch has no efficient radio jamming equipment. Should the necessity arise, I hope the Government will use radio jamming for the protection of our native people in New Guinea and in those other lands which have been committed to our care under mandate. Normally, our way of life is not favorably disposed towards a prohibition on the spread of ideas, no matter how nonsensical they may be, but in the case of native people who are unable to read and obtain the facts for themselves, I believe we have a duty to see that their happiness and welfare are not interfered with by distorted radio propaganda which would have an effect on those people in the event of hostilities developing in the area. {: #debate-23-s41 .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968 .- I refer to Division 133 - Defence Signals Branch - with particular reference to salaries and allowances. Would the Leader of the Government inform me of the reason for the very substantial increase in the salaries payable to groups designated as defence officers, assistant defence officers, engineer, technical officers, clerks and librarian? The number of persons concerned has increased from 65 last year to 90 this year. What is the reason for the increase in personnel, and what functions do the people concerned perform? {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- I shall give that information to the honorable senator later. {: #debate-23-s42 .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE:
Western Australia -- Even though the matters about which I wish to speak refer to the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, the submissions 1 wish to make relate to defence generally and the matters to which they pertain come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defence. They are general matters to which the Auditor-General has referred in his report to this Parliament. They are mentioned in Item 117 on page 77 of his report and relate to losses or deficiencies of public monies or property. The Auditor-General refers to the recovery of the moneys lost and of general deficiencies. For some time now, he has been asking for the introduction of a uniform practice for recovery of these particular public moneys, and, so far, he has received no satisfaction. He says - >Reference was first made to this subject in paragraph 109 of the Auditor-General's report for 1942-43. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- Does that relate to the Army? {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- It relates generally to all the services. I have stated that the Auditor-General on page 77 of his report is asking that a uniform practice be introduced in all branches of the defence forces for the recovery of these deficiencies or losses of public moneys or property. If 1 am to be required to relate my submissions to a particular branch of the services, then their general application is lost. If the Auditor-General sees fit to raise these matters under the general heading " Defence " I submit it is appropriate for me to raise them under that general heading. {: #debate-23-s43 .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN:
General · QueenslandVicePresident of the Executive Council and Attorney · LP -- If the honorable senator will allow me to make an explanation, it might save a little time. The Senate will appreciate that there are Ministers here who represent Ministers in another place. In this chamber, I represent the Minister for Defence **(Sir Philip McBride).** Also represented here are the Minister for Air **(Mr. Osborne),** the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Cramer),** and the Minister for the Navy **(Mr. Davidson).** 1 am briefed here with an elaborate array of papers to enable me to answer questions about defence generally. Matters that come specifically under the Department of the Navy are dealt with by another Minister; matters relating specifically to the Department of the Army are dealt with by another Minister; and matters relating specifically to the Department of Air are dealt with by another Minister. I deal only with matters relating to overall defence. However, **Senator Cooke** is quite entitled to raise these matters; I am simply pointing out that I am not the appropriate Minister to reply to them. {: #debate-23-s44 .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE:
Western Australia -- It is an unhappy position if nobody in the chamber is able to reply to me on these matters. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- I did not say that. Do not misquote me. I said that the Ministers representing the Minister for the Army, the Minister for the Navy and the Minister for Air respectively could answer them. {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- I submit that the matters to which I wish to refer relate to defence generally. They relate to the defence expenditure mentioned by the Auditor-General in his report when speaking of losses or deficiencies of public moneys or property. I suggest that I be allowed to proceed and, if the AttorneyGeneral cannot answer my questions, the required information may be obtained from the departmental officers or the appropriate Minister. {: #debate-23-s45 .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN:
General · QueenslandVicePresident of the Executive Council and Attorney · LP -- This item " Defence " deals with overall policy matters. The Department of Defence is not responsible for stores, and things like that. The components of defence, that is to say, matters relating to the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, are dealt with by separate Ministers. You will have an opportunity later during the night to ask particular questions. You might as well ask them of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, as ask them of me. I am responsible for matters relating to overall defence. I represent the Minister for Defence, and the Minister for Defence only. The Minister for the Army is separately represented. If you wish to refer to Army stores, he will answer you. The Minister for the Navy is separately represented, and the Minister for Air is separately represented. I repeat that you are quite entitled to ask these questions, but do not ask them of me because, quite frankly, they do not come within the matters with which I am here to deal. The Minister for the Army, the Minister for the Navy or the Minister for Air will be only too glad to answer your questions. You may proceed to ask me questions, but I am not in a position to give you answers. My colleagues will be in a position to give the answers. Is that clear? {: #debate-23-s46 .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE:
Western Australia -- It is clear, but the position is that the matters about which I wish to speak are not pertinent solely or specifically to the Minister for the Army, the Minister for the Navy or the Minister for Air. If I am allowed to proceed instead of being told that I am wrong in raising the matters now, it will be seen that this is the appropriate time for mentioning them. The **CHAIRMAN (Senator (he Hon. A.** D. Reid). - Order! I think the honorable senator would be wise to accept the Minister's explanation. The honorable senator is asking for information which the Minister is not in a position to give. {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- I have not asked for anything yet; I have merely been prevented from presenting anything to the committee at all. I suggest that you allow me to proceed and then, if I have misunderstood the position - you seem to have arrived at an understanding by some means of mental telepathy - you can tell me. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- But you raised the matter of stores. {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- I raised the question of losses or deficiencies of public moneys or property, not of stores, I wish to refer to the Auditor-General's request for the introduction of a. uniform practice for recovery of those losses. {: #debate-23-s47 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! But the matter to which you wish to refer relates to a particular department, not to defence in general. {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- According to the Auditor-General, it does relate to defence in general. In his report, he said he has discussed it with the departments. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- What departments? {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- The Service departments. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- That is what I have been saying. {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- No single Minister in charge of any single branch could do what the Auditor-General is asking to be done. Some special government policy for the co-ordination of the various department connected with defence will have to be introduced to deal with these basic, fundamental matters of wastage and recovery of moneys. If that is not done, we cannot hope to achieve what the Auditor-General asks us to do. He states that a request was made of the Treasurer, in August, 1957, that legislation be enacted as soon as possible to fill the gap created by the repeal of the Services Regulations, and that this action had not been taken at the date of preparation of his report for the year ended 30th June, 1958. In that report, the Auditor-General says - >I again invite attention to the' opinions expressed by my predecessors - and by myself in earlier reports - that prompt action is desirable to introduce uniform conditions into the legislation governing the three services to provide, in certain circumstances, for recovery of losses. No one Minister can introduce uniform conditions for the three services. If we are to get anywhere with this most urgent request by the Auditor-General, we must relate the matter to overall defence. The request is for uniform conditions affecting al< sections of defence, not one specific section. I repeat, the Auditor-General says - >I again invite attention to the opinions expressed by my predecessors-- and by myself in earlier reports - that prompt action is desirable to introduce uniform conditions into the legislation governing the three services to provide, in certain circumstances, for recovery of losses. I want to deal with that request for uniform conditions covering the three services. I cannot do so by referring the matter to one Minister who is administering only one particular branch of the Services. Every time this matter is raised, we experience the same sort of by-passing. The Auditor-General has shown that there is a most unsatisfactory position existing in all the services and that the only way to overcome it is to co-ordinate them for the purposes of recovery of these moneys. The Government is not prepared to do that. The Government is not prepared to introduce a uniform method covering all three departments, and, for that reason, apparently it is impossible to deal with the matter as one affecting defence generally. I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence whether any notice has been taken of the matters which the Auditor-General has raised under the heading " Department of Defence ". In due course I will deal with the question as it affects the Army, the Navy and the Air Force in particular. It is no good putting the cart before the horse. My query now is whether any notice has been taken of the Auditor-General's request that something be done about this matter. It is idle to attempt to pass the buck. The regulations were disallowed as long ago as 1942-43. The Minister for Defence **(Sir Philip McBride)** is forever telling the Parliament that nothing has been done yet; that any decision must be a co-ordinated decision. Can the Government say whether anything has been done in reply to the consistent statements of the Auditor-General on this matter? The report of 1942-43 first raised the matter. The Auditor-General now states - >The view was held that Commonwealth interests were not sufficiently protected by the existing Australian Military Regulations. At that time, due to the apparent leniency of Courts of Inquiry in dealing with cases involving losses of cash and stores by theft, negligence or misconduct, Army personnel not infrequently obtained freedom from action or blame where, in relatively similar circumstances in the civil service, the existence of deficiencies would have established negligence. He then describes how the matter was taken to the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, put before the House, and, ultimately disallowed. There could be many explanations for what has happened, but we cannot examine them in detail, even during the debate on each service. For instance, there have been huge disposals, deficiencies as a result of fires, and a hundred and one other things which might explain much of what has gone on, but the Auditor-General, who is close to these matters, is not satisfied. He has, unfortunately, not succeeded in having anything done. His comments have been reasonable and just. The Government cannot claim that this matter has been sprung upon it. We all are familiar with the extent of over-stocking in the services, and with the subsequent sales at discount rates. It happens almost every year. Government policy changes, and alterations are made in the system of training, and in the numbers trained, and uniforms, equipment and so on are disposed of to dealers. Service equipment worth millions of pounds is sold at a discount and subsequently re-sold to the public as first-class material. Only the middle man profits from that kind of thing. The Auditor-General has referred to the continued existence of a general surplus in all the services. Where will it all end, and what has the Government done in answer to the numerous requests by the AuditorGeneral for permission to examine this matter and report to the Parliament some method by which deficiencies and rackets associated therewith may be terminated? I make that general reference to deficiencies in the defence services. An answer can be given when the vote for each service department is being discussed in detail. {: #debate-23-s48 .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN:
General · QueenslandVicePresident of the Executive Council and Attorney · LP -- **Senator Byrne** referred to the increase in the numbers of the Defence Signal Branch. That branch is in process of development. The increase is designed to provide for the additional numbers envisaged in the approved establishment. A re-allocation of functions has also resulted in a number of staff being transferred to the branch from another department. {: #debate-23-s49 .speaker-K0N} ##### Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales -- **Senator Cooke** has raised a matter that has been before this Parliament on many other occasions. It has also been before the Regulations and Ordinances Committee more than once. We found it necessary to disallow a regulation on this very matter. Unfortunately, it represented the only attempt made by any of the armed services to overcome the position described year after year by the Auditor-General. We have since been in communication with the various departments and have pointed out our desire to have some regulations gazetted to meet the requirements of the AuditorGeneral. If memory serves me correctly, last year **Senator Wright** made a very strong appeal to the Government to comply with the Auditor-General's requirements. I felt sure that something would be done following that protest, but my hopes were in vain. It is very wrong that, year after year, the Auditor-General should report a serious situation to the Parliament, that it should be underlined by honorable members and that no action should be taken by the various departments to meet it. It is very frustrating for honorable members to be denied, year after year, any substantial explanation why action has not been taken in this matter. I can only hope that on this occasion the leader of the Government **(Senator O'sullivan)** will see that something is done to overcome what the Auditor-General sees as a serious deficiency in our armed services. {: #debate-23-s50 .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN:
Queensland **.- Senator Cooke** has referred to the report of the Auditor-General on the defence services and, in particular, to his statement that fifteen years have elapsed since the inadequacies of statutory provisions for the recovery of losses or deficiencies in public moneys or property occasioned by the neglect or misconduct of service personnel were first reported upon by the AuditorGeneral of the day. All regulations providing for recoveries by administrative processes have been repealed. The matter raised by **Senator Arnold** brings into focus the absence of statutory provisions to deal with these matters. The Auditor-General complains that regulations designed specifically to deal with these matters were introduced and subsequently repealed. T remember very well that last year the absence of such regulations was discussed in the Senate, and that it was suggested that this Government had the power to introduce legislation which would make good the deficiences caused by the repeal of the regulations. That position still obtains. What the Government endeavoured to do by regulation it can still do by act of Parliament. That is really the pith of the Auditor-General's complaint. His comment on the matter is headed, " Losses or deficiencies of public moneys or property ". He says - >Reference was first made to this subject in paragraph 109 of the Auditor-General's Annual Report for 1942-43. The view was held that Commonwealth interests were not sufficiently protected by the existing Australian Military Regulations . . . That was fifteen years ago and, as he pointed out, nothing has since been done about it. I assume that the Government has the necessary power to introduce legislation which will make good the deficiency caused by the repeal of the regulations. That is something that should be tackled. It appears from reading this report- {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- That is the AuditorGeneral's report? {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- Yes. It appears from reading this report that these deficiencies can occur and the culprits cannot be charged under any regulation. Surely that is not the position in law. Surely members of the Services cannot, say, rob a canteen, or do something else they should not do, and not be able to be charged with an offence? ls it that the provisions of the relative civil acts can be used? I should like some information on this matter. I raised it last year. If nothing has been done in the meantime, I would suggest that action is long overdue. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Are there any requests? There being no requests, I declare the item agreed to. Proposed vote agreed to. {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator Cooke: -- I made a request in relation to this item. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- You asked for information and the Minister said he could not give it to you. The item has now been agreed to. Proposed votes - War and Repatriation Services, £78,995,000; Department of National Development, £1,517,000; Miscellaneous Services - Department of National Development, £834,200 - agreed to. {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator Cooke: -- I make an appeal to you, **Mr. Chairman,** to give us sufficient time to find the items. I raise strong objection to the manner in which you are trying to bulldoze these items through the committee. They are important items on which members of the Opposition have points to raise. 1 urge you to give us time to find the places in the documents. I raise an objection to what is being done now. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- What I do, as I think the committee will agree, is to state clearly the page number and the item and then wait to see whether anybody rises. If nobody rises, I declare the item to be agreed to. I pause every time before I declare the item to be agreed to. I look round the chamber to see whether anybody is on his feet. If nobody is on his feet, I declare the item agreed to. Am I to sit here indefinitely, nobody rising, before I call on the next item? {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator Cooke: -- **Mr. Chairman,** I remind you that when I rose to discuss the Department of Defence, having had a lot of trouble to be heard, I had to refer the Minister to the page and the item. He did not have them himself. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- You referred to the Auditor-General's report, which is not in the Estimates. {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator Cooke: -- You will see from " Hansard " that I quoted the Defence Estimates page 79, Divisions Nos. 131-136. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- You then proceeded to the Auditor-General's report. {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator Cooke: -- That is right, but you. did not have the page number yourself. **Mr. Chairman,** if the Minister cannot follow you, do you expect another senator to find the page you have given, find the item he wants to discuss and then rise to his feet before you have declared the item to be carried? The manner in which these items has been going through is a parody of the proper procedure. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Everybody has the list which was circulated. I read from the list. Having announced the item, I wait. When nobody rises, naturally I go on. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKenna: -- Might I suggest, **Mr. Chairman,** that a little longer pause would be helpful? I point to the physical difficulties in finding the page. We have a reference to it, but the problem facing the senator who wishes to speak is that he cannot turn instantly to the page. He must first find the page. From my own experience I know that one makes notes df items on which one wishes to speak, but they are not necessarily on the first of the pages being considered. They might be on the second or the third page dealing with the items. Even with the long experience that I have had in this Parliament, it takes me a great deal of time, first, to find the page given by the Chairman, then to turn to the page upon which I have made my notes and then to find my relevant file. Then I have to get to my feet to address the Chair. I concede that you announce the page and the item with the greatest of clarity, and I concede that, having done so, you pause, but I point out that the very mechanics of the thing cause difficulties to any senator who wishes to address himself to an item. I think it is necessary to give more time than you have been giving. As I say, I acknowledge the pause, and I have no doubt that you consider it to be adequate, but I suggest to you that your long experience in the chair has perhaps caused you to forget how difficult it is to find your way through the papers. My plea to you now is to sit there and wait for a brief period after you have called on an item. I urge you to preserve your clarity but to give us a little longer time, in view of the physical difficulties involved. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I appreciate what **Senator McKenna** has said about finding notes and files, but that difficulty does not prevent a senator who intends to speak from rising. When he has risen, he need not hurry. He can turn over all the notes he likes for as long as he likes, because I shall know that he wants to speak. I am prepared to wait for ten minutes so long as I know that the senator on his feet wants to speak. But if I state the question and nobody moves, I naturally come to the conclusion that nobody wants to speak. So that there will be no further misunderstanding, I suggest that any honorable senator who intends to speak but cannot find his notes immediately should rise. If he does so, I will wait until he is ready to speak. {: .speaker-KT8} ##### Senator McCallum: -- There is one other point, **Mr. Chairman.** When you refer to an item and a specific page, will you indicate whether following pages are included? We have all become a little confused between the Defence Department and the various defence services, in respect of which we have made notes. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- It is all set out in the document that has been circulated. I am sorry if there has been any inconvenience caused, but you will see my position. If anybody wants to speak, I do not mind waiting. He can rise and I will wait while he looks for his notes and finds his file. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKenna: -- May I suggest that a difficulty is that one does not know whether one wishes to speak until one has found the page and the notes made on that page. The notes might be on the first, second or the third page. I suggest to you, **Mr. Chairman,** with great respect, that further time be allowed from the time the page is called so that an honorable senator will have time to decide whether he wishes to speak. He does not know whether he wishes to speak until he has consulted the notes that he has made, which might be on any one of several pages. I suggest that you give a little more time for an honorable senator to find the page and to see whether he has made any notes. Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Proposed vote, £1,574,000. {: #debate-23-s51 .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia -- I should like to speak on the proposed vote for the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, details of which are shown in the Budget papers at page 148, table 43. I refer to the item relating to exploration and development. The actual expenditure for 1957-58 was £279,260 and the estimate this year amounts to only £229,000. I ask the Minister for National Development **(Senator Spooner)** to indicate the reason for the reduction from £279,260 to £229,000. Is it the belief of the Minister and the Government that uranium ores will not be needed as much as they have been in the past? Do the scientists think that atomic energy will be replaced by hydrogen power? Also in Table No. 43 at page 148 of the Budget Papers is the item " Purchase of ores containing other prescribed substances. £90,000 ". The expenditure in 1957-58 was £24,300. I should like to know the reason for the increase. I also direct attention to the provision that is made in the same table under the heading " Capital Works and Services " for buildings, works, plant and equipment. It will be. noted that the estimated expenditure for this year is £1,315,000 whereas in 1957-58 the actual expenditure was £2,660,207. I am very much concerned about the development of atomic energy in Australia. Within the last fortnight or three weeks we have seen in this building a picture of the American submarine, " Nautilus ", which is powered by atomic energy and which travelled under the ice pack at the North Pole to England. We understand it is able to stay under water sufficiently long to make a voyage around the world. We also know that England, America and the Soviet Union are developing atomic energy for the generation of electric power. England expects to be able by 1975 to develop more than 50 per cent. of its power requirements with atomic energy. I believe it is time that we in Australia took active steps towards harnessing atomic energy for the generation of power. There are some places in Australia, including some of the capital cities,' where coal is hauled for long distances to be used as fuel to generate electricity. We know that coal is carried by rail for a distance of more than 500 miles for use in the power house at Kalgoorlie. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator Benn: -- Mount lsa is in the same position. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- Yes, Mount Isa is in the same position. We know, too, that the mining interests at Tennant Creek in central Australia, which is probably one of the richest copper fields in this country, have to transport their copper concentrates a distance of approximately 1,000 miles to the coast and then a further 1,000 or 1,500 miles to the electrolytic refineries. Although that is one of the richest copper fields in Australia, transport costs are rapidly catching up with the producers. The concentrates that they are transporting contain approximately only 25 per cent, of copper. I believe that atomic energy could play a very important part in the future development of our mining industry in that area. I ask the Minister why it is that we in Australia who are urgently in need of cheap power for the development of our industries are reducing expenditure on buildings, works, plant and equipment for the Australian Atomic Energy Commission during this financial year. {: #debate-23-s52 .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesMinister for National Development · LP -- **Senator Scott** has raised three matters - namely, the reduction of expenditure on mining, the increase in expenditure on the purchase of ores, and the proposed expenditure on capital works and services. I think I would do well to place before honorable senators a brief statement on the search for ores that has been furnished by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Over the past two years, we have felt somwhat concerned about the decline iri private prospecting for uranium. I would like to stress, therefore, that a somewhat smaller financial provision this year for exploration and development does not indicate that the Government is reducing its effective support. The type of work most needed at this stage is now being reassessed, and in the current year emphasis will be placed on. geological mapping as a basis for further exploration. While this is being done, aerial surveys will be reduced in scale. In other words, the volume of work is being continued, but it is a different type of work and is less expensive. We are not chartering planes, and so on, so that it is a less expensive programme. This work has to be done because it is consolidation work for further programmes. Concerning the second point made by **Senator Scott,** the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, in its wisdom, recommended to the Government, and the Government approved, the stockpiling of monazite and beryllium. For those who may not know, monazite is an ore of thorium which will be required in Australia's future atomic energy programme and will be bought for stock-piling to conserve supplies. Beryllium is an ore of beryl, which will also be required without doubt in atomic energy programmes of the future. Reserves of beryl are limited, and indeed, we have found that buyers from overseas have been purchasing Australian, resources. Therefore, we have prevented the export of beryl, and we are purchasing it for stock-piling purposes. In connexion with the third point raised by the honorable senator, the reduction of the capital works appropriation follows the completion of Hifar at Lucas Heights. Hifar has been put into operation and the commission is gradually embarking on. its research programme. The capital expenditure programme is completed, but we are now proceeding with the second stage, the provision of further facilities at Lucas Heights. That will not be on as large a scale as was the original construction programme. Proposed vote agreed to. Department of the Treasury. Proposed vote, £10,516,000. {: #debate-23-s53 .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968 .- In connexion with this proposed vote, I wish to discuss a matter that was raised during consideration of the proposed vote for the Defence Department. It relates to the disallowance by the Senate of regulations dealing with the recovery of moneys owed by members of the Services in certain circumstances. The Minister in charge of the defence vote, I think quite properly, said that the information regarding this matter could lie particularly within the province of any of the Service Ministers, but that the Minister for Defence was not the coordinating Minister in connexion with such a matter. According to the Auditor-General's report, whichI think we may take as being correct, the Treasury is in some sense the co-ordinating authority in relation to the promulgation of new regulations to supplant those disallowed by this Senate or revoked by the Government. I think that this is an important matter, because it was by the action of the Senate that a recovery vacuum, as it were, was brought about. Therefore, I think that we have more than just a passing interest *in* the matter, apart altogether from the comments of the AuditorGeneral. I think that there is some responsibility on the Senate to pursue the matter and to see that adequate means of recovery are provided, whether by regulation or, if necessary, by statute. Of course, I do not expect the Minister or his advisers in the chamber to-night to be familiar with everything connected with this subject. I merely ask the Minister whether, perhaps before the Parliament rises, it would be possible to make available information regarding the steps that are being taken by the Treasury, since it is referred1 to in the Auditor-General's report as the appropriate authority. I hope that the Senate can be so informed and that it will be re-assured that action is being taken. Such a statement might also indicate the practical or technical difficulties involved, which initially resulted in a delay of about thirteen years and have since resulted in a delay of another two years. {: #debate-23-s54 .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesMinister for National Development · LP . -I may say that I obtained some information on this subject when the matter was raised by **Senator Cooke.** I had a hunch that, like lots of other things, it would come back to the Treasury in the final analysis. I have spoken to the Treasury officer who is here to advise me this evening, and he has tald me that the matter is more than complicated, because each of the Service departments has its own establishment, its own legislation and its own set of arrangements. As I understand the position, the AuditorGeneral made his critical comment, the Service departments had their own point of view, and the Treasury brought the departments together in order to establish a procedure that might be applicable. One of the moves in that process was promulgation of a regulation in which the Senate took *more than* a passing interest, and that rather threw a spanner into the works. I am now advised that the Treasury view, plus the Crown Law view, is that in order to comply with the Auditor-General's requirements, statutory provisions are necessary and that, under the present programme, it is expected that such statutory provisions will be introduced in the autumn session of the Parliament. Proposed vote agreed to. Proposed votes - Miscellaneous Services - Department of the Treasury, £432,700; Refunds of Revenue, £25,000,000; Advance to the Treasurer, £16,000,000; Department of Works, £3,374,000- agreed to. Department of Trade. Proposed vote, £1,848,000. {: #debate-23-s55 .speaker-JYY} ##### Senator O'FLAHERTY:
South Australia -- I refer to the Commercial Intelligence Service conducted by the Department of Trade. If the Minister will answer my question concerning one division only, the answer will suffice for the others, too. Division No. 87 - Commercial Intelligence Service, British West Indies - provides for the expenditure of £14,200. Will the Minister inform me whether this Commercial Intelligence Service in various parts of the world exists for the purpose of gaining information on matters of trade only, or whether its inquiries are concerned with the collection of intelligence relating only partly to trade and partly to other matters? {: #debate-23-s56 .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP -- I must confess that it is the first time I have come into contact with the name Commercial Intelligence Service for a service that I have hitherto always thought of as the Trade Commissioner Service. That service does more than collect information, although it does, of course, collect information and statistics, and report them not only to the Department of Trade but, through the department, to other people. It reports on the prospects of trade in the areas in which its commissioners are located, but it does more than that. When Australians interested in trade visit those areas, the service puts them in contact with possible buyers. Basically it is a trade service. {: .speaker-JYY} ##### Senator O'FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked whether it does more than act as a trade service, and the answer is that it does so only in circumstances which render that necessary. For instance, if it is the only Australian organization in an area, if there is no Department of External Affairs post, no immigration officer, no representation of other government departments, and no High Commissioner, the Commercial Intelligence Service does what is wanted on behalf of other departments. {: .speaker-JYY} ##### Senator O'FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- That would be by delegation? {: .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER: -- Yes, by delegation, by arrangement. {: #debate-23-s57 .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE:
Western Australia -- I refer to the proposed vote for the Tariff Board. The estimate for 1958-59 has risen to £137,000 compared with an appropriation of £90,654 last year. It appears that this must be the result of considerable re-organization in the board. Will the Minister give me some indication of what the re-organization is that has caused1 this big rise in the proposed vote compared with the appropriation last year? I have heard many laudatory references to the Tariff Board, to its efficiency and to the full service that it gives to the Government, and I must congratulate the board on its efficient work over many years. But it carried out that efficient work in the past with a chairman, one secretary, seventeen officers - an officer-in-charge, a tariff officer, a cost accountant, an investigating accountant, senior research officers, research officers, and clerks - and seven typists, a clerical assistant and an accounting machinist. Despite the laudatory references to the efficiency of the board, we now find that the board consists of a chairman, a chief executive officer, a director of technical and professional services, a secretary, 33 as against 17 officers - an officer-in-charge, tariff officer, cost accountant, investigating accountant, senior research officers, research officers, and clerks - and twelve typists, clerical assistants and accounting machinists. Miscellaneous expenditure brings the costs of the board up considerably, the total having risen from £73,000 to £109,000, while the provision for general salaries of members, &c, has increased from £17,000 to £28,000. I should like to know what the revision in the board is, and why expenditure has taken such a magnificent leap in a year in which the Government has said that general expenditure is to be kept down. No doubt the Minister has a very adequate reply, but it would be interesting to know exactly what has occurred. {: #debate-23-s58 .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesMinister for National Development · LP -- The increase in expenditure to which the honorable senator refers is one of the prices that we pay for our industrial progress. The note I have from the department on this matter says that from information that is before the department up to this stage it appears that in this financial year the number of references to the Tariff Board for protection will be at least three times the number dealt with annually in prior years. In other words, as new industries are established and developed, the applications to the Tariff Board increase. It will be recalled that we increased the. size of the board in order to cope with that position. There is a very interesting figure which comes, I must confess, as a surprise to me. The indications are that in 1958-59 the number of references will be three times the number in the previous year. I knew, of course, that there had been a great increase. One has only to be in touch with events to know that the number of requests for higher duties is increasing. {: #debate-23-s59 .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE:
Western Australia -- I thank the Minister for the information he has given me. The theory is excellent but the practice may be doubtful. We find that we still only have one chairman on the Tariff Board. I suppose there would be no deputy chairman and no special board sittings. {: .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator Spooner: -- The board now sits in two compartments. {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- Two boards operating under the one chairman and, in the absence of the chairman, who is paid for the job, there is a deputy chairman and so on? {: .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator Spooner: -- Yes. {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- I am very interested in the matter, and I request the Minister to give me a broader picture of the operations of the Tariff Board. I should like him to tell me how the board will sit, whether the form of its sittings will in any way relieve industry, particularly in Western Australia, of expenditure concerned with appearances before the board. We know that most of the matters dealt with by the board are of a Commonwealth nature and are dealt with while the board sits in the eastern States. I should like the Minister to tell me whether the board proposes to move around the Commonwealth for sittings. Will it go on a circuit like a court, for instance? Will there be occasions when the board will find it appropriate to sit in a certain State to deal with references arising in that State or affecting that State closely? Is the Government giving any assistance with a view to making the operations of the board less cumbersome and making access to the board more easy for industries in the various States? If the cause of the increase of expenditure and of staff is that the board will have an enormous number of applications before it, is there any demarcation? Does the board sit under the chairman to deal with certain matters which may require the attention of the senior man? Have the less important matters that would be dealt with by a board under a deputy chairman been classified? Does a system on those lines operate, or does the board sit willy-nilly and, if it has a large number of requests on hand, does it deal with those matters in their order of importance? Is a tariff board under the chairman consituted to deal with the more important and specific matters, and a second tariff board, under the control of a deputy chairman, constituted to handle the less important matters? Will the Minister inform me of the composition of what may be regarded as the senior board, under the chairman, and the second board headed by a deputy chairman? If the officers on the boards are not interchangeable, the position will remain just as confused as it was previously. I shall be glad to receive from the Minister the information for which I have asked. {: #debate-23-s60 .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER:
South Australia -- I refer to Division No. 86- Tariff Board - particularly the amount of £24,359 that is expected to remain unexpended at the end of the year. The total estimated expenditure, including that amount, is £124,359. Also dealing with the Department of Trade, I refer to Division No. 85 - Administrative - and to the amount of £131,126 that is expected to remain unexpended. Will the Minister inform me what is meant by those entries, and the reason for them? {: #debate-23-s61 .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesMinister for National Development · LP -- I am informed that the entries referred to by **Senator Mattner** are in accordance with the conventional governmental method of presenting the Estimates. If a department has an authorized establishment of, say, 100 or 200 officers, the Estimates are prepared upon the basis that those officers will be engaged on full-time duties throughout the year, but, in practice, it has been found impracticable, due to failure to fill vacancies, for example, to employ the authorized staff for the whole of the year. The Treasury requires departments to estimate the cost of running their establishments with the authorized staff and with the actual staff. That accounts for the two figures, one representing the estimated expenditure if all vacancies were filled, and the other representing the amount that is expected to remain unspent due to the staff not being at its full strength. Referring to **Senator Cooke's** requests, I cannot give him any information other than knowledge I have gained from my own experience. The Tariff Board comprises six members, with a chairman and a deputy chairman. Legislative authority exists for the board to be effective when it is con,stituted of three members. In practice, the Tariff Board works in two compartments and, in practice, it does give some priority to inquiries into, major industries or into cases in which an industry has run into some particular difficulty that calls for a prompt determination of its position. As far as it is able, the Tariff Board meets to suit the convenience of the applicants who have requests before it. In other words, it travels a good deal between the capital cities of the Commonwealth. In recent years the Tariff Board lost the services of **Mr. McCarthy** who was something of a national figure, having regard to the work he did with the Tariff Board over a long period of years. **Dr. Westerman** was appointed to succeed him. In the closing period of **Mr. McCarthy's** regime and in the opening period of **Dr. Westerman's,.** we decided to strengthen the Tariff Board organization to some extent - I do not know whether that policy decision has yet been implemented - by making available to it research, economic and statistical information. I believe that the Tariff Board has moved with the times and is now a more modern organization than it was five or six years ago. I hope it is better equipped now to carry out its added responsibilites in our changing economy than it was previously. {: #debate-23-s62 .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania -- I refer to Division No. 86-Tariff Board. The Minister will recall that the Senate debated recently the difficulties confronting the timber industry in Australia. At that time, I referred to the recommendation of the Tariff Board made in April, 1958, to the effect that, rather than give protection to the industry, it would be better if the Commonwealth Government considered granting a subsidy on freight rates from Western Australia and Tasmania, in particular. I think a reference was made also to the difficulties experienced in transporting timber from ports in northern Queensland. The industry had been pressing for some years for a decision and, while awaiting that decision, it was really in the doldrums in Tasmania and perhaps to a lesser extent, in Western Australia. On 21st June, 1958, following the report of the Tariff Board in April, the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** met representatives of the timber industry in Sydney and gave an undertaking that a committee would be appointed to look into the recommendation of the Tariff Board. The information that has been supplied to me - for which I cannot vouch - is to the effect that the committee has met only once in the past three months. If that is the fact, there has been an undue delay in dealing with the matter. Can the Minister inform me the personnel of the committee, the number of occasions on which it has met, and when it is expected a report will be available? I realize that the information is not within the personal knowledge of the Minister, but the Tasmanian timber industry in particular regards it as a matter of the utmost urgency. There was no denial by the Tariff Board that there was a serious position in the timber industry in Western Australian and in Tasmania; on the contrary, it affirmed that something should be done. The real difficulty was acute in those two particular States. I doubt whether it has been made public as to who constitutes the personnel of the committee. I realize that the Minister has not that information at his disposal at the moment, but I should not like to pass from the item under consideration without getting from the Minister, on behalf of the Government, some information as to the activity, or the lack of activity of the committee. I realize that the Minister may have sent for the information and that it may not be immediately available. However, if there is further discussion on this item perhaps the Minister could, in the meantime, arm himself with the information to give me some reply. {: #debate-23-s63 .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE:
Western Australia -- I thank the Minister for the information he has given me about the Tariff Board, and I should now like some information about item No. 85, " Japanese Trade Agreement, Remuneration to Advisory Authority, £2,500". The expenditure by this authority last year was £500, and the amount appropriated £1,250. T assume that the reason for the expenditure of only £500 was that the advisory authority did not operate for the full twelve months. When the Japanese Trade Agreement was under discussion, it was criticized severely,,, and we were assured by the Government that there were many safeguards. The main safeguard seemed to be a promise by the Japanese Government that Japan would do nothing to abrogate the agreement, that nothing would be done which would react to the detriment of Australian industries. At that time, we had the impossible position that no move could be made to protect Australian industries until the damage had been done. We had already suffered damage that could not be repaired. It is of no use talking about trying to keep the horse in once he has got out of the stable. As the appropriation for this advisory authority is only £2,500, it would seem that we could hardly expect a great deal of it. I should like to know exactly what it does. What advice does it tender to the Government? Does it advise the Government that certain Australian industries are suffering damage? Does it advise the Government of fluctuations in trade? I notice that provision is being made for an expenditure of £22,800 in Japan by the Department of Trade. Is there any relation between the authority here and our trade representatives in Japan? {: #debate-23-s64 .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS:
Victoria .- I take it that import licensing comes within the terms of the matters under discussion? {: #debate-23-s65 .speaker-JZQ} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Anderson:
NEW SOUTH WALES -- The matters that may be discussed are mentioned in the papers that the honorable senator has before him. {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS: -- I take it that import licensing comes under the heading, " Administration "? {: #debate-23-s66 .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Yes. {: #debate-23-s67 .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS: -- I want to express disappointment at the fact that it is necessary to make any provision at all for the continuance of import licensing in this country to-day, having regard to the circumstances under which it is operating. I know that the Government can make out a very powerful case, based on balance of payments, as to why it is necessary that import licensing should be continued. I know, too, that the official Opposition would support the Government on the principle that there must be import licensing because of the dangers to employment in Australia, and because of other economic dangers, if it were discontinued. But I want to say - and I think most honorable senators will agree with me - that even if this kind of thing seems, in some ways, to be inevitable, none of us can be very happy about some of the cases that come before us of the way in which import licensing is operating. I know the officers of the department probably have a very difficult job. I know that they must have many requests, that there are many disappointed people who complain about the operation of import licensing, and who perhaps do not know all the difficulties that have to be contended with. Having said that, I want to express my opinion that it appears wrong that we now seem to have settled down to a principle under which a government department can determine whether a young man can set himself up in business merely because of the fact that it can decide whether he is going to obtain the imports necessary to set himself up in that particular business. The Government's policy in connexion with import licensing has been to continue to give preference to what it calls traditional importers. I have said before, and I say again, that I am sorry that we have now reached the stage at which import licensing is setting up traditions. I also say that the Government by adopting that policy - it may have had powerful reasons for it - is already creating in this country vested interests which are very valuable to certain people and which, in my opinion, deny to other people, at times, the justice that they are entitled to expect. Why should it be possible for a man, because he is a traditional importer, to have an import licence and then, instead of exercising it, sell that licence at a profit? Why does not the Government investigate cases of advertising of import licences and take action to deprive the persons concerned of the licences on the ground that they do not need them, that they are merely using them as something for sale? I think that the time is overripe for a review of the system of import licensing to see whether the Government's policy of restricting licences to traditional importers should be continued on its present basis. 1 think that the only thing that has been done to try to improve the system over recent years has been the establishment of what we were told were to be appeal boards. I have had only one instance of the operation of these appeal boards because, candidly, my experience of import licensing has been most unsatisfactory. I now tell most people who come to me about such matters that it is useless to appeal because it is not possible to get anything but a blunt " No ", or a reference to the fact that the Government's policy is that traditional importers are to have preference. {: .speaker-JYY} ##### Senator O'Flaherty: -- And it takes about six months to get a reply. {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS: -- That is about all that happens, and I know that among members of all sections of the community there is considerable dissatisfaction at the treatment they get from the import licensing authority. To illustrate my point, I mention the case of a man who came to me and produced what I considered very strong evidence that people who use foods such as olive oil, people who use certain types of foods that southern Europeans want, were being deliberately exploited by the people who had the export licences and who were using those licences to force up the prices of those commodities to an unconscionable degree. The figures that 1 was shown relating to the landed cost of olive oil and the prices for which it was sold indicated, in my opinion, that there existed a racket which deserved to be dealt with. I said to the man concerned, " Make out a strong case ". He did. At least, it appeared to me to be strong. Other people may not have thought so. He took the matter to the Import Appeal Board. It examined his case very carefully and said - >We realize that you are appealing. We have examined your evidence, but the Government's policy is that traditional importers only are to get an import licence, therefore nothing can be dene for you. What is the good of having an appeal board which is bound by Government policy? Did the Government, in order to placate the Senate, tell us that there would be a right of appeal and then tell that board not to uphold appeals which cut across Government policy? Import licensing may be necessary. Indeed, a powerful case can be made to support that contention, but it has now reached the stage of semi-permanency. People are entitled to demand that the Government have a good look at it and decide whether to continue along the present lines, or embark upon some modification of it. I can understand it being allowed to continue for one or two years, but it appears now to be almost permanent. The effects of unwise import licensing are so serious that we must ensure that the system operates as efficiently as possible. My experience of it has been most unsatisfactory. I should particularly like to know whether the appeal boards are appeal boards in name only. I would appreciate information as to their activities, and as to whether the Government is quite satisfied with the way in which they are going on or intends to improve the present policy. Unfortunately, import licensing appears to have become almost a permanent feature of our economy. {: #debate-23-s68 .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesMinister for National Development · LP -- Answering **Senator Cook's** query first, the various sums - £500, £1,250, £2,000 and so on - were paid, in Australia, as fees, for the advisory authority set up to examine the complaints and allegations in respect of various industries. When **Mr. M.** E, McCarthy retired as chairman of the Tariff Board he was retained, in an advisory capacity, to examine the various matters which arose in relation to the Japanese Trade Treaty, and the amounts shown are those which were paid to him. **Senator McManus** has referred to general' import licensing policy. I should like to say " Amen " to, and echo, a number of the things that he said, but there is a difference between being in Opposition and being in Government. The Government has all the responsibility. I doubt if any one likes import licensing, and it coverssuch a tremendous range of activity that numerous complaints regarding it areinevitable. One can only proceed on theassumption that the Government must assume responsibility for its policy. At: present, there is no alternative to import licensing. The Government has established' appeal boards, but those boards must work within the four corners of Government policy. If the policy is that preference in. licensing shall be given to traditional importers and established businesses, theappeal board must give effect to that policy. Of course, the person who has spent a lifetime in developing a business, as distinct from the newcomer, has a powerful claimfor a licence. It is a very difficult problem upon which to give an answer, but that answer must be laid down in Government policy. The appeal boards must, in fairness to every one, operate within the limitsof Government policy. As for the report on the timber industry, I can only say that I have had an officer trying to obtain the necessary information for the Leader of the Opposition, but hehas not been successful so far. If thehonorable senator presses the point I can only ask him to agree that further consideration of the proposed vote for DivisionNo. 86 be deferred. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKenna: -- I should like that: course to be pursued. Ordered - >That further consideration of Division No. 86 - Tariff Board, £137,000- be postponed. {: #debate-23-s69 .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE:
Western Australia -- I wish to speak to Division No. 85 - Administrative and the subject of import licensing generally. The base year was so many years ago that a very unfortunate position has arisen in Western Australia, and doubtless elsewhere also. Many persons who had licences in the base year have long since ceased to have any connexion with those licences, which have been handed on. The requirements of the particular trade have changed and large numbers of people have been granted special licences which permit them to import, even though they had no licences in the base year. These licences have been granted either by a government instrumentality or by the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** himself. These people have been able to establish businesses, but they have been unable to compete with those who had licences in the base year. Many applications have been refused outright because the applicant possessed no licence in the base year. People with a special licence have periodically to go cap in hand to some authority seeking an extension or the granting of an interim licence in respect of commodities that are well established in Australia. **Senator McManus** referred to olive oil. The sole representative of Betoli olive oil, which comes from Italy, has a quota for its importation. It is of silly proportions but he must keep it in order to retain his agency. He first obtained his licence after representations to the Minister who was sympathetic when shown that low-grade oil, a mixture of olive oil and peanut oil, was being sold in Western Australia at top prices. Betoli olive oil is used for medicinal purposes. It is pure, and is known the world over, but its representative in Western Australia cannot escape the Government's niggardly policy. We were not trading with Italy in the base year and he could not, therefore, have a quota in that year. But if he pays a premium, he can get supplies from the person in the eastern States who has a licence, and who in the base year imported the oil for people in the west. In some cases, when imports were severely restricted, importers in the eastern States said to importers in Western Australia, "Our supplies have been cut down, but you have been cut out. We can sell on our own doorstep all that we can get." Representations were made to the department pointing out that Western Australian distributors of certain imported goods w?re in a very unhappy position. They sought the aid of the department to bring pressure to bear on their principals - people with whom they had dealt for many years - to give them larger quotas of goods. In that way, a little bit was, so to speak, spewed back to Western Australia. It was absolutely forced out of the licensees. Then supplies dried up and the position became acute again. Further approaches were made to people in the eastern States who enjoyed large quotas, calculated on the base year. They were given large quotas because they had been importing large quantities of goods, but I point out that in many cases they had been importing, not only for themselves, but also for people in Western Australia and South Australia. When the position became acute, approaches were made to the department, which said that something should be done about it. I think that the Minister will agree that persistent pressure has been brought to bear upon the. department by, among others, myself. Arrangements were made for an appeals board to sit in Perth. The board was composed of competent and courteous officers - we could not have expected better men. However, I talked with many people in Western Australia and they all agreed that although the members of the appeal board were very charming persons, they had been given a charter only to say " No " definitely. If anything contentious arose, it had to go to Sydney for determination. The Western Australian people told me that it was far better and much less expensive for them topay the premium demanded by the people who had licences to import the goods they wanted. Those people said, " If you want our goods, you must pay our price for them ". I had brought to my notice a case concerning whisky. The person concerned found that he could only get the whisky he needed by paying a premium, or actually buying a licence. The whisky company had supplies in the east, and it was obtainable by persons in the west provided they bought it at a premium. The person who approached me had to pay a premium for his supplies, although he had been a distributor for years. These abuses cannot be rectified by appeals or otherwise. Some people in the country have a licence to import certain goods and they have almost a monopoly of those goods. There is no competition to make them bring their prices down, and Western Australian importers are really held to ransom. The Government says that it cannot do anything to prevent what is going on. The proper way in which to tackle the problem would be to revise the bases on which licences are issued. Quotas are calculated on the basis of imports in a year, a decade ago. The position must be reviewed so that people who are trying to establish themselves in business in this country will be able to obtain the goods they need without paying a premium for them. What is happening now is bad for the people and bad for the nation, but nothing is being done about it at all. Let me give another instance of what is happening. Some time ago wall tiles suitable for fine work became very scarce in Western Australia. Some tiles were available, but they were not comparable in quality with the tiles that are available now. One importer had a licence to import tiles, and he took the attitude, " This is my stock; take it or leave it ". You had to take it or leave it, because there was no other source of supply. Later, better quality tiles could have been imported by another firm if an import licence had been obtained from the Commonwealth Government, but the Government told that firm quite definitely that it could not issue a licence because the ceiling limit for the importation of tiles had already been reached. The gentleman who held the import licence for the other tiles is quite a nice man, somewhat elderly. Over the period of ten or fifteen years during which he had the privilege of being a licensed importer, he was able to sit back and run what was really a retired man's business. His stock came into the country and he could sell it without difficulty. The builders wanted tiles of a much better quality, which were more efficient in every way and could be obtained from overseas at a lower price, but they could not get them because they had no import licence. It is absurd to say that we can go on year after year working on the basis of imports in a base year so long ago. We cannot remain static in this matter. Many people are trying to operate on special licences. If they find that they cannot carry on, they go time and again, at great expense, to the department to obtain a small supplementary quota to see them through to the end of the year. They cannot budget for the following year. A supplementary licence is issued for a quarter or for two quarters, but then these people have to apply again. It is distressing to think that this Commonwealth Parliament cannot devise a better system of import licensing than one under which quotas are based on imports a decade ago. It has been proved beyond doubt that trafficking in import licences has become almost a trade on its own. Some people are privileged in this matter, and it is time that a review of the system was made. I think that everybody will agree that quotas should not be based on a period ten o. fifteen years ago. The monopoly of the traditional importers - I use that term for want of a better one - should be broken, so that others can come into the field to compete with them, so that young men can establish themselves in business. There should be some competition, but at present there is really none. I should like to know now 'whether the Government thinks it will be possible to alter the base year and make a re-assessment of quotas. If that were done, persons who during the last ten or fifteen years have been operating on special licences and supplementary licences, would be able to say, " Now we can enjoy our rights as citizens to import the goods which we sell - goods which for years we have been buying at a premium from people who have licences. We can go into business in a straight out way and give the public a reasonable deal." {: #debate-23-s70 .speaker-KAC} ##### Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia -- I refer to the title "Commercial Intelligence Service ". Could the Minister tell me whether that is the Trade Commissioner service? If so, why was it deemed necessary to change the title? {: #debate-23-s71 .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesMinister for National Development · LP -- When I spoke on this matter previously I said that the title came as a surprise to me. I had never thought of this service other than as the Commercial Trade Service. I am told that the title was changed to " Commercial Intelligence Service " some few years ago. I hope that this is the case of a rose by any other name smelling just as sweet. The new title is some three years old. The commissioners are called trade commissioners. {: .speaker-KAC} ##### Senator Vincent: -- How would one address the senior official now? {: .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER: -- As the Trade Commissioner. {: .speaker-KAC} ##### Senator Vincent: -- He is still the Trade Commissioner, but in charge of the Commercial Intelligence Service. It is an unusual expression. Surely a trade commissioner does more than supply intelligence services with respect to trade. I am not at all certain that this is a very happy title for a very important section of the Department of Trade. Remainder of proposed vote agreed to. Miscellaneous Services - Department of Trade. Proposed vote, £527,000. {: #debate-23-s72 .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP -- I wish to relate my few remarks to Division No. 223 - Department of Trade. I am somewhat concerned about the growing expenditure of this department. We all thought that, when the activities of the Department of Trade were divorced from those of the Department of Customs and Excise, with which they had been amalgamated over the years, that was done not only to make the Department of Trade more efficient and to help the development of our export markets, but also to effect an economy in regard to expenditure and personnel. Whether or not economies can be effected and staff can be reduced to a minimum cannot be ascertained until the new organization is well under way. So I. shall not be over-critical of that aspect of the matter to-night. The Department of Trade has a most important task to perform. I think honorable senators on both sides of the chamber will agree that the present Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** is an outstanding man and is doing a mammoth job in developing our trade relations with other countries. I refer now particularly to item 3 - Trade Publicity - United Kingdom. The appropriation for this year is £380,000, an increase of a mere £50,000 on last year's expenditure. The anticipated expenditure on item 4 - Trade Publicity - other than United Kingdom is £130,000, an increase of nearly £30,000 on last year's expenditure. So in the current year, approximately another £80,000 will be spent by this department on trade publicity. I believe that honorable senators should emphasize the importance of this aspect of the activities of the Department of Trade and that we should bring to the notice of the department, and ultimately the Minister, our views thereon. As honorable senators know, I was fortunate enough to be in America in 1956. I saw something of what the trade commissioners in San Francisco, New York and Washington were doing. I was most impressed by the variety of information that they had available, the enthusiasm of their staffs, and the desire of those staffs to increase their effectiveness on behalf of Australia. I presume the same spirit is evident wherever we have trade commissioners. There are one or two points in particular that I wish to place before thecommittee and the department, and which in my view are of extreme importance to Australia. I refer to the need for the Department of Trade to remember that not only have we metals, foodstuffs, wool and manufactured articles to sell but also that we must sell the great tourist potential of Australia. I do not want to steal the thunder of my colleague, **Senator Buttfield,** in whose name there is a motion on the notice-paper regarding the tourist industry and the need for the Commonwealth to play a leading role in the development of it. We know that, because of the current political situation, that motion will die at the conclusion of this sessional period. But I hope that **Senator Buttfield** will press on with the matter when the new Parliament meets, that honorable senators will ensure that it is fully debated, and that a committee is formed to investigate our tourist potential. In the meantime, I think it is quite reasonable to say to officers of the Department of Trade - sometimes public servants need to be reminded of these matters, because they do become insular in their outlook - that our trade representatives abroad must act as our agents and tell people in other countries of our great tourist potential. The Department of Trade should be able to co-operate with the News and Information Bureau, which in many cases has branches in overseas centres where there are also representatives of the Department of Trade. I believe that officers of both departments should work in close cooperation telling the story of Australia, what we have, how people may come here and enjoy what we have, and what it will cost them. We all come from different States, and we know that Australia has everything that tourists want. But the tourists will not know that unless our representatives overseas tell them about it. That is where I think the Commonwealth Government could play an important role. I do not want to get away from the item, but in passing let me say that the News and Information Bureau, in conjunction with the trade publicity section of the Department of Trade, should do all it can to co-operate with State authorities in obtaining whatever information is available about the States. There is a growing interest throughout Australia in our tourist potential, and I believe that a great spurt to that interest was given by the fact that **Senator Buttfield** introduced the motion to which I have referred. Only last week, I think, there was a conference in Sydney at which the States and various bodies were represented. There is a growing awareness of the fact that the States should co-operate in developing our tourist industry. I believe that the central Government, with the money that it is spending on trade publicity overseas, and in co-operation with the States, should advertise Australia more. The only other matter on which I should like some information is item 9 - publication of " Australia To-day " - Contribution. Last year we appropriated £6,000 for this purpose. We spent only £3,000, but now we are asked to approve an expenditure of £9,000 in this year. If the publication " Australia To-day " is of great value to Australia and to the development of our tourist industry, the £9,000 would not be wasted. But it seems a very large amount, particularly when we note that we spent only half the amount that was appropriated last year. This sum is intended to be a contribution, so probably other people are paying for the publication. I repeat that the proposed expenditure represents a very big increase. {: #debate-23-s73 .speaker-KQQ} ##### Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia -- I desire to address my remarks to Division No. 223 - Department of Trade and to relate them to the comments of my colleague from Tasmania, **Senator Marriott.** I refer to item 3 - Trade Publicity - United Kingdom and1 item 4 - Trade Publicity - Other than United Kingdom. I believe that the Department of Trade is doing very well in both spheres. At the present time, Australian trade publicity in the United Kingdom appears to be mainly concentrated in the provinces. When I was there, I was interested to observe some of this activity. Apparently, the practice is for a team of approximately a dozen officers of the department to proceed to a provincial city and work mainly in the various food stores, with the idea of gradually encouraging the people to become interested in Australian produce. The publicity is quite all right. However, there is a great challenge to the suppliers that arises from a number of factors to which they should1 pay attention. Consider, for instance, our canned fruit. Unfortunately, the canned fruit that is sent overseas is not always packed as it should be, so that on the journey from Australia the labels tend to rub. As a consequence, the tins of fruit make a very unattractive display. . I think that the packers of canned fruit would do well to separate the cans by means of cardboard packing, so that they do not rub together on the voyage. The suppliers also should make sure that tins marked " seconds " are not sent overseas. If we are trying to sell the best produce of Australia, as our publicity suggests we are, such a practice is not in the best interests of the trade drive. Also, **Sir, there** is the question of maintaining continuity of supplies, and it is in this respect that I think our trade drive and our publicity are being undermined to a certain extent. The suppliers are not keeping up continuity of supplies after the publicity has done a good job. I believe that good work is being done with our trade publicity in the United States of America because the department, in co-operation with Qantas Empire Airways Limited, has established a very good stand in Fifth-avenue, New York. Department of Trade publicity is being very well received in the United States, as well as in other parts of the world. Unfortunately, the Department of Trade was not represented by an exhibit at the Brussels World Fair, a matter that was commented on severely overseas and also, I believe, in the Australian press. I understand that a very careful and conscientious survey was made prior to the commencement of the World Fair, but that it was undertaken only at the level of the Depart- ment of Trade. Perhaps it was decided that the staging of an exhibit was not worth the rather considerable expense involved. However, I am sorry that the Department of Trade, the Department of Immigration, and perhaps also the Prime Minister's Department, did not combine to send an exhibit. Canadian departments did so, and I know that Canada, particularly, sold its migration policy in a quite astounding fashion by that means. In respect of overseas publicity by the Department of Trade, 1 feel, **Sir, that** some thought should be given to a combined effort by Commonwealth departments that have almost co-lateral aims. In my opinion, an opportunity to attract Scandinavian migrants was lost because Australia was not represented at the Brussels World Fair. I believe that the Department of Trade could well consider exhibiting at some of the European trade fairs, small though they might be, because that could also help us in our drive to attract northern European migrants. {: type="A" start="I"} 0. wish to direct attention to the fact that this year there is no allocation of funds for overseas trade missions. I notice that last year £4.000 was voted, and £2,972 was spent. I think that the overseas trade missions promoted by the Department of Trade have been a great success and that there should be a mission going overseas each year. My friend, **Senator Wood,** when debating the proposed appropriation for the Department of External Affairs earlier to-day, referred to the question of sending trade agents, or commissioners, to places like South America. That could be done in two ways. The more cautious approach to the matter might well be to make a contribution towards first sending a trade mission to South America. If an approach were made by the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia, or the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Australia, I should like to see the Government make a supplementary grant, if necessary, towards the sending of a trade mission, composed of businessmen and others, and possibly also a couple of departmental officers, to explore the possibilities of trade with South America. If the mission was successful, a trading post could then be established. I regret that no provision has been made this year for a contribution towards an overseas trade mission. {: #debate-23-s74 .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE:
Western Australia -- I also wish to refer to trade publicity. Although it has been said that our trade publicity in other countries is reasonably satisfactory, I understand that it does not really do all that might be done to assist in the selling of Australian goods overseas. It is undoubtedly below standard. In my opinion, and in that of people who have had experience of our trade overseas, two things need to be done to improve our trade. First, we must improve the packaging of our products and, secondly, we must adopt approved Australian standards of quality. We fail because, although we give publicity to Australian goods, when those goods go overseas they are presented in an unattractive fashion. The advertising is attractive enough, but the presentation of the goods themselves is below standard and is not at all attractive. As has been maintained before in this place, many of our goods which are exported are blended when they arrive overseas. Australian wine, for instance, is a notable example. Our good wines are bought in quantity. There is a certain amount of publicity for Australian wine, which is all very well, but after the blenders have finished with it and it is marketed, there is no approved Australian standard for it. The wines that are sold are not true to type and are very often of poor quality. The quality is not consistent. The Government is doing nothing to remedy the position. There is a big combine - the Emu Wine Company and so on - marketing wine, but we find that there is no relation between the publicity for our wines and the article that is finally marketed. I understand that a similar position applies to our butter. Our competitors grade their butter, and the relevant grade is stamped on the wrapper. For instance, if the people of Great Britain want a first-class butter, they can purchase Danish No. 1 butter, wrapped and sold as such across the counter. Australian butter, on the other hand, is blended and sold to the various commercial interests in the United Kingdom, and the purchasers do not know whether they are getting firstclass or second-class butter, or blended butter. I wish to know whether the Department of Trade is giving attention to these matters, which I think are very important in relation to our trade overseas. Recently, we had quite a bust-up about Australian fat lambs being sold overseas as New Zealand fat lambs. Australian meats have a bad name overseas because when they have been sold they have not been properly graded according to quality. The Minister will bear me out when they say that in the north-west of Australia at Liveringa special export meat was graded in various qualities. Some qualities, of course, brought higher prices than others. The demand existed for our beef overseas and there was nothing to stop beef being exported unbranded, in carcasses unfrozen. By the time it reached the English market, it was not of a very high standard. That is deplorable, quite apart from the fact that the Government pays a subsidy in order to encourage the export of beef. The Government is doing the job at this end, but at the other end the nation is being exploited. I feel that there is a definite necessity, as I have said before in the Senate, to have an Australian bureau of standards. Such a bureau could see that our export goods are stamped with an indelible mark showing them to be Al Australian produce. Our exports have to be properly marked and properly presented. Our exporters should be made to adhere to a standard Laid down by such a bureau, which would ensure that goods were classified and stamped accordingly. The greatest damage that has been done to Australia's export markets for primary goods such as dairy products and wine, as well as other goods, has come from the fact that these goods leave Australia in bulk, under a broad classification as to quality, and are blended or broken up in the United Kingdom and sold in shops there without any guarantee to the housewife in England or anywhere else that she is buying Al Australian produce of a consistent standard, and that the goods she is buying have not been broken down, blended or changed by the distributors in the market. I should like the Minister to tell me whether this matter has proceeded any further since the last occasion on which I raised it, when the Minister told me thai some "sort of bureau of standards had been set up in relation to Australian goods, although not comparable with the South African bureau of standards, which classifies top-quality goods as Al and either prohibits the export of goods of a lower standard or allows their export only if they are clearly marked to show that they are not top grade. It is clearly necessary for us to do what South Africa does. Our publicity can be as good as it possibly can be, but if the articles sold on the export markets are not up to the standard advertised, either in quality or in presentation, then an exaggerated advertisement would do tremendous damage in a couple of weeks. It is not that we have not goods of a high quality to sell overseas; the difficulty arises because the goods are sold in bulk according to a broad quality classification, and are cut up, broken down or blended by the distributors overseas and sold at a standard far below the standard of which we are capable. They are not by any means first-class Australian goods as they reach the consumer. I should like to ask the Minister whether anything has been done to correct that position, and whether the Government is prepared to do anything to protect the good name of our goods sold overseas. Proposed vote agreed to. Department of Social Services. Proposed vote, £3,253,000. {: #debate-23-s75 .speaker-JYY} ##### Senator O'FLAHERTY:
South Australia -- I refer to Division No. 1 1 1 and Division No. 112, which deal respectively with the proposed vote for the central administration and for State establishments of the Department of Social Services. I understand that this department pays the unemployment benefit through its various offices in the States. The point in which I am interested is the method of assessment of entitlement to unemployment benefit. Let me give an illustration of the kind of information I am seeking. Suppose a man is unemployed and registers for unemployment benefit at an office conducted by the Department of Labour and National Service. He has to fill in a form of some kind, which is sent to the Department of Social Services and, after a certain period, the applicant becomes qualified to receive unemployment benefit. What I want to know is whether the Department of Social Services accepts the completed form received from the Department of Labour and National Service as proof of entitlement to unemployment benefit, and proceeds to pay the benefit to the applicant. Or does the department decide the entitlement on some assessment that it makes for itself without the aid of the Department of Labour and National Service? Instances have been brought to my notice of men who have not received the unemployment benefit despite the fact that they have registered for it with the Department of Labour and National Service and have been out of work for the qualifying period. I shall be greatly obliged if the Minister can give me the information I desire. {: #debate-23-s76 .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia -- I should like to ask a question about the item, " Payment for services of Magistrates, Police, Registrars and Agents - £ 1 .900 ". I should like to know what persons are represented by these agents. Another item, " Commission on benefit payments made by Banks and Post Offices - £289,300 ", also interests me. A day or two ago I asked a question on this matter. I know that in remote areas the post office is perhaps the only federal agency which can cope with applications for social service benefits. In Western Australia there is no office of the Department of Social Services between Carnarvon and Wyndham. In many districts it is difficult for residents to obtain any information regarding the social services to which they are entitled. For instance, I received a complaint in one small town, from a man who had been out of work for some weeks, that he could not receive the unemployment benefit because there was no way of applying for it. I asked, " Have you been to the post office?" He said, "Yes, but they don't know anything about the matter there ". I went into the post office and asked about forms for unemployment benefit, and a young lady there said she did not know anything about the matter. A member of the arbitration court happened to be in the town at the time. He went into the post office in order to obtain the information and mentioned the office he held. The young lady to whom he addressed his inquiry said, " I will see the postmaster about it ". Eventually we found that some forms were available at that post office in relation to unemployment benefit. But in the meantime quite a number of people had not been able to register for the benefit because the necessary documents were not openly available to them'. I think that for the expenditure of such a vast sum as commission on benefit payments made by banks and post offices - and £289,300 is quite a large sum, as is also the sum of £19,000 for payment for the services of magistrates, police, registrars and agents - we should get better service for the money. In New Zealand, I had the privilege of going through the Department of Social Services about ten or eleven years ago. The department has a decentralized system. I visited its office in the north island and some of the offices in the remote villages. I found that everywhere there was some agency of the department and that it was easy to collate at the central office all the material obtained from the district offices. I should like to see similar offices set up in more of our remote areas. In Western Australia, which forms onethird of the total area of the Commonwealth, we have only 172 officers, the vast majority of whom are in the Perth district. However, in a small State like Victoria, allowing for its greater population, there are- 567 officers. The greater number of officershave to deal with a larger population, but that population is concentrated in a small' area. The State of Western Australia covers a huge area, and much of it, particularly the outback country between Carnarvon and Darwin, has to rely on the radiotelephone service as a means of communication with Perth. Consideration interrupted. The **CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon.** A. D. Reid). - Order! In conformity with thesessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question - >That the Chairman do now leave the chair and' report to the Senate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. {: .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator TANGNEY: -- Western Australia, because of its great area, is faced also with the difficulty caused by lack of .communications. I should like to see more district offices established in Western Australia in an endeavour to give better service to the people in the more remote areas who, after all, are taxpayers just as we are. One sees notices exhibited plainly in every post office proclaiming the closing dates for the submission of income tax returns. The people are advised of their liabilities, but not of the benefits that they may receive through the Department of Social Services. I should like to see social service benefits more readily available to the people in the outer areas of Western Australia who at the present time, in many cases, do not know the extent to which they are eligible for benefits. {: #debate-23-s77 .speaker-K3O} ##### Senator BUTTFIELD:
South Australia -- While dealing with the proposed vote for the Department of Social Services, I wish to direct attention to an anomaly which is causing a good deal of consternation in my own State of South Australia. Placitum (xxvi.) of section 51 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race. Legally, the words " aboriginal race " appear to cover any person in whom aboriginal blood predominates. The whole field of genetics is reduced to a matter of mathmatics which, to any one with a knowledge of the subject, appears impractical. A great range of progeny can issue from two parents. Two half-breed aboriginals can have an entirely white child. A difficulty has arisen in regard to aborigines who are living on State reserves. In South Australia, and I think in other States, an exemption is in existence whereby any aboriginal who has sufficient development, character, and a certain standard of living, is exempted from the law relating to aborigines. Such persons qualify for social service benefits. However, if an aboriginal comes within the provisions of the exemption act he is not permitted to live on a mission station or a State reserve. Many of those people, therefore, do not apply for exemption because they do not wish to be segregated from their friends and relatives living on the reserves. The position then arises in which a particular mentally undeveloped quarter-caste woman living on a reserve may qualify for, say a maternity bonus whereas another aboriginal, who may be more developed but who has a little more aboriginal blood in her veins, is not eligible for the bonus. That kind of anomaly is causing a good deal of disharmony on the reserves because of this discrimination based on a question of genes which, to my mind at any rate, is not a very satisfactory basis on which to work. Difficulty has arisen also regarding eligibility for the age and invalid pension. Even though people may live on a State reserve where they obtain food, clothing and housing, it is only logical that they should be allowed to have a few pence in their pockets. It is most humiliating for a person to be ill or old and not have a few pence to spend on a smoke or some other little luxury. Persons living in benevolent institutions who are eligible to receive a pension, do claim it and although most of the pension goes to the institution, the pensioner has about 28s. left for himself. It is a great pity that those aborigines who have paid taxes all their lives and who, through no fault of their own, are no longer able to earn a wage, are compelled to live on a reserve and be dependent on their relatives and friends for charity. These anomalies are causing a great deal of distress and unrest among this minority group in South Australia. I should be grateful if the Minister would endeavour to give a more liberal interpretation to the act and do away with the mathematical basis of deciding whether or not a person is an aboriginal. {: #debate-23-s78 .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE:
Western Australia -- Will the Minister inform me of the expenditure involved in the rehabilitation of mentally retarded persons who are forced to accept an invalid pension because treatment is not available to enable them to become absorbed into industry? Establishments exist in Western Australia and some other States that cater for those people. Can the Minister supply statistics showing the number of persons who have been treated in those establishments, the expenditure involved last year and the expected expenditure in this budgetary period? The rehabilitation of people who, with reasonable training, can take their place in industry, and so relieve the Government of the payment of an invalid or a disability pension, is one of the most useful Jobs done by the Department of Social Services in that particular field. On the last occasion on which the Estimates were before us, requests were made, both in this chamber and in another place, that the Government take some cognizance -of the need for treatment of mentally retarded, backward and slow-learning children. The public conscience is being awakened to the challenge facing the nation. Unfortunately, the number of children of the kind to whom 1 have referred is increasing. That frightening fact was brought to our notice when recent -statistics were published. Public bodies are doing an excellent job in endeavouring to take charge of these children at an early age, with a view to educating them to the stage at which they will be able to look after themselves with the aid of a pension, or to the stage at which they will be of some use to the community. Although those bodies do not expect to make the children 100 per cent, efficient in industry, at least they will have some dignity in the thought that, even though they suffer from a disability, they are of use to the community. This matter has been brought to the notice of the Minister for Social Services **(Mr. Roberton)** by the various associations that are working continuously and unremittingly in their efforts to do something for this section of the community. They have received sympathetic consideration from most of the people whom they have approached, but I should like to know from the Minister whether the Government has considered ways of alleviating the position of these people. Has the Government considered ways of extending the rehabilitation of these unfortunate people, or of assisting charitable persons and organizations that have undertaken the task of educating and caring for the children to whom I have referred? {: #debate-23-s79 .speaker-K8N} ##### Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia -- I wish to refer briefly to that unfortunate group of people known as paraplegics - people suffering from disabilities, either war-caused, or resulting from accident, which render them paralysed from the waist down. It seems to me to be completely illogical that the Government should go a certain way in rehabilitating these people in convalescent homes throughout Australia, and then, when these paraplegics reach the stage at which they are employable and certain firms are prepared to employ them to the extent of their capabilities - some of these people are most capable - these unfortunate people find it impossible to take advantage of the opportunities for employment because of the high cost of transport. On a previous occasion in this chamber, 1 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, **Senator Spooner,** whether the Government would bear the cost of converting motor vehicles to enable those who were fortunate enough to afford a motor car, to drive to their place of employment once they were rehabilitated and firms were prepared to employ them. I received a negative answer. I emphasize again that it seems to me to be completely illogical that money should be spent by the Government on rehabilitating these people to the stage where they are employable and then, when firms are prepared to employ them, the only barrier to their accepting the employment is the cost of transport to the place of employment. I believe that some form of transport ought to be provided for them. I know that at the moment the Government does provide wheel chairs, but a wheel chair is useless as a means of transport to employment in any of the capital cities of Australia. I suggest there are two ways by which these people may be helped. First, the Government could bear the cost of converting motor cars for paraplegics who can afford a motor car of their own. This would not involve a great deal of money. The second method, although more drastic, is at least justified. The Government should provide transport for paraplegics who cannot afford motor cars of their own. The number of people involved is so small that the Government could do this at minimum cost. These minor barriers to which I have referred - and that is all they are - should be swept away. I submit that the Government should pay some attention to the problem, and although I received a negative reply to the question I asked in connexion with this matter, I trust consideration will be given to it again. {: #debate-23-s80 .speaker-KAW} ##### Senator WEDGWOOD:
Victoria -- I, too, plead with the Government to consider giving treatment to housewives. There are many women suffering from paraplegia or other disabilities which make them completely immobile in their homes, and I submit that, so far as it is possible to do so, we should not only rehabilitate people for entry into employment, but also give some form of treatment to those women who are suffering in their homes. Consideration in this way would be of great financial benefit to the husbands of these women and would certainly bring untold happiness to the sufferers. On previous occasions, I have quoted the case histories of a number of women who are suffering in their own homes and who are anxious to be rehabilitated. {: #debate-23-s81 .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesMinister for National Development · LP -- I shall deal with the matters that have been raised, so far as I am able. First, let me say that **Senator O'Flasherty** is right in both the questions he puts. By and large, the Department of Social Services maintains its own organization completely in the metropolitan areas, but in the country areas, it very frequently runs a joint office with the employment agency of the Department of Labour and National Service. In all cases, the Department of Social Services accepts responsibility for making decisions as to whether a particular applicant is eligible for benefit. In the metropolitan areas, the department arrives at this decision mainly on information it obtains by way of direct interview. In the case of country applicants, its decision is based frequently on information obtained through the joint office or the separate office of the Department of Labour and National Service. But in the final analysis, the department makes the decision and takes the responsibility. When delay occurs due to the fact that inquiries have to be made from country areas, the payment of the benefit is made retrospective. As to **Senator Tangney's** inquiry, I can only say that the activities of the department cover a very wide area indeed. The payment to agents is made up mostly of payment to the Queensland Government which employs its own officers as agents in various parts of the State. To a very great extent, the payments shown under this item are payments to post offices. The Postal Department, of course, has a greater number of branches and activities than any other Commonwealth department. Indeed, it has a greater number of establishments in a greater number of areas than banks. {: .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator Tangney: -- Would the payments go to postal revenue, or to the income of the officers dealing with these problems? {: .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER: -- I think as a general rule, no Commonwealth officer is entitled to obtain payment other than that which he receives as his ordinary annual salary. Whatever money is paid goes into post office funds in reduction of the total overall post office expenses. Of the total payment of £19,000 for services of magistrates, police registrars and agents, approximately £14,250 goes to the Queensland Government for the services of State employees as agents for the department. What **Senator Tangney** has done to-night, and what she has done on previous occasions, has been to make a plea for a greater spread of the offices of the department. I know that plea comes with particular force from Western Australia where the distances are so great, but it is extremely difficult to provide a service in an area in which there is no post office. Often, when there is no post office, there is no store, or shop. {: .speaker-KAF} ##### Senator Wade: -- There is not even civilization. {: .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER: -- I would not say that. Returning to **Senator Buttfield's** point, I am told - and I know from my own experience - that she has raised a very vexed question indeed. It is not one upon which I am an expert, but I am fortified by the officer instructing me in saying that where an aboriginal obtains a certificate of exemption, to the effect that he has reached a certain level of development, he becomes eligible for social service benefits. If he then goes back to live on a reserve he loses his eligibility. I am told that the department is not happy about the situation, and is at present seeking alternatives with a view to putting the problem before the Minister and seeing whether anything can be done. That is not, of course, a public matter until it reaches a political level and is the subject of government decision. I am sorry that I have not the statistics regarding the growth of the rehabilitation service which have been sought by **Senator Cooke.** I subscribe to all that he and others have said about the value of the work being done. I remind honorable senators that the Budget has widened the application of the service somewhat, and that widow pensioners are now eligible. Unfortunately it does not go as far as **Senator Wedgwood** would like and include housewives. I am sorry that I cannot answer the question which **Senator Toohey** reminds me was put on the notice-paper. It is somewhat like the matter raised by **Senator Wedgwood.** It is a question of policy and involves the extension of a social service benefit. It cannot, therefore, be properly dealt with by a Minister representing another Minister during a debate such as this. Proposed vote agreed to. Miscellaneous Services - Department of Social Services. Proposed vote, £1,435,000. {: #debate-23-s82 .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE:
Western Australia -- I wish to refer especially to Division No. 225, item 5 - " Building of Homes for the aged - Assistance to approved organizations, £1,300,000". Last year £1,800,000 was voted but only £837,895 was spent. That left approximately £1,000,000 unexpended. This year's provision is £1,300,000. Is the unexpended portion of last year's vote also available this year? Are we to assume that more than £2,000,000 will be available to the approved societies? Also, was £837,895 expended in the proportion of £2 for £1 raised by applicants for assistance? If it was it would appear that more than £418,000 was raised by such bodies. Can the Minister say whether any applications for assistance have been refused, or held in suspense? {: #debate-23-s83 .speaker-KAF} ##### Senator WADE:
Victoria .- I should like to ask a question supplementary to that asked by **Senator Cooke.** If there were not sufficient applications to absorb the full sum appropriated for this very worthy cause last year, could the Government consider fixing a more generous ratio of subsidies than hitherto? Most of us have seen this excellent legislation functioning, and homes being provided for aged persons from all walks of life - not necessarily those in indigent circumstances. Old age is something that we all must face sooner or later. I believe that the Government would serve the aged very well indeed if, in view of the inadequate number of applications last year, it increased the ratio of government subsidy. {: #debate-23-s84 .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesMinister for National Development · LP -- The Government's task is to do the best that it can in this field. It turns no application down, but applicants have to arrange their affairs, obtain funds, draw plans and so on. Government assistance is given only when the money of the applicant is actually being spent. The failure to expend the total sum appropriated was attributable to the fact that applicants were not able to get their affairs in order in time. I remind **Senator Wade** that the Government has just increased the ratio of support from £1 for £1 to £2 for £1. It has been doubled. I am instructed that the amount of unpaid grants carried over from 1956-57 to 1957-58 was £607,000. The amount granted in 1957-58 was £1,100,000. Last year's payments amounted to £837,000 and left an outstanding liability of £917,000. There is, of course, a well established tradition that Parliament votes from year to year only; that unexpended moneys must be re-voted in the following year in the light of the circumstances then existing. {: #debate-23-s85 .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE:
Western Australia -- Am I to understand from the Minister's remarks that there is a carry over of about £600,000 - or about half the vote for this year? {: .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator Spooner: -- The vote is based on the amount that we expect to spend this year. I am sure that if more money were needed it would be provided. {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- I urge the Government to consider applications from local government authorities for assistance in providing accommodation for the aged. Charitable institutions do great work in this field but almost invariably they are to be found in areas of the metropolis where the provision of funds, and the future of their institutions, are more or less assured. There are cases where a community has a problem in taking care of its aged people but has not sufficient money to enable it to take advantage of .the grant offered by the Government and to build an institution in their area. Local government authorities would be prepared to grant small amounts of money - certainly one-third of the expenditure involved - to provide homes for aged people in their districts. That would be the case in the gold-fields area and the outback districts of Western Australia. I request the Government to consider allowing local government authorities to participate in the homes for the aged scheme. If the Commonwealth granted £2 for every £1 made available by local authorities, they would build the necessary institutions. After all, the object of the scheme is to provide homes for the aged, so we should not discourage those who are willing to build the homes. The money which the Government is offering is not being taken up as quickly as the Government is prepared to provide it, so I ask the Government to give favorable consideration to the request I have made. Proposed vote agreed to. Proposed votes - Department of Labour and National Service, £2,161,000; Administration of National Service Act, £160,000 - agreed to. Department of the Army. Proposed vote, £63,512,000. {: #debate-23-s86 .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER:
South Australia -- I wish to deal with the proposed vote for the Department of the Army. If we turn to page 203 we shall find that, excluding the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, the Chief of the General Staff, the three lieutenant-generals and the three major-generals, and concentrating on the ranks from brigadier down to lancecorporal, private, gunner, sapper, driver, etc., an amount of £28,462,168 is provided for pay. It is alleged that there should be 26,000 men in the Regular Army. I notice that last year the appropriation was £24,156,862, but that actually only £19,860,499 of that amount was spent in 1957-58. This year, for the total pay of the Regular Army, £28,527,318 is to be appropriated, but £6,970,318 of that amount isexpected to remain unexpended. Therefore,, the pay for the Regular Army this year will, be £21,557,000. Taking the figures that have been given to us, which show that an army of 26,000- men would cost £28,527,318 to maintain, can we conclude that our Regular Army consists of approximately 20,000 men? 1 am working on the basis of the figures that, have been given. I work the number out at a fraction over 20,000. That being so, it means that for this year the average of thepay and allowances for each man works out at roughly £1,000. I assume that the allowances include payments for a soldier's wife and children, if any. Rations are estimated to cost £1,632,000, or an average of roughly £80 per man, if my arithmetic is correct. I have not seen the figures showing clothing, costs. From the figures I have given, it can be seen the pay of Army personnel is fairly good. I am sorry that I have had to spring this on the Minister. I asked the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Cramer)** to supply me with the information I want by Tuesday next, in the belief that we would be discussing this vote then. I am desirous of obtaining the figures for 1947, because those figures have a bearing on the situation to-day. **Mr. Dedman** was the Minister for the Army at that time, I think. I am sure that the figures for 1947, when obtained, will give the lie direct to charges we hear in this chamber that this Government has done nothing at all for the armed forces. I am sorry that I have had to raise this matter to-night. I had hoped to obtain the information I want from the Minister for the Army before next Tuesday, when I thought we would be discussing these estimates. However, the Minister for National Development may be able to give me some of the figures for which I have asked and to correct me if my assumption is wrong about the Regular Army and the number of men in it. I have noticed that, year after year, an explanatory note appears. Note (d) on page 203 reads - >These positions are based on the current Army strength ceiling approved under the Defence Programme. Any one casually reading that note would think that we had 26,000 men in our Regular Army. Perhaps I em wrong in my assumption. If so, the Minister may be able to give me the facts. {: #debate-23-s87 .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968 -- I rise merely to make a comment and to ask the Minister for National Development **(Senator Spooner)** for his observations on my comment, if his advisers are able to inform him immediately. It is proposed to vote £12,077,000, under Division No. 160, for arms, armament, mechanization and equipment. An amount of £7,000,000 approximately is provided under Division No. 159 for the maintenance of arms and equipment. There is a great disproportion between the total vote for the Army and the amount which is spent on the payment of Army personnel and for services other than the re-equipping of the forces. In terms of modern equipment in a modern army, I do not know what might be considered a fair proportion. Not for one moment am I suggesting that the rates of pay received by Army personnel are too high or that they should be lowered in any way. However, I think it is most important that any regular service, especially from the point of view of the morale of the personnel involved, should be equipped with the most modern equipment available. Otherwise you will get a frustrating state of affairs, brought about by the fact that service personnel are training with and using equipment which they' know from their own experience is obsolete or obsolescent and which in no conceivable circumstances would be put to use in any conflict that might be contemplated. The amount provided for the reequipment of the Army - or any other of the services - always bears approximately this type of relation to the amount of money expended on the payment of Army and civilian personnel, the provision of meals and matters of that character. I think it is something the Senate should look at. I should be pleased if the Minister could inform us what is considered, in terms of modern defence establishments, a fair ratio between the moneys to be spent on the reequipment and modernization of any service and the moneys spent on the maintenance and feeding of personnel, on transport and on the maintenance of appropriate ancillary civilian personnel. In time of peace, the maintenance of morale in the regular forces is not easy. The work tends to become routine. I should think that the inspiration that would come to service personnel in time of peace would flow from the fact that they were being given the most modern equipment that was available and from the fact that they felt they were up to world standards. If that result has not been achieved,- I think that the whole of the appropriation for this and the other services should be investigated. The Minister may be able, with the advice of those who are assisting him to-night, to give us some idea as to whether in modern service terms the existing ratio in the distribution of moneys that are voted for any one or all arms of the defence services is the appropriate ratio. {: #debate-23-s88 .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesMinister for National Development · LP -- I shall reply first to **Senator Byrne.** The proposed expenditure of £7,029,000 under Division No. 159 relates rather to something that is of a maintenance nature. If the honorable senator looks at Division No. 160, he will note that it is proposed that £12,077,000 shall be spent on new equipment. I do not think there is an answer along the lines that the honorable senator has in mind. Nor do I think that in a changing world there is a standard percentage of capital investment in equipment which remains stationary. I should think that the real problem confronting the Army is to keep up to date and to spend as much as possible on modern equipment, particularly on the scientific side. I think that is the best answer I can give to **Senator Byrne.** I congratulate **Senator Mattner** upon his mathematics. Whether it was a case of good mathematics or good luck I am not quite sure! The brief I have shows that the estimated average number of personnel would be 20,200, consisting of 18,890 males, 700 females and 610 natives. The average earnings per annum would be £1,102 for males, £648 for females and £50 for natives. {: #debate-23-s89 .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE:
Western Australia .- I refer to Division No. 159- Arms and Equipment - Maintenance, and ask the Minister for National Development whether he can indicate what equipment has been written off or disposed of as a result of a change in government policy or of having been declared surplus for other reasons, and the money that has been recovered in the disposal of that equipment as related to the initial cost of purchase. It will be noted that £5,821,000 is to be appropriated for the replacement of arms, armament, clothing, equipment and stores. Can the Minister tell me whether any record is kept of the wastage that is caused by the continual disposal of uniforms and equipment that are declared surplus as a result of inefficiency, or sometimes as a result of a change in Government policy? {: #debate-23-s90 .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP -- I am sure the honorable senator is well aware of government procedure in this respect. When items are declared to be surplus, ministerial authority must be obtained before they can be sold. They are then sent to certain departments to be sold, and a record is kept. Of course, these transactions are on record, but that record is not available to-night. **Senator COOKE** (Western Australia) "1 1.16]. - I ask the Minister to make those figures available to the committee at some later stage, if at all possible. We are here to consider the Estimates. It seems to be fruitless to press to-night for the production of figures that are of public concern. It is proposed that £5,821,000 shall be appropriated for re-equipment. It is public knowledge that a tremendous amount of material and equipment has been disposed of, and there have been losses by way of deficiencies. Yet that information is not available to honorable senators. It appears that the Minister is not prepared to make it available. I now ask him whether there is any way in which honorable senators may obtain information about the wastage that has occurred as a result of over-stocking and the sale and writing-off of equipment. The Minister for the Army **(Mr. Cramer)** may approve the writing-off of hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of equipment and the buying of millions of pounds worth in the next year, but there is no accounting to anybody for those transactions. I again ask the Minister for National Development whether there is any method by which we can obtain the information. It has been sought at question time, but we are told that at question time we cannot get information on Government policy. When we are considering the Estimates, we should be able to obtain the desired information. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968 -- The Auditor-General sets out the amounts in respect of the Navy. {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- The administration of and the preparation of accounts by the Navy seem to have been excellent. But that is not so with the other service departments. Proposed vote agreed to. Recruiting Campaign. Proposed vote, £330,000. {: #debate-23-s91 .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968 .- I wonder whether the Minister for National Development has a breakdown of item 5 - Advertising which appears under the heading " General Expenses ". The appropriation last year, which was £243,000, was substantially expended. Has the Minister any breakdown of the media that are used for advertising? Progress reported. Senate adjourned at 11.20 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 18 September 1958, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1958/19580918_senate_22_s13/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant