Senate
20 November 1959

23rd Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 23rd Parliament
  3. 1959

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1719

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Has he ever landed at the aerodrome at Hall’s Creek in Western Australia? Does he realize that the temperature there is usually over 100 degrees and that, generally speaking, travellers arriving from Derby have developed a very healthy thirst on the flight? When liquor licences are being issued to concessionaires at airports, will the Minister consider granting a special dispensation to Hall’s Creek?. Despite the fact that the patronage of a bar at that airport would be comparatively small and the concession probably uneconomic, will the Minister extend sympathy to travellers by approving the granting of a liquor concession there?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I share Senator Scott’s concern for the health and the happiness of the people of the north-west of Western Australia. I have landed at Hall’s Creek on a number of occasions, and I have noticed that invariably the hospitable people of the north-west who turn up at the airport to welcome travellers bring with them those things which they consider tired and weary travellers need. I would not do anything to impair the splendid spirit of hospitality that exists in the north-west.

page 1719

QUESTION

REPATRIATION BENEFITS

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– I desire to direct a series of questions to the Minister for Repatriation. I understand that his attention has been directed to criticism that has been made of successive Commonwealth governments by an officer of the Tasmanian Boer War Veterans’ Association because those governments have not granted to Boer War veterans an entitlement to repatriation benefits. I ask the Minister: Were soldiers for the Boer War enlisted in this country on behalf of the British Government and were they paid by the British Government? If not, how were they enlisted and paid? Are files regarding their service held in Australia? Do we pay any disability pensions to them on behalf of the United Kingdom Government? Why are they not entitled to repatriation benefits?

Senator Sir WALTER COOPER:

– As there has been some comment in relation to Boer War veterans, and representations in this matter had previously been made to me, I arranged for a full investigation to be made concerning the conditions of the enlistment and the pay of men who were enlisted in Australia for the Boer War. I inform Senator Marriott, in answer to his first two questions, that prior to the commencement of the war in South Africa the six Australian colonies had indicated their willingness to come to the aid of the Mother Country if required, and to supply troops either as a combined force or otherwise in the event of war with South Africa. These offers were renewed immediately before the outbreak of hostilities on 11th October, 1899, and were accepted by the Imperial Government, which indicated that it was willing to accept limited forces for service with the British forces in South Africa under British command. Later, the Imperial Government, as the war proceeded, sought additional forces, and these were provided.

The general conditions under which these forces were to be supplied, were indicated in telegrams despatched to the Government of the colonies on 3rd October, 1899, and were as follows: -

  1. Troops were to be enlisted by the governments of the respective colonies in the numbers and according to the establishments advised by the Imperial Government.
  2. They were to be disembarked at the point of landing in South Africa fully equipped at the cost of the Colonial Government or the volunteers.
  3. From the date of disembarkation the Imperial Government was to be responsible for pay at Imperial rates, supplies and ammunition, and to defray the expenses of transport back to the colonies and to pay wound pensions and compensation allowances at Imperial rates.

It therefore appears that the States were responsible for the pay of troops up to the date of disembarkation in South Africa.

After their arrival there the Imperial Government assumed liability for pay at Imperial rates. It appears that the Imperial rate of pay was supplemented by the State Governments and by public subscriptions, especially before the Imperial rate for a private was raised to 5s. a day.

After federation, the general conditions under which the Commonwealth contingents were raised were that the Imperial Government assumed responsibility for equipping and paying the troops and for war pensions.

I refer now to Senator Marriott’s third question. In only a small number of cases are individual files held, and these are generally incomplete, but there are in existence records of the names of the persons who served in the South African war, the units in which they served and the areas in which those units saw service.

The answer to the honorable senator’s fourth question is, “ Yes “. In accordance with its undertaking referred to in my answer to the honorable senator’s first and second questions, the United Kingdom does pay war pensions to South African veterans resident in Australia, and the Repatriation Commission acts as its agent in doing so. Payments are made both to veterans who served in the Australian contingents and to those who served in other contingents. At present 42 war pensions are being paid in Australia in respect of death or disability resulting from the South African war.

I shall address myself now to the honorable senator’s fifth question. Having regard to the basis on which these forces were raised, and to the fact that the Imperial Government accepted full responsibility for compensation, successive Commonwealth governments have, through the years, declined requests to include South African ex-servicemen for war pension and other benefits under the Repatriation Act.

It was a condition of service known to those who enlisted, both in the State Colonial contingents, and in the Commonwealth contingents after federation, that responsibility for war pensions rested with the Imperial Government. In fact, the form of attestation for the Commonwealth contingents contained these words - . . and that I am willing to fulfil the engagements made for service under the Imperial

Government and that I have no claim on the Commonwealth Government, and that I do not expect to receive for myself, or any of my relations, any compensation whatsoever from the Commonwealth Government in case of my disablement or death.

In 1941 the Government of the day did, however, extend the benefit of service pensions to South African War veterans. There was no comparable benefit available to them under the legislation of the United Kingdom, and this benefit came at a time when many of them were at about the age of 60 years, which is the age of qualification for service pension.

At this late stage it would be difficult to justify an extension of the long-standing provisions whereby a war pension is available under the United Kingdom legislation where a direct relationship between the disability and service can be shown. The United Kingdom will still accept claims on that basis, the most recent grant being made on 17th April, 1959, as the result of which a pension at 40 per cent, rate is being paid in respect of a disability arising from a gunshot wound in the right leg.

The average age of these veterans is about 80 years, and it is felt that any disability they now suffer which cannot be traced to a war wound or specific illness on service could not reasonably be regarded as arising out of their South African service but might more properly be attributed to their advancing years.

page 1720

QUESTION

OIL DRILLING

Senator MATTNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for National Development any information to convey to the Senate concerning the reported strike of flow gas at the oil drilling operations at Bwata in New Guinea?

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

– A good deal of interest has been taken in this strike. Indeed, there was a rumour that oil had been found in the well, but that rumour has now been officially denied by the company. The facts are that there was a flow of gas at the rate of 20,000 cubic feet an hour discovered during the course of test drilling between 4,780 and 4,990 feet. A flow of 20,000 cubic feet per hour would have been of considerable importance if it had occurred in some place near to an industrial area, for instance somewhere in the Sydney basin. In a remote area like New Guinea it is of no economic significance whatsoever. My professional advisers say that such a strike of gas would have been expected because the drilling was through limestone strata similar to the drilling at the same depth in the Puri well. Larger flows have been encountered in other drilling operations in New Guinea. It is certainly very pleasing and satisfactory to find gas at that depth, but although it is pleasing and satisfactory it is not a matter about which we should become excited because of the economic difficulty of making use of the gas in that area.

Senator MAHER:
QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask the Minister for National Development a question supplementary to that just asked by Senator Mattner. Can he say whether the gas which flowed at the well was a wet gas - a petroliferous gas - or whether it was a coal gas such as methane?

Senator SPOONER:

– My information is that it was a gas such as could be expected in association with oil-bearing country.

page 1721

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Is there a scheduled shipping service between Australia and South America? In the event of new trade markets being opened in South America, and such new markets being prejudiced by the lack of a regular shipping service, would the Minister consider the use of an Australian National Line ship to cater for the new trade.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– Overseas shipping falls within the administration of my colleague, the Minister for Trade, Mr. McEwen. From my own knowledge, however, I am certain that there is no scheduled shipping service from Australia to South America. Those services which do operate, probably under charter, would be of an irregular nature and would depend entirely on the availability of cargo. As for the possibility of complying with the proposal put forward by Senator Laught, I have no doubt that should trade be possible with South America, Mr. McEwen would seek all avenues of developing that trade to the greatest extent. If other shipping were not available I can envisage the possibility of Mr. McEwen suggesting to me that a vessel of the Australian National Line might be used. The question of cost, which we have frequently discussed in this chamber - cost of operating Australian ships - would be a factor to be taken into account. But, no doubt, if there were no other services available, we would explore the possibility of using such a vessel.

page 1721

QUESTION

FAT LAMBS

Senator WADE:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry a question. Is he aware that fat lambs carrying a skin value of 25s. are selling for 50s. a head, leaving a carcass costing only 25s.? Can the Minister say whether these ruinous low prices, which the grower is obliged to accept, are the result of a falling off of overseas markets or the result of local conditions?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · VICTORIA · LP

– I am aware that the market for fat lambs has fallen to quite low levels. I do not think that I could apportion the reasons for that accurately as between the falling off in overseas demand and conditions that prevail in this country? I think that probably one of the reasons for this drop in prices is the extremely high price that is at present being paid for beef, which is in such short supply in this country. Butchers, after buying beef, may not have sufficient funds left with which to buy lambs. If that is so, ons of the remedies would be an increased demand for lamb by the Australian public. 1 think that is all I can say.

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– By way of supplementary question, I should like to ask the Minister: Can he inform the Senate whether there has been an decrease in the retail price of lamb as a result of this fall-off in the market?

Senator GORTON:

– I do not think I can. I have not bought any lamb lately, but I was under the impression that lamb was selling relatively cheaply in the shops.

Senator Willesee:

– That is spring lamb. That has nothing to do with overseas prices.

Senator GORTON:

– I was asked about spring lamb. I understand that the price for them has fallen. I have a recollection of being told that you could buy spring lamb, particularly if you bought large quantities - quarters or halves - quite cheaply; in fact, too cheaply for the good of the producer.

page 1722

QUESTION

ABORIGINES

Senator WEDGWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I ask the

Minister representing the Minister for Territories whether it is a fact that another well-known aboriginal has been sentenced to six months imprisonment on a charge of supplying liquor to an aboriginal? In view of the severity and rigidity of the Northern Territory ordinance, which left the magistrate no option but to impose such a severe gaol sentence, will the Minister give immediate consideration to amending the ordinance?

Senator Sir WALTER COOPER:

– Yes, I understand that a certain aboriginal has been committed to Fanny Bay gaol for a period. I also understand that strong representations have already been made to the Minister for Territories, the Prime Minister and Dr. Evatt. However, I will bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Minister.

page 1722

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator VINCENT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Shipping and Transport inform the Senate whether the scheduled shipping service to Albany is being maintained? Do the cargo figures indicate good support for the service, warranting its continuation? Is there a direct shipment service provided to Bunbury?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– Some two years ago we instituted a scheduled service to Albany on the assurance of the Albany traders that they would require 600 tons of cargo per shipment. That service has been continued through the years at four services a year, I think, from memory. There have been occasions when the guaranteed quantity of cargo has not been reached, but, by and large, the 600 tons has been averaged over the period. We propose to continue the service.

About a year ago arrangements were made for the establishment of a direct service between the eastern States and Bunbury on the basis of delivery of 500 tons of cargo per shipment. That service is continuing, and is being reasonably well patronized.

As the honorable senator has asked a question that is of considerable interest to Western Australia, I take the opportunity to emphasize the importance to traders in both the Albany and the Bunbury districts of supporting these two very valuable direct services if the services are to continue.

Senator BRANSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport is supplementary to the question to which he has just replied. Has the Minister given any consideration to the port of Esperance?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– Yes. The Albany service calls at Esperance. It is an Esperance-Albany service.

page 1722

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH AND STATE HOUSING AGREEMENT

Senator ANDERSON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question to the Minister for National Development in relation to the CommonwealthState Housing Agreement, by stating that a revolving fund is in existence in connexion with the provision to building societies of funds for home ownership. What is the present extent of the fund? Are the sums accumulated in the fund distributed each year, along with the normal loan allocations, to the societies?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The administration of the fund is a matter for the relevant State Government. The fund has been established because the Commonwealth lends to the States moneys which are repayable over 55 years. The States then lend moneys to the building societies which generally repay over 25 to 30 years, so that the States receive in their hands amounts greater than those which they are liable to repay to the Commonwealth. The agreement provides that the States have the right to re-lend those moneys to building societies pending repayment to the Commonwealth.

The arrangement has worked successfully, as was anticipated. The last figures that I saw indicated that a total of £1,500,000, in excess of the sum that which normally would have become available to the building societies, has in fact been lent to them. The result is that after three years’ operation of the scheme and added amount of £1,500,000 has been made available for building societies. As the effect of the transactions will be cumulative, there is no doubt that the revolving fund will become larger each year.

page 1723

QUESTION

OCEANOGRAPHY

Senator BRANSON:

– I address my question to the Minister for the Navy. Is it a fact that the survey vessel “ Diamantina “ has just returned to Fremantle after carrying out an oceanographic survey of the Indian Ocean which covered some thousands of miles? Can the Minister say whether it is likely that an additional survey vessel will be stationed at Fremantle?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The “ Diamantina “ has just returned to Fremantle after a voyage of some thousands of miles, but I think that there is no likelihood of another vessel of the kind being stationed at Fremantle in the near future, although this vessel is scheduled to carry out two or three more such voyages during its sojourn in Western Australia.

page 1723

QUESTION

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. In view of the widespread interest in the so-called problem of juvenile delinquency, will the Minister consider setting up a committee to investigate the matter, with a view to assisting to find a solution, if such a problem does in reality exist? If such an investigation is found to be warranted, could the results be made available to members of this Parliament?

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

– ‘The question relates to a matter of policy. I shall refer it to the Minister for Social Services and obtain an answer for the honorable senator as soon as possible.

page 1723

QUESTION

ALUMINIUM

Senator WARDLAW:
TASMANIA

– Has the Minister for National Development seen a statement made by the Premier of Tasmania, Mr. Reece, regarding a possible increase in the production of aluminium at Bell Bay? When does the Minister expect to make an announcement in regard to this matter?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I can do little more than say as I have said previously, that the Tasmanian Government and the Commonwealth Government are seeking private investment for the purpose of extending the Bell Bay aluminium works. I am in close touch with the Premier of Tasmania on the matter, and if and when a statement is necessary, I shall make one. There is no prospect of such a statement being made in the immediate future.

page 1723

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT BANK

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: When is it expected that trading by the newly-constituted Development Bank will commence? Can the Minister say whether the assistance to be given by the bank to primary industry will be given direct, through the private banks, or by both means?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– It is expected that the Commonwealth Banking Corporation will commence to function early in January of next year. The Development Bank, being a component of the corporation, will of course also commence to function then. The Development Bank will conduct business direct with the public. I can imagine circumstances in which the trading banks might be used for this purpose, but, in the main, negotiations will be conducted directly between the client and the Development Bank.

Senator VINCENT:

– I ask the Minister a question supplementary to that asked by Senator Drake-Brockman. Can the Minister inform us whether, at the appropriate time, the Government will give us a detailed picture showing, industry by industry and State by State, of the nature, extent and form of assistance given by the Development Bank, so that prospective clients will have some idea of what may be expected in the way of development loans? I may mention that, so far, the general public has only a vague idea of the nature of the assistance that is to be accorded it through the Development Bank.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I shall be pleased to discuss Senator Vincent’s suggestion with the Treasurer and get his reaction to it. Generally speaking, however, 1 think it should now be recognized that the extent and form of the assistance which the bank will give to clients will, in the last analysis, be conditioned by the magnitude of the demands which are made on it. I have no doubt that the bank, in pursuance of its ordinary commercial dealings, will itself arrange priorities. It might be very useful to the general public, however, to have more widely publicized the kind of information about which the honorable senator has asked, and I shall be pleased to ask the Treasurer whether he will consider doing so.

page 1724

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator SCOTT:

– Has the Minister for Civil Aviation any further information about when it is expected that the new Fokker Friendship Aircraft will go into service with MacRobertson-Miller Airlines Limited on the Perth-Darwin route?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I am sorry to have to say that within the last couple of days Mr. Kleinig, the manager of MacRobertsonMiller Airlines Limited, has communicated with his Perth office to the effect that the aircraft will not now be available as early as was expected. It will not reach Perth until some little time before Christmas and will not be placed in commission until the early part of January of next year.

page 1724

QUESTION

IMPORTS OF SECOND-HAND ARTICLES

Senator BROWN:
through Senator Willesee

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

  1. Is it a fact that thousands of articles are prohibited from entry into Australia although they are second-hand and are sent here as presents involving no payment in American dollars or any other currency?
  2. Is it a fact that, because of fraudulent practices in the past by a number of intending importers, the Department of Trade proscribes such articles?
  3. Is the prohibition absolute, permitting no exception whatsoever?
  4. Could not some system be devised which would permit the entry of presents, where proof is provided that they are second-hand articles involving no payment?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Minister for Trade has furnished the following replies: - 1, 2 and 3. No.

  1. Goods which in the opinion of the Collector of Customs are not related to any commercial transaction are exempt from the import licensing system. This includes bona fide gifts. Although there is no restriction on the value of any individual gift, the exemption is meant to apply to the normal type of birthday or wedding gift, &c. There is a major exception to this general rule, viz., motor vehicles. Motor vehicles are of high individual value, and experience has shown that it is not possible to ascertain whether the motor vehicle is a genuine gift or whether it will in fact be paid for by some indirect method. Because of this, all applications to import motor vehicles as gifts are refused.

page 1724

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact (a) that something in the nature of an industrial dispute is taking place between the administrators of the Postmaster-General’s Department and the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union in relation to the sorting of mail under new arrangements brought about by new surcharges and other matters, (b) that this particular section of the union has been commended for its very loyal and meritorious service over a number of years in the handling of mail, and (c) that the workers affected and their representatives claim that under the new arrangement the staff is insufficient to cope adequately with the work or to carry it out under reasonable and proper conditions?
  2. Will the Postmaster-General make a statement setting out fully the grievances of departmental officers who have been affected by this new administrative arrangement and endeavour to arrange for the dispute to be settled as early as possible by the adoption by the administrators of the Postmaster-General’s Department of a reasonable attitude towards the employees who work under them?
Senator Sir WALTER COOPER:

– The

Postmaster-General has given the following reply: - 1 and 2. The dispute was amicably settled, to the satisfaction of all parties, at a conference between officers of the Postmaster-General’s Department and representatives of the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union.

page 1724

QUESTION

EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

Senator COOKE:

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

  1. Have the six original states in the European Common Market pledged themselves to replace, over a period of years, their separate tariffs against the rest of the world with a common external tariff and to reduce gradually, and eventually eliminate, customs duty and other restrictions upon trade with each other?
  2. Has Greece now joined this group and given a similar pledge?
  3. Is the United Kingdom endeavouring to secure a form of European trade area embracing a common market for the United Kingdom and a number of other countries?
  4. Is it afact as reported, that industrial opinion in theUnited Kingdom is divided on the question as towhether Britain should join in such a system of European economic integration but that the majority of leading industrialists favour British participation provided it does not involve abandonment or whittling down of imperial preference?
  5. As Britain takes 40 per cent. of our exports and provides about 40 per cent. of our imports, has the Commonwealth Government given any serious consideration to this challenge or made any approach to the United Kingdom representatives to ascertain whether they are prepared to negotiate to maintain the present imperial preference for the protection of Australia’s trade?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Minister for Trade has provided the following answers: -

  1. The six Common Market countries have undertaken to do these things over a transitional period of twelve to fifteen years.
  2. A form of association between Greece and the Common Market countries is at present under negotiation.
  3. Yes.
  4. With reference to the question as to whether industrial opinion in the United Kingdom is divided on whether Britain should join in such a system of European economic integration, the Grand Council of the Federation of British Industries stated recently that industrial opinion in Britain was dominated by the need to avoid the division of Europe into two camps and that United Kingdom policy should be based on the preservation of the imperial preference system.
  5. The Government is well aware of the importance of protecting Australian trade with the United Kingdom and has kept closely in touch with developments which might affect this trade.

page 1725

COMMONWEALTH CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION

Third Annual Report

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– I have received the third annual report of the President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The president, in his report, made only one suggestion for amending legislation. Consideration had already been given to this matter and an amending regulation which should meet the position is being prepared. It is pleasing to note that the president has emphasized the value of recent amendments of the act and that he is able to report that the objects of the act have been substantially achieved, and that industrial friction is waning rather than increasing.

Pursuant to section 70 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, I lay on the table of the Senate the following paper: -

Conciliation and Arbitration Act - Third Annual Report of the President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, for year ended 13th August, 1959.

page 1725

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1959

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir Walter Cooper) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Sir WALTER COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

[11.10]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Seat of Government (Administration) Act prescribes among other things, the procedure by which the gazetted plan of layout of the city of Canberra may be modified or varied as is found necessary from time to time. Section 12a, which detailed the procedure to be followed, had as its object the exercise of parliamentary supervision of this gazetted plan. The present bill is mainly designed to amend this procedure.

The plan of layout of the national capital was originally gazetted on 19th November, 1925. A number of modifications and variations, mostly of a minor character, have been made to the plan since that time in accordance with the procedure set out in the act which is, briefly as follows: -

  1. The Minister may modify or vary the plan, but only after giving 30 days’ notice of intention so to do by notification published in the Gazette.
  2. A copy of the instrument making the modification or variation must be laid before both Houses of Parliament within fifteen days if Parliament is sitting, or, if not, within fifteen days of the next meeting of Parliament.
  3. If either House passes a resolution of disallowance of which notice has been given within fifteen sitting days after the instrument has been laid before it, the modification or variation shall cease to have effect.

Proposals for the development of Canberra that have been formulated by the National Capital Development Commission since its establishment last year, indicate the need for some substantial changes in the gazetted plan of layout of Canberra. Although it has been the practice to include a number of changes in the plan with each formal action to vary, it has become clear that the procedure required under section 12a is too protracted for efficient administration, and that, with the accelerated rate of development of the city, the procedure needs to be revised to enable changes in the plan, especially minor changes, to be dealt with promptly.

It is apparent that the basic intention of section 12a was to give Parliament an opportunity to consider any changes, but shorter times than those prescribed in the present act would provide adequate safeguards, particularly as all proposed variations are now referred beforehand to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. It is therefore proposed by this bill to amend section 12a as follows: -

  1. To alter the period of notice of intention to vary the plan, required by sub-section (1.), from 30 days to twelve days.
  2. To simplify sub-section (2.) by requiring that a copy of each instrument of variation shall be laid before each House of the Parliament within fifteen sitting days, instead of 30, and to provide in addition that it be accompanied by an explanatory statement by the Minister.
  3. To reduce from fifteen sitting days to six sitting days the period provided under sub-section (3.) within which notice of a resolution of disallowance may be given in either House.

Another minor amendment will simplify sub-section (1.) in its reference to the plan existing at the time of any future modification or variation, by substituting the words “ as previously modified or varied “ for the words “as modified or varied prior to the date of the commencement of this section “.

It is felt that these proposed amendments to section 12a will give ample opportunity both for objections by the public after gazettal of any notice of intention to vary the plan, and for members of either House of the Parliament to consider the variations and give notice of any motion of disallowance. I may say that these proposed amendments to section 12a have been considered by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, and that they give effect to the views of that committee, with two minor exceptions. The committee suggested seven days instead of the originally proposed five days for the period within which notice of disallowance could be given. Six days represents a reasonable compromise. The committee also suggested that some statutory reference to it of the proposed changes should be made. As the committee itself is not a statutory body, I have agreed to refer to it all proposed changes.

As I have mentioned, arrangements have been made for all proposed modifications or variations of the Canberra city plan to be referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory for consideration before they are incorporated in a formal instrument for execution by the Minister.

The other purpose of this bill is to amend section 12 of the act. This section provides for the making of ordinances, which constitute the main body of the law of the Territory. The section was introduced in 1910, since which time there have been only two minor amendments, the last of which was made in 1939. In the intervening period some weaknesses have been noted, and in more recent acts - the Christmas Island Act 1958, the Cocos (Keeling) Island Act 1955 and the Heard Island and the McDonald Islands Act 1953 - clearer and more complete provision has been made in connexion with the making of ordinances for a Territory. The amendments proposed by the present bill will simply correct the weaknesses in the act and bring its provisions more into line with the other acts referred to.

The main changes in substance proposed by the bill are as follows: - First, the time within which an ordinance must be tabled would be fifteen sitting days instead of 30 days. It is more usual for a provision of this nature to provide a limit in terms of sitting days. The present act does cause some inconvenience when an ordinance is made very near the end of a parliamentary sitting, and indeed it could be impossible to comply with it if the ordinance were made on the last day of the sitting.

Secondly, an ordinance would be void and of no effect if not tabled within that time. At present the act is silent on this point, and it is doubtful what is the legal effect of failure to table as required. Thirdly, either House of Parliament would be enabled to disallow part of an ordinance whereas at present a part of an ordinance cannot be disallowed without disallowing the whole. Fourthly, if notice of motion to disallow an ordinance or part is given, it will have to be dealt with within fifteen sitting days: otherwise the ordinance or part will be deemed to be disallowed. Under the existing act, the Government may avoid a debate on a motion to disallow an ordinance by keeping it at the bottom of the notice-paper.

Fifthly, the precise legal effect of disallowance will be made clear by a provision that a disallowance has the same effect as a repeal, except that any law repealed by the disallowed ordinance is revived. Under the present act, a disallowed ordinance “ shall cease to have effect “ but this leaves room for uncertainty, for example as to the position of accrued rights and pending litigation. Further, under the present act, the disallowance of a provision in an ordinance which repeals a provision in another ordinance does not revive the previous provision. This is unsatisfactory in that, generally speaking, Parliament would disallow such a provision because it considered that the previous law should remain.

Sixthly, when a provision is disallowed it will not be lawful for the GovernorGeneral to make a provision the same in substance within six months after the disallowance, except with the approval of the House concerned. The present act does not prevent the frustration of a disallowance by the making of a similar provision during a Parliamentary recess.

Finally the Interpretation Ordinance 1937-1955 of the Territory provides that regulations made under ordinances shall be tabled and that either House has the right to disallow them. It is doubtful whether those provisions are effective, as it may well be that an ordinance cannot confer powers on the Houses of Parliament. By this bill, the provisions with regard to ordinances are applied by the act to regulations, thus putting beyond question the right of Parliament to scrutinize all Territory regulations and legislation. Honorable senators will note that these provisions increase rather than diminish the control exercised by the Parliament over the making of ordinances for the Australian Capital Territory. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1727

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY REPRESENTATION BILL (No. 2) 1959

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir Walter Cooper) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Sir WALTER COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

[11.21]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is consequential upon the amendments proposed by the Seat of Government (Administration) Bill 1959 which I have just introduced. That bill extends the power of either House of Parliament so that it may disallow part of an ordinance or regulation as well as the whole. The bill which was passed earlier this year gave the member for the Australian Capital Territory the right to vote on a motion for the disallowance of an ordinance or regulation of the Territory. This bill gives him the right to vote on a motion for the disallowance of part of an ordinance or regulations or a motion for the disallowance, of rules and by-laws. Therefore, it is an extension of his existing rights. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1728

CANNING-FRUIT CHARGE BILL 1959

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to impose a levy on apricots, peaches and pears accepted by canneries as of canning quality or for use in the production of canned fruit. The moneys so collected will be used to finance a scheme to promote the sale of Australian canned fruits both overseas and in Australia. The scheme has been sponsored by the Australian Canning Fruitgrowers Association, the central organization of growers of canning apricots, peaches and pears, which claims to represent about 90 per cent. of the industry in numbers in the three main producing States of Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales and 95 per cent. of the Australian production of these fruits used in canning. In addition, the scheme enjoys the full support of both the central organization of fruit canners - the Australian Canners’ Association - and the Australian Canned Fruits Board which is the statutory Commonwealth authority charged with achieving the orderly overseas marketing of Australian canned fruits.

The Government has been glad to respond to this commendable move on the part of the canning fruitgrowing industry to help itself and the bills I am now presenting are purely for the purpose of giving legislative expression to the industry’s own scheme. I shall make further reference to the scheme in my second-reading speech on the Canned Fruit Sales Promotion Bill 1959.

I commend the bill to honorable Senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1728

CANNING-FRUIT CHARGE (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1959

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to provide the machinery necessary for the collection of the charge imposed by the Canning-Fruit Charge Bill. The provisions of the bill are in general accord with the wishes of the central industry organizations concerned. As both this bill and the Canning-Fruit Charge Bill must be read in conjunction with the Canned Fruit Sales Promotion Bill

I propose to refer in more detail to the promotion scheme with which they are concerned in my second-reading speech on the Canned Fruit Sales Promotion Bill. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1728

CANNED FRUIT (SALES PROMOTION) BILL 1959

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The main object of this bill is to establish the Australian Canned Fruit Sales Promotion Committee, and to vest it with authority to utilize funds, to be derived from a levy to be imposed on fruits supplied for canning, for the promotion of sales of canned apricots, peaches, pears and canned mixed fruits of those varieties overseas and in Australia.

For several years now the fruit canning industry has been experiencing the effects of increasingly strong competition from other suppliers in practically all our export markets, and when it is recalled that some 60 per cent. of our annual pack of canned fruits is exported the significance of this becomes very real. The Government has been lending the strongest weight it can to the exploitation of overseas markets for canned fruit and is assisting the industry in its trade arrangements with other countries, through the Trade Commissioner Service and per medium of the Overseas Trade Publicity organization, towards the financing of which the Government is a heavy subscriber. Canners, of course, are already pushing sales quite vigorously but competition is intensifying.

The general trend of canned fruit production has been a steadily increasing one, and the industry now finds itself in a position of some difficulty. The logical points to concentrate upon in order to meet the present situation are to endeavour to increase sales on the domestic market and to intensify sales promotion efforts on export markets. The Australian Canning Fruitgrowers Association, a body representative of the vast majority of growers of canning fruit, has applied itself to the problem, and growers have generally recognized that they themselves must assist canners in the task of maintaining and, if possible, increasing sales. Accordingly the association, on behalf of growers, has requested the Government to introduce legislation to impose a levy on growers based on their deliveries of canning fruit to canneries. The proceeds of this levy are to be made available for the purpose of promoting the sale of canned fruit both in Australia and overseas, and the bill I am now presenting, as I have already mentioned, is to establish a committee to formulate and carry out the promotion activities.

The two other central industry organizations concerned, the Australian Canned Fruits Board and the Australian Canners Association have endorsed the proposal of the Canning Fruitgrowers Association, and the Canners Association has indicated that canners as a whole are willing to operate the machinery necessary to collect the levies from growers. It is envisaged that an annual fund of some £50,000 will thus be made available to enlarge in a rational manner on promotion work already being undertaken.

The constitution of the Australian Canned Fruit Sales Promotion Committee, as provided for in the legislation, will ensure the balance of voting power to the representatives of the Australian Canning Fruitgrowers Association and the Australian Canned Fruits Board, the Australian Canners Association and the Commonwealth Government will also be represented. In this way the operations of the committee will run in harmony with, and supplement to the best advantage, existing promotion activities. It is commendable that producers of the primary product should recognize difficulties facing disposal of their product in a secondary form and should levy themselves to provide funds to assist in ensuring its disposal. At the request of the growers the Government has been pleased to introduce these bills to give legislative expression to their wishes.

Honorable senators may have noticed that canned pineapple has not been included in the proposals, and this, I assure them, is at the wish of that section of the industry. The Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing, a growers co-operative operating under Queensland legislation is already conducting quite extensive promotion activities in respect of canned pineapples at home and in overseas markets. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1729

CANNED FRUITS EXPORT CONTROL BILL 1959

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this measure is to amend the Canned Fruits Export Control Act 1926-1956 to provide for the appointment to the Australian Canned Fruits Board of a representative of the growers of canning apricots, peaches and pears. As presently constituted the board consists of one representative of co-operative canneries of apricots, peaches or pears, one representative of proprietary canneries of apricots, peaches or pears, one representative of canneries engaged in the production of canned pineapple or canned pineapple juice, and a representative of the Commonwealth Government. The bill gives effect to the proposal of the Australian Canning Fruitgrowers’ Association, the central organization of the growers of canning apricots, peaches and pears, the members of which are claimed to account for about 95 per cent, of the production of these fruits used in canning.

The passage of this legislation will give the fruitgrowers a direct voice in the conduct of board affairs as is the case with all similar Commonwealth marketing authorities. The Government regards it as important that there should be collaboration and co-operation between growers and canning interests at all levels in marketing matters; and this is made more imperative by the difficult marketing period the canned fruits industry is presently facing. It is most desirable that growers of canning fruit should have a first-hand appreciation of the policies and decisions of the Australian Canned Fruits Board in its efforts to ensure the disposal overseas of our surplus production of canned fruits at reasonable prices.

Some 60 per cent, of our annual pack of canned fruits is exported, and about 90 per cent, of exports is directed to the United Kingdom. It is in this market that our 1959 pack is being disposed of in the face of stiff competition from other suppliers, notably California and South Africa. The immediate future holds little promise of any easing of the competition, and our ability to hold our position on the United Kingdom and other markets will depend to an everincreasing extent on quality, price and salespromotion activity; and in the outcome of these endeavours the grower is concerned equally with the canner. I am confident that growers, through their representative, can contribute to the deliberations of the board, providing a direct link between the board and this section of the industry. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1730

STATES GRANTS BILL 1959

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19th November (vide page 1718), on motion by Senator Paltridge -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- The bill now before the Senate is the product of a Premiers’ Conference held in June of this year. The conference was attended by the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) and, in the absence abroad of the Prime Minister, by the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. McEwen, who described the proposals, which he then put forward and which were accepted by the States, as historic. 1 mention that at the outset of my speech because, although the proposals were described as historic, I do not read into the discussions on that occasion any indication that they were thought to be revolutionary or of an ameliorating revolutionary character. They were, however, described as historic, I think in the sense that they marked a definite stage in a most important subject matter of public life - the finances as distributed between the Commonwealth and the States for public purposes. We in this chamber are, I believe, specially charged with the duty to give thought to that matter, at least to note its trends and to contribute to its future development.

Mr. President, there are those who have come to consider this matter in terms merely of income tax. Their memory is, I believe, confined to the war and the post-war periods. But in order to get a proper perspective on the matter, I believe that it must be approached from the point of view of history. A brief glance at our federation history is all-important to see what is the place, in the judgment of Parliament, that this proposal takes. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) reminded us last night of Deakin’s famous philosophy, at the outset of federation, to the effect that the financial power would eventually prove the undoing of a federal structure and mean that the States would be financially bound to the chariot wheels of the Commonwealth. In that day and generation, the financial power was confined to customs and excise duties, the whole of which had perforce, as a matter of the federation agreement, to be surrendered exclusively to the Commonwealth; otherwise, there was no possibility of getting the uniformity of customs and excise that was regarded as essential to destroy the border duties that were growing up to disrupt the Commonwealth and to prevent it from becoming an economic unit.

A proposal came from the Premier of Tasmania at that time. It was written into the Constitution and characteristically evoked an outlook north of Bass Strait which described it as the “ Braddon blot “. It guaranteed a return to the States of threequarters of the revenues from indirect taxes. New South Wales, as its final compromise in entering into the federation, restricted the provision for ten years. As Senator McKenna said last night, the Commonwealth Parliament took the earliest opportunity to curtail it. In 1909, I thought it was - a year before the provision was due to expire under the Constitution - the Commonwealth indirectly curtailed it and then in 1910 substituted per capita grants to the States.

Per capita grants began in 1910. They take their place in this historic document as one of the new factors in the formula of 1959 which was different from, but not not much different from, the formula of 1946. Per capita grants continued from 1910 until about 1930. It was the pressure of the First World War on Commonwealth finances that induced the Commonwealth, for the first time, to introduce an income tax associated with other taxes, such as estate duties. The post-war development of the First World War demanded that the States, as a matter of governmental responsibility, should hasten the development of their States, and this compelled them to seek more revenue from income tax. The terrific impact that this development made upon their finances first produced the Financial Agreement of 1929 as an attempt to rescue them from bankruptcy of capital loans, and put their finances on a regular basis. For this, we passed an alteration of the Constitution.

The depression then made a huge impact upon the revenues of the States. In the 1930’s, they engaged in an almost riotous campaign to exploit the income tax field. This is demonstrated by the varying rates of income tax levied by the States during the 1930’s. A mere reminder of them almost adds a new terror to life in this day and generation, much as we are harassed by the tax gatherer. They were called income taxes, company taxes, special company taxes, unemployment taxes and wage taxes. The Commonwealth’s demands were also growing, and all through that period, first with the Premiers’ Conference of 1934 and then Treasury officer conferences, a real and unending attempt was made to reconcile the demands of the Commonwealth and the States, each claiming a share of the revenues of the country.

A problem of unique importance presented itself. Two taxing authorities were each levying income tax in each State, but each £1 of income has only 20s., and income, however it is assessed, is only a product of earning - a net figure, not without limit and scarcely divisible. In 1942, pressed by the weight of the demands of war, the government of the day, failing to get agreement from the States, put through a measure to make uniform the collection and the rate of income tax throughout Australia, irrespective of State boundaries. It was then to some extent pivoted on the defence power, but the majority of the High Court was found to sustain it as a constitutional measure without that aid. In 1946, in the days of the Chifley Government, we had five State Labour governments and only one State Liberal government, which was led by Mr. Playford, now Sir Thomas. It seems so long ago, but he was there then. They agreed most grudgingly to continue uniform taxation, and in order to provide sufficient by way of reimbursement to the States of their adjudged shares of the revenues collected in income tax, the Commonwealth and the States adopted a formula. That formula, on which the share of each State was fixed, was based on a total figure of £40,000,000. The basic figure in the formula we are discussing to-day is £244,500,000. This is the main difference between the two efforts - that of 1946 and that of 1959. In principle, there is no other distinctive element in this historic proposal of 1959.

What has been the result of the formula of 1946? As I said, it was based upon an aggregate figure of £40,000,000, and on two elements. One element was the average wage, and the other was the population of each State. There were a few twists of arithmetic, and allocation to States was applied at a different stage of the arithmetical process, but basically the vital elements were the same. The result of that formula was sad. As has been said in other contexts, the fate of formulae has not been very fortunate.

The total formula reimbursements to the States rose from £40,000,000 in 1946- 47 to £108,000,000 in 1952-53, and thence progressively to £120,000,000, £132,000,000, £141,000,000, £154,000,000 and £167,000,000, and this year the formula figure will be £174,000,000. But the formula grant has had to be supplemented each year in order to meet, on the most meagre scale, the requirements of the States for revenue. The amounts of these supplementary grants, you will remember, Mr. President, have varied over the years. They commenced with the special grant of £8,000,000 occasioned by the coal strike in 1949. In the first year of office of the present Government they rose to £20,000,000 to meet increased costs. Thereafter, the total amount of supplementary grants was varied to £33,000,000, £27,000,000, £21,000,000, £19,000,000, £17,000,000, £19,000,000, and £24,000,000, and this year the supplementary grants total is proposed to be £30,000,000.

These supplementary grants are fixed by the decision of the Commonwealth Government as part of its budget and are approved by this Parliament. So the States, consequent upon the introduction of uniform taxation and their reliance on a statutory formula for their revenue from income taxation as a substitute for their governmental right to tax - from which they were nudged out in 1942 - have, in effect over the last ten years been dependent for their basic revenues upon the decisions of the Commonwealth Government and the Commonwealth Parliament. That has produced some pressures.

The Government of Victoria, under the leadership of Mr. Bolte, has been particularly purposeful in trying to retrieve order from this chaos. It took the matter to the High Court for clarification, and the High Court endorsed the principle of the 1942 decision. Mr. Bolte then applied to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, bringing Victoria into the category of a claimant State for the purposes of special grants. Queensland, under the premiership of Mr. Nicklin, was compelled to do the same. That means that in Australia we have one State remaining as a standard State, with the other five States becoming claimant States in relation to these special grants distributed by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. That has meant, in turn, that not merely are the States dependent upon the Commonwealth Government’s decision for their finances; but that there could now be applied to them the term used to describe the original claimant States - “ mendicants “. As Senator Lillico said last night, they pleaded their case before a tribunal set up by the Commonwealth Parliament. It was a tribunal that operated with a good deal of insight and skill, but nevertheless it was one which subjected the State Governments to financial decisions which left very little freedom of action to these Governments, and the State Parliaments, for the development of taxation and expenditure policies in accordance with the decisions of the parliamentary representatives of the people of the States.

That is the situation that we reached in 1959, when this conference produced the historic proposal to which I have referred. Working at the same time has been the Constitution Review Committee, appointed by this Parliament about three years ago. In the report of that committee there is an all too relevant and significant reference to the problems of Commonwealth-State financial relations which indicates that the committee spent much time on, and gave very serious thought to, this problem, which the committee considered to be at the centre of the whole balance of financial justice as between the two partners in federation - the Commonwealth on the one hand and the six States on the other.

The majority of members of that committee were of the view that it was possible to find a solution within the framework of the present Constitution; but the whole committee made the valuable suggestion that there should be a conference of the leaders of the States and the Commonwealth to discuss seriously this matter, which had been drifting for years. There had been a Treasury officials’ conference in 1953. The problem had been mentioned again at a Premiers’ Conference in 1954 or 1955, and the Constitution Review Committee urged that there should be a new conference for the purpose of allowing the Governments and the Parliaments of the Commonwealth and the States to evolve a solution within the present constitutional structure. I myself take the view, as expressed in my separate report, Mr. President, that a constitutional amendment is definitely required so that proper financial security can be given to the States. That was followed, Mr. President, by the Prime Minister’s announcement in his policy speech that he would call a special conference. A preliminary conference was held in March. At that conference, there was no evidence of a really united or co-ordinated effort on the part of the States. Although the transcript of the proceedings does not reveal the extent to which the finances of the Commonwealth were analysed, it is obvious that they were analysed very carefully by the Commonwealth officers. Mr. McEwen and Mr. Holt, the Commonwealth representatives, brought to the June conference proposals which were accepted by the States, and which are now in this bill for acceptance by this Parliament.

Before I go on to refer to the details of those proposals, the general principles underlying them and their appropriateness to present conditions, let me say that if we are to have a federal structure it is of vital importance, in my opinion, that each of the State governments shall have a responsibility for raising revenue and for spending the money so raised, consistently with policies announced to the people of the State at appropriate State elections. In the Commonwealth sphere, the Government’s budget proposals are vitally important as a test of the acceptability of its policy to the electors. Consider the subject of education, for example. Surely a State government is handicapped constitutionally if, believing that an extension of the State’s educational facilities is urgently needed, it has no avenues of taxation available to it for raising money to implement that policy.

Mr. President, there is really no need for me to restate this principle, because at the March conference both the Prime Minister - who was able to attend personally - and Mr. Holt, the Commonwealth Treasurer, expressed the view that it was a sound general principle. I refer honorable senators to pages 29 and 38 of the transcript. If we look at “Hansard”, volume 186, page 666, we see that when the Chifley proposal of 1946 to establish a formula for CommonwealthState financial relations was being discussed in the House of Representatives, Mr. Menzies said that he thought there was a vital principle at stake. He said -

I believe that we have not yet succeeded in grappling successfully with the problem of financial relations between the Commonwealth and the States. We have dealt with them far too much on a year-to-year basis.

At page 667 he is reported to have said -

We must face up to the question pf principle. To my mind, the vital matter of principle is this: If we are to have a federal system, with a central parliament and government, and with State parliaments and governments, and their powers are to be in truth independent powers, and not, as one might say, hierarchial powers, then it is essential that their financial powers also should be independent.

The difficulty of implementing that principle is obvious. This is a complex problem. It is beset and bedevilled, I believe, by a complex on the part of the Treasury advisers here in Canberra. They take the view that this Parliament is responsible for the general welfare of the people and that unlimited financial power should be retained by the Commonwealth so that it can use the economic weapon in case of need. They take the view also - and it is one that I would not for a moment dispute - that the Commonwealth is bound to have regard to the fact that in an emergency it may, for the purposes of defence, need unrestricted access to all fields of finance - both capital and income - within Australia. I dispute, not the claim in respect of defence, but the other claim, which shows that the outlook of the Commonwealth Treasury is the outlook of a centralized and completely unitary authority which denies the existence of a federal structure.

What alternatives to the present system are available? First of all, we could, by means of a constitutional provision guarantee the security of the revenues of the States. As between parliaments and governments, Mr. President, the only thing that is really a security is a constitutional provision. The next best provision would be a statutory provision adopting an agreement between the seven parliaments - an agreement such as the Financial Agreement, unconfirmed by the Constitution. The next best course would be to have a statutory agreement, such as the one we are considering, providing for a formula to operate over a period. Worse than that would be a statutory provision that did not meet the requirements of the Constitution and that was dependent for reality upon annual decisions by the Government to supplement the amounts calculated. That is the position that has existed during the past ten years. It follows from what I say that this present proposal, if it is adequate to meet the situation, will result in an improvement. The fifth course - one which would be completely abhorrent - would be to make all State revenues dependent upon special ad hoc grants made by the Commonwealth Government of the day, according to political exigencies within the States and particular circumstances.

Mr. President, I feel that attention could be given to this matter with very great advantage by the Senate. I should like to see a co-ordinated effort by the State premiers, but I am not acquitting the Commonwealth Government of responsibility, because we should be interested in perpetuating a principle which is fundamental to the soundness and effectiveness of the federal structure - the principle that the revenues available by right and authority to each of the State governments and to the Commonwealth Government shall be secure. The Commonwealth Government should be interested in that purpose. I am not one of those who think that this historic proposal of 1959 will solve this problem. lt will merely continue in existence the present system - admittedly with some improvement.

There is the alternative, Mr. President, that the fields for the raising of revenue could be divided between the States and the Commonwealth, as a matter of constitutional division. There is the further alternative of a parallel approach to section 87 of the Constitution, whereby we would fix the proportions of the yield from income tax and from indirect taxes that should go to the States and the Commonwealth. In 1910, the yield from indirect taxes was about £10,000,000, and to-day it is about £450,000,000. We could divide the total yield of those two fields of taxation by an appropriate factor so as to guarantee, constitutionally, that the States would receive an agreed proportion of that yield. But that proposition has not been submitted to us. It has not found favour. It was not even discussed either at the conference in March or the one in June. Mr. Bolte even had the temerity to discuss a proposal modelled on the Canadian practice, for which I find no enthusiasm, and which, as Mr. McEwen said, did not exactly raise a shout of acclamation at the conference.

So we are presented with a proposal which adopts as a basic figure for the purpose of deciding the amounts to be returned to the States, not £40,000,000 as in 1946, but £244,500,000. The proposal then is to work out the per-captia share of each State according to its population and then to provide for future adjustments according to the increase in the average wage, the increase in the population of the States, and what is called a “ betterment factor “ of .1. From year to year the States’ share of the basic grant of £244,500,000 is to be distributed according to this formula.

The system does provide a formula on a solid basis, and one to which all Governments will be bound to adhere. But 1950 and subsequent years proved how easy it is for contracting parties to repudiate. How can we have faith that in the exigencies that may arise this formula will be regarded as determinative?

The next point about the new method is that it eliminates the claims of three States on the Grants Commission. Victoria and Queensland have withdrawn their claims, and South Australia has graduated to the position in which, instead of being a claimant State, it foregoes its claim on the Grants Commission except in special circumstances. This is a great improvement and helps to bring balance back into this vexed problem.

My time, Mr. President, is limited, and therefore, I shall compress what I have to say quite considerably. I must add that I find in this formula a critically inflationary factor that I believe will prove the undoing of the formula and will contribute to the undoing of the economy of the Commonwealth and of the States. Under this new system responsibility disappears from State governments. Responsibility for expenditure is not imposed on them. This leads to pressures within the States, which could make themselves felt through the agency of the wage factor. The wage involved in this factor is the average wage paid, not the wage determined by the Arbitration Commission - and I would have no more confidence if it were the latter wage. The wage is not directly determined by the Commission, but obviously it will be substantially influenced by the decisions of the commission. To-day I think the average wage is of the order of £18 a week, while the basic wage is about £14 2s. This indicates the differential that I have in mind. The post-war period has shown that the Arbitration Court has been a factor in the generation of inflation in our economy, lt is at the foundation of the average wage. If we add to the inefficacy of the Arbitration Court the pressures of a political character that will build up in the States to increase the average wage factor so as to enhance their reimbursement, it is obvious that a structure will be created which will contribute to the destruction of stability in our economy.

It would be presumptuous for anybody in this Senate to refuse passage to a proposal that has been agreed to by the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth and the Premiers of the States, although grudgingly and with some reluctance by Mr. Rylah on behalf of Victoria. It would be presumptuous to deny legislative force to such a proposal, but I do not share the view that it provides a solution of the problem. Firm as I am in the belief that we will have to wrestle with the problem year by year, I make my contribution hoping that it will be thought worthy of consideration. As has been suggested by Senator McKenna, and as I have suggested from time to time, the Senate should establish a committee to make a special study of this matter, without giving offence to governments but simply to inform ourselves, so that from a collation of material and an assembly of ideas we could provide something on which governments could build and take the credit for building. But if we could dig the foundations, then I believe we would be making some real contribution. I support the proposal, with some degree of reservation.

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

– in reply - As the Treasurer’s representative in this chamber I would like to say at once that I am gratified that the presentation of this bill to the Senate, the chamber of the States, has provoked a debate of such high quality, although it is rather a pity that a greater number of speakers have not contributed to it. Nonetheless, the speeches we have heard have been first class and have had the effect of directing our further thoughts towards the solution of a problem which, over the years, has become increasingly vexacious and, apparently, more intractable.

This is a subject in which I have always taken a good deal of interest, as most honorable senators probably know. For that reason I enjoyed particularly the contribution made to the debate by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) and by my colleague, Senator Wright. Senator McKenna gave a most interesting account of the development of Commonwealth-State financial arrangements, as, indeed, did Senator Wright. The latter senator directed attention particularly to the increasing chaos that had developed in recent years as a result of attempts to solve the problem of financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States. We had seen the spectacle of a yearly wrangle which was taking on an undignified character, and was not doing any good, I believe, to the public life of this country or to the reputation of governments, or, in fact, of parliaments. Although Senator Wright supports this bill with substantial reservations - and who would be courageous enough to dispute that it does not solve the problem - 1 am pleased indeed that he sees in it an improvement in the position which has existed over recent years. At the base of the problem is the principle of parliamentary governmental responsibility for the raising of moneys and the expenditure of public moneys. I belong to a party which has stated its firm belief, and continues to state that belief, in the principle that responsibility is indissolubly wedded to the raising and expenditure of moneys by responsible governments.

Looking back over the more recent years I well remember an illuminating series of conversations I had in 1951 and 1952 with the then Premier of Western Australia, a grand gentleman by the name of Sir Ross McLarty. Two or three years before that time he had publicly not only accepted the principle to which I refer but also proclaimed it as a matter of practical possibility. Coming to power as he did in 1951, and addressing his fine mind to this problem, he was compelled to the conclusion in 1952 - reluctantly compelled, but nonetheless compelled - that he could not see within the measurable future a solution to this problem short of a formula which, even at that time, had shown the first signs of breaking down, and was in fact being augmented, as Senator Wright said, by supplementary grants since 1949. The net result was that, despite the belief of that Premier in the theory that responsible government should be attended by the raising and expending of moneys, he lent support to the proposal which, I repeat, at that time had begun to creak.

Although my colleague Senator Wright reluctantly gives his approval to this bill, history showed that the Premiers were not able, despite their best endeavours, to reach any degree of unanimity as to how a system of State taxation could be restored. I express very sincere hopes that this new formula which has advantages which the old formula and the old arrangements did not have, will prompt all the Premiers to address their minds again to this problem in an attempt to find the way out, and to restore to themselves what is their real responsibility and, indeed, their real obligation.

I now wish to deal with the agreement itself. Senator Wright invited me to say something about the manner in which the distribution was determined. Last year, as Senator Wright said, the formula grant had amounted to about £174,000,000. That commanded a supplementary grant of £31,000,000 which took the total tax reimbursement and supplementary grant to £205,000,000. As a matter of interest I mention, in passing, that the experience in recent years had been that the total payments to the States, by way of tax refunds and supplementary and special grants, had been increasing at the rate of about £17,000,000 each year. The statistician’s figures we had before us revealed that the formula element in the £205,000,000 grant would increase in the coming year by about £9,300,000. The Commonwealth made it clear to the States that if the old arrangements were preserved then it would be prepared to add to the supplementary grant an amount of approximately £5,700,000 making an increase overall of £15,000,000 in the tax reimbursement and supplementary grants, and bringing the total to £220,000,000 in 1959-60. The £220,000.000 would have been distributed in the following proportions: -

Seeking a solution, or at least a longterm easement, of the problem, the Commonwealth Government came to the conclusion that under certain circumstances it would be prepared to increase the normal figure of £220,000,000 by £22,500,000, bringing the new base amount to £242,500,000. The new formula, as has been said, was to be based on population figures, and average wages with a new element called “ betterment “ included. This was not in the expectation of increased costs and prices, but to cater for the natural expansion in the scope and quality of the services which the States might be expected to provide over the period of the agreement.

Senator Wright:

– That gives real sense to the term “ betterment “. It was not made clear at the conference.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I am making the point because I do not think it was made clear, and I think that Senator McKenna when speaking yesterday might have misunderstood its purpose. The betterment factor was to amount to 10 per cent, of average wages. It is interesting to note that at the conference the suggestion came from the representative of Tasmania. The Treasury officials and the Government of that State submitted the suggestion, which this Government was pleased to accept.

Senator Wright:

– And Mr. McEwen called it novel and instructive.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– Having made this offer Mr. McEwen said - and this is pertinent to the offer -

The new element in the formula would not only yield in itself a substantial addition each year to the amount of assistance produced by the application of the existing average wages and population factors, but would serve also to increase progressively the amount to which they were each year applied. In this respect, the formula the Commonwealth proposes would be substantially more favorable to the States than the existing one. It would also be more favorable by reason of the use of a new, higher, base amount. Accordingly, there should be no need, as there has been with the present formula, for any supplementary payments. The States would be receiving a very generous, and, what is very important, a very practical contribution to their financial needs.

I merely comment in passing, and I do so with great respect to Mr. McEwen naturally, that the question of supplementary grants is one which, in my view, must forever be a factor about which there will be considerable doubt, because it is not within the wit of man to predict with complete accuracy either the natural or the economic factors that may beset the country or any one State in the Commonwealth. For that reason I think that while we express a very firm hope that this new arrangement will provide a solution for the period of the agreement - six years - we must keep forever in mind the possibility that some unexpected outcropping of economic or natural circumstances may create the demand for a supplementary grant to one or more States.

The essential difference between this agreement and the old agreement is this: Under the old agreement the total amount of the grant was fixed by formula and then distributed to the six States by formula. Under the new agreement the total grant will be the total of six separate sums. Each State will have the amount of its grant calculated separately and the total of those six separate figures will be the amount of the grant.

Under the offer of £242,500,000 first made, New South Wales would have received £21 17s. 6d. per capita, Victoria £21 12s. 10d., Queensland £25 2s. 3d., South Australia £29 2s. 4d., Western Australia £35 6s. 7d., and Tasmania £31 16s. lid. The average per capita payment would have been £24 5s. Id. As I have said, the other conditions offered were that in addition to the average wage taken as a factor to work out the succeeding year’s appropriations, there should be a betterment factor, and Western Australia and Tasmania should be permitted to continue to approach the Grants Commission but Queensland and South Australia would be expected not to approach the Grants Commission unless some very unexpected circumstances developed. Here I revert to my earlier statement, because here at least in relation to these facts is seen the possibility - I put it no higher than that - that certain States may, in the course of this agreement, through exceptional circumstances be forced to go to the Grants Commission.

The amounts offered were then considered by the Premiers and two adjustments were subsequently made. Mr. Cahill pointed out that under the expired formula he was receiving per capita £20 12s. 5d. compared with Victoria’s per capita pay ment of £19 18s. Id. - a difference of 14s. 4d., whereas under the proposed new formula that difference would be very greatly reduced to 4s. 8d. He contended that a difference of that small nature would not make adequate compensation to him for the particular difficulties that he experienced by virtue of the size of his State and the other difficulties that sprang from that cause. Sir Thomas Playford took the point for South Australia that the amount proposed for him did not include an amount that he would have received as an adjustment by way of payments from the Grants Commission. The Commonwealth Government gave consideration at the time to these two requests. It recognized the validity of Mr. Cahill’s claim. It recognized that the assessment of the amount that was to go to South Australia had by mischance not included the assessment which Sir Thomas claimed would be his due from the Grants Commission, and the Commonwealth agreed that both claims would be met. Mr. McEwen made the characteristic clever comment at the time that in respect of Sir Thomas Playford’s £1,000,000, he was in fact only being paid with his own money.

The new per capita payment then ran to £22 2s. 9d. for New South Wales, £21 12s. lOd. for Victoria, £25 2s. 3d. for Queensland, £30 4s. 2d. for South Australia, £35 6s. 7d. for Western Australia, and £31 16s. lid. for Tasmania. Those figures and the adjusted base amount were accepted by the Premiers as the starting point of this new agreement. I think it was rightly described by Senator McKenna as a milestone in Australian history in relation to a financial arrangement ‘between the Commonwealth and the States. It was unique inasmuch as for the first time in many years unanimity was reached - true, grudgingly and reluctantly by Mr. Bolte. But there was unanimity and that was something that had been painfully absent from conferences of this type for many years past.

Senator Wright:

– The extra £22,000,000 over and above the projected grant and the supplementary grant was a pretty fair inducement.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– True enough, and there were other inducements that were attractive from the Commonwealth’s point of view. The very fact that we would know with some certainty in advance - some precision - was something from the budgetary point of view alone, apart from the financial aspect, which had very great attractions indeed. 1 express the hope that the new formula which has been accepted unanimously will achieve its purpose. I acknowledge that these arrangements necessitate a degree of mental flexibility, but I sincerely trust, as 1 am sure every honorable senator does, that this arrangement will meet the situation, at least for the next six years - the period of the agreement. 1 wish to make one point but not with any heat or in any spirit of criticism. I cannot allow to pass altogether unnoticed the remarks that were made last night by Senator Cooke. The Premiers’ Conference was not in any sense a conference which had a party political flavour. It was a conference to which the Commonwealth and States came, after a preliminary meeting in March, prepared and willing to settle on a basis of equity, not party politics, a problem which had proved to be intractable for so long. No premier, whatever his party, departed from that approach at the conference. I have said this in view of Senator Cooke’s critical comments last night about the attitude that was taken by Mr. Brand, the Premier of Western Australia, who, attending his first Premiers’ Conference, succeeded, as he invariably succeeds, in leaving behind an impression of complete soundness and financial responsibility.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.-] refer to clause 4 (2.) (a) which relates to payroll tax. I know that it was suggested at the June conference that the States, as part of this agreement, would have to accept the continuance of pay-roll tax in relation to State government agencies, but this presupposes the continuance of pay-roll tax as a vital factor of the formula. Can the Minister state what consideration has been given to that aspect?

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

– The agreement in its present form does depend on the continuation of pay-roll tax. I think that the minutes of the conference referred to that fact and to the need to vary the formula should pay-roll tax be either altered or abandoned.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1738

STATES GRANTS (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1959

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29th October (vide page 1281), on motion by Senator Paltridge -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

.- This bill, by which financial assistance will be provided to South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, is presented to us annually. The grant of a total of £7,200,000 this year is a reduction on the grants that have been made in recent years. That is accounted for by the fact that South Australia’s dependence upon this form of grant has been removed - we discussed that matter when the States Grants Bill was before us - and a very substantial part of the grants that were formerly made to Western Australia and Tasmania have been incorporated in the grant that will be made pursuant to the States Grants Bill.

The bill now before us implements recommendations that were made by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I take this opportunity to compliment the commission upon its work, and to compliment the commission staff of only fourteen, which costs the Commonwealth only £18.500 a year, on the excellence of the work that it does and the very useful statistical information that it supplies. I think that a great deal of the success of the commission rests upon its officers who, day by day and year by year, study developments in State budgets, and are able to guide and put data before the commission which help it immeasurably to reach its conclusions.

The commission has always adopted the principle that was enunciated in its third report in 1936 that the applicant States should be helped to an extent which, with reasonable effort on their part, will enable them to function at a level not appreciably lower than that of the standard States. That principle has never been varied although, from time to time, the methods of applying it have been altered. The commission, differently constituted from time to time, has been quite flexible in that regard. For instance, under considerable pressure over a period it abandoned a deduction that it used to make from these grants on account of what was termed, “ the effort required on account of claimancy “. If time permitted, I could develop an interesting theme as to other variations in the commission’s methods. It is faced with two variations now. The commission has used the two-part system in determining these grants, and the Treasury is pressing that the grant be reduced to one amount. The continuing applicant States of Tasmania and Western Australia desire that, at least for the present, the two-part system should be continued.

Senator Wright:

– Due, I understand, to the rapidly differing level of costs between the beginning and the end of the year.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. The whole matter is at issue before the commission now. I should imagine that we shall have a determination upon it by the time that the commission submits its next report.

The other matter that the commission must determine is what States shall constitute the standard. In future, there will be four standard or non-applicant States, and whilst the Treasury puts the argument that the four States which are not applicants should have their budgets taken into account by the commission in determining the norm for the applicant States, Tasmania and Western Australia argue that the budgets of only two States, New South Wales and Victoria, should be taken into account on the ground that at any time Queensland or South Australia might become applicant States again. That is a matter of method which will have to be argued in the coming session of the commission.

Senator Lillico yesterday dealt somewhat critically with some of the methods that have been adopted by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I do not wish to traverse that issue now, but I should like to say merely that lt does not do to select the activity of the commission in one aspect alone and ignore its performance in others.

The commission makes a balanced approach, in my view, to the problem of bringing the budgets of the applicant States to a level somewhat approaching the average level of the budgets of standard States. Whilst a subtraction is made in respect of, say, social services if the expenditure by an applicant State on social services run9 at a higher level than the average of the expenditures by the standard States, the commission compensates for that by giving, in the case of South Australia to date, a 6 per cent, allowance. The allowance for Western Australia is, I think, 15 per cent., and that of Tasmania is certainly 15 per cent. The allowance is made on account of extra difficulties in those States. Whilst there is a penalty for Tasmania on account of expenditure on social services, Tasmania receives a favorable adjustment by reason of the severity of its non-income taxation.

The Opposition supports the measure, Mr. President. I resist the temptation to open up the interesting prospect that the report of the commission provides. I appreciate the fact that we have had opportunities, as we discussed the bill with which the Senate dealt previously, to make passing references to this matter. However, I do not want to let the opportunity pass without complimenting the commission, and in particular its staff, on the work that it does, and also congratulating South Australia on attaining the height of a standard State.

Senator Henty:

– A non-claimant State, we hope - not a standard State.

Senator McKENNA:

– I do not like the word “ claimant “, and I do not use it. We are applicants under section 96 ot the Constitution, and are exercising a constitutional right. I do not like Tasmania to be referred to as a claimant State. 1 am interested to see that the commission, in its report on this occasion, queries the use of the word, though not for quite the same reason that I do. Nevertheless, I am delighted to see it under fire. I shall always be rather quick on the draw when my State is referred to as a claimant State, or in more opprobrious terms1. I think we should be dignified by the appellation of “ applicant States “, and that is the term that I propose to adhere to. The Opposition has pleasure in supporting the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1740

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH BILL 1959

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10th November (vide page 1300), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– In rising to support this bill, 1 wish first of all to protest against the shortness of time which the Senate has been given to discuss the activities of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Our economy depends so much upon this important organization that for the bill to be dismissed in such a short space of time is scarcely a tribute to it. No organization, of all those operating within the Commonwealth to-day, has contributed more to the economic and social welfare of the Australian people than has the C.S.I.R.O. That it should be able to do so much on such a small budget as £8,500,000 is, I think, a great tribute to the officers in charge of the organization and to the many scientific workers that it employs. The relative smallness of the budget indicates to me, at least, that we are getting the services of many of our scientific workers on the cheap. The Australian scientific workers are second to none in the world. We have in this country scientists of world-wide repute and standing. The fact that they are content to make their talents available at such nominal rates of reward is an indication of their fine outlook.

There are only two matters with which this bill is concerned. Actually, the measure is notable more for what it does not say than for what it says. The first matter with which the bill deals, of course, is the proposed enlargement of the council from five to nine. Two of the four new members are to be full-time members, bringing the number of members devoting their full time to the duties of their office from three to five. Five of the nine members must have scientific qualifications. We are quite in agreement with that, because we feel that if such a small body is to control such a huge organization, the members of that body must have outstanding qualifications. The fact that the organization has performed such good work over the years is an indication of the ability of the officers concerned.

I commend very heartily to the Senate a detailed reading of the report that is presented to us each year on the activities of the C.S.I.R.O., because very few of us appreciate the full extent of the work performed by this organization. Its powers and functions include the initiation and carrying out of research in connexion with, or for the promotion of, primary and secondary industries in the Commonwealth of Australia, or in a Territory of the Commonwealth, or in connexion with any matter referred to the organization by the Minister; the training of research workers; the making of grants in aid of pure scientific research; the testing and standardization of scientific apparatus and instruments, and the carrying out of scientific investigations connected with standardization; the collection and dissemination of information relating to scientific and technical matters; and the publication of scientific and technical reports and journals. In addition, the organization acts as a means of liaison with other bodies in matters of scientific research. I suggest that there is room for considerable discussion of each of those matters, and I cannot understand why, at times such as this, the supporters of the Australian Country Party, particularly, are not more vocal in expressing appreciation of the work that the organization has done, especially for primary industry.

I turn now to a matter that is of outstanding importance to the Senate. Within the Commonwealth we have many research bodies connected with specific government departments. For instance, we have the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, which is related to the Department of Primary Industry. The bureau is directly responsible to the Minister for Primary Industry. We have the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics, which is connected with the Department of National Development. We have the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, and the Australian Institute of Child Health - all directly related to the Department of Health. We have the Weapons Research Establishment at

Woomera and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, connected with the Department of Supply and controlled by the Minister for Supply. When we come to the C.S.I.R.O., however, we find that it has no specific relation to any department and that the Minister in charge of it is the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey). Why?

Senator Wright:

– Surely the honorable senator recognizes the great contribution that the Minister for External Affairs has made to the organization?

Senator TANGNEY:

– That may be so. Senator Wright can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that even constitutional lawyers cast doubt on the legality of this body. I understand that a committee of which the honorable senator is a member has had referred to it the question of placing the organization on a legal footing within the framework of the Constitution.

I suggest, Mr. President, that a ministry of scientific research be established here, as has been done recently in the United Kingdom, so that all these research bodies may become one cohesive whole. As the situation is now, we have research institutes scattered all over the place. There is no cohesion between them, and, very often, there is considerable overlapping in the work that they do. I regret that I cannot develop this theme further. I know that honorable senators want to get away.

Before I conclude, I should like to say that I feel that I should be lacking in my duty if I did not pay a tribute to a very great man who formerly administered the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and who, unfortunately, passed away earlier this year. I refer to Sir Ian Clunies-Ross, who, for the last 32 years, has been an outstanding figure in the scientific world. In both Australia and Great Britain, he achieved high academic distinction. In 1929, he went to Japan, where he did important research. In 1935 and 1936, in north-eastern Asia, he made a sheep and wool survey. Sir Ian was the Australian representative on the International Wool Secretariat from 1937 to 1940. After returning to Australia, he became Adviser on Pastoral Industry in the Department of War Organization of Industry. From 1942 to 1945, he was with the Directorate of Scientific Manpower. From 1946 until his death, he served, first, as Executive Officer, and later, as Chairman, of the C.S.I.R.O.

Many honours came to Sir Ian CluniesRoss from all countries of the world in recognition of his great knowledge and his contribution to the scientific welfare of the world. He was not only a scientist purely and simply. He was also a great humanist. For a time, Sir Ian was Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, and he served also on the council of Scotch College, Melbourne. I had the great honour of serving with him on the Council of the Australian National University. I have never met any man for whom I had greater respect, not only for his gentlemanly qualities, but also for the quiet and unobtrusive way in which he discharged the duties of the very high offices to which he had been called.

I should like to take this opportunity, on behalf of all honorable senators, to place on record a tribute to this very great Australian whose epitaph will always be the lasting work that he has done for the advancement of science in this Commonwealth.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1741

NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP BILL 1959

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12th November (vide page 1415), on motion by Senator Henry -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– Mr. President, this bill amends the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948- 1958. The Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty), in his secondreading speech, explained that it serves six purposes. It is ‘ very pleasing to see that the citizens of Singapore, which has recently become a separate member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, are to be recognized, by statutory provision, instead of under regulation, as British subjects. This sort of provision makes for closer affinity between the members of the British Commonwealth, and it is grand to see Australia statutorily recognizing the bonds that link the nations of the British Commonwealth.

Another very important matter has been attended to, and perhaps there is a lot to commend the action that has been taken. I refer to the provision to enable Australians living abroad to register the births of their children at Australian consulates, so that the children may enjoy the status of Australian citizenship by descent. I think that is commendable. Doubtless, there are already quite a few children of Australians living abroad who will be covered by this proposal. I think it is desirable that such children shall have the status of Australian citizens by descent.

The bill also removes the delay of six months between the date of application and the granting of a certificate of naturalization. I think that every precaution is being taken to prevent abuses, and this proposal is highly commendable.

Another purpose of the bill is to abolish the practice of keeping a duplicate copy of every certificate of registration and naturalization. I think that, in this matter, we must be most careful. We know that auditors like to work from original documents. It is the intention to reduce record keeping and to keep in a concise manner he records that are kept. However, I suggest to the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Downer) that care be taken to see that any card or other record kept is properly and clearly marked. It should be properly certi fied by a responsible superior officer at the time of issue of the certificate in order tha; it may satisfactorily take the place of the duplicate copies of the original certificates now kept. If that is done from the start, it will be commendable. The procedure should not be permitted to become in any way loose. We have found in our various migrant centres that mistakes can easily be made. The matter is too important for us to allow any risk to be taken.

The bill also proposes the abolition of the rights of members of the public to scrutinize the records of persons naturalized. I believe that that is a reasonable provision. Every protection is afforded. A person will be permitted, on presentation of a proper authority, to obtain any information that is necessary for legal purposes. The new arrangement will also make it possible to prepare a more accurate statistical return of persons receiving Australian nationality. Sometimes records are confused by the fact that the right to naturalization is conferred upon a person who does not take the necessary steps to bring the process to finality. The Opposition sees nothing in the bill to which it objects. In fact, the Opposition supports the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Senate adjourned at 1.4 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 20 November 1959, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1959/19591120_senate_23_s16/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant