Senate
13 May 1964

25th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1089

QUESTION

YUGOSLAVIAN IMMIGRANTS

Senator BRANSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister representing the Attorney-General inform me of the names of the two opposing organizations involved in the recent Yugoslav bombings and continued threats of further violence? ls it a fact that the Croatian movement is strongly opposed to communism? Is it true that the recently formed Yugoslav Settlers Association is pro-Communist? Is the Minister in a position to confirm reports that the victim of the Sydney bombing is a well-known fighter against communism, as are the Catholic priests who have been threatened in Sydney and Perth? Is this not a straight-out fight between anti-Communists and proCommunists, who are using the national feeling between the Croats and Yugoslavs as a vehicle for this fight?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · VICTORIA · LP

– Taking the last part of the question first, I doubt whether, in fact, the trouble that is occurring between groups of people in this country at the present moment can be simplified in terms of a straight-out struggle between antiCommunists and pro-Communists. As I endeavoured to indicate on this matter in the Senate quite some time ago, I think that the germs of this feeling probably reside far in the past, in the national hatreds and the national aspirations of various sections of the Balkan peoples, and in resentments of one race or nationality against domination by another race or nationality. There is no doubt that this attitude has persisted for centuries. There is also little doubt that this state of affairs has been aggravated, not only in this country, but, earlier, in Europe by ideological differences. So if one segment were a Communist segment, then the segment opposed to it became an antiCommunist segment and co-operated in any fight against communism. I think that the roots of the present situation lie in the past. It is most disturbing to see this recrudescence in Australia at the present moment.

In reply to the other questions that the honorable senator asked me, I say that most of the Croats in this country forming the Croatian group are undoubtedly lawabiding, proper Australian citizens, who carry on in the ordinary way of an Australian citizen. I think that all of them do seek a national independence which they feel is their due and there is no doubt that propagating their ideas in peaceful ways, independence provided they did it solely by propagating their ideas in peaceful ways. There has been formed from the Croatian group an organization which is known as a brotherhood of some kind. The actual name escapes me at the moment. There are some tens or more of those people who wish to act as a strong-arm squad to stir up (rouble outside this country against Serbs or Slavs - whichever it may be - in Yugoslavia. This is something which no government could condone and which the Australian people would not wish to happen. There has also been formed, from the Yugoslav section of the people in this country, another organization for the purpose of using force against that Croatian band in Australia. That organization is the Yugoslav Settlers Association. This organization appears to be confined to Melbourne, but it undoubtedly has associations with individuals holding the same views in other parts of Australia, including Sydney and Perth. I believe that no government could properly condone that sort of activity - the using of force inside Australia - and I have no doubt that this Government would be acting in accordance with the wishes of the Australian people if it punished, as it proposes to do, members of either of these factions who can be detected and, by processes of law, shown to have offended against the laws of this country.

page 1089

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I wish to ask the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral a question. Do the statements appearing in recent issues of the daily press of South Australia, by the South Australia Director of Posts and Telegraphs, Mr. O’sullivan, advising that 27,300 applications for new telephone connections had been lodged in South Australia between July, 1963, and April, 1964, and that during that period 22,500 connexions had been made, indicate a continuing delay by the department in providing telephones for new applicants in that State? What action can be taken by the department to meet what appears to be an accumulating increase in the number of applications for new telephones in South Australia?

Senator WADE:
Minister for Health · VICTORIA · CP

– The honorable senator’s question indicates a tremendously rapid growth in South Australia, and this is to be commended. If he examines the outstanding applications held by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department in South Australia I think he will find that the great bulk of them arc of about six months duration. ] am certain that the Postmaster-General is doing everything possible to meet the demand, but surely the fact that although we are spending tremendous sums of money annually on developing postal services, we are not catching up with the demand is one of the best advertisements Australia could have. The one redeeming feature, as I see it, is that, in the main, the waiting time to satisfy applications is short. The policy of the Postmaster-General’s Department is to try to catch up with the demand, although it is an ever-increasing demand which poses great problems.

page 1090

QUESTION

MEAT

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Will he take note of the very prominent news in this morning’s Tasmanian press, of the opinions of Mr. Edgell, representing the Tasmanian Farmers, Stockowners and Orchardists Association and Mr. McShane, representing the other Tasmania primary producers’ organization, the Tasmanian Farmers Federation, to the effect that they are strongly critical of the abrupt and precipitate withdrawal of the export licences of five firms exporting meat to the United States market? Will he note also that these gentlemen draw -attention to the fact that the news of the withdrawal caused an immediate substantial fall in producers’ prices obtaining at the Killafaddy and Derwent Park abattoir sales? Will he immediately inquire into the circumstances of each withdrawal and if, in his view, there has been abruptness in the decision, will he suspend the withdrawal until a reasonable opportunity is given to the meat exporting firms concerned to comply with require ments, making the necessary adjustments with the importers in the United States, if possible.

Senator WADE:
CP

– I have not seen the criticism in the Tasmanian press referred to by the honorable senator, but since the matter was raised in this chamber yesterday I took the opportunity to inform myself of the notifications that were issued to the meat exporting companies of Australia generally. This, of course, applies to Tasmania, too. There has been no abrupt withdrawal of licences. If the Senate will bear with me for two minutes I shall give a precis of the history of the negotiations that the Department of Primary Industry has had with the various exporting interests of Australia.

In May, 1963, the United States Meat Inspection Regulations were amended to bring into being the problems we face to-day. These amendments demanded that countries exporting meat to America comply with certain standards. On 18th June, 1963, a circular drawing attention to the amendments to the United States regulations was sent to each establishment in Australia. Copies of the American regulations and Handbook 191 were also made available to each registered export establishment. On 8th July, 1963, the Department of Primary Industry, realizing it had a very lively responsibility in this matter, met with meat industry representatives from the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council, the Country Meat Work Association of New South Wales and Victoria, and the secretary of the Australian abattoirs. At this meeting the United States requirements were explained in detail and an Industry Advisory Committee was set up to consult with the department on the implementation of the United States regulations. This committee has met monthly - monthly, mark you - since September, 1963. On 17th July, 1963, - nine days after the preceding meeting - the Chief Veterinary Officer wrote to all registered establishments asking whether they wished to participate in the American trade. On 2nd October, 1963, meat export establishments were advised in detail, of modifications which would be necessary in order to secure registration with the United States authorities, and since then several circulars have been issued on specific points associated with the United States requirements.

As late as 20th February, 1964, a questionaire was sent to all works which had previously indicated an interest in shipments to the United States. Now the honorable senator asks me whether I will ask the Minister for Primary Industry to lift the cancellation of licences. I informed the Senate yesterday that the Minister, realizing the seriousness of this situation to the meat exporters of Tasmania in particular, made urgent representations to the United States Administration to accept delivery of all meats packed and ready for shipment at a specific date. The answer was “ Yes “ to the request. Now the honorable senator asks me whether I will press for a lifting of the suspension of the licences. The American authorities are determined to lay down regulations - as is their inherent right - concerning imports. We do it, and so does every other country. When we import drugs from a manufacturing country we set down the standards that we require for those drugs. If on this occasion we lift the suspensions and the meat which is sent to the United States of America is condemned as not acceptable the loss will be something that you cannot expect the industry to bear. The department has made it quite plain throughout the whole sequence of the notifications which I have enumerated that this is a serious matter and that in their own interest and in the interests of the industry these meat establishments have an obligation to put their house in order. As recently as to-day the Minister for Primary Industry indicated to me that he was prepared to make available to Tasmanian interests his most senior officers to help solve the situation. If I find criticism coming from any one in Tasmania that this Government is negligent in this matter, I shall invite attention to the recitation of the events I have just given the Senate.

page 1091

QUESTION

QUARANTINE

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the

Minister for Health seen a report that the Government has asked Indonesia for its reaction to a proposed quarantine fence along the border of Papua and New Guinea and West Irian? Is this report correct? If so, can the Minister indicate the cost of such a proposal? As far as can be ascertained, has there been any evidence of infected animals having crossed the border into Papua and New Guinea?

Senator WADE:
CP

– I am sorry that I cannot give the honorable senator any specific information on this matter. I have said on a previous occasion in this chamber that we are very much alive to our responsibility to maintain an efficient quarantine service in New Guinea. The matter referred to by the honorable senator is under discussion. I cannot say any more than that at this stage, but when our talks have been completed an announcement will be made.

page 1091

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator BREEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. The report of the Senate select committee on television referred to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board’s Advisory Committee on Children’s Television Programmes. I understand that this committee has not met since May, 1963. In view of the importance of television programmes that are provided for children, can the Minister ascertain when the chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board intends to call a meeting of this advisory committee?

Senator WADE:
CP

– I believe that the Advisory Committee on Children’s Television Programmes serves a very useful purpose. Indeed, it carries a heavy public responsibility, because it is in this field that young minds are influenced. I know that the committee has a lively appreciation of that fact. 1 shall ask my colleague, the PostmasterGeneral, to bring to the notice of the chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board the question that has been asked by the honorable senator to ses whether some action can be generated.

page 1091

QUESTION

MEAT

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry inform the Senate of the basic requirements of the United States hygiene regulations which have been applied to Australian meat producers? To what extent do those requirements differ from existing Australian standards? Are Australian hygiene standards for the handling of meat lower than those laid down by the United Slates of America? If our abattoirs are not hygienic when judged by American standards, why are there two standards of hygiene and why arc lower standards tolerated in Australia? What action is to be taken to raise standards generally?

Senator WADE:
CP

– 1 am not prepared to admit or even to suggest that our standards are lower than world standards. Australia is an exporting country, and our meat industry has invaded many markets which we want to hold and develop. So, far be it for me even to suggest that our standards are lower than world standards. As 1 said a few moments ago, every importing country has an inherent right to insist upon certain standards for its imports. The American people have that right, and we may either accept their requirements and export to them or reject those requirements and lose the market. For my part, I want to see Australia do all that it possibly can to meet the requirements and to maintain a market that is worth £80,000,000 a year to us and which has given the meat industry the greatest shot in the arm that it has had in living memory. The honorable senator has asked mc for the details of the basic requirements of the American importing authorities. 1 cannot state them at the moment, but as soon as possible 1 shall place in his hands a list of them.

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry whether it may be assumed that the Tasmanian meat exporters whose licences have been cancelled will accept, or have accepted, the offer of the Minister for Primary Industry to make available an officer of his department to assist in bringing their plants up to the required standard. Will that officer be available immediately? Has the offer been conveyed to the meat exporters in question?

Senator WADE:

– I cannot be specific in reply to any of the questions asked by the honorable senator from Tasmania. My talks with the Minister for Primary Industry concluded only at lunch time to-day. He let it be known to mc quite plainly that he was most anxious to help in any way he possibly could and said that he would be happy, if necessary, for one of his senior officers to go to Tasmania forthwith. I am sure that the Minister will follow up the matter and that there will bc no delay in endeavouring to use the officers of the

Department of Primary Industry to assist the people involved as speedily as possible.

page 1092

QUESTION

COAL

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has the Minister any comment to make on the statement of Sir Edward Warren that the Federal Government has no national fuel policy? Has the Government considered, or taken action in respect of, the request of the Australian Coal Association made to the Minister for Trade and Industry for an inquiry to be held to determine whether assistance, or protection, should be given to the black coal industry? Has the Government taken any action in respect of the alleged dumping of residual oil in Australia by oil companies to the detriment of the coal industry under conditions which the Australian Coal Association considers constitute unfair competition?

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER:

This is a very big matter. I have told the Senate previously, and I repeat, that I have had a series of negotiations with the oil refining companies and have asked them to reduce the proportion of fuel oil that they produce. I have had some success in those negotiations, but I am taking the matter to the Government for consideration in the near future. I understand that the request of the Australian Coal Association to the Minister for Trade and Industry is at present being considered by the Minister.

page 1092

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Senator BRANSON:

– Does the Minister for Health agree that, following negotiations instituted on 29th January with friendly societies, those societies were informed that the Government would preserve existing rights for existing members in relation to the supply of pharmaceutical benefits? If the answer is in the affirmative, will the Minister now give an assurance that when legislation is introduced into the Senate provision will be made to permit friendly society dispensaries to adhere to the existing practice of allowing their members to obtain for a charge less than 5s. pharmaceutical benefits prescribed for their children up to 17 years of age, and for student children over 17 years of age engaged in full-time study and not in receipt of remuneration?

Senator WADE:
CP

– A bill is before another place in relation to this subject at the present time and I believe that it would be most improper for me to comment on it. The bill will be in this chamber in due course. The honorable senator will then have ample opportunity to press his views on the matter and 1 shall be in a position to give him an adequate answer to his questions.

page 1093

QUESTION

MEAT

Senator WRIGHT:

– I desire to address a further question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I hope that he will bear with me. 1 must represent the interests of the meat industry in Tasmania to the Minister because the cancellation of export licences will involve the curtailment of 80 per cent, of the total meat exports from Tasmania. Can the Minister tell the Senate whether the cancellation of licences in other States has had an effect on exports which bears any comparison with the effect that I ‘ have indicated in relation to Tasmania?

Senator WADE:
CP

– Neither I nor the Minister for Primary Industry underestimates the worth of this industry to Tasmania. We have proved our bona fides by saying that we will make an officer available and will do all that we possibly can. The honorable senator asked me to make a comparison, on a percentage basis, between the number of licences in Tasmania and on the mainland that have been withdrawn. I cannot do that. It would take some research. But if it is any cold comfort to the honorable senator, I can assure him that the Department of Primary Industry, in every instance when an exporting company has sought to maintain its export business to the United States of America, has obliged that company to fulfil the requirements laid down by the importing country. Factories on the mainland that do not comply with the requirements find themselves in exactly the same position as do Tasmanian factories which have not met requirements - a very regrettable state of affairs.

page 1093

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT LABORATORIES

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for National Development state what has been achieved in the field of national development by the Australian Mineral Development Laboratories? Will he table in the Senate a copy of the agreement under which the Commonwealth participates in the work of the laboratories? What consideration has been given to an extension of support by the Commonwealth after the expiration of the present agreement?

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER:

– I think it can be fairly claimed that the Australian Mineral Development Laboratories have proved to be a most successful venture. In principle, the project operates under an agreement between the Commonwealth Government, the State Governments and the mining industry, whereunder each undertakes to carry out a research programme of a certain quantum or, alternatively, to provide financial support to that extent. One of the interesting features is that the cost of research programmes that have been initiated and paid for has been, by and large, as much as or more than the quantum of responsibility which each party undertook. I speak subject to correction, but my recollection is that the agreement expired a few months ago and was renewed for another period of years. I will see whether it is practicable to table a copy of the agreement in the Senate for the information of honorable senators.

page 1093

QUESTION

MEAT

Senator WRIGHT:

– I wish to ask another question of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry on the subject of meat exports from Tasmania to the United States of America. Is it not a fact that the chief difficulty in complying with American requirements is the necessity for a veterinary examination of animals before killing and of meat after killing? Does Australia’s difficulty arise from the deficiency in numbers of veterinary officers available and the inability of those who are available to service the widespread undertakings involved? If that is the important difficulty, what assistance can the department give?

Senator WADE:
CP

– No, that is not a contributing factor. Only yesterday Senator McKellar asked me a question relating to the employment of private veterinary surgeons when no government officer is available. I asked him to place his question on the notice-paper and said that I would take it up with the Minister. I have taken it up with the Minister who has assured me that if sufficient government veterinary officers are not availabe to undertake these inspections, private veterinary officers will be employed. The Minister is determined that there shall be no hold-up because of the requirement of veterinary inspection.

page 1094

QUESTION

ARMED FORCES

Senator BRANSON:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Has the Minister seen a newspaper statement in which it was claimed that casualties had been inflicted on certain Australian troops in Borneo? Can he tell me whether there are any Australian troops in Borneo and, if so, whether they have suffered casualties?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have seen the report, which received some publicity in yesterday’s press. I made immediate inquiries, of course, and am in a position to assure the honorable senator that there is no truth in the statement. On 19th April, the date on which casualties were allegedly suffered, there were no Australian troops at all in the area of Borneo referred to.

page 1094

QUESTION

NAVAL ACCIDENTS

(Question No. 80.)

Senator HENDRICKSON (through

What decisions were made, or instructions given, by the Government and/orthe Naval Board or other instrumentality after the naval accidents on the following dates: -

July, 1958, when the destroyer “ Vendetta “ crashed at the Williamstown dockyard;

September, 1960, when the destroyer “ Tobruk “ was holed by “ Anzac “ during gunnery exercises off Jervis Bay;

October,1960, when the ammunition carrier “ Woomera “ blew up and sank;

March, 1963, when the submarine “Tabard” sliced into the wharf on Brisbane River;

May. 1963, when the submarine “ Tabard “ and the frigate ‘’ Queenborough “ collided off Jervis Bay; and

October, 1963, when five officers lost their lives in a whaler during sailing exercises?

What was the cost involved in repairing the “ Voyager “ on the five occasions when it blew both its boilers?

What other R.A.N. ships were involved in accidents during the past ten years?

Was the majority of the crews in all these calamities unable to swim; if so, have the naval authorities any policy forthe future in this connexion?

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

– The Minister for the Navy has supplied the following answers to the honorable senators questions: -

  1. The layout of the wheelhouse of the “ Vendetta “ was altered subsequent to the destroyer “ Vendetta “ hitting the clock gate at the Williamstown dockyard. As an additional safeguard arrangements were made tothe telegraph repeats on the bridge of the “ Vendetta “. Similar modifications were made to the other Daring class destroyers. Modifications were made to sights in gun turrets and instructions were issued regarding checks to be carried out following the holing of “ Tobruk “ by “ Anzac “. Following the sinking of “ Woomera “ steps were taken -

    1. To create a new position of safely officer to maintain a detailed survey of safety aspects inthe dispersed areas of the armament supply organization in New South Wales and appoint a suitably qualified officer to this position.
    2. To have members of the directing staff, as distinct from foremen to be on duty whenever explosives are being handled.
    3. To issue a concise and consolidated source of information which was available to any ship concerned with the dumping of explosives or warlike stores.

The report of the board of inquiry intothe incident involving the submarine “Tabard” (an R.N. submarine and crew) and the wharf on the Brisbane River has been forwarded to the R.N. authorities in the United Kingdom for appropriate action. As a result of the collision between the submarine “Tabard” and frigate “Queenborough “ instructions were issued regarding the scheduling of the particular exercise. These instructions will prevent a similar occurrence in the future. Following the loss of lives offive officers in a whaler during sailing exercises, instructions have been issued suspendingthe use of whalers for long passages out of sight until an investigation is completed into thelifesaving equipment provided in naval whalers. Inall the above accidents appropriate disciplinary action was instituted by the Naval Board in respect of R.A.N. personnel involved following reports of boards of inquiry.

  1. On no occasion did both boilers on “ Voyager “ “ blow up “together. There were four separate occasions when a small number of generatortubes burst in either “ A “ or “ B “ boiler. On a fifth occasion, two superheatertubes in “ A “ boiler split. The total cost of repairing the boilers after these failures was ofthe order of £9,000.
  2. Other R.A.N. ships which have been involved in accidents during the past ten years are listed below. These have been mishaps of a minor nature, in which no loss of life has been involved. About three-quarters have occurred in harbours or anchorages and have been mainly with wharfs while entering or leaving harbour. The remainder have been groundings, minor collisions at sea while taking in tow or transferring personnel from one ship to another, and various other causes, including a collision with a whale, damage to fishing traps and the flooding of the engine room of H.M.A.S. “ Supply “.

H.M.A.S. “ Barcoo “

H.M.A.S. “ Bataan “

H.M.A.S. “ Cootamundra”

H.M.A.S. “ Gascoyne “

H.M.A.S. “ Gull “

H.M.A.S. “ Hawk “

H.M.A.S. “Junce”

H.M.A.S. “ Kimbla “

H.M.A.S. “ Melbourne “

H.M.A.S. “ Paluma “

H.M.A.S. “ Parramatta”

H.M.A.S. “ Quadrant “

H.M.A.S. “Quickmatch “

H.M.A.S. “ Snipe “

H.M.A.S. “ Supply “

H.M.A.S. “Swan “

H.M.A.S. “ Teal “

H.M.A.S. “Vampire”

H.M.A.S. “ Warramunga “

H.M.A.S. “ Warrego “

H.M.A.S. “ Yarra “

Other R.N. submarines, on loan to the R.A.N. with R.N. crew, which have been involved in accidents during the past ten years are as follows: -

H.M.S. “Anchorite”

H.M.S. “ Andrew “.

  1. No. The proportion of naval personnel able to swim is extremely high. For example, during the last twelve months only 1 per cent. of the recruits leaving H.M.A.S. “ Cerberus “ were unable to swim and all naval apprentices leaving H.M.A.S. “ Nirimba “ had passed a swimming test. I refer the honorable senator to recent answers given to other questions on this subject, e.g. -

Reply to Senator Fitzgerald, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 18th March, page 349.

Reply to Senator Cavanagh, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 15th April, page 655.

Reply to Mr. Daly, M.P., Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 5th May, page 1551.

page 1095

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

(Question No. 128.)

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

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

  1. Has a world-famous eye specialist recently published a paper in which he infers that modern research tends to the belief that war service can result in ex-servicemen suffering from glaucoma, and that therefore any ex-serviceman suffering from this disease of the eye should have the complaint acknowledged as due to war service and thereby become entitled to repatriation medical treatment and the relevant war pension?
  2. Will the Minister make a statement in relation to this matter?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for Repatriation has furnished the following replies to the honorable senator’s questions: - 1 and 2. There has been a recent revival of discussion, in authoritative medical literature, of work to which attention was first drawn some years ago by Dr. Arthur D’Ombrain. Briefly, Dr. D’Ombrain has pointed to the possibility that monocular chronic glaucoma can be a late sequela of concussion of the affected eye. Papers on this subject have been published in Australian and overseas medical journals for some years, and a view has been expressed that Dr. D’Ombrain’s published work has medico-legal implications relevant to civil compensation and repatriation medicine.

The medical officers of the Repatriation Department are, of course, aware of the above developments, their attention having been specifically drawn to them in a special information bulletin. Generally speaking, it may be said that Dr. D’Ombrain’s postulation does not affect the application of the principle of the Repatriation Act that determining authorities should consider each case on its merits in the light of all the evidence including medical evidence. There does not appear to be any need for a ministerial statement on this matter which is one of many developments in medical science about which the Repatriation Medical Service keeps itself informed.

page 1095

QUESTION

H.M.A.S. “ DERWENT

Senator HENTY:
LP

– Recently, Senator

Marriott directed a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy concerning a visit to Hobart by H.M.A.S. “Derwent”. The Minister for the Navy has now supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question: -

The Naval Board has intended that H.M.A.S. “ Derwent “ should make an early visit to Hobart, and it was planned that this should take place in June. However, the late arrival of some sonar equipment from overseas has made it necessary to adjust the programme and this necessitated the deferment of the visit. Planning is still proceeding and it is expected that H.M.A.S. “ Derwent “ will visit Hobart in August or September of this year. A firm date is expected shortly and the honorable senator will be informed as soon as the timing of the visit is firm.

page 1095

PARLIAMENTARY AND GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Report of Joint Select Committee

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– I present the following paper: -

Report of Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary and Governmental Publications, together with minutes of proceedings and minutes of evidence -

And move -

That the report and minutes of proceedings be printed.

Official publications are part of the basic tools of trade of both the Parliament and the Executive. It is rather surprising, therefore, that the report that the committee presents to-day is the first comprehensive attempt to evaluate the Commonwealth’s printing and publishing methods. The committee has found that these methods are in need of radical revision and that there is much scope for their improvement.

The present arrangements for having material printed are complex. They cause delays and prevent Commonwealth printing from being executed smoothly, in proper sequence, and by printers best able to do each job. No section of the Commonwealth service is properly equipped to advise departments on the style and format of their publications. The arrangements for letting the public know what publications are available and how they might be obtained are inadequate, and no single office can supply copies of all publications to interested senators, members of Parliament or members of the public. Departments, at present, are both the authors and publishers of their own publications.

The committee believes that the report of the recent Canadian Royal Commission on Government Organization clearly points to the weakness in the present arrangements in this country. That report states -

Simply to print does not guarantee that it will be read. The true demand for a publication will not be realized unless (he style attracts attention, potential readers know of its existence, and copies are made conveniently available. Without the publisher, the author may have limited success . . .

Departments . . . can benefit from expert assistance in planning, preparing, printing and distributing their publications. A central repository of this expert advice is more likely to lead to the best form of publication and the best means of distribution, both commercial and free. Departmental authors have varied talents, but not necessarily those of a publisher.

The establishment of a government publishing office, staffed by persons with a wide knowledge of printing and publishing, on the lines of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office in Great Britain, is therefore the committee’s first and main recommendation. ]>t is recommended that the publishing office should, among other things, be equipped to advise departments on the style and format of their publications; that it should be responsible for the printing of all Commonwealth publications; that it should ‘ be responsible for the general distribution of all publications; that it should publish lists of the publications available; that it should establish bookshops for the sale of publications, first in the main capital cities and later in other cities of the Commonwealth; and that by every economic means possible it should encourage the wider dissemination and use of Commonwealth publications. In order that all of these things may bc done effectively and to the satisfaction of senators, members of another place, departments and the community, it is essential for the publishing office to be operated efficiently and with imagination.

The committee has made 67 recommendations in all, including ones which affect the scope of the parliamentary paper series, the size of parliamentary papers, the publication of consolidated acts and statutory rules, and the publication of “ Hansard “. All are important and all deserve the close attention of each senator and member of the other place. The committee hopes that, as a result of its inquiry, Commonwealth publications will be more widely known and used for, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, “ True government of the people for the people involves a maximum of interest in government by every citizen “.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1096

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received letters from the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) appointing Mr. England and Mr. Fox, from the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Calwell) appointing Mr. Coutts and Mr. J. R. Fraser, from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir William Spooner) appointing Senators Kendall, Vincent and Wood, and from the Leader of the Opposition’ in the Senate (Senator McKenna) appointing Senators Tangney and Toohey, to be members of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory.

page 1096

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1963-64

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) proposed -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1097

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL (No. 2) 1963-64

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) proposed -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I propose that the debate be adjourned, if that would cause no inconvenience. I have not seen this bill. I am surprised to find, after the statement yesterday, that we have a bill entitled Appropriation (Works and Services) Bill.

Senator Sir William Spooner:

– Four bills are to be introduced. These are supplementary bills. That is the normal procedure.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no debate on the first reading of this bill.

Senator WRIGHT:

– No, but there is an important question of form. I ask that this debate be adjourned so that this measure may be dealt with in company with the other measures referred to.

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

– I think, with respect, that there is some misunderstanding. The debate on the first bill introduced was adjourned on the motion for the first reading. The forms of the House, as I understand them, do not provide for any debate to take place on the first reading of a bill of this nature - a bill dealing with works and services, which we may amend.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to obtain parliamentary authority for additional expenditure in 1963-64 on certain items of capital works and services. Although additional appropriations of £1,777,000 are sought it is expected that after allowing for savings in other appropriations, the total expenditure will not exceed the Budget estimate of £182,691,000.

An amount of £294,000 is included in the bill for the acquisition of a building in Paris for a chancery for the Department of External Affairs. Another major item in the bill is £350,000 for additional advances to co-operative building societies in the Australian Capital Territory, following a marked increase in applications for homebuilding assistance. Other additional appropriations include £223,000 for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, £218,000 for the Commonwealth Railways and £126,000 for the Australian National University.

I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1097

SUPPLY BILL 1964-65

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) proposed -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1097

SUPPLY (SPECIAL EXPENDITURE) BILL 1964-65

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

In a statement on appropriation measures the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir William Spooner) outlined the reasons why it had been decided to include in the Supply Bill 1964-65 provision only for the ordinary annual services of the Government. The purpose of this bill is to provide an advance of £1,000,000 for the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) to meet expenditure during the first five months of the financial year for other than the ordinary annual services of the Government. This would include expenditure for such purposes as a grant to a State for, say, flood relief, and extension service grants to the States for the dairy industry, which are continued from year to year. When the appropriation measures arc presented in the Budget session the funds required will be itemised.

The Advance to the Treasurer in the main supply bill can not, and will not, be used for payments for other than the ordinary annual services of the Government.

I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1098

WOOL INDUSTRY BILL 1964

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7th May (vide page 1 042), on motion by Senator Wade -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Senator McKenna had moved by way of amendment -

Leave out all words after “ That “. insert: - “ The Senate declines to give the bill a second reading as, in the absence of arrangements for a poll of wool-growers in relation to an orderly marketing plan, the proposals increase the contribution by the wool-grower for promotion purposes greatly above a rate equivalent to 10s. per bale and fail to the extent of 10s. per bale to match the wool-growers’ contribution with a Government contribution “.

Senator McCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– When this debate was adjourned last ThursdayI was addressing my remarks in support of the amendment moved on behalf of the Opposition by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). I was pointing out that the Australian Wool Board had had something to say on promotion in its first annual report. As I had practically concluded my remarks when the debate was adjourned, I will not weary the Senate much longer. During the course of my remarks I stressed the value of the wool industry to Australia generally, both as an export commodity and as a means of raising our status as one of the world’s leading trading nations. I also pointed out that the Government could do more than it has done up to date in the use of wool in the winter uniforms and accessories of our servicemen. I said that despite competition from man-made fibres, wool is st ill in great demand and is likely to be in still greater demand not only in Australia but also throughout the vast area of Asia. I return now to my final remarks last Thursday. I was then dealing with the first annual report of the Australian Wool Board, for the period 1st May to 30th June, 1963, and referred to the first of the board’s conclusions, which appears at page 19 of the report. I had read the first conclusion but I will repeat it now to preserve the continuity of my remarks. It is as follows: -

The Board, after having given full consideration to Promotion and Marketing, has come to the following conclusions: (1) That there is an urgent need for an examination of the method by which the Australian wool clip is marketed and the Board is determined that the examination bo carried out with the least possible delay.

The second conclusion was -

That wool promotion cannot succeed in its objectives if the method by which the Australian wool clip is sold is not the most efficient.

Surely this means that in the board’s view the present system of marketing is not the most efficient possible in. the sense - as I think Senator McKellar also indicated during the course of his remarks - that it cannot be improved. Until we have the most efficient system possible of marketing, then expenditure on wool promotion will continue to be ineffective while this inefficient system is still in operation. Frankly, my colleagues and I cannot for the life of us understand why the growers should not be given the opportunity of saying “ Yea “ or “ Nay “ to having reintroduced the floor price system of wool marketing which operated in Australia between the seasons 1946 to 1950. Of course, I think it will be agreed that in that period this system of wool marketing gave the Australian economy a sound basis and, indeed, a great boost.

Let me refer now to a circular put out by the Australian Growers Wool Marketing Committee dated February, 1964. The circular states that what is certain is that if Australian prices had maintained the same relativity to New Zealand prices as in the first year of the New Zealand plan, which was in 1952, the benefit to the Australian economy to date would have been in excess of £1,000,000,000. That, of course, speaks for itself, andI suggest it is time that the Government gave consideration to the proposal to give the wool-growers the opportunity to decide democratically whether they want to have re-introduced into Australia a floor price auction scheme. 1 think that Senator Hannaford referred to the fact that the Government in its 1949 policy speech said that the growers would bc given the opportunity to say whether a floor price auction scheme was desired by them. He said that before the plebiscite was put to the growers a 71 per cent, levy was imposed by way of a charge for administrative purposes. If my memory serves me correctly it is fair to say that at the time the 7i per cent, levy was imposed the Korean War was continuing and wool was a very precious commodity because of the international circumstances existing then. Because of that situation, and because of a number of other factors, inflation was then running high in Australia. In addition to the 71 per cent levy there was also applied something like a 20 per cent, imposition on the following year’s anticipated carnings of the wool-grower. This was being placed in a trust fund merely for the purpose of keeping the money out of circulation and so keeping intiation down. Having regard to thai particular set of circumstances it was inevitable, they being the fore-runners to the plebiscite, that the plebiscite would be rejected.

The situation is completely different now and the opportunity should be afforded the Australian wool-growers to say whether they are in favour of a reserve price auction scheme. At present 1 think it fair to say that buyers can and do combine with each other to control the price of Australian wool al auction and that very little can be done by way of increasing sales by promotion while this situation exists. Wc all remember the inquiry set up by the New South Wales Government in 1959 and presided over by Mr. Justice Cook of the New South Wales Industrial Commission. That inquiry was set up under section 8 of the Monopolies Act and concerned the trade in wool. After taking a considerable quantity of evidence Mr. Justice Cook came to the conclusion that a wool pie between buyers existed at Goulburn in New South Wales not only for the purpose of destroying Goulburn as a wool-selling centre but also for making it easier for the buyers to be able to corner and control the wool market. We of the Labour movement believe that if the wool-growers were given the opportunity to decide the issue democratically, having regard to the present circumstances of their industry, they would overwhelmingly favour a reserve price auction scheme or an orderly marketing scheme. Wc believe that this is in the interests of the woolgrowers and of the Australian economy, and in the interests generally of the welfare of the Australian people. At least the woolgrowers themselves should be given the opportunity to express their opinion. I therefore have very much pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by Senator McKenna. 1 hope that in the interests of this industry and of Australia generally that it will bc carried by the Senate.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Health · Victoria · CP

– in reply - The purpose of this bill is lo promote the sale of wool in world markets; and should there bc any lingering doubt as to the necessity for the wool industry to face up to this issue promptly, 1 remind the Senate that there is ample evidence that synthetic fibres have succeeded in capturing large sections of the markets available lo wool. Some figures may be of interest in this regard. The production of synthetic fibres which compete directly with wool has increased from 280,000,000 lb. in 1952 to 2,376,000,000 lb. in 1962 - an increase of some eightfold in ten years. These figures arc unchallengeable; and they tell a story that is a real challenge to the wool industry. Further competition from synthetics is likely to intensify for several reasons. The first reason I mention is that plans have been announced by the major synthetic fibre manufacturers to expand production capacity by about 25 per cent, by December, 1964. In six months time ‘hey will bc in a position to expand their production to that extent. This is a most significant development in that industry.

The second point I make is that patents held for some important synthetics will expire this year thus allowing firms to undertake production without the expense of acquiring patent rights and free from control of output by the present owners of patents. That in itself will tend to lower the costs of production. This will be a further challenge to the wool industry. My third point is that those firms already producing the fibres, because of their stronger financial position, will be able to forestall newcomers by reducing prices soon after the patents run out. It is a natural sequence in business that a man who has long become established and powerful in his field will do all he can to keep out a competitor. He will use the weapon of price reduction to maintain his position in the field.

The fourth point I make is that it is generally considered that the current approved measures of synthetic fibre manufacturers are sufficient to provide scope for appreciable price reductions. Indeed, price reductions have already been made in recent months. The facts I have outlined to the Senate indicate that the wool industry is opposed by a very powerful competitor which has made great progress and which will do all within its power to maintain its present position and even expand it. I suggest that the wool industry is adopting a most realistic attitude when it asks the Parliament to pass legislation which will provide it with the necessary finance to meet that challenge.

When the Leader of the Opposition was making his contribution to the debate he chided me - somewhat kindly, I thought - for having championed the sturdy independence of the wool-grower when delivering a speech on similar legislation on an earlier occasion. He more or less implied that the legislation now before us indicated that that independence had disappeared and that to-day the wool-grower might well be regarded as being a mendicant. It may not be quite fair to the honorable senator to attribute that word to him, but perhaps I shall be allowed to use that exaggerated term when I say that it seems to have been thought that, because the wool-grower has requested the Government to pass this legislation, he has surrendered his independence. I assure honorable senators opposite and all others who might be interested that the woolgrower has not surrendered his independence.

Not only the wool industry but Australia as a whole has been faced with a crisis which has threatened our greatest export earner. If proof of the growers’ independence is needed, I remind the Senate that when their representatives came to the Government to discuss the crisis and what the industry and the Government might do to meet it, they said: “At present we are paying a levy of 10s. a bale. That is our contribution. We are prepared to regard that as being a voluntary contribution. We want it to remain in operation. If the Government acknowledges the existence of a crisis, we are prepared to talk to the Government and to go even further with our contribution “. The greatly increased but realistic budget of the Australian Wool Board to implement the board’s plans for the fight against synthetics made necessary a contribution of approximately 44s. a bale. The growers’ representatives said to the Government: “Let our 10s. levy stand. That is a voluntary contribution which we are prepared to make. If the Government will go half-way in meeting additional requirements, we will do likewise “. Surely that indicates that the wool-grower has retained his independence. Surely it indicates that the industry appreciates the value of its product to the Australian economy. So the growers put their hands in their pockets for an additional 17s. a bale. The Government said: “ We realize that a crisis exists in relation to our greatest export earner. We will make a contribution “.

The Leader of the Opposition asked me why the provision for 10s. a bale was retained in the formula for calculating the Government’s contribution for wool promotion. It was retained because the Australian Wool Industry Conference requested the Government only to share equally in the provision of funds in excess of 10s. a bale to finance the expanded wool promotion campaign. As honorable senators know, this legislation provides for a percentage contribution from the grower. I am certain that that is the most equitable way in which the grower can contribute. For example, Senator Scott might grow a type of wool which would bring an average price of 50d. or 60d. per lb. On the other hand, Senator Dittmer might produce a clip which would average 10Od. per lb. While I do not like to suggest that an honorable senator opposite might enjoy an advantage, nobody could argue that a levy of 2s. a bale on both those clips would be an equitable contribution. It was for that reason that the industry suggested to the Government that the contribution should be on a percentage basis.

When it was decided to change the basis of collecting the levy paid by the woolgrowers from a levy on each bale to a percentage of sale value, as requested by the Wool Industry Conference, it was found necessary to preserve the means of calculating the present levy paid by woolgrowers which would not bc matched by the Government. That would not be possible if the present levy of 10s. a bale were converted to a percentage of sale value equivalent, because a levy calculated on a sale value basis varies according to fluctuations in the price of wool while the bale levy does not fluctuate. In other words, a levy of 10s. a bale could, if converted to a percentage of value basis, be 8s. in one year and 12s. in another, depending upon the price of wool. Although the total amount collected on a percentage of value basis from wool-growers would vary in sympathy with the percentage equivalent of 10s. a bale, the variations could mean that the amount not matched by the Government was more or less than 10s. a bale. That would be contrary to the agreement arrived at between the Government and the industry whereby the Government would match any amount required in excess of 10s. a bale. The formula set out in the legislation is equitable to both the Government and the industry and has the full support and approval of the industry.

Senator McKenna raised what I concede to bc a valid point in relation to the submission of an annual report to the Minister for Primary Industry. He suggested, quite properly, that because in the future taxpayers’ money would be involved in wool promotion, the lime might come when there could well be a demand for a public report. I do not challenge the logic of the honorable senator’s argument, but I do challenge the wisdom of it. The Australian taxpayer, in making his contribution for the promotion of wool, realizes that he is nol making a contribution to the wool industry as such but to the national economy. I should be surprised if the taxpayer were ever to suggest to the government of the day that the activities, planning and budgeting of the Australian Wool Board should be made public property. The Australian taxpayer is not so naive as to believe that he should make available to his competitor his plans to defeat that competitor. For those reasons, I believe that the legislation, in providing for the submission of a confidential report, makes a realistic approach which will be adopted by the Australian taxpayers.

Finally, I come to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. 1 say without any equivocation that it is not acceptable to the Government, because it is quite contrary to Government policy. During the fifteen years that this Government has occupied the treasury bench it has followed the policy of consulting primary industries, of asking them to express their views, and of encouraging each to speak with one voice so that the Government may introduce legislation that is tailored generally to meet their requirements. To accept the amendment would mean that the Government was saying to the wool industry, in effect, “ We know what is best for you better than you do “. That would be incompatible with Government thinking.

I was particularly interested in Senator McClelland*s reference to the holding of a referendum on an orderly marketing plan. 1 ask: On what plan? J have seen several plans, all having merit but all having some weaknesses, which could not be tolerated. The suggestion that the bill be deferred until the growers have a right to express themselves by way of a referendum on an orderly marketing plan is completely unrealistic in view of the threat that is facing the industry to-day from synthetics. Surely we can accept, without equivocation, the recommendation of the industry which has been made to the Government? The industry has said in effect: “ There is a crisis in our economy. We are prepared to put our hands in our pockets to the extent of an additional 17s. a bale if the Government will do likewise.” Plans have been laid to get into the fight with synthetics immediately.

To suggest that the Parliament should delay approval of these plans, which are so near fulfilment, to try to devise a government scheme - I suppose it would have to bc a government scheme - to bc put to the growers by way of a referendum is, I repeat, completely unrealistic. I remind the Senate that the industry and the Government are facing a challenge. The industry is prepared to make a financial contribution to meet this challenge. Because of this unanimity I suggest the Senate should do its utmost to pass this legislation speedily in its present form.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator McKenna’s amendment) be left out.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin.)

AYES: 25

NOES: 29

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Would the Minister for Health (Senator Wade) comment upon the position of the Australian Primary Producers Union and its desire to be admitted to the Australian Wool Industry Conference? He will recall that when the matter was before the Senate I had something to say upon that subject.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Health · Victoria · CP

– I am sorry that I omitted to answer Senator McKenna’s question. To prove my bona fides I have information with me which I obtained when he raised the question during the second-reading debate. I am in a position to give the Senate an up-to-date report on this issue. The Government has announced from time to time - it did so as recently as a fortnight ago - that it was its desire to have the Australian Primary Producers Union represented on the Australian Wool Industry Conference. It has been said also on several occasions that the Government was confident that the time was fast approaching when the A.P.P.U. would be granted admission to the conference.

I remind the Senate that the Australian Wool Industry Conference is not a statutory body and that the industry itself decides its composition. I make that explanation because what I have to add tells in some detail of moves that have been made and are being made to include the A.P.P.U. in the conference. As honorable senators know, provision exists in the constitution of the conference for the admission of new organizations. In May, 1963, the A.P.P.U. applied for admission and its application was considered at a meeting of the conference in June, 1963. However, the conference did not consider that the application contained sufficient information to meet the requirements of the constitution of the conference.

I remind the Senate, inthis context, that the chairman of the conference is no less a person than Sir John Crawford who could never be accused of being anything but completely unbiassed in his approach to every problem that comes before him. At the request of the conference, the A.P.P.U. submitted further information in December, 1963. This information received consideration at the meeting of the conference in January, 1964. However, because a number of aspects required further investigation, the conference established a sub-committee of eight members to carry out this work in consultation with the A.P.P.U. The sub-committee is to report to the next meeting of the conference which will be held in about two months time - on 16th and 17th July.

Senator Wright:

– Was Sir John Crawford a member of that sub-committee?

Senator WADE:

– I do not know that, but he certainly has an overriding interest in the conference as a whole, and the conference will make the decisions, not the sub-committee.

The Government has urged the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council and the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation to reach agreement with the Australian Primary Producers Union onthe question of organizational representation on the conference. It is the Government’s belief that a non-statutory body, whose membership can be modified by mutual agreement and negotiation among the woolgrower organizations, offers full scope for the development and the unity of the woolgrowing industry. There is no halfheartedness in the Government’s desire for the A.P.P.U. to be represented on this conference.

The history of the formation of the conference is interesting and,I think, is well known to all honorable senators. For the first time in many years the two major organizations - that is the way they arc described - came together and exhibited a measure of unity that had not been observed previously in the industry’s history. That was a definite step in the right direction towards a united growers’ voice. The Government has made it plain to the conference and to the various organizations that comprise the conference that it believes the A.P.P.U. should be represented. We hope that the position will be resolved at the meeting on 16th and 17th June.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Wade) read a third time.

page 1103

WOOL TAX BILL (No.1) 1 964

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 23rd April (vide page 868), on motion by Senator Wade-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1103

WOOL TAX BILL (No. 2) 1964

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 23rd April (vide page 869), on motion by Senator Wade-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1103

WOOL TAX BILL (No. 3) 1964

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 23rd April (vide page 869), on motion by Senator Wade-

That the bill be now read a secondtime.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I rise to direct attention to clauses5 and 6 of the bill. Clause 5 provides -

The rate of tax is -

two per centum of the sale value of the wool; or

if a lower rate prescribed under the next succeeding section is applicable - that lower rate.

I take that to be an indication that 2 per cent. is the maximum tax authorized by the legislation. However, clause 6 is in these terms -

  1. – (1.) The Governor-General may make regulations prescribing a rate of tax lower than the rale specified in paragraph (a) of the last preceding section. (2.) The regulations may limit the application of a rate of tax prescribed by the regulations to a period specified in the regulations.

I ask the Minister whetherI am correct in understanding that the operation and the effect of those two clauses is definitely to prescribe the upper limit of tax which can be imposed by regulations under this legislation as 2 per cent. of the value of the wool.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Health · Victoria · CP

– The honorable senator is completely correct in his interpretation of the clauses.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Wade) read a third time.

page 1104

WOOL TAX BILL (No. 4) 1964

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 23rd April (vide page 869), on motion by Senator Wade-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1104

WOOL TAX BILL (No. 5) 1964

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 23rd April (vide page869), on motion by Senator Wade-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1104

WOOL TAX (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1964

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 23rd April (vide page 871), on motion by Senator Wade-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I refer to clause 84 which relates to the release of offenders. The clause reads - (1.) The gaoler of a gaol to which a person has been committed for non-payment of a penalty shall discharge that person -

  1. on payment to him of the penalty adjudged;
  2. on a certificate by the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner that the penalty has been paid or released; or
  3. if the penalty adjudged to be paid is not paid or released, according to the following table: -

Those seem to be pretty severe penalties. I ask the Minister for Health (Senator Wade) whether the penalties are to be administered by a judge or whether they are statutory and automatic. I also ask him whether provision is made for offenders to be subject to the due processes of the law and whether these penalties may be varied by a judge.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Health · Victoria · CP

– The penalties will be imposed by a court within its jurisdiction. Senator Wright expressed concern that this might be an arbitrary provision that goes outside the courts. That certainly would never be the intention in any action by this Government. The penalties set down are the maximum penalties and are subject to the discretion of the courts.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I address my attention to clause 84 and would like the Minister for Health (Senator Wade) to consider it for a little time. The clause has to be read in conjunction with clause 83 which states -

  1. Where a pecuniary penalty is adjudged to be paid by a convicted person, the court shall -

I direct attention first to the word “ shall “. It is a direction from the legislature as to the court’s imperative duty. I should have thought the more usual procedure of using the word “ may “ would have been adopted. Clause 83 continues -

  1. commit the offender to gaol until the penalty is paid;
  2. release the offender upon his giving security for the payment of the penalty; or
  3. exercisefor the enforcement and recovery of the penalty any power of distress or execution possessed by the court for the enforcement and recovery of penalties or money adjudged to be paid in any other case.

It seems to me that that is an expression of harsh law enforcement that one does not usually encounter. When it is read in conjunction with clause 84, to which Senator O’Byrne has referred, are we to take it that this table is binding on every court irrespective of its discretion as to the appropriate penalty in the circumstances, and that every court is bound to impose a term of imprisonment of six months for every pecuniary penalty over £100 and not more than £200 that is not paid? In the jurisdictions to which 1 am accustomed, including most of the federal jurisdictions in operation at the present time, it would be very exceptional to prescribe a hard and fast term of imprisonment for the nonpayment of a pecuniary penalty irrespective of the circumstances.I. invite the Minister to give the Senate some explanation of the matter.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Health · Victoria · CP

– I invite Senator Wright’s attention to clause 83 (2.) which provides -

Where the court makes an order committing the offender to gaol, the court may, at any time before the offender is imprisoned in pursuance of the order, allow the offender a specified time for payment of the penalty or allow him to pay the penalty by specified instalments and, in that case -

the order committing the offender to gaol shall not be executed unless theoffender fails to pay the penalty within that lime or failsto pay any instalment at the time when it is payable, as the case may be;

if the offender pays the penally within that time or pays all ofthe instalments, as the case may be - the order committing the offender to gaol shall be deemed to have been discharged; and

if the offender is imprisoned in pursuance of the order but, before being so imprisoned, has paid part of the penalty-

And this is most important - the next succeeding section applies in relation to him as ifthe amount of the penalty were that part of the penalty remaining unpaid immediately before his being so imprisoned.

I think that that answers in detail the points raised by the honorable senator.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.-I am grateful to the Minister for directing my attention to that sub-clause. I can see the sys tem that is being employed, but it does seem to me that, by the use of the word “ shall “, it is intended to require the court, irrespective of its discretion, to impose a term of imprisonment. Then, if there is payment according to a graduated scale in relation to the penalty imposed, the term of imprisonment is abridged. Why is it not the situation that a maximum penalty is provided for the various offences and the judgment of the court trusted in each case as appropriate amount of penalty, subject to any minimum amount if you like? Why is not the discretion of the court trusted as to whether the case is an appropriate one to be dealt with by way of pecuniary penalty on the one hand or imprisonment on the other? Subject to the upper limit, the court then could be given a discretion as to the term of imprisonment in a case where the court thought that imprisonment was the appropriate order. I am very concerned as to the rigidity of the provision and the apparent harshness of the initial approach to the matter.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Health · Victoria · CP

– There is not a great deal that I can add to what I said previously. It is true that clause 83 (1 . ) says -

Where a pecuniary penalty is adjudged to be paid by a convicted person, the court shall -

commit the offender to gaol until the penalty is paid;

I can only refer the honorable senator again to clause 83 (2.) which states quite clearly -

Where the court makes an order committing the offenderto goal, the court may, at any time before the offender is imprisoned in pursuance of the order, allow the offender a specified lime for payment of the penalty . . .

Whilst it is specified that if the offender is convicted he shall be committed to goal, before he is so committed he is to be given the opportunity to pay the fine, seek additonal time to pay or pay by instalments.

Senator McKenna:

– Or to give security.

Senator WADE:

– Or to give security. Having regard to the nature of the offence, I think there is ample scope for the court to see that no undue hardship is imposed on the offending party.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- -I am sorry if I am taking too long in gaining an understanding in this matter. Clause 84 (1) (c) provides that where a penalty of £2 and under is not paid, the offender shall be imprisoned for seven days. That seems to me to connote that the court is required to impose a term of imprisonment of not less than one month in a case where a penalty of £10 is not paid because that is the term of imprisonment provided for non-payment of penalties ranging from £5 to £20. The inference is that the initial penalty generally will exceed one month’s imprisonment. I hope I am wrong and that something has escaped me because I submit that the sort of provision is foreign to this type of legislation.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Health · Victoria · CP

– On the contrary, such a provision is not foreign to this type of legislation. I am informed that it is on all fours with taxation legislation. It seems to me it would be quite incongruous if we were to suggest eliminating such provisions from this type of bill. When all is said and done, it is a minor matter having regard to our income lax laws. It might be appropriate at some future date for the honorable senator to raise this issue in relation to the whole field of penalties for tax offences. I am informed that this practice, which has been so well established in our taxation laws, has not worked harshly. I believe that if we were to examine the matter, we would find ample evidence to show that the Taxation Branch has a soul and so also have the courts of law.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I am grateful to the Minister for Health for that statement and it somewhat quietens my doubts. I accept the course he has suggested. I note that in clause 81 there is a presumption of guilt clause; that is to say, anything that the prosecutor writes into the complaint against the offender is deemed to be true, with certain safeguards. I know also that that type of clause is standard in some other forms of legislation but I think there is a growing inclination to frown upon provisions of this type. However, we will reserve that matter for future consideration.

May I turn back to clause 13 to which I intended to refer the Minister before Senator O’Byrne spoke. This clause refers to the registration of wool-brokers, wooldealers, manufacturers and exporters. Is it intended that the commissioner shall have a discretion to register, or refuse registration, in each case? If it is intended that the commissioner shall have the authority to refuse registration, I ask the Minister to indicate where in this bill the factors that would justify refusal of registration are set out?

Senator WADE:
Minister for Health · Victoria · CP

– In answer to that query, I refer the honorable senator to clause 13 (3.) of the bill. The honorable senator has asked whether the Commissioner of Taxation has any discretion to refuse registration. The answer is no. Clause 13 (3.) states-

On receipt of the application, the Commissioner shall forthwith register the applicant as a woolbroker in respect of that State by entering the name of the applicant in a register to be kept by the Commissioner for the purpose and shall give notice of the registration to the applicant.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I am obliged to the Minister. I have reserved the question of the cancellation of registration in this discussion so as to maintain clarity. In clause 13 (5.) it is provided that where a person has been registered and then applies in writing to the commissioner in the prescribed manner for cancellation of the registration, the commissioner shall then cancel the registration. I ask the Minister whether or not it is provided that the commissioner may suspend or cancel the registration of the wool-broker, or any of these other functionaries, for any matter except upon the written application of the registrant?

Senator Wade:

– No.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Wade) read a third time.

page 1106

WOOL TAX LEGISLATION REPEAL BILL 1964

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 23rd April (vide page 871), on motion by Senator Wade-

Thatthe bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1107

COMMONWEALTH AID ROADS BILL 1964

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6th May (vide page 992), on motion by Senator Paltridge -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

.- The bill before the Senate deals with matters of very great importance to this Commonwealth and to its future and I say at once that the Opposition does not oppose it. It deals with payments by the Commonwealth to the States of amounts to cover a five-year period from 1964 to 1969, for expenditure on road construction or on research directly connected with the planning or design of roads or of road construction. It is perhaps desirable to recapitulate in a sentence or two precisely what the bill provides.

The amount to be made available to the States over the five-year period under consideration is £375,000,000, to be divided in the following manner: A sum of £330,000,000 is to be a basic grant payable to the States in specified amounts, without any conditions, and a further £45,000,000 is to be paid to the States on the basis of matching grants by the States, also spread over the same five-year period. Although this is not provided for in the legislation, it is proper to mention that, as stated in the second-reading speech of the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Paltridge), in addition to the proposed grant to the States of £375,000,000, it is estimated that the Commonwealth will spend £45,000,000 or more in the next five years on roads in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, and on roads in the States, including projects such as beef roads. I mention this in fairness to the Government, because it will then be seen that if the estimate in respect of the last-mentioned matter turns out to be correct, the Commonwealth will spend some £420,000,000 over this five-year period for the purposes of road construction. It so happens - although it is not explicitly stated in the Minister’s speech and it is certainly not stated in the bill - that the £420,000,000 will correspond broadly with the amount of petrol tax to be collected by the Commonwealth.

Senator Anderson:

– Over the same period?

Senator COHEN:

– -Over the same period. That is a concession which represents a new departure in the Government’s policy and which brings the general approach to the problem of petrol tax and road finance in line with the policy which has been advocated by the Opposition over a long period of time, with this one exception: The Opposition has advocated, and still advocates, the return of the whole of the proceeds of the petrol tax to the States. Although the whole of the proceeds of the petrol tax will be expended on roads and road construction, the present legislation does not provide for the whole of these funds to go to the States, because some £45,000,000 or thereabouts will be retained by the Commonwealth for its own road construction purposes and special projects.

The problem of roads is one to be considered in many aspects. I think it is true to say that the whole question of transport is critical for Australia’s future development and well-being. I do not propose, in the limited time that I have in this debate, to go into the somewhat sophisticated and far-reaching questions as to the relationship between road transport and other forms of transport. Speakers on the Opposition side who will follow me may tease out the implications of that problem in more detail. I content myself with saying that in relation to the question of roads we are dealing with a problem that has many facets. We are dealing with roads as essential to the economic wellbeing of the country, roads as looked at from the point of view of the primary producer needing proper facilitation of transport of his produce to ports, to other methods of transportation, or to those who will deal with raw materials as manufacturers. We are dealing with it from the point of view of secondary industry, of manufacturers who need road transport as well as other forms of transport to get their raw materials to the point at which the manufacturers do their work upon them. They need transport to take goods from the place of manufacture to the place at which they are to be sold. In a hundred different ways road transport is of critical importance to the economic well-being of the country.

Roads are important from the point of view of national defence. We on the

Opposition side certainly do not accept the view, perhaps an extreme view, but one which was once expressed even by a former Minister of the present Government, Mr, Davidson, that we should not build roads that are too good because this would facilitate their use by the enemy in the event of invasion. That is, of course, an extreme statement of a point of view and we would have nothing in common with it. Certainly if we look at the type of co-operation that exists in countries such as the United States of America between the Federal Government, the defence agencies, and the highway agencies, such as the United States Bureau of Public Roads, it will be readily seen that co-operation between the national roads authority and the defence authorities is required of necessity to be very close. There are many examples in the reports of the United States Bureau of Roads which give the clearest indication of close cooperation on matters of defence.

There are other ways in which the community will depend upon bigger roads, more roads and better roads. I shall deal a little later in my remarks with such questions as road safety, the condition of roads, and the sort of effort that is required to put Australia’s road system on a sounder basis financially and in every other way than it is at present, and which is required, also, in order to carry the tremendous burden which will fall upon the Australian transport system in the years to come. I think that the proper starting point is to look at what is proposed in the legislation, alongside the national needs. We ought, not to fall for the Government’s description of the effort that it puts into this kind of activity, by reference to figures which are juggled for th? purpose. I do not use the word “ juggling “ in the sense of trickery, but I do say this: The grant of £375,000,000 proposed in this legislation for the fiveyear period represents an increase of 50 per cent, over the grant for the previous five years. The formula under which the grants are made has not been altered in any noticeable way; the previous formula is being continued, based on area, number of vehicles and population. But this increase of 50 per cent, for the five-year period represents an increase of only £25,000,000 for each of those five years. This may sound a great deal. It was promised in the policy speech of the Prime

Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) prior to the last federal election, but some of the underlying realities of the problem are concealed. The proposal was spoken about as though it would be some tremendous advance for the Commonwealth to make available at least £350,000,000 for road construction purposes. The plain fact of the matter is that the extra money required will be provided through the natural increase in the number of road vehicles.

We have only to look at the startling increase in the number of vehicles in use in the community to-day as compared with the situation a decade ago, to realize that there exists the potential of a great untapped reservoir of finance through the petrol tax. If we can place any reliance at all on the statistics, there will be an enormous increase in the number of vehicles on the roads and in the petrol tax collected in the decade 1964 to 1974. It has been estimated that the number of vehicles will increase from 3,800,000 to 5,900,000 or, broadly, an increase from almost 4,000,000 to almost 6,000,000. That is a very startling piece of information.

I am indebted - and I think the Senate will be indebted - to the National Association of Australian State Road Authorities for a very elaborate survey published in 1963 in respect of the decade 1964 to 1974. This was not some private institution making an amateur attempt to arrive at an accurate estimate. The association is a body consisting of the Department of Main Roads of New South Wales, the Country Roads Board of Victoria, the Main Roads Department of Queensland, the Highways and Local Government Department of South Australia, the Main Roads Department of Western Australia, the Department of Public Works of Tasmania and the Commonwealth Department of Works in respect of Commonwealth Territories. So it is a body of the highest authority on questions relative to road transport. The association’s survey covered the period 1964 to 1974, which is double the period contemplated by this legislation. I invite the Senate to follow with me some of the findings of that survey, because they highlight the critical question involved in this debate.

Let us not just look at the figures in themselves and say, “ There will be 50 per cent. more money available than there was for the previous five years “. Let us look at what is needed, because unless we look at national needs we have no standard or criterion by which to judge whether the Government is doing enough to meet this problem and whether it is doing it properly. It is estimated that Australia’s road needs over the total ten-year period from 1964 to 1974 will be £3,179,000,000 in 1962-63 money values. Making some allowance for cost increases based on current trends - the association believes that some £431,000,000 should be allowed for these increases - the total estimated road need is £3,615,000,000. Of this, one can see only £2,450,000,000 available from the estimated revenue, based oil the current scale of disbursements and on the anticipated increase in the number of vehicles. So there will be an estimated deficiency of £1.165,000,000 over the period from 1964 to 1974. The estimated deficiency over the five-year period we are concerned with - the period from 1964 to 1969 - is £431,000,000. Unless we see this problem as a whole, unless we talk in terms of the potential requirements, we are not making a proper approach; we are dealing only with a contribution towards the cost. Of course it is a very considerable contribution. Everybody will concede that expenditure on roads is rapidly becoming an extremely large part of the national budget and one of the most vital problems confronting Australia to-day.

May I ask the Serrate to consider some of the other matters contained in this very important report b’y the National Association of Australian State Road Authorities, or Naasra, as it is called? Dealing with funds allocated for the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges in 1962, the association points out that expenditure on roads in Australia represented only £A.320 per mile of road as compared with a corresponding figure of £A.700 per mile in New Zealand. In the United States of America, which has a most admirably developed system of national highways under the guidance of the United States Bureau of Public Roads, the corresponding figure was £A. 1,450 per mile of roads.

Here we are faced with startling statistical facts. In Australia we have 544.386 miles of road as compared with 3,500.000 miles in the United States of America.

Although Australia is comparable in area with the United States of America it has only one-seventh of the road mileage of the United States of America. Of more than half a million miles of road in Australia only 14 per cent, has a dustless surface so that not only are there large and complex problems relating to the construction of further roads, but also tremendous problems relating to the improvement of existing road surfaces. Over the years, the 14 per cent, of our mileage which represents dustless surfaces could increase to a much more significant proportion of the total mileage.

There are also tremendous problems of congestion and traffic suffocation in the metropolitan areas of Australia and nobody has an easy solution to these difficulties. When the lord mayors of the capital cities of Australia made submissions to the Commonwealth Government in January of this year, asking urgently for Commonwealth assistance for arterial road development in the metropolitan areas, they gave many examples of the extraordinary pressure on all road space in congested metropolitan areas. In regard to Melbourne, the capital of my own State, they quoted the words of the Victorian Traffic Commission in the survey made in 1961, as follows: -

Melbourne’s existing road system, which has taken over a century to construct, needs to be doubled in capacity if 1970 demands are to be met.

That means that in seven years’ time Melbourne has to double its road capacity if the demands are to be met. The Victorian Premier, Mr. Bolte, apparently does not share the view that this is a critical problem, for only yesterday he was reported as saying -

We have a big problem with our roads, but it is not a main problem. Wc should never over-emphasize our difficulties. They are the problems of prosperity and not of adversity.

Mr. Bolte needs to be reminded, apparently, that the problems of prosperity can be solved in an expanding economy only by proper provision for transport in all aspects, and this includes a first-class road system. The lord mayors’ committee and the local government authorities have all pressed upon the national Government of this country, and are pressing upon the public conscience, the need for urgent action to develop ways of relieving traffic congestion in the metropolitan areas. It is obvious, without citing statistics to honorable senators that the vast bulk of vehicle tonnage passes over metropolitan arterial systems. A great number of the vehicles that pass over the roads in the congested metropolitan areas are commercial vehicles. It has been estimated that, for every minute in which hold-ups occur in peak-hour traffic in metropolitan areas, there is an enormous loss running into millions of pounds in costs to the community.

I think it is necessary to remember that when we are looking at this problem of roads we are not looking at some minor aspect of the nation’s activities or of the nation’s economy. Such a very high percentage of national costs goes into transport. At present 75 per cent, of total passenger miles and freight tonnage each year is carried by road transport. In 1960-61, road transport costs, other than capital investment, were £1,613,000,000, equal to 22 per cent, of the gross national product. According to the careful submissions of lord mayors of the capital cities, it has been estimated that 11 per cent, of the cost of everything bought by the nation is transport cost. When we talk about the alleviation of traffic congestion in the metropolitan road systems, it is not merely a matter of minor inconvenience. It may be that to some private users, though it is often a major inconvenience. To those using commercial vehicles - those engaged in the nation’s industry and commerce - every minor delay is a matter of great practical moment to the economy.

When we deal with roads, we deal wilh questions of road safety. I have not the time now to develop at length the argument that a better system of roads means greater freedom from road accidents and from the dreadful toll of the road that exists throughout this country, especially in the metropolitan areas. These are matters for discussion on another occasion. The Senate select committee which produced such a valuable report on this subject-matter only a few years ago went into the subject in great detail and made many suggestions which, no doubt, those responsible have been able to consider. That committee also had produced before it startling evidence relating to the cost of read accidents in a single year. It reported that the cost was estimated at £70,000,000 per annum in Australia. That, of course, comes not only from bad or inadequate roads but from other factors, too. There is very persuasive evidence that in those cities that have developed freeways the incidence of accidents has been greatly reduced, and not only has traffic flowed more freely but some prospect of relief is seen in relation to traffic problems.

We look at what is proposed by the Government in the light of the enormous problems that confront the country and its economy and we ask ourselves, “ Is it enough? “. The answer, I suggest, is clearly, “ No “. It is not that we should look upon the Commonwealth Government as capable of providing a limitless fountain of finance and resources. Of course we all appreciate that there are many calls for finance upon the national Government. Many other services and needs of the nation have to be attended to and they have to be financed out of the public purse. We do not merely think of the largest number possible and say that that is what has to be found by the Government; but there certainly has to be some closer attention by the Government to the whole problem of national needs in the roads field. There have to be a national roads authority and a national approach. Naturally we appreciate that the major task of road construction must fall on the States. According to the Minister’s speech it is proposed - and it has been proposed for some time now - that there should be a Commonwealth bureau of roads. The real question is: What kind of a body is it to be? The Australian Automobile Association in its May “ Newsletter “ suggests that the 64-dollar question is, “ What will the composition and precise functions of the future Commonwealth Bureau of Roads be? “

In the United States of America the Bureau of Public Roads is a national roads authority and it has far-reaching functions including the co-ordination of Federal and State activity. What is apparently proposed here is not a body with teeth but an advisory body that will certainly do a valuable job in ascertaining the basic facts. The Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) in a statement made just after the Premiers’ Conference in March specifically rejected the idea that we were to have any kind of federal roads bureau on the lines of the United States system. He said that it would be advisory only. He said, too, that the Commonwealth was necessarily short of information and without the sort of statistical material that could be produced by a bureau of roads. He said-

We cannot handle such a situation and make the large decisions involved unless we ourselves have a really adequate understanding of the problem we are dealing with.

There is the clearest admission by the Treasurer that there is not really in the hands of the Government the basic information required to decide what future policies should be pursued. But more than information is needed. We expect leadership and initiative from the Commonwealth Government. There are many things to be said on this question of roads. One appreciates the problems of the municipalities which feel that they have exhausted their potential in meeting their share of road finances out of taxes on ratepayers. I appreciate the problems of those who have to administer municipalities and provide roads. The present formula must attract strong criticism when Victoria and New South Wales provide two-thirds of the funds from the petrol tax and receive only 47 per cent, of the return by way of roads.

Senator Wood:

– Victoria has only a small area.

Senator COHEN:

– But Victoria has a very large population and a very large number of vehicles. I am not here at the moment to press the views of Victoria or any other State. I am simply saying that 1 appreciate the problems that all those concerned have in having to operate under a formula. We in Victoria believe that more should be done by the Commonwealth, specifically to overcome the metropolitan congestion problem. When dealing with a subject like this, one can deal with only some of the major problems. Our basic approach is that all the petrol tax revenue should be returned to the States, that there should be a national planning authority, and that there should be a more realistic approach to the adoption of a formula for the allocation of road funds. Whilst the Opposition supports the legislation, it believes that in the interests of national development immensely accelerated attention should be given to the problem by the Federal Government, and that ways and means be found to increase the volume of funds available for road development.

Senator MORRIS:
Queensland

Senator Cohen certainly has outlined and, if I may use the term, underlined the complexity of this problem. I am sure we all realize that the broad general problem of providing a good roads system in a young country in this age of the motor vehicle is a tremendous one. Probably there are a dozen angles from which one could approach the problem, but time will not permit a general coverage. Therefore, I propose to concentrate my remarks upon one facet of it. Senator Cohen quoted a number of very interesting and relevant figures. However, when one is comparing the size of Australia and its roads system with the size of the United Slates of America and its roads system, one must not overlook the fact that the United States is many years older than is Australia and that its population is very much greater than ours. Naturally, the revenue which is available in that country is very much greater than that available here.

No problem calls for greater co-operation between all the sovereign governments of Australia than does the problem of road construction and maintenance. Having had quite a lot to do with facilities which require a good roads system, I am fully aware of the need. But I am also fully aware of the fact that in any parliament, irrespective of whether the subject debated is roads, health or education, one can advance a case for the spending of much more money than is available. If we were to act upon all the pleas for extra money that were made, our taxation revenue would have to be quadrupled. The real test of a government is its ability to do the very best it can with the revenue that can reasonably be raised. If one measures the proposed allocation for roads by that yardstick, one realizes that the Government has done a very good job. I am looking forward to a great deal of improvement in our roads system as a result of that allocation. Of course, we could spend more on roads. And, as I said earlier, we could spend more on a lot of other activities.

I assume that legislation will be needed to authorize the formation of the proposed Commonwealth bureau of roads which was referred to by the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) at the Premiers’ Conference on 12th March, and again to-day by Senator Cohen. I look forward to our being able to make a broader approach to all the complexities of our roads problem when that legislation is introduced. I hope that all of us, from whatever area or State we come, will be tolerant of the needs of others. It is with that attitude of mind that I propose to speak to-day.

I was very interested in the last part of the second-reading speech delivered by the Minister for Defence (Senator Paltridge). Indeed, throughout the Minister’s speech and in the press statement made by the Treasurer on 12th March there has been a recognition of the fact that our roads problem must be regarded as being a national one and must no’ be considered in any parochial way or from the viewpoint of a particular State. Even so, I propose to advance certain aspects of the problem in Queensland. The Minister estimated that £750,000,000 has been spent on roads over the last five years. The Commonwealth having found £250,000,000, it is a simple matter to deduce that a sum of £500,000,000, or two-thirds of the total expenditure, has been provided by the State Governments and local authorities. 1 regard the increase in the Commonwealth’s allocation as being very handsome, but we cannot expect a similar percentage increase to be provided by the State Governments and local authorities, particularly the local authorities. I know of many local authorities which are in such a shockingly bad state financially that they will be hard pressed to match even the amount they have spent in past years. They certainly will not be able to increase their contribution.

I should like honorable senators from other States to realize the big problem which faces Queensland. Until about seven years ago Queensland faced very broad financial problems. Without being controversial, let me say that I do not believe that a case had ever been made for full financial aid to Queensland. At least, any case made was not presented as well as it should have been. I recall the very difficult days through which the present Queensland Government passed early in its term of office when it tried to make £1 do the work of £3. One of the worst tasks I have ever had was trying at that time to get the greatest benefit from the small amount of money that was avail able. In addition to not having got as much money as I believe we could have got had a better case been presented, we faced the problem that for the twenty years which preceded 1957 comparatively little work had been done on Queensland roads. It was common for visitors to Queensland to joke about the shocking state of our roads. But the metamorphosis that has occurred in regard to Queensland roads since then has been rather amazing. I say without fear of contradiction that of ali the departments of the present Queensland Government, none has done a better job than the Department of Main Roads. To-day a road runs for a thousand miles along the Queensland coastline from the New South Wales border to Cairns and there are excellent feeder roads. In addition, a great deal of work has been done to provide freeways and expressways - in a very minor way, of course - in the State of Queensland. But we have a long way to go and because we have so far to go we must consider the method of the allocation of Commonwealth finance and determine whether the allocation is being made on the best possible basis and under the best possible formula. 1 do not believe it is.

Before I touch on that aspect I should like to say that no matter from which State we come we are very conscious of the problems relating to the roads in our main cities. Those are the roads we see most frequently. Too often we overlook the problems of the roads in the country areas which are equally as important because of the contribution they make to the development of the country as a whole. Beef roads come within this category. I doubt whether 1 per cent, of the members of the Senate have driven over any of the beef roads that have been constructed. It is natural that they should not have done so because travel on those roads does not come within the normal course of their affairs. Nevertheless those roads are just as important as city roads and in some ways more important than some of the feeder roads which we see so much more frequently.

The Queensland roads system has improved out of all recognition since 1957. I am sure that all my colleagues will support that statement. Senator Cohen referred to the fact that the movement of vehicles in Australia has changed in character and pattern entirely during the past seven to ten years, and that statement applies very much to Queensland. In 1957 it was quite unusual to see a car with a New South Wales, Victorian, South Australian or Western Australian number plate. To-day, along the thousand miles of highway that runs along our coastline, four out of five vehicles carry a registration plate of a southern State. We are glad to see them. It means we are getting visits from our friends in other States. We are delighted and we try to provide roads as good as we possibly can with the limited amount of money we have available.

Senator Hannaford:

– Are you not exaggerating a little when you say that four out of five cars have southern number plates?

Senator MORRIS:

– I am very interested in that interjection. This is a subject we have argued about on a number of occasions and I have carried out a number of checks. I point out to the honorable gentleman that only two years ago I had a survey made of southern vehicles coming into Queensland and found that 1,000,000 vehicles a year entered the State. That is a tolerably large number of motor cars.

Senator Wood:

– Why did the change take place after 1957?

Senator MORRIS:

– You are attempting to draw me away from my subject. I have a number of other things to say in relation to the number of cars coming into Queensland.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator MORRIS:

– As only fifteen minutes remain of the time allotted to mc in this debate I propose to condense very much all that I want to say. Before the suspension of the sitting I was pleading for a more national outlook on road construction I stated that Queensland’s development had really only commenced in 1957, and I commented also upon the failure of Queensland governments before 1957 to present a case to the Commonwealth for adequate financial assistance. Since then, however, steps have been taken to rectify the position.

Since 1957 Queensland has constructed a splendid road for 1,000 miles along its coastline and has built many other good roads; but many still remain to be built. 1 said also that on that northern road, and on others, there is a preponderance of cars which arc registered in southern States, not only in the tourist season but also through out the year. We are very glad of this but we must be fully aware of its implications. Hundreds of semi-trailers registered in southern States also pass over that long length of road every week pounding it to pieces, and we have to bear the expense of maintaining it. I am not complaining about that at this time; I merely want the fact to be recognized.

I reminded honorable senators that ten years ago vehicles very seldom were driven interstate, partly because of the condition of the roads and partly because the vehicles were not then as reliable as they are to-day. Now the motorist of Australia is a migratory person and, I believe, vehicles can be said to be cosmopolitan. Very many are driven interstate over practically the whole length of Australian roads, irrespective of where they are registered. I do not think that we can regard road construction and road maintenance any longer as solely a State responsibility. This is an Australian problem. The States must be prepared to say to each other, “ What we build you use, and what you build we use “. That is why I claim that this is a national problem and must be regarded as such.

The present formula for the distribution of Commonwealth grants excludes too many factors. I shall mention certain of them which I believe should be included. First, let me remind the Senate that Queensland, which covers 224- per cent, of Australia’s total area - every bit of it is good usable land - and has 25 per cent of Australian roads, receives only 18.16 per cent, of the Commonwealth grant, or £68,000,000. Victoria, which has only 3 per cent, of Australia’s area, receives 19 per cent, of the total grant, or £74,000,000. New South Wales, which has 10J per cent, of Australia’s area, or less than one-half of the area of Queensland, receives 27.97 per cent, of the grant, or almost £104,000,000. I repeat that Queensland receives only 18.16 per cent, of the grant, or £68,000,000. We cannot do the job that we are expected to do when we receive such a small amount compared to the amounts received by the other States. That is another reason why I say that this is a national problem.

I shall mention now a few factors which I believe should be considered when the Commonwealth grant is being allocated, or when the turkey is being carved, as some’ people might say. I said earlier that the latest increase in the grant is very handsome. 1 still maintain that. We must be reasonable in all things. I have in my hand a map which I have coloured, lt represents only the very far northern part of Queensland - the part that very few people know and the part that 1 regard as the area of greatest hardship. This is regarded as a Zone A area for income tax purposes, and comparatively few people live there. However, this area which is not known or is very little known, is 50 per cent, larger than Victoria. The area shown on the map covers ten shires. The funds that those shires receive are so small that you would hardly believe it. I have divided the ten shires into two groups of five, one group covering the northern and western section and the other covering the southern and eastern section. Taking the northern and western group first - an area about the size of Victoria - the latest figures available from the Bureau of Census and Statistics show that those five shires received the handsome sum of f 95, 175 out of the Commonwealth road grants. In that huge area what can be done with that amount? The rates that the shires collect total only £90,000-odd, their administration costs £2 1 ,000 and their loan liability is £130,000. Their allocation from the Commmonwealth grant cannot possibly make any impact upon the work to be done. Except for a few miles of beef roads which are good - they are the only ones there that are any good - the area has few roads. You cannot even travel on many of them except in fine weather.

The other group of five shires received £95,950 as its share of the cake. Because there are some towns in the area the rates that the shires collect amount to £345,800. Their administration costs £47,800 and they have an existing loan liability of £1,133,000.

The facts that I have stated present a real problem. There must be a solution. There is a solution to every problem, but whether we find it is another matter. I believe that the solution to this problem will be found in the suggestion contained in the first speech that I made in this chamber - recognition of the fact that this is an area of very great hardship where responsibility for development must rest, in the final analysis, on the authority charged with the responsibility for northern development as a whole. 1 must repeat, because it is only fair that I should, that in the last few years a great deal of money has been very well spent in Queensland in building vital roads, vital highways and vital expressways, but we just cannot make our grant go as far as it should. As I have said, we have the largest area of usable land in Australia but we receive only 18 per cent, of the Commonwealth grant. The formula used for the allocation of Commonwealth road funds is not as good as it should be. The factors that are used - population, vehicle registration and area - are quite good but others should be added to them. The first additional factor that I believe should be considered is existing road networks. I would add that factor because a great deal of money is required for road maintenance and because the existing network gives a better picture of the relative needs of the area.

The second factor which 1 believe should be added is the area of good usable land not served at present by any all-weather road. That is a very vital factor because if we want to open up this area, which is good, fertile land that can produce an export income for Australia, we must have roads. People will not move into this area and put up with the difficulties- there unless they can move around in it.

The third factor - I must confess there may be some difficulty with this one - is recognition of the fact that to-day vehicles migrate ever so much more than they did previously. I venture to suggest that if this migratory trend were recognized there would be a great levelling of what we regard as heavy vehicle population in one area and light vehicle population in another. 1 must make it clear that I am not advocating restriction of the expenditure of money on freeways and’ expressways, because they must come, as must development roads.

A further factor that I believe should be taken into consideration is the degree of road development already achieved, so that there will be some recognition of what has been done and what needs to be done. If there have been problems which have held back the advancement of a State in years gone by, surely we should not perpetuate such problems. If we do, we shall never achieve the development that we need. If we recognize that conditions have changed and take into account the road development already achieved, that will affect the brakeup of the Commonwealth grant to the States for road development.

The next factor, which .1 believe is a vital one, is the degree to which the States and local authorities either have supplemented previous Commonwealth road grants or are capable of supplementing them. I have referred to an area in Queensland that is very large. Although the authorities in that area receive a fair share of the money allocated for roads, they, in fact, receive less than £250.000 a year. Therefore, I say it is important that local authorities should be able to meet additional road requirements. They want to do so, but they have not the funds available. If the factors 1 have mentioned were taken into consideration, as well as other factors which could be included, 1 venture to suggest that Queensland would receive not 18 per cent., but nearly 36 per cent, of the total Commonwealth allocation to the States. This is the place where I want to present Queensland’s case in relation to roads. Until we receive additional money there will not be the development that I so anxiously want to see in the State of Queensland.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I have listened with great interest to what has been said by Senator Morris. I do not know whether he wants Victoria and New South Wales to pay for Queensland’s roads as well as their own. I would like to see official figures to support his statement that 1,000,000 vehicles went to Queensland in the period be mentioned. He referred to Queensland’s lack of money for roads. Has he ever considered the amount of money that is collected in his own State in petrol tax? Leaving aside the figures that we have heard mentioned in the Senate, this bill is only a means of handing back to the States less than the Commonwealth has received from the States by way of petrol tax.

The Minister for Defence (Senator Paltridge) said in his second-reading speech that the Commonwealth will divide £62,000,000 amongst the States this year. It is estimated that the Commonwealth Treasury will receive £68,000,000 in petrol tax. If there is money that should properly be spent on roads it is money received from the people in petrol tax. It is recognized in all the States that more money is required to be spent on developing the road system of Australia, even if it means that the people have to pay more by way of petrol tax. As the Minister said in his second-reading speech, there will be other moneys spent in the Territories. One would expect that the Australian Capital Territory would be entitled to receive in road grants an amount equivalent to the sum raised in that area from petrol lax. I have often wondered why some portion of the money spent on the Alice Springs to Darwin road has not come out of the defence vote.

Senator O’Byrne:

– To say nothing of the sales tax revenue.

Senator KENNELLY:

– The Minister in his second-reading speech referred to the amount of money that will be spent on beef roads. Apart altogether from the petrol tax, as Senator O’Byrne has reminded me by way of interjection, the Government receives rather a large sum of money from sales tax on motor vehicles. One wonders when we are to begin a programme of road development that will help the nation to cut down transport costs.

I was interested not only to hear the Minister’s second-reading speech, but also to read it afterwards. He made the usual comparison. He said that whereas £41,000,000 had been spent on roads in 1950-51, in 1963-64 expenditure was running at about £160.000,000 per annum. He did not compare the value of money in 1950-51 with that in 1963-64, nor did he say that in the last ten years the number of motor vehicles has risen from 1,800,000 to 3,200,000. When one studies those figures one wonders whether we are doing all we can in regard to roads. Of course, we must not forget that the weight of motor vehicles has increased significantly in the last ten years. When one considers these factors one must ask whether there has been any real increase in the amount of money spent on roads by the Commonwealth Government.

We must, recognize that a tremendous amount is added to the cost of every article we buy because of transport costs. I understand that in Australia, 10 per cent, of the cost of all goods is due to payments for hire and reward to contractors who carry the goods. The most remarkable feature of this aspect of transportation costs is that the figure rises to 19 per cent, if we include transport owned by the companies concerned, such as some of the larger department stores, and by farmers and private cars. If one took into consideration other costs attributable to transportation the figure would be even greater than that I have quoted. I do not say that transport costs in other countries are not huge. I am told that transport costs in Australia are very nearly the same as in Canada.

So when we consider roads we must, in turn, look at the effect that they have on transport costs. It is interesting to look at the figures showing the percentage of goods that are carried by the various means of transport. These figures show that 75 per cent, of all goods are carried by road; the railways carry 15 per cent.; 8 per cent, are sent by ship and 2 per cent, by air. I believe that the Australian Government has to adopt a much broader outlook as far as road transport is concerned, and this means that it must do more in the field of road construction and maintenance. I agree with certain things that the Minister said in his secondreading speech. The Minister said -

Without doubt, however, the roads problem is one of the largest confronting Australian governments to-day-

But I do not agree with this portion of his statement - and the Commonwealth is fully alive to its implications. …

I do not think the Minister is justified in saying that. The reason why I disagree with him is: The only money the Commonwealth Government is handing back to the States is money that the Commonwealth has collected by way of petrol tax. It does not include the money that the Government has been receiving from sales tax on the. vehicles that use the roads. The Minister continued -

Much has been said and written lately about the need for larger roads expenditures and a number of assessments have been put forward.

That is true. In Victoria the Premier, with this need in mind, suggested an extra tax of 3d. a gallon on petrol. Of course, I understand that there will be an election in Victoria on 27th June and I suppose we will not hear much about this proposal until the election is ever. People in Victoria say that their State should at least obtain a larger share of the money collected as petrol tax because the Commonwealth receives from Victoria much more than is handed back to the State. However, I agree with the Government on one point: We should look at this problem of roads and road maintenance from the broad national outlook and not solely at State level.

What concerns me is this: I believe a certain amount at least should be spent on roads out of the defence vote. This is particularly so in relation to the northern areas of Australia. I do not see any valid reason why the amounts spent on beef roads in the northern parts of Australia should come out of funds raised by the petrol tax. Surely that is a part of national development. When all is said and done it cannot be said that such roads are roads in the ordinary sense of the word. They are only used in certain seasons when beef has to be transported.

People living in the metropolitan areas are very concerned about how the money provided for roads is spent. That applies not only to Victoria but also to the larger cities in other States. The only proviso the Commonwealth Government makes when it hands over the money is that 40 per cent.’ of it must be spent on rural roads. When I read that proviso 1 thought that if people living in the metropolitan areas had a pressure group like the Australian Country Party possibly more funds would be provided through this legislation for city roads.

What concerns me is that I understand that about 65 per cent, of the petrol bought in Victoria is used by motorists in the metro* politan area. 1 am also informed that less than 10 per cent, of the money collected in petrol tax is spent within the metropolitan area. This problem is not one for the Commonwealth Government but is a matter for the State governments concerned, lt has nothing to do with this bill, of course, but I mention it in passing because it is vital, lt is a matter for the lord mayors’ of the various cities. Senator Cohen referred to this aspect. I only hope that the lord mayors can bring pressure on the’ governments of their own States to ensure that a greater amount is spent within metropolitan areas, because I do not think that the amount that is now spent within those areas, is anywhere near a fair share of expenditure in each State.

We spend about £180,000,000 a year on roads in this country, taking into account roads built by various State housing authorities, electricity authorities and other public authorities that are not regarded as road constructing authorities. One-third of this money comes from the Commonwealth, onethird from the States and one-third from the councils. In view of the great development in various cities and the period for which people in new suburbs have to wait for roads, I hope that this Government might persuade the Premiers, when the matter comes up again for consideration, to allocate a certain amount of the money that they receive for the needs of the people who contribute the most.

The second portion of the bill deals with a new principle. In addition to the ordinary grant to the States, another £45,000,000 will bc payable to them over the five-year period if they can match it from their own resources. Possibly some States will be able to find £1 for each £1 available to them, but one wonders whether some of the larger States will be able to take advantage of this matching grant. The legislation permits the States to make payments for or in connexion with research relating to construction, maintenance and repair of roads.

We in Victoria are remarkable people. The Victorian Country Roads Board has been in existence at least since the early ]920’s. Just because it was named a country roads board, there is always a tremendous fight in Victoria if any of the money that is handed over to that road constructing authority is spent in the metropolitan area. The Victorian Parliament therefore agreed to establish another road constructing authority to deal with metropolitan roads, namely the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, lt has had to start from scratch. It has all the grandiose schemes of which one could ever read, but it has no money. It will get none of the money provided under this legislation. The only money it can get is from a special rate levied on householders. However good its schemes may be, it is lacking in the wherewithal to carry them out.

Reports of the Victorian Traffic Commission express concern as to what will happen to the city if the volume of transport grows in the next ten years at the rate at which it has grown in the past ten years. No doubt the Minister will say, rightly, that that is not relevant to this bill, but it is of very great concern to the people of Victoria. If the States received not only the proceeds of the petrol tax but also the proceeds of sales tax on motor vehicles, distributed in accordance with the formula now agreed upon, one-third according to population, one-third according to area and one-third according to motor vehicle registrations, our city and other big cities would not be suffocated by transport.

I am pleased that provision is being made for the establishment of a Commonwealth bureau of roads to examine the whole of the roads problem as it affects the nation. I have vivid recollections of the establishment of a committee to review the Constitution under which the nation is governed. It took evidence from the Premiers of various States, all of whom were concerned about the cost of roads and the cost of railways. They were also concerned, of course, about taxes on commercial vehicles coming from other. States. I am pleased to say that that matter has now been straightened out, up to a point. When one member of the committee asked the Premiers, “ If these things are causing so much trouble from a budgetary point of view, are you prepared to ask the Commonwealth to take over the main arterial roads connecting the various cities? “ it was amazing to hear that not only in regard to railways but also in regard to roads, all that the Premiers seemed to want to do was to come to Canberra, get as much money as they could and spend it as they wished.

Although the Government has undertaken to pay to the States a large sum of money to be expended on roads over the 5-year period covered by the bill, it will only be handing back to the States the amounts received by the Commonwealth in the form of petrol lax. One may well ask how the States can raise the money that they themselves must provide for roads. My own State of Victoria raises its share mainly through motor registration and drivers’ licence fees. In addition to receiving money from Canberra for the ordinary services of government, the States receive a share of the available loan funds. It is interesting to me to hear the Commonwealth implying from time to time that the States should spend more money on roads. The Commonwealth is the only taxing authority in Australia with access to the main sources of taxation revenue, and one wonders how it can expect the States to raise more money for roads than they are at present getting, unless the inference is that they ought to impose an extra petrol tax.

Apart from the Country Roads Board the only road constructing authorities in Victoria are the local municipal councils. The bill lays down that 40 per cent, of the Commonwealth money must be spent on rural roads, and the legislation defines rural roads as roads other than highways, main roads and trunk roads. One wonders how the Commonwealth expects metropolitan road works to be financed by the various local government authorities, because the only additional money they can obtain for this purpose is loan money - provided they are fortunate enough not to have already raised loans up to their limit. Municipalities in Victoria can borrow only up to a certain limit which I understand is fixed according to the amount of rates collected. It is virtually impossible for local authorities to devote any more to roads from their ordinary resources. In Victoria there are very few municipalities that have not now raised their rates to the limit imposed by the Local Government Act.

This problem is important not only to the individual States but also to the nation, because to-day practically 75 per cent, of Australia’s commerce travels on wheels over our roads and no doubt the proportion will become greater as the years go by. As the Commonwealth is the main taxing authority in Australia I do not think it ought to be satisfied to say to the States, “We will divide up among you not all but very nearly all the money that we receive from the petrol tax “. A much greater amount of money has to be found for roads. I think we must take a broader outlook on this most important question. Unless we can build roads that will carry the increasing volume of traffic necessary to our national development it will be a great hindrance to industry and will impose an added cost on the local people who buy our manufactured goods, thus bringing about a change in the cost structure that will affect our exports.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– I rise to support the bill, which is designed to make available to the States over five years some £375,000,000 to help them in their road-building programmes. Before dealing with the bill it might be advisable for me to answer some of the objections to the Government’s proposition, as contained in the bill, that were raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Kennelly). He said that we are not giving the States enough money to develop their roads. He said we should be giving back to the States all the money we collect by way of taxation on petrol. What did the Australian Labour Party do in 1949? In that year the Labour Party had a custom duty of lOd. a gallon on petrol. Out of the generosity of its heart it gave back to the States 3d. a gallon. When the Liberal Government was elected it still applied a customs duty of lOd. a gallon but gave back to the States 6d. a gallon to enable them to develop their roads. If I remember correctly, in 1949 - the last year that the Labour Government was in office - the total grant to the States was about £8,000,000. I remind the Senate that to-day this Government, in addition to the proposed allocation of £375,000,000 over the next five years, will give for road construction in its Territories and for beef roads in the north of Queensland and in Western Australia a sum greater than the total amount that the Labour Party gave to all of the States during its last year in office. So, I do not think that we as a Government can be criticized as being miserly in our allocation to the States.

Australia to-day is developing at an everincreasing rate. I agree with Senator Kennelly that one of our main problems is transport. As he said, about 75 per cent, of the goods that are transported to Australian ports are carried by roads. That is why the Government has allocated more and more as the years have passed to the development of our road system. If we examine road development in Australia we find that roads extend from one end of the Commonwealth to the other. By 1968, there will be a bitumen road from Perth to the South Australian border.

Senator Branson:

– By 1969.

Senator SCOTT:

– I have been told that the programme is being stepped up. This coming year I understand 50 miles of that road will be completed. The problem of transport is so important that responsible governments in Australia are doing their best for road development. In the Kimberleys this year a severe drought has been experienced and some 10,000 cattle that would otherwise have died have been transported over formed roads by motor vehicle lo the killing works at Wyndham. This clearly illustrates the benefits that accrue from developing the road system throughout Australia.

During the next five years the Government proposes to give to the States £330,000,000 by means of direct grants; £45.000,000 on a £1 for £1 basis, provided the States find their share; and and an additional £45,000,000 for road construction in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory and for beef roads. The total allocation will be £420,000,000, which is more than 50 per cent, greater than the total amount allocated during the previous five years. If I remember the agreement correctly, in the previous five years the total amount allocated was £250,000,000. If we increase that figure by 50 per cent, we arrive at the sum of £375,000,000, so the proposed grant will be in excess of 50 per cent, above what was given in the previous allocation. The amount that the Commonwealth will be spending in the financial year 1968-69 could easily be £100,000,000, or ten times the sum that was allocated by the Commonwealth to the States in 1949-50. If we link the next five years with the previous five years, the total of the grants by the Commonwealth to the States in that period of ten years will be £625,000,000 or twice as much as was spent in the preceding 30 years on roads. The Government has a proud record in road development in the Commonwealth.

I believe that the formation of bitumen roads is very important. Senator Morris mentioned how roads can develop a country. I have paid particular attention to the problem of eastwest traffic. Many Western Australians would like to visit the eastern States but because there is not a bitumen road all the way they deny themselves the pleasure of touring those States. With a view to overcoming this lack the Commonwealth is making available sufficient money to enable Western Australia in the next five years to provide a bitumen road to its border. I understand that Sir Thomas Playford, in South Australia, is endeavouring to carry out a programme to bituminize the Eyre Highway to the township of Penong which is about 300 miles from the Western Australian border. Therefore, we may find a gap in the road in what we might call no man’s land. The road will be formed, but not bituminized. The Commonwealth should use all its endeavours to encourage the South Australian Government to make an all-out effort to complete the bituminizing programme to the Western Australian border. It would be of advantage to South Australia as well as to the people of Western Australia who wanted to travel to the eastern States. South Australia would benefit considerably from the number of tourists who would want to travel to the west. All the State Premiers are becoming very much more tourist minded than they were a decade ago. That is particularly so of Mr. David Brand, the Premier of Western Australia who, I understand, established the Tourist Development Authority in that State.

Senator Toohey:

– That sounds like a commercial to me.

Senator SCOTT:

– We would like you to bring some pressure to bear on the South Australian Government to bituminize its roads to the Western Australian border. The absence of bitumen deters a lot of people from travelling to the west. Nevertheless, an increasing number of people are travelling to Western Australia from the east each year. If I remember correctly, more than 20,000 visitors a year are travelling by road from the eastern States to the growing State of Western Australia.

The number of licensed vehicles in Australia is increasing rapidly. Ten years ago there were 1,800,000 vehicles on the road in Australia. To-day the number is 3,200.000, an increase of almost 80 per cent. Ten years ago there were two motor vehicles to every ten people in Australia; to-day there are three vehicles to every ten people. Whereas in 1950-51 the total expenditure on roads from all sources within the Commonwealth was £41,000,000, to-day it is £160,000,000 annually, or four times as much. In 1950-51 the basic wage was approximately £7 a week; to-day it is approximately £14 15s. Those wages figures give some idea of the increase in costs over the last ten years. The other figures I have quoted indicate that we are developing roads much more quickly than we were ten years ago. I remember distinctly that when I was elected to the Parliament one could travel only a few hundred miles to the north of Perth on a formed road. Now one may travel from Perth to Wyndham on a constructed road.

Senator Ormonde:

– Western Australia had a good Labour Government.

Senator SCOTT:

– I am not dealing in party politics now; I am just making a factual statement. It is true to say that the Australian Labour Party was in office in Western Australia for part of the relevant period. I repeat that I am not trying to be party political; rather am I saying that it is in the interests of our transport industry to have good roads. We are rapidly reaching the stage where we will be able to say that in these far-flung areas we have good roads instead of bush tracks. I know very well one person who lives over the ranges 100 miles from Derby. Twelve months ago it took him one week to travel over boulders, gutters and creeks to get to the town. That was the shortest time in which he could make the journey. Even then he could do so only within six months of the year because for the other six months it was impossible to get out from his property. Because of the improvement of the road he is now able to get to Derby within a few hours. All our northern areas are being developed with new roads. The development of these roads systems has been undertaken by this Government in recent years, although I understand that the Chifley Government embarked on the construction of a system of roads leading into Wyndham in the north of Western Australia. Speaking from memory, I believe they were called beef roads, too.

The Queensland Government and the Western Australian Government are now receiving money for the construction of beef roads. The construction of these roads will enable the States to develop their northern areas, which are vital to Australia’s welfare. A few years ago settlers in these areas said that, even if roads were built, there would be no road transport of cattle because it would be cheaper to drove the stock. But I think every member of the Senate knows that approximately 70 per cent, of the cattle that were killed last year were delivered by road transport. As I mentioned earlier, 10,000 cattle would have died this year if there had not been good roads to enable them to be transported to the killing works at Wyndham. The programme of road development that the Commonwealth has put forward has met with the approval of the States.

It is interesting to note what other countries are doing in the field of road construction. I have before me an article published by the Australian Automobile Association which states that America expects to be able to use nuclear energy for highway development. The article further states -

One of the by-products of large scale nuclear explosions would be the production of ‘ aggregates ‘ used in highway construction. A 1 00 kiloton deeply buried blast would produce more than 15 million cubic yards of broken rock at a cost of less than $1 million in place of the $10 or $15 million this amount of material would normally cost in the United States of America.

In other words, aggregate produced by a nuclear blast could be used to construct highways much more cheaply than would be the case, if the material were produced by the usual method of crushing.

The Government has a record of road development of which it can be proud. The States will be hard put to it to spend the money available to them, if they supply the matching grants and receive the money the Commonwealth is prepared to make available. Road plant has increased considerably. State governments have been able to spend more and more on the purchase of plant for the construction of roads. When this Government first came into office there were insufficient graders and .bulldozers within the Commonwealth to cope with the big road development programme that was necessary.

Senator Cant:

– What was the cause of that?

Senator SCOTT:

– I will tell you. There was a shortage of money. The Government had to borrow money from overseas to purchase bulldozers, road graders and motor trucks for the construction of roads. The raising of some of the loans that the

Government negotiated overseas to provide this necessary equipment was opposed by the party to which the honorable senator belongs.

Senator Cant:

– Why did we not have that equipment?

Senator SCOTT:

– I know what the honorable senator is thinking andI agree with him. At that time the country was just getting over the effects of a war. In 1 949 when the Australian Labour Party was defeated the war had been over only a matter of four or five years, and, of course, you cannot do everything at once. We did not have the necessary equipment in Australia. It had to be brought in from overseas. The Government borrowed money from overseas to pay for this equipment so that it could start on the large road programme on which it is engaged at present.

Now we have ample plant. Some of it has been manufactured in Australia and also we have been able to import it. I agree with Senator Kennelly that one of the most important things in Australia today is road transport. It carries 75 per cent. of the goods that arrive in the ports of Australia. This measure, which makes available to the States a sum of £375,000,000 - it is proposed to spend £420,000,000 in all - represents a wonderful achievement by this Government, and should enable our road transport system to operate competitively.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I ask for leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1121

DRIED VINE FRUITS STABILIZATION BILL 1964

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WADE:
Minister for Health · Victoria · CP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to implement a scheme for the stabilization of returns to dried vine fruit-growers for a period of five years commencing with the 1964 crop. In the course of negotiations which the Government conducted with dried vine fruit industry organizations for a mutually acceptable stabilization plan, we made it clear that any proposals involving grower financial contributions must first be submitted to, and approved by, a poll of growers.

The scheme to which this bill and the associated Dried Vine Fruits Contributory Charges Bill 1964 and the Dried Vine Fruits Contributory Charges (Collection) Bill 1964 now seek to give legislative expression, has been overwhelmingly supported by a referendum of growers recently conducted by the Commonwealth. The degree of rank and file grower support is evidenced by the voting figures. Of the growers enrolled, 88 per cent. cast their votes and of these 91 per cent. voted in favour of the scheme offered by the Government. It is therefore with great pleasure that I bring before the Senate legislation so obviously desired by the industry.

The legislative proposals to which I shall shortly refer in greater detail do not provide for straight-out Government subsidization of the industry. Rather they provide for growers to make contributions in seasons of reasonable prices to stabilization funds which would be drawn upon in seasons when returns were low. The Commonwealth will guarantee certain minimum prices to the industry and will make payments to growers when industry credits in stabilization funds are inadequate to raise returns to those prices. In essence, therefore, under reasonably normal conditions, the industry would stabilize itself from its own resources but, at the same time, the Government stands ready to supplement payments from stabilization funds should this be necessary to raise average returns to the guaranteed price levels.

Since a very large proportion of Australian dried vine fruit is sold on overseas markets, overall returns are subject to wide fluctuations. These stem from the large changes in world supply, to which Australia is only one of four major contributors. Because of climatic conditions and varying yields in Australia, the United States of

America, Greece and Turkey, and a tendency towards a normal position of oversupply, prices realized on overseas markets are highly sensitive to changes in production. Because of the heavy dependence of the Australian industry upon exports, this has resulted in a good deal of uncertainty in growers’ incomes. As honorable senators will fully appreciate, such a situation in any industry is most unsatisfactory, not only in an economic sense, but socially as well.

The Australian dried vine fruits industry is far too important an industry for this situation to be allowed to continue. Furthermore, many growers are soldier settlers from the First World War and the Second World War who have made a valuable contribution towards the settlement of our semi-arid areas which form a nucleus around which further decentralized development has occurred. In fact, some areas, notably the Sunraysia area around Mildura, owe their very existence to this industry. With these thoughts well in mind, the Government has devoted a great deal of time to discussion and exchange of views with industry organizations culminating in the proposals which I now put before the Senate.

The principal features of the scheme, being embodied in the legislation, may be summarized as follows: -

  1. The industry will be guaranteed an average return from seasonal sales of each of currants, sultanas and raisins at levels equal to £5 per ton below the average cost of production of each variety. The cost of production levels for the 1964 season are currants £113 10s., sultanas £109 5s. and raisins £101 per ton.
  2. The quantities to be guaranteed each season will be up to 13,500 tons of currants, 75,000 tons of sultanas and 1 1 , 000 tons of raisins received for packing.
  3. Growers will contribute to separate varietal stabilization funds when the average return to the industry from seasonal sales of a variety exceed cost of production by more than £5 per ton. with a limit on such contributions of £10 per ton.
  4. Growers will not be required to make a contribution to a stabilization fund in any season when the quantity received for packing does not reach 8,000 tons in the case of currants, 50,000 tons of sultanas or 6,000 tons of raisins.
  5. Contributions will be made by the Commonwealth to raise average returns to the guaranteed price, when there is insufficient industry moneys in a stabilization fund for this purpose.
  6. Limits will be set on the amounts to accumulate in each stabilization fund, namely £500,000 in the case of both the currant and raisin stabilization funds, and £2,000,000 in the case of the sultana stabilization fund.
  7. Where those limits are exceeded during the operation of the plan, the excess will be distributed firstly to reimburse the Government for any contribution it has previously made to a fund, and any balance will be repaid to growers on a first-in first-out basis.
  8. At the end of the fifth year of the plan the Government will be reimbursed from any credit balance in a fund for any outstanding contribution previously made to that fund and, in the event of the stabilization scheme not being renewed, any balance will be returned to growers on a first-in first-out basis.

The ceilings which have been placed on the quantities covered by the guaranteed price limit the Commonwealth’s liability in a situation where average returns per ton are likely to be lower than normal, but where gross incomes are not necessarily depressed, because of greater sales. They provide very adequate protection for growers since they are well above average production levels. The quantities received for packing below which growers will not be called upon to contribute, irrespective of average returns per ton, are designed to protect growers in a season of exceptionally poor crops when gross incomes could be low even though returns per ton are above the point calling for contributions to a stabilization fund. It is considered unreasonable to expect growers to contribute to a stabilization fund when incomes are already low and at a time when many cash- commitments have to be met. This particular aspect was very strongly put forward by industry representatives and I am confident that honorable senators will see the wisdom of this provision.

This bill and the associated Dried Vine Fruits Contributory Charges Bill, and the Dried Vine Fruits Contributory Charges (Collection) Bill, seek to provide the machinery under which the proposed stabilization scheme will operate. The startling point - average cost of production - will be determined each year in the light of cost movements. Average returns for each season will be calculated from total realizations of quantities sold in Australia and overseas. If, during a season, calculations indicate that a charge is likely to be payable at the end of the season, a provisional charge may be imposed and later adjusted when sales for the season have been completed. Moneys collected from these charges will be paid to the appropriate stabilization fund and payments from the funds will be made to growers when necessary.

To facilitate the operation of this scheme, it is proposed that in practice the Minister will arrange for certain approved industry organizations to accept, on behalf of growers, the liability for payment of charges and responsibility for distributing bounty. I anticipate that the major industry organization, the Australian Dried Fruits Association, will incorporate a company for this purpose, the services of which, I hope, will be available to any grower of dried vine fruit whether he is a member of the A.D.F.A. or not. However, such an arrangement will not be restricted to one organization. Should other interests in the industry wish to make similar arrangements they will be quite free to seek approval. Sections of the industry participating in any such arrangement would not be required to pay the provisional charge but only the final charge which will be announced when disposals for the season have been completed.

As I have already mentioned, this scheme is built around the concept of the industry helping itself. The incorporation of an industry company, or companies, to carry out the detailed work involved in effecting stabilization is tangible proof of this, and has the Government’s full support.

I now revert to the question of the Government’s underwriting of the scheme. I reiterate, this is not a straight-out subsidy arrangement. Within the range of £5 per ton above and below the cost of production the scheme will not operate. Inside this range, growers will absorb both losses and gains relative to costs of production. It is only outside this range that charges will be imposed or bounty payments made. Therefore, both the non-operative range and accumulated moneys in the stabilization funds act as buffers to a direct subsidy arrangement.

Should the Commonwealth, by reason of the fact that there is insufficient money in a stabilization fund, be called upon to make a payment to raise industry returns to £5 per ton below average cost of production then, in any subsequent season, if that stabilization fund exceeds the upper limit which has been set, the Commonwealth will have first call on the excess amount. Only when the Commonwealth had been fully repaid from this excess would refunds be made to growers on a first-in first-out basis. A similar situation will also apply at the end of the five-year period in respect of moneys remaining in n fund within the upper limit provided for, except that any moneys due to be refunded to growers - after the Commonwealth has been recouped - could be withheld. The object of this provision, in effect, is to allow the Government of the day to decide, after consultation with industry representatives, whether it might retain any industry moneys remaining in a stabilization fund as a nucleus for a new plan offered and accepted at a further ballot of growers. If a new scheme did not eventuate, the moneys would automatically be refunded to growers.

A concession agreed to by this Government is that in the event of a further stabilization plan being adopted for the industry after 1968, the Commonwealth will not require recoupment in the period of that plan of any residue of moneys which it has contributed during the first five-year period and which have not been repaid. Although this decision has not been written into the legislation, I incorporate it in the record so that it will not be lost sight of in the course of any negotiations for a renewed scheme. Honorable senators will appreciate that unless Commonwealth advances, not ordinarily recouped at the end of the first five-year period, were not then written off, true stabilization would not occur. For this reason, it is considered reasonable and essential to make this concession.

The operation of this plan has been devised to as to fit in with existing industry marketing and equalization arrangements to the fullest extent possible. Because of this, no changes of any consequence to present marketing arrangements will be necessary. In fact, the company, which I anticipate the A.D.F.A. will incorporate for this purpose, although independent of the A.D.F.A., would be in close contact with it with a consequent saving in administrative expenses.

No doubt, honorable senators are concerned with the effect this stabilization plan could have on prices to the consumer. I am pleased to report that the plan will in no way effect domestic pricing or marketing arrangements. On export markets, the Australian Dried Fruits Control Board will continue to exercise control over minimum prices and terms and conditions of sale but subject to direction by the Minister where necessary. These bills seek to ensure that returns to growers do not fall below the average cost of production and thereby guarantee a reasonable degree of stability to the dried vine fruits industry. I regard the plan as a very workable and satisfactory one and, as I have indicated, from the recent referendum result this view is shared by the vast majority of growers. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Bishop) adjourned.

page 1124

DRIED VINE FRUITS CONTRIBUTORY CHARGES BILL 1964

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WADE:
Minister for Health · Victoria · CP

– I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of this bill is to impose charges, under certain conditions, on dried vine fruits received for packing for the purposes of the stabilization scheme referred to in my second-reading speech on the Dried Vine Fruits Stabilization Bill 1964. This bill is complementary to the Dried Fruits Stabilization Bill 1964 and the Dried Vine Fruits Contributory Charges (Collection) Bill 1964.

The bill provides in clause 5 that, subject to the tonnage received for packing of each variety - currants, sultanas and raisins - exceeding stated levels, a charge shall be imposed on such tonnage when the average return from seasonal sales of the variety exceeds the cost of production by more than £5 per ton. If varietal tonnage does not exceed 8,000 tons in the case of currants, 50,000 tons in the case of sultanas or 6,000 tons in the case of raisins, no charge will be imposed irrespective of the level of the average return.

Under clause 6, the charge is payable by the packer of the dried fruit in certain circumstances with provision, under clause 8 of the Dried Vine Fruits Contributory Charges (Collection) Bill, for the packer to recover the charge from growers. In other circumstances, namely when the grower receives the proceeds of sales of fruit other than through the agency of the packer, the grower is made liable for payment of the charge.

Clause 8 prescribes a formula for calculating the rates of the charge, if any, and subclause (3.) of clause 8 confines the rate for each variety to an amount of not more than £10 per ton. I give an example of how the charge would be calculated on, say, currants. If the average cost of production in a season is £110 per ton and the average return £130 per ton, an “ average “ grower would retain the first £5 per ton of the excess over cost of production; pay a charge at the maximum rate of £10 per ton. and retain the remaining £5 per ton. It is appreciated that there will be above - and below - average growers, but obvously a plan of this nature must operate on the basis of average returns and costs.

Clause 9 of the bill imposes provisional charge in accordance with provisions of the Dried Vine Fruits Contributory Charges (Collection) Bill 1964. I shall refer to the operation of that charge in my secondreading speech on that bill. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Bishop) adjourned.

page 1125

DRIED VINE FRUITS CONTRIBUTORY CHARGES (COLLECTION) BILL 1964

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WADE:
Minister for Health · Victoria · CP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is complementary to the Dried Vine Fruits Contributory Charges Bill 1964 and provides the machinery arrangements for the payment and collection of charges to be imposed by that measure. Under clause 4 of the bill the Minister is authorized to declare provisional or interim rates of charges which shall be payable within a prescribed time limit pending the establishment of final rates of charge. Sub-clause (7.) of clause 4, however, provides that the Minister may exempt persons from the payment of provisional charge in respect of a season where he is satisfied that satisfactory arrangements have, been made to ensure the payment of the final charge, if any, at the end of the season in question.

In practice, as explained in my secondreading speech on the Dried Vine Fruits Stabilization Bill 1964. it is proposed that the major dried vine fruits industry organization - the Australian Dried Fruits Association will incorporate a company for the purpose, amongst other things, of facilitating the payments and collection of charge. To the extent to which packing houses and selling agents in the industry may make arrangements with the proposed company on behalf of the growers, for such payments and collections, it is envisaged that provisional charge will be waived. It is thought that practically all, if not all, sections of the industry will operate through the company for stabilization purposes and thus secure exemption from payment of provisional charge.

I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Bishop) adjourned.

page 1125

COMMONWEALTH AID ROADS BILL 1964

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1121).

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I listened intently to Senator Scott’s speech. He compared what was done in road development in 1949 by a Labour government with what is being done to-day. I do not think that is a correct analogy. In 1949 we had just emerged from a major war. Australia was planning its post-war activities and looking to the future. As the honorable senator said, there was not the earth-moving equipment available for road construction that there is to-day. If we are to make a valid comparison of financial provision for road’s we must take comparable periods and conditions.

Senator Scott argued that the amount allocated for roads by the Commonwealth to South Australia was reasonable and that the South Australian Government should continue with the bituminization of the road to Penong. The initial point I want to make before going on to my general remarks is that the sum allocated to South Australia is not sufficient for the improved roadworks required. We have not had allocated to us, as Western Australia and Queensland have had, finance for beef roads, although we badly need it. Only this year it was proposed in South Australia that some of the moneys from the Commonwealth aid roads grant might have to be used on the northern roads to assist beef transportation.

While there is obviously a 50 per cent, increase in the amount of money allocated to the States under the new agreement - and it might be argued that this amount is a substantial increase - in the face of realities to-day the amount is not adequate to meet the States’ requirements. It is not possible to convince State Premiers, local authorities, automotive chambers and motoring organizations that sufficient money is being made available to meet Australia’s road requirements. We in the Senate must realize that fact. We should be aware of the general pressure from all those bodies for what might be called a blitz programme of road construction in the face of the great development which is occurring in this country of ours.

The bill will increase the grant from £250,000,000 to £330,000,000, but it does not alter very much the distribution formula which has been used in the past to arrive at the allocations for the various States. There is, however, one great improvement in the legislation. It is the acceptance of the principle that amounts can .now be spent by the States for research. Formerly the only research that was allowed under the grants was in connexion with what might be termed the engineering programmes. Now it will be possible for State governments to provide money for. road planning and road design. This seems to me to be an acceptance of the fact that these particular authorities have become expert in surveying the problems of roads in Australia to-day and in proposing the necessary modifications.

Every honorable senator ought to be conscious of the great awareness of the Australian public - and in particular of the motoring organizations - in this matter. They expect the Commonwealth Government to provide an improved major programme of assistance and not simply to take a conventional view by increasing grants for roads as it thinks fit. The public and the motoring organizations are saying that the development of the motor industry in Australia, the increase in population and in the number of vehicles on the roads to-day necessitate that Australia should be equipped for transport in a new way. The only way we can equip Australia with new roads and make the old roads permanent and satisfactory for use is, of course, by providing some sort of general machinery in the way of a national planning authority and by providing the money to carry out these works.

The attitude of the Opposition is that the Commonwealth Government should take on this task. It has previously said to the State Premiers and the general public, “ We are not going to change this way of administration. We still think that the States ought to be commissioned to carry out most of the work of road construction. The Commonwealth Government will carry out the major projects as it thinks fit but generally speaking it will not do very much about planning for general road development in Australia.”

Apart from the fact that the Commonwealth Government is the principal taxing authority, it recovers all the money it can from the development of the motor industry, and it seems to me that the Government takes the view that the old system is good enough. The Australian Labour Party takes the view that the Government should realize the need to have a central authority charged with the power of surveying Australia’s transportation needs and also should decide on the means of providing the necessary finance.

The second point in the proposition is that consideration should be given to allowing the whole proceeds of motor fuel tax to go back to States for road works. The. Opposition says there have been assessments by the important relevant authorities which point out that the revenue obtained from the development of the motor vehicle industry and from the ordinary road users is at no time returned to the travelling public or to the States. I want to quote one or two figures which will illustrate this point. For example, if the Government says it is providing adequate moneys for roads, it seems to me it should take into consideration the taxes it imposes on industry for diesel and petrol fuels, customs duties on imported vehicles and sales tax on vehicles. If you consider the complete picture you find tha* the States are not getting returned to them all the moneys that have been taken from the travelling public.

It has been said by the Minister for Works that about £175,000,000 had been spent in one year by all authorities in Australia on road and bridge construction. But when we consider the great imposts that have been placed on the motor vehicle industry, we find that sums much larger than that have been obtained from the motoring public. For example, in 1959- 1960, excise duties on motor vehicle fuel, customs duties on motor vehicles and parts, sales tax on vehicles - plus £47,000.000 State vehicle taxation - added up to the grand total of £188,200,000 while the total Australian investment on roads and bridges totalled £160,000,000. In 1961 these taxes and duties approximated £200,000,000; and in 1963 had increased to £209,800,000.

While we concede that revenue from these sources is very great, this amount might properly be returned to the States and the various authorities to enable them to plan road construction. The improvement in the amount of the grants provided in the bill is not very great as far as the States are concerned. The amount for South Australia under the new agreement will be increased from the basic grant of £24,500,000 under the present agreement which expires this year to £38,000,000 which will run from July, 1964 to June. 1969. lt is true that in addition to this grant the Government is going to spend about £45,000,000 on major projects. However, it is a fact that some States are not included in these projects and one of the States left out, of course, is South Australia.

It has been estimated that the total sum spent by public authorities on roads and bridges in Australia in 1959-1960 was £130,000,000. These figures that I am quoting have been obtained from a reliable survey. In .1960-1961 the total amount spent was £145,000.000. In 1961-1962 it rose to £155,000,000. In 1962-1963 it again rose to £158.000.000 and as I said the Government has said that it could be approaching £175,000,000. Of course, this amount does not equal the sum of charges that are made on the motoring industry. Therefore, it is not unusual to expect these interests to put pressure on the Government and to make public the need for substantial increases in the sums spent on roads. These organizations may be expected to put pressure on the Government to commence a crash programme of road development and improvement and not merely to have what might be called a conventional increase in the amount to be spent on these works.

Why is the crash programme necessary? lt seems to me that the references which have been made by Senator Cohen are still reliable, and I quote from the booklet of the National Association of Australian State Road Authorities. This organization has made a proper survey of the road problem. If you consider that three-quarters of the total Australian transport tonnage is carried on the roads then the present concept of our roads is not very satisfactory. For example, in Australia we have 76,656 miles of concrete and bitumen roadway out of a total of 544,386 miles. We have 208,431 miles of unformed roads and 135,383 miles of roads which are only formed. Gravel or crushed stone roads total 124,916 miles. We want to see a plan to provide extensive roadways and an improved and greater link between the cities and the outback. These might be termed national development roads.

Looking at the overall picture, obviously 76,656 miles of roadway constructed of bitumen or concrete out of a total of 544,386 miles of roadway is not satisfactory.

Even putting aside representations made by lord mayors and State Premiers, we know from our own experience the great hazards that are caused by traffic congestion in cities. I do not want to argue about the formula under which the grant is distributed at present, because I think that this is only incidental to the main problem, which is to commence a special programme of works which the specialists in the industry say is necessary. When we accept the fact that 20 per cent, of Australian exports come from metropolitan areas, we start to realize the importance of roads in those areas. It is no longer good enough to say that persons who come from the local authorities asking for money for roads are simply asking for the provision of special parking facilities. They are not doing this. In modern metropolitan and industrial areas we have to make sure that the work force is transported from homes to places of employment. We must ensure that raw materials are brought to the factories and that the finished products are taken from the point of production to the point of despatch, whether this is to be by rail or by ship. While it is true that the metropolitan areas do not produce as much for export as rural areas, they are very important units of our economy. Congestion in these areas is becoming greater each day. This is not to be wondered at because nowadays we not only import vehicles but also manufacture them, and it is not unusual to find that every second or third worker goes to his employment in a motor vehicle. In addition, an increasing number of people use the roads for pleasure. The great industrial growth that we see to-day is a very important element in our society. These industries are not merely keeping the metropolitan work force employed. They are becoming increasingly important in the export field.

Motoring authorities have stated that exports of motor vehicles doubled in 1963. In 1959 we exported 4,302 cars. In 1963 we exported 15,980. This pattern of development is apparent in every industry. We must not underrate the importance of good roads to rural communities, or the need for decentralization. We must have regard for the financial support required by State governments and local authorities for the development of proper roads in areas under their control. If they do not develop proper roads, there will be a complete breakdown of the productive machinery. We must realize that the question is not just one of improving cities and towns or of building freeways for travellers. We must ensure that the people who work in industry, in the services, and in transportation, are able to pass through the cities to places of work without experiencing the hazards that result from the present-day city organization. This is the background against which the lord mayors have asked for special allocations. While I am not asking for special allocations, it seems to me that the arguments advanced by the lord mayors, the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, and the Australian Automobile Association, support the approach that we are making to the Government for a completely new special programme of works to cope with these great developments.

We know of our own knowledge of the unfortunate increase in accidents which arc directly the result of bad roads and increased traffic. In South Australia in 1957-58 there were 14,295 traffic accidents in which 5,492 persons were injured. In 1962-63 there were 21,597 accidents, in which 8,216 persons were injured. This is a problem which we know is growing. It is not a matter upon which we need to be persuaded. The Australian Automobile Association argues that better roads would mean a saving of 500 lives and £15,000,000 to £20,000,000 a year resulting from a reduction in the accident rate. Another authority, Mr. Scales, director of the Australian Road Federation Limited, has said that better roads would result in a saving of at least £1.000,000 a day, or £365,000,000 a year in economic productivity. This would result from the provision of well-designed and well-maintained roads. These are figures that ought to be considered. We know that the Government has had representations from these bodies. It has made what might be called a compromise allocation of funds in this situation.

I have referred to the development of Adelaide. Similar conditions apply in every other great metropolitan or industrial area. Senator Cohen has mentioned conditions in Melbourne. In all of these places local authorities complain that they cannot cope with the situation. The Lord Mayor of Adelaide said recently that in the next ten years £2,450,000,000 would come from Commonwealth, State and local government sources under the present arrangements, but that the roads needed would involve, on present-day costs, an expenditure of £3,179,000,000. That estimate makes no allowance for any increase in costs or any reduction in the value of money. These figures show that in the ten-year period there will be a deficiency of nearly £800,000,000. Adelaide’s master plan for a new road system in conjunction with improved public transport - this is a special project - would cost £70,000,000 to implement. The Lord Mayor said that if these proposals are not carried out Adelaide’s roads, inadequate and unsatisfactory as they are, will be required to carry from, three to five times more vehicles than they are capable of carrying. Up to now, roads have been maintained in a fairly satisfactory way, although not as well as we would want, but the accident rate is increasing. If these special works are not carried out, there will be a complete break-down in ordinary traffic arrangements. This would affect the industrial units about which I. have spoken and the wealth of the nation in terms of loss of skilled labour from industry as a result of the increased accident ratio.

Some figures which have been taken out by the Australian Automobile Association are worthy of notice. In the twelve months ended 30th June, 1960, payments to the States under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act totalled £71,000,000, while an additional amount of £54.000,000 in collections from road users was retained in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. In the period from 1926 to 1953, an amount of £304,853,000 was retained by the Commonwealth Government from amounts collected in customs and excise duties, and taxes on petrol and automotive diesel fuel, not including aviation fuel, which totalled £800,000,000. For these reasons we agree with the Australian Automobile Association that the Government should have another look at the problem of road construction in Australia, as well as the general works programme. In some of the States anomalies are retarding development. Although money has been set aside for the construction of beef roads in Western Australia and Queensland, South Australia has not had this assistance from the Commonwealth. The Minister of Roads in South Australia recently pointed out that that State might have to use some of its allocation under the Commonwealth aid roads grant to remedy defects in roads in the north of that State over which beef cattle are brought down to the Adelaide market.

There is always the great fear that because of the bad condition of those roads cattle from the north of South Australia will be taken to the Queensland market instead of to the Adelaide market. This we do not want. Normally the cattle are brought down to our own centres of population and this could be ensured if the Commonwealth would provide a small amount of money for beef roads in South Australia. Representations have been made by South Australian pastoralists and their organizations to the State Government, and, I understand, to the Commonwealth Government, as the result of a report by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in 1960, on the development of road transport of beef cattle in the far north. The inquiry, which was assisted by the Lands Department of South Australia, produced figures showing that the 1,000 miles of road work required to place the transport of beef cattle in the north of South Australia on a proper basis would cost about £500,000. That is not a great amount of money but, because it has not been expended, the whole development of South Australia can be said to have been impeded. As Senator Kennelly said, special projects such as beef roads should not have to be financed out of the ordinary aid roads grant. South Australia therefore has a special pica for the allocation of money for the construction of beef roads in the north, in order to put it on the same basis as Western Australia and Queensland.

We agree with those who claim that the Commonwealth must have regard for other forms of transport such as rail transport and sea transport. We believe that the Commonwealth Government should coordinate transport. There is a great need for a rationalization of road and rail transport. Over the years railway revenues in every State have been diminished by the growth of road transport. The competition by road transport has often been quite unfair, and in South Australia only revenue from interstate goods and passenger traffic is buoyant. It seems to me that State governments ought to support rationalization, to ensure that very heavy transport vehicles are taken off the roads and that the goods they now cany are given back to the railways for consignment. In addition there should be some consultation between the transport advisory bodies and the railways to see that unfair competition is eliminated. These are matters which we think are important.

As I said earlier, we should not repeat in relation to road construction, maintenance and finance the mistakes that we made in connexion with the railways. Everybody knows the great mistakes which were made in allowing sovereign States to produce their own railway equipment, however much its standards fell below Australian or world standards. Only now are we tackling the problem of rail standardization and weshould make sure that in road construction Australia does not repeat the errors that were made in regard to rail transport. I wind up my speech on this point: I know that the Government has decided to set up’ a bureau of roads, but it seems to me that such an authority would not have the power which it should have to take positive action. Organizations such as the Australian Automobile Association and the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries think that the bureau should have very strong power, not only to consult and exchange ideas with State governments but also to undertake a real programme of road construction. I suggest that the amount of money made available by this measure, while being an improvement over what has been provided in the past, is notadequate to meet the needs of Australia, and that ultimately we will have to face up to the sort of propositions which we, on this side of the Senate, say are necessary for the proper development of Australia.

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

– I have great pleasure in supporting the bill now before the Senate. It provides an opportunity for examination not only of the Government’s plan for increased finance for Australian roads, which is straightforward enough, but also for some consideration of the many problems arising from the advent of the motor age - problems which are not so easy of solution. The bill provides for an increase of 50 per cent, in the moneys provided for road requirements over the next five years, as compared with those provided over the last five years, plus some £45,000,000 on a matching grant basis. Over the total five-year period £375,000,000, or £75,000,000 a year will be provided for the road needs of the States. The basis of distribution to the States is to be undisturbed and the requirement that 40 per cent, of the total amount be spent on rural roads not classified as main roads remains.

It is very gratifying to me to see the bill brought forward in its present form. As a Western Australian 1 am happy because, firstly, there has been no alteration in the basis of distribution between the States and, secondly, because the provision for rural roads remains. Had there been any material alteration of the scheme, the proportion of the moneys available for metropolitan roads in Western Australia could very well have been less than under the present basis of distribution.

It may be that as far as Western Australia is concerned there is wisdom in the old advice regarding sleeping dogs. A very strong case has been put forward by lord mayors of the capital cities for a fixed percentage of the road grants available under the bill to be applied towards solving the rather terrifying problem of coping with the increased usage of city roads. Alternative proposals for raising money were submitted. It was suggested that, if other means were not available, the petrol tax should be increased. I am very happy that the Government rejected that proposal, which would have placed an undue burden on Australia’s exporting industries at a time when we cannot afford to add to their burdens. I feel sure that we will have to face up to the challenge involved, because I do not think any shifting of percentages of the available money envisaged under the present Commonwealth aid roads scheme would have any appreciable effect upon what is really a new roads situation - one that may have to be tackled quite separately and after a great deal of study of the causes of the problem as well as the remedies.

A film shown in the House last week portrayed very graphically the way in which various cities in many parts of the world are dealing with the impact of the motor age upon the planning and rebuilding of cities and upon the lives of their citizens. When one sees the tremendous congestion occurring in certain areas, with traffic becoming slower and slower until it eventually grinds to a hak, one is reminded of the story about a motorist who, for his sins, was consigned to hell. The place looked like a great car park with all the latest and finest motor cars, all brand new. The motorist was invited to take his choice, and after a while he decided upon a powerful sports model that really looked the part. The motorist was beginning to think that hell must have been misunderstood on earth. There was a bowser handy and he was invited to fill up the tank, as petrol was free. He did so, then started the engine and inquired of the attendant where he should go. “ Go? “ said the attendant, “ There is nowhere to go: the roads are all filled with cars. That’s the hell of it.” It may be that unless we solve our traffic problems and those of financing road development our cities will become veritable hells for the motorist as well as for the pedestrians.

More than a hint that the Government is considering the possibility of some special activity in the field of metropolitan traffic problems was contained in a statement made by Mr. Holt at the Premiers’ Conference in March this year when he said -

We envisage that the Commonwealth will continue to make grants to the States for expenditure on road works in general and that the States will continue to be at liberty, as they have always been, to initiate road projects or programmes for financial assistance by the Commonwealth.

Of great interest to this matter of solving our national road problems was the Treasurer’s speech at the same Premiers’ Conference when, concerning the proposal to set up a Commonwealth bureau of roads - which has been mentioned by almost every speaker this evening - he said -

The original and basic stage o£ what may be called national roads planning involves decisions on the total allocation of resources to roads over a forward period of years. This obviously is of prime importance- to the Commonwealth on several grounds - economic, budgetary and developmental, lt is probably in this last area that the real case for a national roads authority is to bc found. For to make a decision as to what allocation of resources should be made for roads requires, on the one hand, a dependable forward assessment of roads needs over the period and, on the other hand, a judgment as to the extent to which those needs can be met, having regard to other likely calls on resources for other forms of development. There is virtually no limit to the amount that could be spent on roads, and there can be no doubt that in the years ahead a great deal more will have to be spent on roads. Plainly, however, much the same could be said of other highly significant forms of national activity and growth.

Here then in a concise statement is the need for a planning authority. We have heard talk about a crash programme of roads. Perhaps the term “ crash programme “ is a little more applicable than intended, for I fear that the programme will crash unless it is something more than, simply voting huge sums of money for road development without due consideration of the resources that the economy of the country can devote for road purposes.

The economic questions to be answered are many and varied. I propose to pose a few questions that come to mind, and which must come to the mind of any one who thinks over the relative importance of this problem in relation to the whole problems of national development. I pose these questions: Can we at the present stage of development, and having regard to our other needs, afford to be putting 1,000 new vehicles on the Australian roads each day? We can have a wild guess at the value which 1 should say would not be less than £1,000,000 a day for the new vehicles that are placed on our roads. Can we afford to pay the road requirements of these vehicles? ] estimate, on the suggestions that have been put forward concerning the present rate of expenditure on roads, that it would cost not less than £600,000 a day. Senator Bishop also posed the question: Are we using fully our present rail resources or could our rail systems, by means of modernization of rolling-stock and methods of trade handling, take a greater share of the transport? Are we using our harbours adequately? Is our coastal shipping as efficient as it could be? Are our harbours and coastal shipping designed efficiently for the transportation of goods? What are the reasons behind the decline in the use of our coastal shipping?

These are questions that we need to answer in an overall survey of our transport needs. We can ask ourselves whether we have done sufficient to achieve a practical degree of decentralization which, in itself, can resolve many of our traffic problems or, at least, mitigate their increasing cost. Can we afford to have a virtual cessation of all road transport for months on end during the wet season in our north because of the absence of all-weather roads? This is a tremendous factor in the development of the north. Can we ever develop the north with what is virtually a six-month usage of the potential of the country? Then I pose the question whether our present method of freight charges is tending to accentuate our present movement towards centralization. Can we devise some way in which the present rather unfair incidence of the total transport costs upon industry and upon individuals can be allocated to achieve more desirable economic results? Figures have been quoted showing that the overall transport costs to industry are in the nature of 30 per cent., but if we dissect those figures we will find that they are very much higher upon the primary industries than they are upon the secondary industries.

The economic results of our present system of allocating freight charges could very well be investigated in an overall examination of our transport needs. We cannot divorce the question of how much money we should expend on roads from the overall economics of our transportation problems. I am sure that, if the problems which come to mind when one considers the implications of the far-ranging decisions that must be made in the near future in relation to our road planning are to be given adequate consideration, the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads and other investigatory bodies will be working overtime. To me, it seems certain that simply to allocate an increasing amount of money for roads without careful thought and a study of the allied problems would lead very quickly to a wasteful disposal of our economic resources.

The bill before us does provide for a very substantial increase in the moneys that are made available for road construction and road improvement. The provisions embodied in the bill constitute a practical way of measuring up to the Commonwealth’s responsibility in regard to roads. I agree with other speakers who have said that, if we allow the demands of the motor industry to accelerate at the present rate, the money to be made available will be inadequate and we will be confronted with increasing difficulties in trying to solve our transport problems, particularly in the cities. If we provide anything like the amount of money that has been indicated as being needed to overcome the problem, without a corresponding examination of whether economically we are acting wisely in pursuing such a course, we will be heading for even greater problems in the near future, the solution of which will require perhaps the expenditure of a very much greater amount of money. I think that in the present circumstances the bill represents a practical approach to the problem, and I fully support it.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

Mr. Acting Deputy President, the bill we are debating is designed to extend the assistance which the Commonwealth Government is giving to the States for roads purposes under legislation which will expire on 30th June next. The Common-‘ wealth Government proposes to give assistance amounting to £330,000,000 over the next five years to the various States under a formula which will provide for road development, road maintenance and road research. The measure provides also that a certain amount of money may be used to assist transport other than road transport.

Whilst nobody will say that the States should not take the money, we on this side of the chamber say that the sum that will be made available by the Commonwealth Government will be insufficient to meet the needs of the States in this day and age. It is of little use for honorable senators opposite to compare the sum that is being expended to-day with that which was expended in 1949. We are now living not in 1949 but in 1964. Due to fortuitous circumstances, Australia’s development between those years have been rather revolutionary. We, as members of the National Parliament, must take note of that development and keep pace with it.

Several estimates have been made of what will be required for roads purposes during the ten years to 1974. 1 want to examine closely the proposed expenditure for the five years for which this bill will be operative.. In the first year the Commonwealth Government will make available £62,000,000 to the States. In 1962-63 the Commonwealth collected revenue amounting to £150,000,000 from motor vehicle users. If the same sum were to be collected in 1964-65, the Commonwealth Government would be left with a profit of £88,600.000. It has been estimated that our requirements for roads purposes over the next five years will be £1,412,000,000. The overall contribution of the Commonwealth Government - I dispute this to some extent - will be £420,000,000, of which £45,000,000 will be made available for the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory and £45,000,000 as a matching grant to the States on a £1 for £1 basis. This means that, if the estimated’ requirements for the next five years are to be met, the States will have to provide £992,000,000 from their resources.

The Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) said that’ the Commonwealth’s grant represented an increase of 50 per cent. He went on tosay that if the State governments and local authorities increased their expenditure by 50 per cent., a sum of approximately £1,170,000,000 would be spent on roads, during the next five years. That sum falls short of the estimate by £242,000,000, or. approximately the same amount as theCommonwealth Government has given to. the States over the past five years. Those, figures provide some indication of the way, in which Australia is slipping back in meeting its road needs. Whether there should, be a crash programme, as suggested by, Senator Bishop, or whether the Common–; wealth Government should make more, money available gradually is, I suppose, a, matter of administration. But certainly in the light of the estimates that have been given the sum to be made available under this legislation will fall short of the amount required.

Australia’s development has taken place mainly around the coastal areas. The towns and cities are largely on the coast with the road systems between them following the longest routes. Because these roads take the longest route their cost is much greater than would be the case if they took a shorter route. Australia’s development has been by no means balanced. The south-eastern corner of the Commonwealth has been highly developed whilst the northern and western portions have been hardly developed at all. The inland is very little developed apart from the States of Victoria and New South Wales, and even in those two States there has been very little decentralization. Proper roads in country areas would assist in the decentralization of industry, and decentralization of industry would, in turn, become one of the answers, perhaps, to our road problems.

If State governments and local authorities are to increase expenditure on roads by some 50 per cent, over the next five years they will have to get the money from taxation. Portion of it, of course, will be obtained as a result of the increase in the number of motor vehicles. In view of the type of country in which these local authorities operate can the residents of the areas afford any increase in costs? Farm incomes do not have a very great margin over the cost of production to-day. It would not require a very large fall in world prices for farm incomes to get into a chaotic condition. Can we afford to increase the cost of production of primary producers by increasing taxes? After all primary producers are the mainstay of our exporting industry. I am of the opinion that we cannot increase the tax burden on this sector of the community. If a proper policy of decentralization were carried out and the population increased in country towns, the burden of taxation on primary producers would bc lessened. It is necessary to build good roads in these areas. I think the construction of railway lines is largely a thing of the past. Proper roads would decrease the cost of production of primary producers.

Much has been said about the congestion of traffic in our cities but this is something that has been encouraged. The lord mayors of the various cities should not be complaining about traffic congestion when they constantly grant building permits to corporations to build multi-storied buildings and commercial and business premises in concentrated areas. Large numbers of people have to work in these premises and many others conduct business in them. By concentrating commerce and business into small areas the city authorities cause traffic congestion. Then they expect the ratepayers throughout the State to bear a heavier burden in order to provide outlets from, and access to, these small compact areas.

Senator Anderson:

– Are you advocating increased rates?

Senator CANT:

– For business people - yes. If these people want to put up multistoried buildings and supermarkets which cause traffic congestion in concentrated areas they should have to contribute to the means of overcoming that congestion.

Senator Anderson:

– They do that now.

Senator CANT:

– Apparently they do not do enough of it. Let me take the matter a little further. On the fringes of cities are home-building projects all of which require roads, power, water supply and sewerage. How much do the owners of the land contribute to the public services that have to be put into these areas? They pay rates on the unimproved value of the land and sit on the land from year to year waiting for public services to be provided, and for prices to rise. Then they sell their land at greatly increased prices. They contribute little or nothing to the increased value of the land from which they get a big rake-off. Surely these people should make a greater contribution to the road needs of those areas?

Senator Anderson:

– Most councils require people sub-dividing land to pay’ a proportion of the cost of the roads. That is the position in New South Wales.

Senator CANT:

– It may be the position in New South Wales, but it is not the position in Western Australia.

Senator Hannan:

– That is what the more densely populated States are complaining about.

Senator CANT:

– Of course, Senator Hannan, if your State put its house in order, it would have nothing to complain about. Victoria has the finest country roads of any State in Australia simply because of bad administration.

Senator Hannan:

– Do you know what our rates are?

Senator CANT:

– You have your good country roads simply because of bad administration. The grants the State obtains from the Commonwealth are not spent in the Melbourne area. Yet the Premier of Victoria wants an alteration of the formula so that toe can get more money. If he were to obtain more money from the Commonwealth, and continued the system that operates in Victoria to-day, he would not spend any more money on roads in the inner city area. If Victoria were to put its house in order as other States have done it would not be complaining about the state of its access roads and highways in Melbourne. It would be able to cut down the cost of building bridges and perhaps be able to build a decent bridge.

The people who contribute to the congestion of traffic in the cities should be made lo pay a greater share of the money necessary to relieve that congestion. The alternative is to encourage building in the outer areas. There is no reason why this should not be done. Such a scheme would assist decentralization and would be much better than trying to crowd buildings into one group in inner city areas. In our cities to-day we find service stations on nearly every corner or other strategic spot. These stations automatically attract traffic and thus create congestion. But you travel for miles on country roads without seeing a service station. If business and commerce want to carry on in this way, then they should pay the price.

The Commonwealth Government should be spending more money on this very vital transport aid. There is no room for increased taxes on the motoring public. To-day every one who owns a motor car pays about £70 a year in taxes. In fact, for the year 1962-63 the taxes imposed on the motoring public totalled £209,800,000. The motorist now has to pay £70 a year before he even puts his car on the road. Then he has to pay for spare parts, petrol, oil and all the other things that make a car run. As I have said, in 1962-63 the rake-off from the motorist totalled £209,800,000. There is no doubt that as time goes on that amount will increase because every company that handles motor vehicle insurance is complaining that it is not able to operate at a profit and that premiums will have to be increased. Of course, that means an increased burden will be placed on the motorist and, consequently, that the annual rake-off will exceed £209,800,000.

Although there is congestion in the cities the motorist is expected to pay more for the use nf the roads. He cannot even use some of the roads in the metropolitan areas. In fact, it has been suggested in Sydney that the parking fee in certain areas be 10s. an hour and in other areas 5s. an hour. Parking in large proportions of the metropolitan areas is limited to half an hour, provided of course that parking meters are in use. What business can you conduct in half an hour? I suggest to Senator Wright that he would not be able to deal with a client in that time; but that is the period that the motorist is allowed to conduct his business. The Government wants more money from the motorist for the construction of roads but the use of the roads is denied him. It comes back to the concentration of business in small areas, but if commerce wants it that way then commerce should pay for it.

Of the £375,000,000 being made available to the States by the Commonwealth Government £45,000,000 has to be matched by the States on a £1 for £1 basis. I wonder how much longer the States can continue having their budgets controlled through £1 for £1 subsidies by the Commonwealth? When the States want to build roads and seek access to the Commonwealth additional grant they have to consider whether they should spend £X million on sewerage and water supplies, for example, or use that money to match the Commonwealth’s grant on the £1 for £1 basis.

This was the problem confronting the State Government in relation to the construction of beef roads in the north of Western Australia because much of the

Commonwealth grant was made available on the understanding that the State would spend an equal amount. Admittedly the State does not have to match £1 for £1 the Commonwealth funds being made available for harbour development at Derby and Broome, but the State must repay a percentage of the funds advanced. In effect, a portion of the Commonwealth grant must be put into a sinking fund to replace the amount spent either to match the Commonwealth grant or to repay other advances.

In this way the funds available to the States are gradually being controlled by the Commonwealth Government. I am one who believes that all power should reside in this Parliament, and it will not be very long before all power will reside in this Parliament if the present practice continues. Whether honorable senators on the Government side have considered that aspect I do not know, but it certainly is something that they should consider.

Considerable discontent has been expressed in the press and on the radio with the formula used for the distribution of the Commonwealth grant. It has been said that the area component should not bc taken into consideration because it reacts unfavorably against some States. In fact, it has been stated openly that Western Australia gains an advantage from it. I think that Western Australia does gain an advantage and I believe that it is entitled to do so. There has been an imbalance of development in Australia, and what may seem to be unfair to the wealthy States of New South Wales and Victoria to-day was unfair to Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania a few years ago when most of the developmental funds were being spent in New South Wales and Victoria. We are all here for the purpose of developing Australia as a whole, not in part. If there has been an imbalance of development over past years, then it should bc rectified at this stage. If this requires favoured treatment to any State or States, then that State, or those States should receive that favoured treatment.

The proper source of additional finance for inner roads is the commercial houses and the land sharks.

Senator Anderson:

– That would only load the economy because if they had to pay for the inner roads they would add that amount to the cost of their products.

Senator CANT:

– The States are autonomous and the commercial houses should be prevented from adding that amount to the cost of their products. I remind the honorable senator that at one time an attempt was made to give this Parliament the power to do these things. It is no excuse to say that the commercial houses would only add any additional charges to the cost of their products and would retrieve those charges in that way. There are ways and means of preventing them from doing that.

Senator Hannaford:

– You do not agree with Senator Kennelly’s proposition that there should be more money provided out of this Commonwealth grant for the metropolitan areas?

Senator CANT:

– I do not mind, how much money is spent on roads in the metropolitan areas, but I do not believe that the money should be spent out of this grant. I do not mind what amount is spent on roads in the metropolitan areas so long as the metropolitan areas provide it.

Senator Hannan:

– You do not mind what Victoria gets because it pays for it?

Senator CANT:

– I do not mind what Victoria gets. You are supposed to look after the interests of Victoria. One of the very good features about the legislation that is before us is that it compels the States to spend 40 per cent, of the grant on rural roads, other than highways, main roads and trunk roads. Of course, highways, main roads and trunk roads are important outlets for country areas. Again I say that if more money out of this grant is to be spent on roads in metropolitan areas, that is so much less to be spent on highways, main roads and trunk roads.

A very pleasing feature of the legislation is that part of the money can now be spent on the design of roads and road construction. I know that the Main Roads Department in Western Australia has spent considerable amounts of money in the northern drier areas of the State in trying to get proper soil mixtures that will stand up to traffic. Previously, money from the Commonwealth grant could not be spent for that purpose. I think it is a wise move, but again it is a move that will reduce the amount of money that can actually be spent on road construction. I am of the opinion that the Commonwealth Government, in estimating what would be required during the term of this legislation, should have a look at the survey that was made by the National Association of Australian State Road Authorities. As far as it goes the legislation is good legislation, but it falls short of the needs of the country.

Senator BREEN:
Victoria

.- I rise to support the second reading of this bill. The wise planning of the Government has resulted in the present highly satisfactory state of the Australian economy. It has been possible to increase the assistance to be given to the States for roads by 50 per cent, over the amount given for the period 1959 to 1 964. The Government, of course, bears a wide responsibility. As the Minister for Defence (Senator Paltridge) said in his second-reading speech, finance must be provided for housing, education, health and so on, but the Government has realized that good roads are necessary for community living and for the purposes of industry.

The prosperity of Australia has brought about a huge increase in the ownership of motor vehicles, and also there has been tremendous development of primary and secondary industries. The resultant and increasing need for a good road system’ has been recognized by the Government. As has been stated, the bill provides for a grant of £330,000,000 over five years commencing 1st July, 1964. The allocation for 1964-65 is £62,000,000. There will be an additional grant of £45,000,000 which will be allocated to the States on the basis of £1 for every £1 allocated by the State governments from their own resources over and above certain basic amounts. It is further estimated that £45,000,000 will be spent on roads in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, and on roads in the States, including beef roads in Queensland and Western Australia and the Gordon River road in Tasmania.

Before 1959 the formula by which this assistance was allocated to the States was on the basis of three-fifths according to population and two-fifths according to area, with 5 per cent, of the total allocation being given to Tasmania. But there was a gradual recognition of the increasing necessity for road systems to be improved and developed in the more densely settled States due to the concentration of industry, with the resultant increase in the number of commercial and industrial transport vehicles on their roads. So at the Premiers’ Conference in 1959 it was agreed that 5 per cent, of the grant would be allocated to Tasmania and the remainder was to be allocated to the other five States on the basis of one-third according to population, one-third according to area and one-third according to the number of motor vehicles registered. More and more emphasis must be placed on the latter factor.

At the recent Premiers’ Conference the Victorian Premier suggested that in view of Victoria’s urgent needs there should be a change in the distribution formula. The suggestion received some support, but the States could not agree upon the form of the change. It was decided that 28 per cent, of the total Commonwealth grant should be allocated to New South Wales, 19.7 per cent, to Victoria, 18.2 per cent, to Queensland, 11.5 per cent, to South Australia, 17.7 per cent, to Western Australia and 5 per cent, to Tasmania. I feel that I can speak on behalf of all Victorians. They are proud indeed of the development of their State. They are proud too that the State is making such a tremendous contribution to the development of Australia as a whole.

Relating the total allocation of £375,000,000 to population, it is estimated that Victoria’s share would be £24 7s. per head, that of New South Wales £25, of Queensland £43 15s., of South Australia £43, of Western Australia £86 10s. and of Tasmania £51 10s. I am stating these figures because I feel that they will help honorable senators to understand the situation in which Victoria finds itself at the present time. According to the Victorian “ Year Book “, the estimated population of the States in 1962 was as follows: - Victoria more than 3,000,000, New South Wales about 4,000,000, Queensland 1,500,000, South Australia under 1,000,000, Western Australia 765,000 and Tasmania 369,000. Those figures must be considered, according to the formula, in relation to the area of the States. The area of Western Australia is 976,000 square miles, of Queensland 667,000 and of Victoria, the small and prosperous State, 87,884.

Debate interrupted.

page 1137

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT (Senatorthe Hon Sir Alister McMullin:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 May 1964, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1964/19640513_senate_25_s25/>.