Senate
10 December 1965

25th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 25th Parliament
  3. 1965

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2245

QUESTION

BUREAU OF MINERAL RESOURCES

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Has he seen a Press statement to the effect that the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics proposes to publish within the next few weeks a 1,690-page book entitled “ Australia’s Mineral Industry “, and that the Bureau intends to offer the book for public sale? As the Bureau is supported by appropriations from this Parliament, will the Minister see that the book is made available to senators and members free of charge?

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I will certainly bring the honorable senator’s question to the attention of the Minister for National Development.

page 2245

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 709.)

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Has the Minister seen an article appearing in the “Sydney Morning Herald” of 26th October referring to the need for organised trade unionism in Papua and New Guinea, the lack of which has resulted in unorganised and unrepresentative actions of sections of the work force in this Territory which have limited recourse to industrial tribunals or appropriate arbitration or conciliation machinery?
  2. Will the Minister confer with the Minister for Territories with a view to arranging discussions with, or canvassing the opinion of the Australian Council of Trade Unions regarding the provision of facilities or appropriate assistance for the purpose of increasing trade union organisation in the Territory?
  3. Since the tri-partite mission, consisting of representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, employers and the Commonwealth Government, visited the Territory, have further discussions been held on the purposes of the mission and its report, and has consideration been given by such representatives to the formation of a second similar mission?
Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · VICTORIA · LP

– The Minister for Territories has supplied a reply which has been arrived at after consultation between himself and the Minister for Labour and National Service. The reply, which is signed by the Minister for Territories, is as follows: - 1.I have seen an article along the lines referred to in the “Sydney Morning Herald” of 28th October.

  1. My colleague, the Minister for Territories, has informed me that considerable assistance, in the form of advice and provision of facilities, has been given to trade unions in the Territory both by the territorial Administration and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Territory’s trade union movement has expanded considerably in recent years so that it now comprises 14 organisations with members of all races. Territorial legislation provides for the registration of industrial organisations and provides industrial relations machinery for the settlement of disputes. As the honorable senator may know, Mr. Monk, President of the A.C.T.U., visited the Territory earlier this year to advise on the formation of a federation of workers’ associations for the Territory.
  2. The purposes of the mission were announced by Mr. Hasluck in September 1960 as being to enable the members to become acquainted at firsthand with existing conditions and present and prospective problems in the labour field. This would in turn enable the members to advise and guide their own organisations on such matters as the need arose. My colleague, the Minister for Terirtories, informs me that he has not received any formal proposal for the formation of a second mission.

page 2245

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 735.)

Senator TANGNEY:
through Senator O’Byrne

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that, while it is now possible to fly between Tokyo and Sydney in one day, it is not possible to reach Canberra from Perth on the same day, four times a week, namely on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday, owing to the cancellation of connecting nights from Sydney to Canberra under the policy of rationalisation?
  2. Since travellers from Perth on these days are faced with the additional expense and inconvenience of securing overnight accommodation in either Sydney or Melbourne, will the Minister investigate the position with a view to restoring the daily service for mails and passengers between Perth and Canberra?
Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · TASMANIA · LP

– I now furnish the following reply: -

Yes, except that the policy of rationalisation is not to blame but rather the low passenger demand. The airlines are at present giving consideration to increasing the number of Perth-Canberra connections per week although it is doubtful whether an increase to as much as a daily service would be practicable. I assure the honorable senator thatI shall keep this matter under my notice.

page 2246

QUESTION

RICE

(Question No. 744.)

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

What has been the annual rice crop in the Northern Territory since 1955?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for Territories has now supplied the following answer -

The estimated production of paddy rice in tons by commercial and government plantations for the years 1955 to 1965 is as follows -

page 2246

QUESTION

BANKING

(Question No. 746.)

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. With reference to a decision made by the trading banks, by agreement among themselves and, I assume, the Reserve Bank and the Commonwealth Trading Bank, to charge what is called, euphemistically, a fee, in respect of money not lent but allowed on overdraft and not used, to what extent does the statutory law of this country entitle the Reserve Bank or the Treasury to supervise control of such charges, other than rates of interest and discount?
  2. Will the Treasurer comment upon the justice of trading banks charging a fee for money not lent and holding deposits totalling about £1,270 million on which they pay no interest?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Treasurer has furnished the following replies -

  1. Section 50 of the Banking Act 1959 authorises the Reserve Bank, with the approval of the Treasurer, to make regulations making provision for or in relation to the control of rates of interest payable to or by banks and rates of discount chargeable by banks. There is no other relevant statutory power. The extent of the powers conferred by section 50 is a matter for legal opinion and it is not the practice to give legal opinions in answer to parliamentary questions.

However, with respect to the unused overdraft limit fee, I can say that before announcing the introduction of the fee the major trading banks consulted the Reserve Bank, which in turn sought the views of the Government. The Government indicated its general approval in principle for the introduction of a system along the general lines subsequently announced by the banks.

  1. It is a well-established banking practice in Australia and overseas that trading banks do not pay interest on current accounts. Interest is, however, paid on deposits lodged for fixed periods. At the present time the shortest period is 30 days in the case of amounts of £50,000 and over, and three months for smaller amounts; the longest period is two years. Fixed deposits on which interest was payable averaged £942 million in October 1965.

In the case of the large undrawn limits subject to the new charge, trading banks, by standing ready to handle without further notice substantial drawings against such limits, provide a valuable service to customers for which they consider it reasonable to make a charge. Customers holding large unused limits are, in fact, requiring a service different in character from that given to borrowers with little or no unused limit. The existence of such large undrawn limits presents real problems for trading banks in the management of their funds, and they can hardly be said to have acted unreasonably in proposing to introduce a certain charge on large undrawn limits.

page 2246

QUESTION

SHIPPING

(Question No. 756.)

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice -

  1. How many vessels have been sold or otherwise disposed of by the Australian National Line in the last ten years?
  2. What was (a) the original purchase price and (b) the sale price, of each of the vessels?
  3. What was the name of the purchaser or purchasers of each of the vessels?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has supplied the following answers - 1, 2(b) and 3. The information sought in respect of all vessels sold by the Australian National Line between its inception in 1956 and May, 1964, appears on pages 2201 and 2202 of the House of Representatives “ Hansard “ date 20th May, 1964.

Since that date, the following vessels have been sold to the companies named:

As the abovementioned ships were all sold since January, 1965 it would not be in the best interests of the Australian National Line to disclose the selling prices of such recently concluded sales particularly in cases where ships of a similar class are still operated by the line and may be offered for sale in the future. 2 (a). Pursuant to the provisions of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act the Australian National Line is expected to conduct its affairs, including the acquistion of ships, in a manner consistent in all respects with private enterprise shipping organizations. It is not the normal practice of these organizations, which are competitors of the Australian National Line in the shipping industry, to disclose the purchase prices of their ships. 1 consider, therefore, that this information should not be disclosed in respect of the line’s ships. In any case, the twenty-two vessels sold by the Australian National Line were transferred to it from the former Australian Shipping Board and were not actually purchased in the usual way. The vessels in question were included with other vessels and other assets at a total value determined in accordance with section 28 of the Australian Coastal Commission Act.

page 2247

QUESTION

FREEDOM FROM HUNGER CAMPAIGN

(Question No. 766.)

Senator TANGNEY (through Senator

O’Byrne) asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Is the Treasurer aware that the Freedom from Hunger Campaign, recently concluded in the Australian Capital Territory and some States, has been described by its organiser as a “ flop “?

Was this “ flop “ due in part to the fact that donations to this fund were not regarded as allowable deductions in the calculation of income tax?

As this campaign is an annual one, will the Treasurer consider reverting next year to the previous practice of allowing such donations to be tax free, as this cause is equally as worthy as others to which this consideration is given?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answer - 1., 2. and 3. 1 have seen some press reports to this effect but this is a question of policy that will be considered at the appropriate time.

page 2247

QUESTION

VIETNAM

(Question No. 757.)

Senator McCLELLAND:

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

  1. Was a procession held recently in Saigon to commemorate the second anniversary of the assassination of the late President Diem?
  2. Did Australian troops take part in the procession; if so, (a) who gave authority for Australian troops to participate and (b) did Australian participation in the commemoration have the approval of the Australian Government?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for the Army has provided the following answer to the honorable senator’s questions -

The South Vietnamese Premier, General Nguyen Cao Ky, recently reviewed a military parade to commemorate the officially recognised Vietnamese National Day. Thousands of Vietnamese soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines formed the major part of the parade which included a complement of 40 members from an Australian Army unit at present in South Vietnam. A field battery of The Royal New Zealand Artillery also took part, as did the United States Army and Korean Army units. Participation had the approval of the Australian Government.

page 2247

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

(Question No. 769.)

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Has the Minister seen a Press statement that employment for persons with criminal records had been found by the Melbourne branch of the Waterside Workers Federation at the request of the Victorian Police Department?
  2. If this report is correct, was this taken into consideration by the Minister when making his recent statement on the number of criminals employed on the waterfront?
Senator GORTON:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. See 1. above.

page 2247

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(Question No. 770.)

Senator WHEELDON:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

With reference to the resignation of Mr. Gregory Clark, a senior officer of the Department of External Affairs, owing to his disagreement with the Government’s policy on Vietnam, have any other officers of the Department resigned for this reason, or expressed similar misgivings about the Government’s Vietnam policy?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Acting Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following reply -

No officer other than Mr. Clark, who was not a senior officer, has resigned from the Department of External Affairs because of disagreement with the Government’s policy on Vietnam.

page 2248

QUESTION

FEDERAL ARBITRATION INSPECTORS

(Question No. 771.)

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. How many Federal arbitration inspectors are employed in South Australia?
  2. During the last two years, how many construction jobs in South Australia have been inspected by the inspectors to ascertain whether breaches of Federal Building Trades Awards are occurring?
  3. How many prosecutions for breaches of Federal building trades awards have been, on the information of arbitration inspectors, instituted in South Australia during the last two years?
Senator GORTON:
LP

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

  2. 266 inspections under Federal building trades awards were made in the two years ending October 1965.
  3. 36 breaches of award provisions were detected and remedied in the course of the inspections. There were no prosecutions for breaches.

page 2248

QUESTION

ARMED FORCES

(Question No. 774.)

Senator TANGNEY:
through Senator O’Byrne

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

  1. Is it a fact that youths under the age of 21 who volunteer for army service, either as cadet officers for entrance to Duntroon or Portsea or as members of the C.M.F., must have the written permission of a parent or guardian?
  2. Will such permission be required before national servicemen under the age of 21 years are sent to Vietnam; if not, why not?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for the Army has provided the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -

  1. Although not legally required, it is current practice to obtain the consent of the parent or guardian on the appropriate application form. It is considered desirable that parents should be aware of their son’s action, particularly in relation to any plans they may have for his future. This practice, however, does not preclude a minor from enlisting without the consent of the parent or guardian.
  2. No. National servicemen are. discharging their national service obligation in accordance with the provisions of the National Service Act 1951-1965 and there is no such requirement in the Act.

page 2248

QUESTION

SUN GLASSES

(Question No. 779.)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

When will information regarding the serious imperfections detected by the Department of Supply in many types of sun glasses be made known to State Health Ministers so that the general public can be protected from the sale of such shoddy products?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Supply has furnished the following reply to the honorable senator’s question -

The Defence Standards Laboratories were requested some time ago by the Royal Australian Air Force to examine sun glasses commercially available in Australia. In the absence of an Australian standard, these were tested against a tentative United States standard and a number of deficiencies were discovered.

There would be no objection to supplying information to State Departments of Health on request concerning the nature of the tests carried out and the deficiencies arising therefrom. The New South Wales Department of Health has already been furnishd with these particulars in response to a request made some little time ago.

page 2248

QUESTION

HIRE PURCHASE COMPANIES

(Question No. 758.)

Senator BENN:
through Senator O’Byrne

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that, during the past four years, several hire purchase and trading companies have fallen into a state of bankruptcy?
  2. Was most of the finance for these companies provided by persons possessed of little money, who were attracted to invest their savings in unsecured notes and debentures by the very high interest rates offered by the companies?
  3. Will the Treasurer endeavour to arrange for the Commonwealth Savings Bank and the other savings banks in Australia to display in their premises simple statements showing that the security of all sums invested is the main essential to be considered when funds are invested in any manner?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -

  1. and 2. Provisions governing the operations of, and investment in, companies conducting business in the States are contained in State company laws, and I am not in a position, on the basis of information officially available to me, to provide detailed information on matters of the kind the honorable senator has referred to.
  2. I do not think: it would be an appropriate function of the Commonwealth. Government to attempt to advise members of the public on how they should go about making investment decisions. So far as the savings banks are concerned, I should think that in their own advertising the savings banks would not overlook publicising the security of deposits placed with them.

page 2249

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 739.)

Senator BRANSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. How many applications for translator stations in Australia have been received by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board?
  2. How many applications have been granted, and for what areas?
  3. Does the Board intend to grant licences for package type television stations to serve special isolated areas where there is a concentration of population? If not, why not?
  4. What are the costs, the power output and the effective viewing range of the Marconi package type stations?
  5. If licences are granted for package types stations to existing licence holders, will they be classed as second licences?
  6. If they are so classed, will the Government take immediate action to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act to permit existing stations to operate a package type station without foregoing their right to a second licence?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions - 1 and 2. Fifteen formal applications have been received and licences granted, or approved for grant, in each case; inquiries have been made as to the grant of licences in twenty-eight other areas. The areas for which licences have been granted or approved are as follows: -

New South Wales: Bonalbo, Kyogle, Lithgow, Mudgee (temporary), Khancoban, Vella Vista and various Snowy Mountains Authority camps and Armidale.

Victoria: Warrnambool-Port Fairy. Queensland: Cardstone.

Tasmania: Queenstown-Zeehan, RoseberyRenison Bell, Taroona, Swansea-Bicheno, Gowrie, and Smithton-Stanley.

I should first point out that what are called “ package “ stations are not identical with translator stations. The term “package” station has no strict technical significance. What is usually meant by such a station is a low power station, the programmes of which largely comprise film material with facilities for the production of a minimum quantity of locally originated programmes. Consideration will be given to any proposals which are put forward by anybody for the grant of licences for low power television stations.

There are two standard Marconi package type units differing only in their transmitting powers. The low power unit costs £A29,000 (including sales tax) and gives an effective radiated power of 200 watts with a viewing range of 11 to 14 miles depending on elevation above surrounding country. The higher powered unit costs £A34,500 and gives an effective radiated power of 2KW with a viewing range of 20 to 30 miles depending on elevation. These costs would not represent the total costs of stations using such equipment. Additional expenditure on test equipment, spare components, site, buildings, and so on, which would vary in particular cases would be involved. 5 and 6. From whatI have said above, it will be evident that what are referred to as package stations are, in fact, normal television stations of low power. At present, such low power stations would be television stations for the purposes of the control provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act. I have asked the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to report to me on the question of package stations and especially the legislative aspect to which the honorable senator refers. I should point out, however, that the restrictions provided in the Act only affect persons - including companies - which already have prescribed interests within the meaning of the Act in two stations. There is, therefore, considerable scope for the establishment of low power stations without breaching the Act.

page 2249

NAURU BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

.- I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill makes new provision for the government of the Island of Nauru, pursuant to an agreement reached between the three administering governments and the representatives of the Nauruan people. It proposes the establishment of a Legislative Council, with a majority of Nauruan members, and an Executive Council, to include Nauruan members. This Parliament has not previously provided a detailed scheme of government for Nauru. The Territory is administered jointly by Australia, Britain and New Zealand, which in 1947 entered into an agreement with the United Nations Organisation to place the Territory under the international trusteeship system.

The administration of the Territory is at present vested in an Administrator who is appointed in accordance with agreements made between the three partner Governments in 1919 and 1923. Those agreements authorise the Administrator to make ordinances for the peace, order and good government of the island, subject to confirmation or disallowance by the GovernorGeneral. There has been a progressive increase in participation by the Nauruan people in the activities of the Administration of the Territory which affect them. In 1951 an elected Local Government Council replaced the former Council of Chiefs.

The Local Government Council has steadily expanded its activities and its influence in Nauruan affairs, lt manages and operates a housing scheme, sells and distributes electricity, conducts a general store through the Nauru Co.-operative Society, and administers a social services scheme. As well as these and other activities of an executive nature, the Council has wide rule making powers, is consulted by the Administrator before ordinances are made, and has a meeting with the Administrator at least once each month, at which matters of interest and concern to the Nauruan community are raised and discussed.

The members of the Nauru Local Government Council have felt for some time that the next step in constitutional development for the Territory should be the establishment of a Legislative Council through which their present consultative role in the legislative process would be exchanged for one of direct participation. The governments have accepted this view, and have agreed that the appropriate way of establishing the new constitutional arrangements would be for the Australian Parliament to pass an Act which would provide the whole scheme of government for the Territory. The agreement reached by the three governments is set out- at the second schedule to the Bill. It does not, however, represent the views of the governments only.

In June last it was agreed between the governments and the Nauru Local Government Council that a Legislative Council for Nauru should be established by January 1966. An advisory committee of Nauruan representatives and Australian officials subsequently made a detailed examination of the changes that should be made. The agreement set out in the second schedule to the Bill, and the Bill itself, are in accordance with the recommendations of that committee. Parliament is being asked, at this late stage of the present sittings, to pass the Bill so that the Legislative Council can be inaugurated on 31st January 1966 to meet the strong wishes of the Nauruan people. As I have indicated, the Bill provides for a complete scheme of government. Provisions for the appointment of an Administrator by the Governor-General are similar to those of other Territories.

It is proposed that the Legislative Council will consist of the Administrator, nine members elected from amongst the Nauruan community, and five official members, who will normally be officers of the Administration. Detailed provisions for the election of members will be made by ordinance. The Bill provides for customary disqualifications for membership of a legislative body, except that not all employees of the Public Service are disqualified - only heads of departments. In the circumstances of Nauru, disqualification of all public servants would mean disqualifying a relatively high proportion of the electorate. The Legislative Council is to have a general legislative power except with respect to defence, external affairs and matters associated with the phosphate industry. At this stage the responsibility for the defence of the Territory and for conduct of its external affairs remains with the administering authority. Matters associated with the phosphate industry have been excluded from the powers of the Legislative Council with the agreement of the Nauruan representatives. The elected members of the Legislative Council are being drawn from and elected by the Nauruan community only. The Nauruan community numbers approximately 2,814. In addition, approximately 2,827 other people live at Nauru, most of whom are associated with the phosphate industry. Nauruan representatives consult regularly with the British Phosphate Commissioners on matters of concern to them; but the division of legislative powers provided for in the Bill recognises the present arrangements for the industry.

Ordinances passed by the Legislative Council are subject to assent and disallowance under provisions generally similar to “those which apply in respect of the Northern Territory and Papua and New Guinea. The Administrator has power to assent or withhold assent or to reserve ordinances for the Governor-General’s consideration, except that he must reserve ordinances on several subjects. If an ordinance is assented to by the Administrator, the Governor-General has power to disallow it within six months. The GovernorGeneral may recommend amendments arising out of his consideration of ordinances passed by the Legislative Council.

In respect of defence, internal security and the maintenance of peace and order, external affairs and matters associated with the phosphate industry, the GovernorGeneral is to have power to pass ordinances. If an ordinance made by the GovernorGeneral is inconsistent with an ordinance made by the Legislative Council the ordinance made by the Governor-General prevails. Ordinances made by the GovernorGeneral are to be tabled in each House of the Parliament and are to be subject to disallowance by resolution of either House. In the event that assent to an ordinance made by the Legislative Council is withheld, or such an ordinance is disallowed, the Minister is required to lay before each House of the Parliament a statement of reasons for that action. Participation by Nauruan representatives in the executive government is provided for by the establishment of an Executive Council to consist of the Administrator, two elected members of the Legislative Council and two official members of the Legislative Council. Functions may be conferred on the Executive Council by ordinance, and in addition, it is to advise the Administrator on any matter referred to it by him.

The provisions of the Bill relating to the judicial system contained in Part VII of the Bill do not introduce any major changes in the courts structure at present established for the Territory by ordinance. That structure consists of a Court of Appeal constituted by a judge, a Central Court which can be constituted by either a judge or by three magistrates and a District Court constituted by magistrates. The provision made in the Bill for an appeal to the High Court of Australia on decisions of the Court of Appeal is a new provision as is also the provision that the Central Court must be constituted by a judge if it is hearing a question relating to the qualification of a member of the Legislative Council or a matter involving interpretation of the Act. Part VIII of the Bill contains a number of miscellaneous provisions. Existing laws are continued. It is made clear that Commonwealth Acts apply to Nauru only if they contain express provision to that effect or are applied to Nauru by proclamation made by the Governor-General.

There is provision for the GovernorGeneral to exercise powers of pardon, remission or commutation in the case of death sentences and for the Administrator to exercise these powers in other cases. Usual provisions are made for the control of expenditure of public moneys, including a requirement that appropriation ordinances must be recommended by message of the Administrator to the Legislative Council, and for audit of the accounts of the Territory, the Administrator’s salary will be a direct charge on the revenue. I might mention that there is no direct taxation in Nauru. Most of the public revenue of the Territory is derived by a charge on the phosphate industry for the costs of administration.

The establishment of a legislature for Nauru and an Executive Council will be a notable step forward. We in this Parliament will wish the new legislative body well. You, Mr. President, and Mr. Speaker in another place, have kindly put arrangements in train for the occasion to be marked by the presentation to the new legislature of a President’s Chair. I am sure that this expression of goodwill will be greatly appreciated. It is satisfying to be able to place before the Senate proposals which have been agreed to by the representatives of the Nauruan people. This does not represent the end of constitutional development. Experience of the Legislative Council and of the Executive Council will be watched with v great interest and with sympathy and at the appropriate time further discussions will take place regarding the possibility of further movement towards greater Nauruan responsibility in the affairs of the island. 1 commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Bishop) adjourned.

page 2252

TEMPLE SOCIETY TRUST FUND BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON (New South

Wales.) - Minister for Customs and Excise) [10.34].-! move-

That the Bill bc now read a second time.

The Temple Society Trust Fund Act 1949 provided a legal basis for the establishment and administration of a Fund, which has made it possible for the Commonwealth Government to receive and disburse certain moneys on behalf of a group of non-Jewish settlers from Palestine usually referred to as Templars, or members of the Temple Society. The history and background of these people, who are making their own distinctive contribution as members of the Australian community, are to be found in the second reading speech made by the late Senator Ashley when the original Bill was presented to the Senate on 27th October 1949.

The purpose of the present Bill is to revise the Temple Society Trust Fund Act of 1949, so that, without any change of principle or policy, the Fund may be administered in the light of experience and developments. Following representations by Australia and through the good offices successively of the Palestinian, United Kingdom, German and Israeli Governments, which I am pleased indeed to acknowledge here, over three million pounds has already been received in the Fund and distributed to members of the Temple Society and others who migrated to Australia; and, under agreements concluded or to be concluded, claimants here may, without long delay, receive with interest a total of between five and six million pounds for their former assets in Palestine or Israel. In addition, claimants overseas for whom Germany is responsible are to receive over two million pounds. Approximately 1500 former German residents of Palestine or Israel have migrated to Australia without cost to the Commonwealth for their passages or for the administration of their funds, and most are now naturalised Australian citizen*. About 500 others still remain overseas in Germany or elsewhere.

The principal Act confers no legal rights upon claimants, and moneys in the Fund are paid out in accordance with just rather than legal entitlement. However, practical administration of the Fund over the years since 1949 has revealed the need for amendments to the principal Act. Clause 1 of the Bill refers to the titles of the Principal and amending Acts and is self-explanatory. Clause 2 provides that the amendments now proposed shall be deemed to have come into operation as from the commencement of the principal Act: This provision is necessary so that there shall be no doubt as to the validity of action taken, in accordance with earlier legal opinions, in the past. Clause 3 of the Bill widens the description of moneys payable to the Fund. Under Section 4 (2.) of the principal Act, moneys are payable to the Fund which represent “proceeds of the realisation “ of the assets of these migrants, a description which applies to certain moneys received from the United Kingdom and Palestine. This section of the Bill removes any doubt there may be that moneys are also payable to the Fund which represent compensation - and interest earned on compensation - paid by Israel for other relevant assets. Clause 4 of the Bill provides that section 6(1.) of the principal Act shall be omitted and replaced. Under section 6 (1 .) (a) of the principal Act, the Minister is empowered to apply moneys standing to the credit of the Fund in making payments, on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit, to the Temple Society, members of the Temple Society and other persons who owned property in Palestine or Israel. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed section 6 (1.) provide that the Minister may also make payments to the following classes of persons who are not eligible or not clearly eligible to receive payments under the principal Act - persons who themselves owned no property in Palestine or Israel, for example, certain legal personal representatives or beneficiaries of claimants who have died; persons who are not entitled to such payments in their own right, but who may reasonably and justly be paid on behalf of others, for example, nominees authorized to receive moneys on behalf of communal bodies; and persons who are outside Australia, for example, persons abroad for study or medical treatment. lt is also necessary for the Minister, when authorising payments from the Fund, to have regard to conditions relating to such payments in agreements between Australia and the countries from which the moneys have been received; that is, the German-Australian Agreement dealing with compensation received from Israel. As there is no provision of this nature in the original Act, the necessary authority is proposed under the new section 6(1. )(b) (iii).

Clause 4 of the Bill also provides that section 6(1.) (b) of the principal Act is to be replaced by new section 6 (1 .) (c). The original Act empowered the Minister to apply moneys standing to the credit of the Fund “ in meeting expenses incurred by the Commonwealth in connection with the administration of the Fund or in connection with the immigration to Australia of persons “ concerned. Moneys standing to the credit of the Fund have been used to meet such expenses. However, particular expenses incurred in connection with negotiations for the payment of relevant moneys, the rehabilitation of migrants concerned and incidental purposes have been charged, under advice, to so-called “ administrative moneys.”

These “ administrative moneys “ were originally appropriated by the Palestinian Government for the evacuation and rehabilitation of German nationals and for similar and incidental purposes, and were sent by the United Kingdom to Australia to cover appropriate expenditure here when Australia assumed responsibility for the settlement of these migrants. According to more recent legal advice “ administrative moneys “ as a matter of law form part of the Fund established under the Act. It is therefore necessary to ensure that there is clear authority for the particular class of expenditure mentioned to be charged to the Fund.

Hence new section 6(1.) (c) provided for by this Bill is proposed so that the Minister may clearly apply moneys standing to the credit of the Fund in meeting expenses incurred by the Commonwealth in connection with or as incidental to the administration of the Fund, negotiations regarding relevant moneys and the immigration and rehabilitation of the migrants in question. I emphasise that the purpose of this Bill is to do more than revise the Act so that moneys in the Fund may continue to be administered efficiently, justly and securely. I commend this measure to the Senate in the interests of all concerned.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition cordially supports this measure. Its purpose has been clearly expressed in the speech that the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson) has just made. In short, it is a machinery bill designed to clarify the powers of the trustees of the Temple Society Trust Fund and to permit the effective use of those powers by the trustees.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2253

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL (No. 2) 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This is a short bill, the purpose of which is to clear up certain doubts and difficulties that have arisen in the application of section 92C of the principal Act, which relates to directorships in companies controlling licences for television stations. Honorable senators will recall that the amending Act passed- earlier this year imposed certain restrictions on the interests that may be held by one person in licences . for television stations. The central provision, which is contained in section 92, is that a person is not to have “ a prescribed interest “, as defined, in three or more licences. A further, provision, which is contained in section 92C, is that a person is not to be a director of two or more companies that control between them three or more licences.

The Act makes an exception from the provisions of section 92, relating to holding interests in licences, in the case of interests that were lawfully held prior to 17th December 1964. As a corollary of this exception, section 92C(2.) provides that, where a person, including a company, having a prescribed interest in three or more licences has the benefit of the special exception as regards interests held prior to 17th December 1964, that person, or a nominee of that person, is not prevented from being a director of any companies merely because those companies control those same licences. The policy accepted in enacting this provision was that if a person was permitted to retain existing interests in licences it was logical that he should also be permitted to be represented on the boards of companies controlling those licences.

It has been represented to the Government, however, that the legal advisers of some of the persons affected have raised doubts as to whether this policy is fully carried out by the provision. The doubts arise mainly from a construction of the word “ nominee “ under which it would cover only directors formally nominated to the board of a company under the articles of association of the company and would not cover a director elected by the shareholders although in fact and in substance representing the company or other person holding the prescribed interests. The Bill, therefore, proposes to delete the references to a nominee and to refer instead to a person designated by notice in writing to the Minister by the person or company having the prescribed interests. Further, the Bill provides that a director of a company having the prescribed interests may in turn be a director of other companies concerned with the control of the licences without being specially designated by notice to the Minister, as his connection with the first mentioned company is obvious. The Bill does not involve any change in policy but is merely intended to clarify what was always the intention of section 92c. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator McClelland) adjourned.

page 2254

BILLS RELATED TO DECIMAL CURRENCY

Air Navigation (Charges) Bill (No. 2) 1965.

Audit Bill 1965.

Banking Bill 1965.

Bankruptcy (Decimal Currency) Bill 1965.

Butter Fat Levy Bill (No. 2) 1965.

Canned Fruits Export Charges Bill 1965.

Christinas Island Bill 1965.

Commonwealth Banks Bill 1965.

Customs Bill (No. 3) 1965.

Customs Tariff Bill 1966 (1965).

Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill (No. 3) 1965.

Dried Fruits Export Charges Bill 1965.

Egg Export Charges Bill 1965.

Estate Duty Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1965.

Excise Bill 1965.

Excise Tariff Bill (No. 2) 1965.

Honey Levy Bill (No. 1A) 1965.

Honey Levy Bill (No. 2A) 1965.

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1965.

Insurance Bill 1965.

Life Insurance Bill 1965.

National Health Bill (No. 2) 1965.

Parliamentary Retiring Allowances (Decimal Currency) Bill 1965.

Pay-Roll Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1965.

Post and Telegraph Bill 1965.

Post and Telegraph Rates Bill 1965.

Pyrites Bounty Bill (No. 3) 1965.

Social Services Bill (No. 2) 1965.

States Grants (Petroleum Products) Bill (No. 2) 1965.

Superannuation Bill (No. 2) 1965.

Taxation Administration Bill 1965.

Wheat Industry Stabilization Bill 1965.

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Senator Henty) agreed to-

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of thirty-two Bills consequential on the introduction of decimal currency being put in one motion, at each stage, and the consideration of all of such Bills together in Committee of the Whole.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bills (on motion by Senator Henty) together read a first time.

Second Readings

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

. -I move -

That the Bills be now read a second time.

All of the Bills excepting those dealing with the customs tariff, superannuation and defence forces retirement benefits are bound in one pamphlet. The Customs Tariff Bill is separate because of its bulk and the other two because they were introduced into the House of Representatives at a later date than the other 30 bills.

The provisions of the Currency Act 1965 will enable most references to £ s. d. amounts in Commonwealth legislation to be construed after C Day as references to dollars and cents. There are, however, a number of Acts in which money references in £ s. d. will need to be specifically amended.

A large number of amendments are made in the 32 Bills to whichI have referred, but all of them are of a machinery nature and they do not involve changes of policy. Perhaps I could give some idea of the changes proposed if I said that there are in a number of cases references in Acts to returns or figures being submitted to the nearest pound or the nearest £1,000. The amendments would change these to references to the nearest dollar or 1,000 dollars rather than to the nearest 2 dollars or 2,000 dollars, as the case may be. There are a number of other amendments in respect of Acts which specify amounts for fees, charges, rates and so on which will not convert exactly to dollars and cents. In these instances, and in conformity with the previously announced intention not to profit from the changeover, the Government has decided that the amounts should be rounded down wherever this is appropriate. There are other cases which relate to payments by the Government where amounts have been rounded upwards. The amounts concerned are in no case greater than a fraction of a cent.

Similarly, the changes proposed in the conversion of the customs tariff are consistent with the Government’s stated intention to minimise increases in rates of duty as a result of the introduction of decimal currency. The general method used was to convert old currency amounts of less than 5s. to the nearest three decimal places of a dollar and amounts exceeding 5s. to two decimal places of a dollar. In respect of certain high duty goods such as tobacco, gasoline and various petroleum products, a more exact conversion has been made, in some cases to four decimals of a dollar.

The Bills have been prepared specifically to effect the change to decimal currency and to exclude other matters. This is why these provisions have not been included in some Bills which have been before the Senate recently to amend some of the legislation which I mentioned at the commencement of this speech. I believe that the procedure proposed for dealing with these Bills will facilitate their speedy consideration by the Senate and I commend them to honorable senators.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2255

BRIGALOW LANDS AGREEMENT BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to seek the approval of Parliament to various amendments requested by the Queensland Government to an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State relating to the development of the brigalow lands in the Fitzroy River basin of central Queensland. Honorable senators will recall that the Brigalow Lands Agreement Act 1962 approved an agreement under which the Commonwealth makes financial assistances available to Queensland of up to £7,250,000, on a repayable interest-bearing basis, in respect of expenditure by the State over the five-year period ending 30th June 1967, on the development of certain specified areas in the Fitzroy River basin.

The general plan of development of these areas involves the re-subdivision of the original holdings and the allocation of the larger number of blocks, some to the existing landholders, some to sale at auction and the remainder to applicants selected by the State. Those blocks allotted to existing holders or sold at auction are for development by the holders from their own resources, while those allotted to selected applicants are developed by the State Government on behalf of the applicants with finance provided by the Commonwealth under the Brigalow Lands Agreement Act. The scheme of development is administered wholly by the State, with Commonwealth participation restricted to the provision of financial assistance for implementation of the scheme. The State Government, largely as a result of the experience it had gained in administering the scheme, recently proposed a number of variations to the Agreement. These are as follows -

  1. extension of the boundaries of the areas of the scheme to take in some additonal areas in the west and the south;
  2. additional development work in the form of ringbarking of forest country and eradication of sucker regrowth;
  3. greater flexibility in the development of individual blocks in regard to the provision of fencing, cattle tick control units and water facilities;
  4. the provision of breeding cattle;
  5. additional road work for the area, both in the form of main roads and access roads;
  6. an extension for three years to 30th June 1970 of the period within which financial assistance is available to the State.

The variations do not involve any increase in the amount of the Commonwealth assistance, £7,250,000, provided for under the original Agreement. It is hardly surprising that in the light of experience the State has found it desirable to vary the original plan of a development scheme of this nature. The Commonwealth Government has accordingly agreed to the necessary amendments to the Agreement to give effect to the variations requested by the State, and the amendments involved are embodiedin the further Agreement which the Bill now before the Senate submits for Parliament’s approval.

The opportunity has also been taken in the amending Agreement to widen the discretion of the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) to agree to variations of the scheme which may be requested in future by the State. Under the original Agreement, the Treasurer was able to approve only suggested variations in the details of the development works specified in the Third Schedule, namely, the particular works to which financial assistance provided by the Commonwealth may be applied. It is thought desirable in the interests of flexibility to enlarge the Treasurer’s discretion to include the plan of development specified in the Second Schedule. I think it can fairly be said that the brigalow lands development scheme is already proving to be a notable success, and I am sure that full development of the scheme will produce important benefits for the nation in terms of northern development and export earnings from beef cattle. I have pleasure in commending the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Dittmer) adjourned.

page 2255

WEIPA DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

. I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to obtain the approval of Parliament to an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland for the provision of financial assistance to the State for harbour works at Weipa in North Queensland. The Commonwealth Government’s decision in this matter was announced by the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) in his last Budget Speech, when he said that the Commonwealth would provide a loan to the State up to a maximum of £1,635,000 to finance these works. He also indicated that an amount of £750,000 had been provided in the current year’s estimates for this purpose.

The Commonwealth and the State have now reached agreement on the conditions on which this assistance is to be provided, and the text of the agreement is set out in the Schedule to the Bill. Before I explain the agreement, it may be of interest to honorable senators if I set out some general background to the development of Weipa, which is situated in a remote corner of North Queensland on the western side of Cape York Peninsula.

The potential of the bauxite deposits at Weipa was first recognised by the Chief Geologist of Consolidated Zinc Pty. Ltd. in 1955, and in 1957 a company known as Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation Ltd. - Comalco - was formed to develop the port and to mine bauxite from a lease of an area of about 2380 square miles. Undertakings to this effect were entered into by Comalco in an agreement with the Queensland Government. In accordance with its undertaking Comalco dredged an access channel in Albatross Bay, built a combined export-import berth and established a small mining township at Weipa. Mining, beneficiating and ship loading facilities were constructed and the undertaking has at present a capacity to handle about 700,000 tons of bauxite per year.

An expansion is under way to increase the capacity of the undertaking to 2,500,000 tons of bauxite each year. About one half of this production will be shipped to Gladstone for processing into alumina at the refinery being constructed there by Queensland Alumina Ltd. The rest of the production is expected to be exported to Japan, Germany, France and South America. In recognition of the importance of Weipa the Queensland Government, in addition to assuming control of the harbour and purchasing the existing harbour works constructed by Comalco, has undertaken to deepen the channel and to provide new and improved wharves. It is understood that this work will need to be completed by 31st December 1966, in order to fit in with expansion of the Weipa bauxite undertaking and the timetable for construction of the alumina refinery at Gladstone.

The Queensland Government requested the Commonwealth some time ago to provide financial assistance for harbour works at Weipa and Gladstone. After careful consideration the Commonwealth Government decided that assistance of up to £1,635,000, on a repayable interest-bearing loan basis, would be offered to the State for the harbour works at Weipa which the State had agreed to carry out. The State Government accepted the Commonwealth’s offer, and the Bill before the Senate seeks Parliament’s approval to the provision of assistance accordingly.

The terms on which the Commonwealth financial assistance is to be provided are set out in the agreement. The agreement provides for payments to the State in respect of expenditure on the harbour works after 1st July 1965. Interest, at the effective long term Commonwealth bond rate, will be capitalised during the period of construction. Repayments will be spread over a period of thirty years, commencing on 15th July 1967, and will be made on the credit foncier basis of equal instalments of principal and interest combined. The harbour works towards which the Commonwealth loan will be applied are specified in the schedule to the agreement. These works consist of the deepening of the existing access channel, the building of a wharf for the export of bauxite into bulk carriers, and improvements and additions to the existing general cargo wharf.

The agreement also contains the usual provisions included in agreements of this nature relating to such things as the efficient execution of the works, the payment to the State arid the auditing of expenditure. There is also a provision allowing for the variation of the harbour works specified in the schedule to the extent proposed by the State and approved by the Treasurer in the interests of more efficient fulfilment of the objectives of the agreement. In conclusion I would like to say that the Government is pleased to be associated with the project, which will undoubtedly make a major contribution, not only to the development of an important new industry, but also to the development of a particularly remote northern corner of our vast continent. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Dittmer) adjourned.

page 2258

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE VETERANS’ RESIDENCES BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Honorable senators will see that the Bill is designed to extend the classes of persons who may benefit from the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans’ Residences Fund established under the Act of 1953.

I think I should give honorable senators a short account of the history of the Fund and how the money became available to establish it. The 1953 Act was passed to make provision for the application of the share of the proceeds of prize captured during World War II and made available for the benefit of members of the Royal Australian Air Force. The terms “prize” and “prize money “ referred to in that Act have a history which links them closely with the wars in which England has been engaged down the centuries. “ Prize money “ is the sum paid in respect of any enemy ship or goods captured by a maritime force of a belligerent at sea.

Until the First World War it had been the custom for a grant to be made to the actual captors of the ship or goods which had been captured or seized. But, in 1918, by an Act of the British Parliament, the proceeds of prize were paid into a Naval Prize Fund which was divided between officers and men of the Navy generally, distribution continuing, however, to be made in accordance with the royal prerogative. During the Second World War many enemy merchant ships were captured by the navies of the British Empire, often with the assistance of the Air Force. In December 1945, the British Government, with the agreement of the dominion governments, announced that it had been decided that prize money in respect of the proceeds derived from the sale of captured enemy merchant ships and cargoes should again be granted. But, instead of granting the whole of the prize money to the Navy, which had traditionally been the case, on this occasion it was decided that a proportion of the proceeds should be allocated for the benefit of Air Force personnel. The British Government also announced that it was its intention that this would be the last occasion on which prize moneys would be paid.

Subsequently, the British Government decided that the portion of the prize money attributable to the Royal Navy would be distributed in accordance with precedent to individual members of the fleet but the portion attributable to the Royal Air Force would be paid to certain Air Force charities and not to individuals.

The British Government allocated the sum of £478,000 to the Australian Government for distribution to the Royal Australian Navy and Royal Australian Air Force. This was divided between the two on the basis of £249,000 to the Navy and £229,000 to the Air Force. The Government approved individual distribution to members of the Navy on the basis of six months sea service in the war, an arrangement similar to that followed in the Royal Navy. Distribution was made equally irrespective of rank or rating. Thirty thousand members of the Royal Australian Navy participated in this distribution. When considering the R.A.A.F. share, the Australian Government was faced with the same problem which confronted the British Government in deciding on a formula for distribution of prize money to members of the Royal Air Force. Distribution to individual members was considered but the question of eligibility became so complex that equitable distribution would be virtually impossible. Distribution on the same basis as the Navy would have meant insignificant shares to each participant with all the administrative difficulties and cost. It would have involved the investigation of the claims of about 200,000 personnel who served in the Royal Australian Air Force between 1939 and 1945. Thus, it was decided to allocate the Air Force share to a charitable purpose, which was to provide residences for- ex-Air Force male personnel in necessitous circumstances. For this purpose a trust fund was established to which the £229,000 was; applied and the Act was passed in 1953.

Three trustees were appointed to administer the Fund the purpose of which, as contained in the present Act, is to provide residences in which former male members of the R.A.A.F. in necessitous circumstances and, if the Trust so approves, the wives of those members, may be accommodated. Preference in the allocation of accommodation was to be given to members who served during World War II while the trustees had power to provide accommodation and support to the widow of a former member who had been in occupation of a residence.

The trustees also had the usual power to invest funds, purchase land and erect buildings. During the years subsequent to their appointment the trustees invested the funds while they were exploring ways and means of devoting them to the principal purpose of the Fund as set out in section 4 of the principal Act. The trustees were required by the Act to comply with the State Trust Laws in the investment of the funds. Investments were made in Government and semi-Government loans and other deposits. Moneys were also made available for mortgage loans to former members of the Air Force who were buying homes either under the War Service Homes Act or through private purchase. Through the good offices of the Council of the Municipality of Sandringham in Victoria, several blocks of land were made available to the Trust. It took some years for title difficulties to be cleared up. After that operation had been satisfactorily concluded the Trustees embarked on the erection of ten home units. Prior to this, the trustees had been exploring the best means by which they could apply the funds to meet the purposes of the principal Act. Their enquiries from charitable and ex-servicemen’s organizations had elicited the happy information that there were practically no cases of Air Force veterans being in such necessitous circumstances as to require accommodation and support in the type of residence which the Act had contemplated. These investigations led the trustees to the conclusion that there was a greater need for the provision of home units for the accommodation of families rather than the provision of residences on the Darby and Joan principle.

To the 30th June, 1965, the Fund had accumulated to an amount of £376,693.

This of course included the asset at Sandringham. The purpose of the Bill is to extend the classes of persons who may be eligible for accommodation in residences provided by the trustees. It will be noted from the definition to be inserted in the principal Act by clause 3 that, in addition to former male members, the following persons will be eligible for accommodation in the residences: Widows of deceased members; mothers of deceased former unmarried members; and former female members who would be classified as eligible forbenefits under the War Service Homes Act.

In each case, eligible persons must satisfy the trustees that they are in necessitous circumstances and have dependants for Whom they require accommodation as well as for themselves. Section 4 of the Act is proposed to be amended by this Bill to enable dependants of eligible persons to be accommodated in the residences. Such dependants would be those approved by the trustees who would have regard to their relationship to or dependence upon eligible persons.

An important amendment which is proposed in the Bill is the insertion of a section requiring the submission by the trustees to the Minister of an annual report for presentation to the Parliament. In the past the trustees have not been required to submit such a report although their accounts have been subject to audit by the Auditor-General. The report on the finance of the Trust is included in the Auditor-General’s Supplementary Report which is presented by my colleague the Treasurer. I consider that opportunity should be provided to the Parliament to examine the activities of the Trust and determine Whether the Fund is being applied to the most worthy objects. The presentation of an annual report will achieve this purpose. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by SenatorO’Byrne) adjourned.

page 2259

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The following Bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment -

Native Members of the Forces Benefits Bill 1965. Australian National University Bill 1965.

page 2260

INCOME TAX BILL 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Government has taken note of the views expressed by the Senate and offers to give honorable senators an opportunity more faithfully to express their views. The Income Tax Bill 1965, as now presented, has been, separated from other taxation legislation to enable the Senate to vote separately on the issues involved. The Opposition in another place has co-operated in enabling this Bill and the related Bill to be represented expeditiously. I trust that the Senate will expedite the passage of these Bills through the Senate. It was clear to the Government that there was support in the Senate for both issues and the separation of the Bill into the two issues gives an opportunity to honorable senators to vote upon each issue separately.

This Bill declares the rates of income tax for the current financial year other than the special rates proposed to apply to certain income of members of partnerships, trust estates and superannuation funds. It imposes on individuals an additional tax of 2i per cent, of the tax calculated in accordance with the general rates applying for the year. It proposes that the rates of tax payable by companies shall be the same as for the financial year 1964-65. Honorable senators know only too well what has happened in regard to the Bill originally introduced by the Government to declare this year’s rates of tax. It appears to the Government that the earlier Bill was rejected because it dealt with both the proposed 2i per cent, additional tax and the proposed special rates related to partnerships, trusts and superannuation funds. The Government is now submitting these proposals separately, as I have stated.

The present Bill proposes the imposition of the 2i per cent, additional tax on individuals but does not seek to declare the special rates relating to partnerships, trust estates or superannuation funds. I hope shortly to be in a position to introduce a Bill that will declare those rates. When introducing this Bill the Treasurer drew attention to the serious effects that would result from a delay in passing this measure. I do not think I could do better than to quote my right honorable colleague, adding that it would also effect Australia’s defence. He said -

There would inevitably be delays in the issue of notices of assessment and there could be serious effects on revenue collections for the year. The administrative difficulties that would be encountered would certainly result in much inconvenience to taxpayers through delays in advising them of their liabilities. There would also be quite heavy additional costs in the collection of tax.

Should Parliament fail to agree to the additional tax of 2i per cent, for individuals, possibly as many as 200,000 assessments now awaiting issue will have to be re-calculated. These are assessments which involve provisional tax for 1965-66 including the proposed 2i per cent, additional tax. In relation to these assessments there could be serious delays in the collection of tax of the order of £250,000,000.

As to instalment deductions from salaries and wages, a most serious situation could develop. It would presumably be necessary to adjust instalment deductions. New scales would have to be worked out. There would be extreme problems associated with the advent of decimal currency which existing scales were, after much forward planning, devised to overcome. There would be a loss of revenue for the year of millions of pounds.

I join with the Treasurer in asking the Senate to acknowledge the responsibilities of the Government and to pass this Bill. As to the formal provisions of the Bill, I would point out that, with the exception of some matters that I will mention, the Bill does not vary in any significant way from the Act that declared the rates of tax for the 1964-65 financial year. Company rates of tax are unchanged and the general rates of tax payable by individuals have been slightly adjusted to facilitate their conversion to decimal currency. Individual taxpayers will, however, be liable for an additional tax of 2i per cent, of the tax calculated at the general rates. The minor adjustments to the general rates for individuals are such that the tax payable at those rates on taxable incomes of £24,000 or less will not, in any case, be greater than the tax payable at the general rates for 1964-65. The increase in tax for taxable incomes in excess of £24,000 will amount to only £1 for each £3,000 of taxable income in excess of £24,000.

Another change is that the rates of tax proposed are expressed as percentages of taxable income. Accordingly, when the changeover to decimal currency comes, the rates set out in the Bill will represent so many cents per dollar. In past years, the tax on incomes has been described as “ income tax and social serviices contribution “. The tax imposed by this Bill will have the simpler name of “ income tax “. I commend the Bill to honorable senators.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This Bill, in an amplified form, was before the Senate yesterday. The Opposition opposed that measure. When I spoke yesterday I made it quite clear that we were not opposed to all the provisions of the measure then before us. I indicated that our opposition arose from the inclusion of a provision imposing on incomes a rate of tax that was 2i per cent, above last year’s rate. I explained at fairly considerable length why we were opposed to such a provision. I shall not restate those reasons. I merely give some indication of them by pointing out that the economy has slowed down and that the Government has made a mistake with its taxation policies which it may well reverse early in the new year because of the slowing down of the economy. The Government may well find it necessary in the new year to give a stimulus to the economy to counteract the effect of the imposition of this increase of 2i per cent., amongst other things.

The increase of 2i per cent, was not the only increase that the Government levied on individuals through its Budget proposals. The Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) told us that the measure now before us was expected to yield more than £17 million in this financial year and between £18 million and £19 million in a full year. Accordingly, the actual amount involved, in a Budget that runs to more than £2,500 million, is relatively insignificant. We do well to keep it in perspective. This additional sum of about £17 million is portion only of the revenue from the additional taxes that were imposed, other increases having been imposed on petrol, liquor and tobacco. Sales tax on various items was increased. These total approximately £80 million per annum, all making an impact upon the spending resources of the individuals of Aus tralia. The psychological effect and the hard financial effect of these increases have been factors in the slowing down of the Australian economy. I pointed all that out yesterday at greater length than I am now. I have drawn attention to the state of the economy to justify the case that I have put

Yesterday I made it crystal clear that we were opposing the Bill that was then before us because of the inclusion of the provision for an increase of 2i per cent, in the rate of income tax. I indicated equally clearly that we were not opposed to the new provisions relating to a tax of 10s. in the £1 on certain incomes derived by partners, trust funds and certain superannuation funds. That still is the position. The Senate rejected the measure that was before it yesterday, not only once but twice. The Senate reaffirmed its opinion, as it had a perfect right to do. The Government, having surveyed the scene, has now decided to present two Bills, or to present this Bill and perhaps to amend it later, thus permitting two votes and the expression of two different forms of opposition to the proposal that was before us earlier.

It is extraordinary that measures to give effect to Budget proposals that were announced in August last should come to the Senate in December, when half of the financial year is nearly over. There was nothing complicated about the preparation of this Bill. Whatever difficulty the Treasurer is in with his administrative arrangements is entirely his own fault. He knew in October that he would want to collect instalments provided for in this Bill from those who pay as they go and have deductions made from their salaries. It is something in the nature of cheek on rae part of the Treasurer to proceed with administrative arrangements without the authority of this Parliament. When the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Henty) says that administrative arrangements are involved and that great difficulties will be experienced if we adhere to our vote and the Bill is rejected, I remind him that the situation is one of the Treasurer’s own creation and is due entirely to his dilatoriness in not presenting the measure much earlier than now.

The only other comment I wish to make is this: Although the statement did not appear in the printed copy of the speech that was made available to me, I think I heard the Minister refer to the effect that failure to pass this Bill would have upon the defence of the country.

Senator Henty:

– From the point of view of loss of revenue. I did say that.

Senator McKENNA:

– That statement did not appear in the document that I was following. I doubted whether I heard aright. To suggest that the defence effort of this country will fail if this additional 2i per cent, is not cancelled is to reduce argument to the absurd. The Minister might well not have made that statement. This is one case in which it would have been best not to have departed from his brief.

Senator Morris:

– Defence is costing at least £250 million a year.

Senator McKENNA:

– Let us look at it in perspective. Let us assume that the defence budget is £250 million. It is probably more.

Senator Morris:

– It is more.

Senator McKENNA:

– How can the honorable senator say that £17 million will make any difference, when he knows, as well as I do, that with the normal, natural expansion of the economy a very substantial amount, approximately £100 million, is added to the revenue every year? That is an accretion that comes without any effort on the part of the Government and which arises from the mere increase of the work force and the expansion of the economy.

Senator Scott:

– Government policy would not have anything to do with it, would it?

Senator McKENNA:

– I do not want to embark upon that issue now. I do not propose to review the whole economy on this day and at this time, unless the honorable senator provokes me fully. Regardless of any governmental action at all, the inescapable fact is that, with the natural growth of the country - the growth of its population and development - the Federal Treasurer gets his percentage all the time.

Senator Henty:

– A certain amount of extra expense is involved, too.

Senator McKENNA:

– There is a certain amount of additional expense. I concede that additional expense is involved in relation to repatriation benefits, social service benefits and so forth; but I claim that a mighty surplus arises from the natural expansion of the economy also. So not a lot hanes on the Minister’s argument. I reject the element of urgency that the Government, through the Minister, claims in relation to the collection of this additional sum. 1 certainly reject the defence argument. I repeat that, if the Treasurer is in difficulties with his administrative arrangements, it is entirely his own fault. He has had many months in which to present this simple Bill to the Parliament. Now that the matter has been raised, I think it is appropriate that I should ask the Government to explain why a Bill of this kind should come before the Parliament when half of the financial year has passed and with the increased taxes already being collected from the people who pay as they earn. Why has the Bill been so long delayed? That is a question that I think the Government is obliged to answer. We intend to persist with our opposition to the Bill that is now before us, which contains the feature to which we directed our opposition yesterday.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I regret that the Bill that we have had presented to us today has been presented in such circumstances as not to allow what one would consider to be a satisfactory opportunity to peruse it, much less consider it. I have only seen the Bill in the last 15 minutes. In that time I have had an opportunity to compare it with the Bill that was before us yesterday. My comparison of the two Bills in that time has had to be made without assistance from anybody else. But being so familiar with the Bill that we had before us yesterday, I see at a glance from that comparison that the features of the Bill which represented matters of important objection on my part are now no longer included in it. The Bill relates to the imposition of an increased rate of income tax in accordance with the Budgetary proposals. The penal rates of income tax associated with partnerships, trusts and some superannuation funds which attracted those rates by virtue of the November 1964 assessment provisions have been divorced from the present proposals. From my comparison of the two Bills, I am satisfied that those matters are no longer included in the Bill.

This being a money Bill which under the Constitution the Senate cannot amend, and agreeing as I do with the Budget proposals for the imposition of this increased rate of taxation, I would not for one moment accept the responsibility of offering further opposition to so much of yesterday’s measure as is now included in this measure, even though I apprehend that by the separation of the objectionable features into a separate measure, the Government will present a further bill. All that I know on that subject is what I have read in the newspapers and what I heard in the second reading speech today. 1 am only an individual member of the Senate. It is not my function to carry on a contest with the Government on the whole financial issue. I abstain from doing that, and I never wish to be cast in that role. Some people will say that a vote which is decisive is an attempt to dictate in some way. I disclaim any spirit or purpose of that character at any time, but as I said yesterday, my individual vote will never go in approval of the principle that I condemned in the matter that has been excluded from this Bill. I regard that as an erection of a department of huge strength whose duty is to assess taxation. The Taxation Branch, when equipped with the discretionary power to impose penal rates of taxation, as I have described and which I shall not take time unduly to repeat, represents a menace to transactions which are so intimately concerned with the rights of an individual’s personal existence.

Transactions that are to be characterised as transactions made for the purpose of defeating or with the intention of evading the income tax law involve an issue of personal honour to the individual as well as appropriation of his income to no insubstantial extent. I firmly and steadfastly hold to the principle that such issues ought to be justiciable in the ordinary courts of the land as distinct from being decided according to the discretion of a department. That is my steadfast individual view. So long as I occupy a place in this Parliament, I cannot escape from the position that I have to face the responsibility of casting a vote. I steadfastly adhere to that principle. So long as I am a member of this Parliament, I shall not regard these proceedings as the finish of the issue. But I would be recreant to the constitutional limitations properly imposed upon the Senate, and I would be recreant to the fidelity with which I believe that the budgetary proposals in the respects expressed in this measure were proper in the public interest, including the increased defence requirements of the country, if I offered any opposition to this measure.

I want to add a few remarks by way of a postscript. My lengthy and intense consideration of this matter has extended from November 1964. Although I have never reperused the speech which I made in the second reading debate of the 1964 legislation, and relying upon my own firm conviction, I believe that the speech discloses my intense and continuing study of the implications of this measure. Amongst other things, I considered section 55 of the Constitution. We all know the other limitations that have been imposed, but I bring to the notice of the Senate section 55 of the Constitution, which states -

Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.

Laws imposing taxation, except laws imposing duties of customs or of excise, shall deal with one subject of taxation only . . .

My conclusion was that that provision was purposefully put into the Constitution to enable the same purpose to be achieved as I understood was expressed in the preliminary remarks of the Minister today although they were not included in the printed copy of his speech. I did not take a note of those preliminary remarks because I had not anticipated that there would be anything other than the typed speech. Section 55, although not transgressed in the letter by yesterday’s Bill, is better fulfilled in spirit by the presentation of the measures in the separate forms of today. I just want to acknowledge that fact because, for my part, I have endeavoured to give consideration to the substance of the issue as well as to the constitutional provisions that properly prescribe and confine the Senate’s authority in these matters. I support this Bill.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– Mr. President, my remarks will be extremely brief. I stand by the position which I took yesterday on the Income Tax Bill. My vote on the new Bill now before us will be unaltered. But I want to say that I heard with great pleasure the statement of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) that, in his view, the Senate was justified in the action it took on the previous tax Bill and that it acted in accordance with its constitutional rights. I am glad that he said so, because a different attitude as to what the Senate may do in regard to money bills was expressed by a spokesman for Senator McKenna’s party in another place, the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean) when this Bill was considered there a few minutes ago. Mr. Crean indicated that, in his view, whatever the constitutional rights of the Senate might be, it was improper for this chamber to take the action that it did. He said that, in the future, something would have to be done about this point.

I think the relationship between the two Houses would be much better if the attitudes and carping criticism adopted by some people in another place, and even some in high places, were discarded in the future. After all, we have heard the suggestion, in defiance of the Constitution, that we ought not to take certain action in regard to finance. Because of a disagreement between the major parties in another place on a question of redistribution, the country is now being asked to spend £750,000 on a referendum to alter the Constitution. This referendum, which is entirely unjustified, would not have been heard of if the major parties had not differed on a question of redistribution. Finally, to quote even a minor matter, I point out that a proposal in regard to the new and permanent Parliament House was brought before this Senate in the last couple of days–

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I do not see what this has to do with the Bill before the Senate.

Senator McMANUS:

– I am merely referring to the fact that there is encroachment or attempted encroachment upon the power of the Senate to deal with matters that properly come before it. I object to these encroachments and the suggestions of encroachments. I particularly object to what was done within the last few days when an arrangement between people in another place was brought before this House to deprive the members of the Australian Democratic Labour Party of their right to vote and their right to nominate for election to a joint committee on which the Senate had representation. I believe that if that kind of thing was stopped in another place relations between the two Houses would be much more harmonious.

Question put -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 1

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

AYES

NOES

page 2264

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2nd December (vide page 1986), on motion by Senator Anderson -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

.- As the title indicates, this is a Bill to validate the collection of customs duties under customs tariff proposals. As was pointed out in the second reading speech of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson), the Bill provides for the validation of collections under proposals that were introduced on 28th October, 16th November, 18th

November and 1st December. The Government asks that the collection of customs duties under those proposals be validated until 13th February 1966. The period of time between the introduction of the proposals and that date is not very considerable. These tariff changes will be re-introduced next year by Gazette Notice as amendments to the Customs Tariff 1966 and will operate from 14th February 1966 onwards. The changes will later be introduced as tariff proposals in the first days of the next session and subsequently in a bill. The opportunity to debate them fully will then be available. 1 point out to the Senate that five of these proposals cover recommendations contained in Tariff Board reports and one is the result of the report of the Special Advisory Authority on continuous filament polyamide raw yarns. One of the proposals is for the removal of tariff preferences accorded to Rhodesia. When the situation is clarified, I am quite certain that these matters will be debated very fully in the autumn sessional period. As this is only a temporary measure and the proposals will come up again for full debate, the Opposition does not wish to oppose it. We will allow debate on the proposals to be held over until the autumn sessional period, with the validation provided for in this measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2265

PAY-ROLL TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9th December (vide page 2170), on motion by Senator Henry -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Act. It seems that the Government has been informed that its legislation designed to give relief to exporters - particularly in the motor vehicle industry - has not worked out as expected. Hence the introduction of this Bill. I, no doubt in company with other honorable senators, greatly regret the exhibition that we have seen in this chamber this morning, namely, the Government trying to have quite a number of bills passed. Admittedly, some of them are small bills. But, to be quite honest, I believe that the Government is just making a farce of the whole proceedings. Had we all said to the Government: “ You had better stamp these bills “ and caught our aircraft early this morning, these bills would have received nearly as much consideration as they can receive now.

This Bill is very important to a number of people who give great service in local government throughout our nation. Why the Government persists in forcing local government authorities to pay payroll tax, I do not know.

Senator Wright:

– It is always taken into account in the agreement that the State Premiers make with the Commonwealth.

Senator KENNELLY:

– But that is only in relation to the State Governments, not in relation to local government or municipal bodies.

Senator Wright:

– The local government bodies are not parties to that agreement, but the State Governments, as their representatives, when the agreement is made, have a direct responsibility. I share the honorable senator’s concern.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I say this in answer to Senator Wright: Insofar as the State Governments are compelled by law to pay this tax, it is just a farce. When the reimbursement grants from the Commonwealth to the States are calculated, the State Governments are reimbursed for what they pay in payroll tax. But that does not operate in respect of local government bodies.

Senator Wright:

– But the States still agree to have payroll tax imposed on them in respect of their railways, do they not?

Senator KENNELLY:

– Local government bodies are prepared to pay payroll tax in respect of commercial enterprises. As the railways are commercial enterprises, one would expect this tax to be paid in respect of them. But that is taken into account in the calculation of the reimbursement grants to the States. I cannot understand why the present position exists. It is costing local government bodies in Australia about £2i million a year. I have yet to learn why this added burden is placed on the shoulders of the ratepayers. When all is said and done, local government bodies are a very important section of administration in regard to the everyday lives of the people. I suppose no organisation is closer to the people than is the local municipal council, irrespective of the name by which it is known in the various States.

AH honorable senators know the reason why I cannot devote the dme to this subject that it deserves, but I must say that if there is one tax which is unfair it is the payroll tax. For that reason, I propose to move an amendment to the Bill and I will ask the Senate to support my proposal. This tax is unfair. It should not be levied. It cannot even be classified in the same way as is the tax levied by the Commonwealth on the States, as I have mentioned. The tax affects local government bodies most adversely. Admittedly they are only small organisations but they are all playing an important part in the affairs of this nation. Being as brief as I can, I ask the Senate to amend the Bill in the Committee stage. I understand that all honorable senators now have a copy of my proposed amendment. I ask them to consider its terms and support my proposal because it will do something that has needed to be done for a long time. 1 have here a copy of a letter which the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) sent in reply to a communication from the secretary of a local government authority in Victoria. If mere was ever a letter which evaded replying to questions that had been raised, this is it. The Treasurer did not answer any of the questions submitted to him. This is most unsatisfactory when one thinks of the great number of people in our various cities, towns and shires who are prepared to give their time without any reward to provide certain very important facilities for the people. The Government is imposing on local government bodies what, to my mind, is a very unfair tax for the sake of collecting £2i million.

I could speak for a much longer time on this subject but, in view of the number of bills that remain to be discussed today, I leave it at that. However, I appeal earnestly to the Senate to support the amendment that I will submit because I think it contains something which is just and which will help those engaged in local government activities to give better service to the people of Australia. When all is said and done, almost every person in Australia is governed by some municipal body, call it what you will.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I rise to support the comments which have been made by Senator Kennelly and to repeat his plea that when we reach the Committee stage his proposed amendment will receive the support of honorable senators.

The Australian Labour Party does not oppose this measure, which is designed primarily to boost exports and to enable Australian industries to bridge the gap between our exports and our imports. I understand that it is hoped that the value of our exports will be boosted by £200 million a year. Despite the incentives and the encouragement which have been given to exporters so far, we have been able to increase the value of our exports only by about £164 million, so quite a substantial increase is still needed in the value of exports before we can bridge the gap.

I hesitate to delay the Senate because we have a lengthy programme to complete today, but I feet that the measure before us is sufficiently important to warrant my comments upon it. The Bill sets out to correct the deficiency or defect which apparently exists in the Act and prevents a rebate of payroll tax to exporters of motor vehicles in a completely knocked down condition. I understand that there is a provision in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which prohibits incentives in the form of direct tax rebates. Payroll tax is regarded as an indirect tax, so any rebate of payroll tax does not violate any of the conditions laid down in G.A.T.T., to which Australia is a signatory.

The annual revenue obtained from payroll tax runs at something like £82 million or, stated in another way, 3 per cent, of the total tax revenue of the nation. The tax is levied on the basis of 21 per cent, of wages paid, over a certain amount which is stated in the Act. Payroll tax paid by exporting companies has ranged from £9 million to £11 million a year, but over the past three years it has been something like £10 million a year. Because of their engagement in overseas trade, manufacturers have received rebates which have averaged £24 million a year, although in 1961-62 they reached £3’± million. This Bill will increase, the rate of rebate to companies engaged in the manufacture and export of motor vehicle components. The sum involved is quite substantial and it is offered as an inducement to Australian based companies to bridge the export-import gap.

The idea, I think, is a good one to encourage Australian industries to increase exports. As I said in a speech in the Senate some time ago, Australia is one of the first 12 exporting nations. It ought to be possible for us to improve our position as time goes on. Anything in the way of an inducement to Australian based companies to increase their activities in this way would certainly be in the interests of this country. Australian companies which have engaged in overseas trade with various countries very often have suffered financial loss as a result, but they have been sufficiently concerned for the interests of Australia to maintain that activity in the hope that their industry will pay off in due course and that Australia will be benefited as a result. But I direct attention to the fact that any number of Australian industries, which ought to be engaging in overseas trade or going deeply into the question of establishing overseas markets for themselves, as they could well do, have opted out, and left the burden on the companies which do engage in this form of trade. Quite frankly, this is not good enough.

Any industry that has the capacity and capability to engage in overseas trade ought to be doing that. While the Government - quite properly, I think - has offered an inducement, by way of payroll tax rebate, to engage in overseas trade, it might well look at whether those industries which have the capability to engage in overseas trade but do not do so ought to have additional taxation imposed on them as an inducement to them to engage in this activity. I know that there will be many arguments against this, but I think it is reasonable to suggest that if it is good enough to grant a rebate to a company that is genuinely engaged, often at financial loss, in overseas trade, the time may have arrived to look at the position of those companies which could be engaging in overseas trade but are not, and to consider whether they ought to incur additional taxation, so that the whole position will be levelled out. The companies that are not engaging in overseas trade but could, do so. ought to pay into the revenues of the: Commonwealth to fund the amount of money that is lost as a result of payroll tax rebates to exporting companies.

This brings me to the position of local, government instrumentalities which are paying, as Senator Kennelly pointed out,, payroll tax at the rate of £2i million to £3 million a year. This tax was imposed in 1941, I understand, principally for the purpose of financing child endowment. Since the original imposition of the tax - which, incidentally, has not been altered, during that time - a number of attempts have been made to induce the Parliament to relieve municipal councils throughout Australia of the liability to pay this tax, which after all is a tax on a tax and which,, therefore, seems to me to be quite wrong. It has the specially detrimental feature that it denies to local government organisationscertain, funds which they need quite urgently. One industry’s activity could be set off against another industry’s inactivity m a field in which it ought to be engaged, and the amount of money which the Commonwealth now loses as a result, of rebates of payroll tax could be set off against the amount, being paid by local government authorities throughout the country to relieve them of the necessity to pay payroll tax-

It has been pointed out very clearly, particularly in recent weeks, that good and constantly improving road systems are beneficial to any country. In fact, countries that have taken proper account of the need to provide up-to-date freeways and modern road systems find that the death rate on the roads has been reduced quite dramatically. This is a wonderful break through. We ought to be looking at this matter very closely. Speaking from memory, I mention that where modern road systems have been provided in the United States of America the death rate on the roads is 2.7 persons per 100 million vehicle miles, and where road systems are in bad order the figure is about 7.5 persons per 100 million vehicle miles. This, I think, is conclusive proof that where good road systems exist, to some degree at least, the dreadful toll of the roads is reduced.

Municipal councils are pretty genuine bodies. As I pointed out here some time ago, in the main, councils are composed of people who give their services in an honorary capacity to this system of government. I believe that here we are not taking sufficient note of the importance of local government. It must be very disheartening and discouraging to those people who are giving their services in this capacity - there are thousands of such people throughout Australia - to realise that their efforts receive so little recognition from the central government and also from State Governments. The Commonwealth Government does not pay payroll tax. State Governments pay payroll tax but under the uniform taxation arrangements the amounts that they pay in payroll tax are reimbursed to them. Companies pay payroll tax, and at 30th June each year the amount of company tax that they pay is assessed on the basis of their balance sheets, and payroll tax, of course, is written into their accounts as a charge against their operations, so they get some form of recompense for the payment of payroll tax. But local government authorities have available to them no such facility for the recovery of payroll tax. The only way in which they can recover the amount paid is by the imposition of additional rates on the ratepayers in their area. Surely, in this day and age, when we talk about budgets amounting to over £2,000 million a year, and in view of the important role that local government plays in the governmental system of the country, the time has arrived for this Government to give serious and sympathetic consideration to the removal of the necessity for local government authorities to pay payroll tax.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - The amendment foreshadowed by Senator Kennelly is unacceptable to the Government. It is not because the Government is out of sympathy with the proposal, but I point out to honorable senators that State Governments pay payroll tax and it would be quite illogical, I suggest, with municipal governments being under the jurisdiction of State Governments, to have a State Government paying payroll tax and one of its functionaries not paying payroll tax.

Senator Kennelly:

– That is part of the story.

Senator HENTY:

– Yes. If the honorable senator will be a little patient I shall give him the rest of it now. That is not the whole story. The tax was levied at a flat rate of 2i per cent, originally and it still is, as Senator Devitt said. But, when the tax was first introduced, exemption was given only in respect of payrolls amounting to not more than £1,040 a year. That exemption has been raised by steps to £10,400 a year. So anybody who pays less than £200 a week in wages is not required to pay payroll tax. The tax has wide application and there are few exemptions from it. The proposal made has the appearance of simplicity, but there would be a major practical difficulty in establishing what are the trading activities of a local authority. Honorable senators will know that local government functions vary from State to State and that a function which in one State might be performed by a local government authority might be carried on by a State authority in another. If this proposal was adopted it would be difficult to justify refusing a corresponding exemption to State Governments and their semigovernmental authorities. I need hardly say that the granting of such a widespread exemption would involve a considerable loss of revenue which, other things being equal, would have to be made up by the Commonwealth from other sources.

The exemption sought has serious implications for Commonwealth-State financial relations. The financial assistance grants to the States under the arrangements made in 1959 and again this year were made on the express understanding that there will be no change in other financial arrangements between the Commonwealth on the one hand and the States and their authorities on the other. The continuing liability of the States and their authorities, including local authorities, to pay payroll tax was particularly within the class of arrangements that it was agreed should not be changed. The State Premiers agreed to this at the conferences at which the financial arrangements were settled. Therefore what is proposed would alter the position that has been agreed on with the States. If the exemption sought were to be extended, as I suggest it might have to be, the basis of the arrangements with the States would be prejudiced. Honorable senators will find that these matters are referred to in the document “ Commonwealth Payments to and for the States 1965-66” which was presented at the time of the last Budget. I know of Senator

Kennelly’s love for local government. There are many of us here who have a love for local government.

Senator Kennelly:

– Whoever wrote that brief for the Minister wrote it wrongly. They do not know anything about the matter.I will tell them about it. We will take some time now on this Bill. I do not mind the Minister putting up a reasonable case, but 1 do not like him putting up a stupid case.

Senator HENTY:

– I had a few more remarks to make, but in view of what has been saidI will conclude now.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

The Bill.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I direct attention to clause 3, which reads -

Section15 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting paragraph . (e) and inserting in its stead the following paragraph: - “(e) by the Commonwealth War Graves Com mission;”.

I move -

After “ amended “ insert - “ (a) by inserting after paragraph (ba) the following paragraph: - (bb) by a municipal or other local governing body, or an authority established for the purpose of carrying out all or any of the functions ordinarily carried out by such a body, otherwise than in the conduct of an enterprise which, in the opinion of the Commissioner, is a trading enterprise; and’.”.

I listened to the remarkable brief that was read to the Senate by the Minister. How can anyone put to the Senate that what the Opposition suggests in this amendment could in any way interfere with the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States? The local councils, in the main, raise their own money. Certainly some of them receive grants from State Governments for specific purposes, particularly for roads. In Victoria, my own State, money from the petrol tax comes from the Commonwealth to the State for the construction of roads, particularly in rural areas. But, in the main, the money that is used by local governing bodies comes from the rates levied by them. It has nothing at all to do with State finances. It is just as well that those who advise the Minister did not give me that brief. I would have told them to learn something that they are paid to know. I have never heard anything worse than the case the Minister put to us. How could what we suggest interfere with the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States when local government, in the main, raises its own money? Surelythe Minister is not saying, on information from his advisers, that because my home is rated at a certain figure and I pay X pence in the £1 on that figure, that has anything to do with the finances of the States. What is proposed here has nothing at all to do with the finances of the States, but it has everything to do with the finances of the local councils, which provide various local amenities.

The Minister said that it would be a very hard job to discover what local government trading operations are. In my State there are 10 councils which buy electricity in bulk from the State electricity commission and reticulate it to the ratepayers in their cities, shires or boroughs - mostly cities. That is a trading operation. Some local authorities have abattoirs.I think Williamstown, Richmond and South Melbourne have them. Those are trading enterprises. But surely one would not say that, if a council built a swimming pool, financed from its revenue from rates, that would be classed as a trading enterprise. It would take a lot to convince me that, if the Commonwealth and States have a financial agreement, that has anything to do with local government bodies. It has nothing to do with them; they raise their own money. The local government authorities, if they have trading operations, are quite prepared to pay payroll tax on them.

In Victoria there are 208 municipalities, responsible for towns, boroughs and shires. I understand that designation as aborough council, a shire council and so on depends on the revenue from rates in the area concerned. The revenue of a borough is higher than that of a shire, for example. I think the argument that the Minister advanced is wrong in principle, wrong in fact. That being so, there is an opportunity here to help those who cannot pass on this tax.

The payroll tax was introduced in 1941 for only one purpose. Mr. Justice Beeby said then that if the Government did not do something for people with larger families, there would be an increase in the base rate of wages. Anybody who reads Mr. Justice Beeby’s judgement in that case knows that that is why the payroll tax was introduced and like many other taxes, it was difficult to get rid of once introduced. But a manufacturer who costs an article puts the payroll tax on to the price. Then it goes to the wholesaler who also adds payroll tax. By the time the article reaches the people, the cumulative effect is that instead of 2i per cent., the tax is at least three or four times what it was originally.

The local government authorities have no hope of passing on this tax. All the people pay this tax, in effect, because the local government authorities have to get the money. They are giving service to the public. All the members of municipal councils in Victoria give their services voluntarily and then the local government authorities are loaded with this tax. As I have said, they are quite prepared to pay the payroll tax on certain activities. The Minister’s advisers should not insult us by saying that it would involve a colossal amount of work to ascertain the trading activities of a municipal council. All I ask is that the trading activities of these bodies should be ascertained. My colleagues from Victoria on both sides of the House would know that very few municipal councils are involved in activities of this sort, apart from the 10 or 11 1 have mentioned in the metropolitan area which trade in electricity. This would not entail the amount of work the Minister implied it would. Sympathy is not of much use to those concerned. Many people go to their graves early because of sympathy. You need much more than sympathy out of life. Sympathy is too cheap and anything that is too cheap is no good.

I say with great respect that the Minister’s information is not correct and he should not rely on it. He is entitled to judge the case on the facts and he often lends a sympathetic ear without acting upon what he hears. I ask him to go a little further now and give some relief to the local government authorities in respect of this impost. I suppose a majority of honorable senators know much more about the activities of municipal councils than I do. I have never been a member of one of them but I have marvelled at the way people are prepared to give their time to running a city. It involves a lot of work, particularly in the big metropolitan suburbs. In the debate on the income tax measures this morning, we were told that the Budget exceeds £2,000 million. The revenue to which I am referring would not exceed £2.5 million - I do not want to exaggerate - and surely as the festive season is near, the Government could put its sympathy into practice and give some relief from the payment of this tax.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– In view of the earnest efforts of Senator Kennelly, I feel bound to state my views briefly on this matter. I regret to say that Senator Kennelly is completely in error in saying that local government bodies are not authorities of the States for the purposes of the financial relations between the Commonwealth and the States. Honorable senators might bs interested to recall that one of the earliest cases in the High Court of Australia in the first three years of Federation was concerned with the application of section 114 of the Constitution to the rating capacity of local government bodies on Commonwealth property. Section 114 states that a State shall not impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth. The question for the High Court to decide was whether or not the Sydney City Council was within that prohibition and for that purpose was identified as a State body. The Sydney City Council derives its authority solely from the State and from the point of view of our financial relations, is identified with the State just as much as the territorial authorities of the Australian Capital Territory would be identified with the Commonwealth.

I have always noted with interest, and the same degree of concern as Senator Kennelly from the point of view of reasonableness in these arrangements, that the 1959 agreement made by the State Premiers with the Commonwealth was the final act of surrender of their independent taxing powers in the States so far as income tax is concerned. I have said this several times in the Senate. As part of the bargain, the State Premiers made it clear then that the arrangements that have prevailed from 1959 until 1965 were based on the agreement that they would not object to the continuance of the’ payroll tax by their own instrumentalities or by their authorities including local goverment authorities. The Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Henty) has referred to this matter in relation to the statement contained in the Treasurer’s paper on Commonwealth payments to or for the States 1965-66. This paper was submitted to us in association with the Budget papers this year, lt was there stated of the 1965 arrangements - . . the proposals were based on the understanding that the distribution of taxing powers would remain unchanged and that the States and their authorities continue to pay payroll tax.

I have just as much regard for the reasonable basis of the argument put to us by Senator Kennelly as I believe he has. But when the superior authorities - the States and the Commonwealth - as part of their bargain for the arrangement of their financial relationships make this provision, it seems to me to be so entirely inconsistent as to prevent our acceptance of an amendment to the effect proposed.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

– I do not wish to say very much because I believe Senator Wright has put the issue in perspective. I was interested in Senator Kennelly’s remarks because I always thought he was a local government councillor. He has now said that he was not. For the honorable senator’s information, I will tell him that I spent eight years as a councillor, and two years as mayor of a city with one of the greatest number of trading facilities of any city in the Commonwealth. Senator Kennelly has his mind focussed on Victoria whereas this measure relates to the whole of the Commonwealth. Councils throughout Australia are different in their composition and approach. With great respect, I say to Senator Kennelly: I thought I was listening to somebody who had had experience as a local government councillor. From his own words I have learned that he has not had such experience. I am eight years up on him in that respect.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– It is true, as I said, that I have never been a councillor but I was a Minister of a State Government and my Department included local councils in its administration. Therefore I got to know something about them. What Senator Wright has said is correct, but how far does it go? Under the State acts, local government bodies function and are brought into being, but the State does not provide the finances of those bodies.

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA · LP

– Oh, yes.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I have already mentioned roads to the Minister. In respect of roads, the State receives a reimbursement through a portion of the petrol tax - the best portion of it, I will admit. The Victorian Government allocates to the various municipalites grants out of that reimbursement for certain roads on a basis of £4 to £1 or £3 to £1, the municipalities making the lesser contribution. The fact is that the main revenue of municipalities does not come from the State Government. It is received from rates. I was aware that the Minister was for many years a councillor in his own State and had the honour of being mayor. I do not want to take anything away from him. He has given a lot of service. I do not deny that Senator Wright’s remarks were correct, but I am dealing with bodies that raise their own finances.

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA · LP

– I think the honorable senator just wants the last word.

Senator KENNELLY:

– That is not right. I do not care whether I am on an aeroplane leaving Canberra at quarter to eight tomorrow morning, or on a special plane. I will fight this right through. I do not care how long it takes, because I am getting a bit sick of 10 or 12 bills being rushed into the Senate on the last day of sitting. The Government has its case recorded in “ Hansard “ and we are supposed to be ninnies and say: “ Yes.” I am getting a bit sick of it. I can keep going for a long while, if I want to do so, and I propose to keep going.

Senator Ormonde:

– Oh, no.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I do not even care what some of my colleagues might say, because I am getting a bit fed up with this procedure. I will show that I can be a nark as well as a good sport. If any honorable senator has a job to do in town, he can go now. I am just in the mood to continue. I shall state now the case submitted by the municipal authorities of Victoria. I have a copy of a letter sent to the Treasurer by the municipal authorities of Victoria, which states -

On behalf of 208 municipalities which constitute the State of Victoria, this Association strongly renews its request that the Commonwealth Government except municipalities from payment of payroll tax, or make a grant to the States to enable councils to be reimbursed their payments of payroll tax. Over past years, this Association and kindred organisations in other States, representing local government throughout Australia, have unanimously and wholeheartedly supported numerous requests to your Government for relief from payroll tax. In the frankest possible terms, local government in this State is at a loss to understand your Government’s repeated rejection of the justice of our claim.

In his letter of 5th February 1962 the Prime Minister said: “The Government could hardly grant’ an exemption to municipal councils without giving similar exemptions to State Governments and semi-governmental authorities “. This, in our view, is not a valid argument. It is common knowledge that the Commonwealth reimburses the State Governments for the amounts they pay in payroll tax. This was the result of a writ issued by the State of South Australia for a declaration that the Commonwealth could not constitutionally levy payroll tax on a State. Victoria also had a writ ready for issue. In the final wash-up, the South Australian writ was withdrawn and the States got a new and more favourable tax reimbursement formula on condition that they did not press the constitutional issues surrounding payroll tax.

Sitting suspended from 12.48 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator KENNELLY:

– When the sitting was suspended I had struggled halfway through a letter that had been written by Mr. J. D. Fagan, Secretary of the Municipal Association of Victoria, to the Treasurer. The letter continues -

As far as the Commonwealth and the States are concerned payroll tax is as we have said on previous occasions - merely a book entry. Whilst States actually pay the tax they get the money back from the Commonwealth by way of the tax reimbursement formula thereby preserving the fiction that they do in fact pay the tax.

On the other hand municipal government pays the tax (under protest) and has to impose a greater and entirely unnecessary amount of tax on its ratepayers in order to make payment.

Senator Gair:

– Who said that?

Senator KENNELLY:

- Mr. Fagan, the Secretary of the Municipal Association of Victoria.

Senator Gair:

– It is illuminating.

Senator KENNELLY:

-It is most illuminating. The letter continues -

The conscience of Victorian municipal government can find no justifiable reason why it should have to load municipal rates to the extent of £295,000 a year so that it can pass this money on to the Federal Treasurer.

The total amount involved (in all States) is so small compared with the magnitude of Federal Revenue that the continued refusal of your Government to treat with us on this matter is ungenerous considering the constitutional advantages enjoyed! by the Commonwealth. However, when ethical’ considerations are considered in conjunction with the financial aspect, the Commonwealth’s attitude appears indefensible.

As I said earlier, Mr. Holt barely acknowledged the letter. He replied with the usual statement -

I have noted the points that you have made in support of this request and I shall see that they are borne in mind when the pay-roll tax law is reviewed during the preparation of the forthcoming Budget.

Of course, nothing was done; hence the appeal I now make.

I repeat that in the main the money that is received and spent by municipal authorities in various parts of Australia comes from the ratepayers and therefore does not come within the ambit of the tax reimbursement scheme. I hope that even at this late hour the Minister will relent a little. Let us hope that I shall be fortunate enough to receive some support from honorable senators opposite so that those concerned may be relieved of this unjust burden.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Kennelly’s amendment) be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. C. DrakeBrockman.)

AYES: 19

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2273

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The following Bills were returned from the House or Representatives without amendment -

Air Navigation (Charges) Bill 1965.

Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Bill

page 2273

NAURU BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 2251).

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– The main objections of the Opposition to this Bill are not to what it does but to the fact that it does not go far enough. Our remarks are directed at the fate ofthe indentured labour or, for the want of a better term, the productive proletariat. When we study the history of Nauru we see that the islanders have had a reasonable chance of security. The Opposition certainly does not begrudge them that, but when we get down to basic issues it is obvious that if it were not for the productive work force which produces phosphate, a vital ingredient which is used to stimulate our agricultural production, the Nauruans might find that life was not so easy.

Another aspect of the Bill is that there are a few matters concerning the British Phosphate Commission which are not as clear as they should be. One cannot help but think of the Tonkinese and North Vietnamese workers who did so much in the production of nickel in North Caledonia. Anybody who has been in Port Vila - I am speaking of three or four years ago - will know something of the lot of these people. Some were virtually cavilled out of the industry, and were left in doubt as to whether or not the French Government would facilitate their return to Vietnam. The whole attitude seemed to be that they were just people who were on the production line, that they had been receiving reasonable wages and that they had to work out their own destiny. I think we realise in the society in which we live that Governments at large have a basic responsibility.

I understand that the indentured labourers account for 50 per cent. of the population of the island of Nauru. They are of various nationalities. Some are Chinese from Hong Kong, and there are people from the Gilbert and Ellice Islands and from other Pacific regions. It may foe said that the amenities they enjoy compare favorably with those in the lands from which they come and that they are not too badly off. But we have to look a little further ahead. It may also be said that 35 years hence the phosphate deposits will run out and that the Nauruans will probably husband their financial resources and be able to live within their own economy. But in this age of the United Nations Organisation, of charters and of basic standards of living, I feel very forcibly, and I know that my colleagues of the Opposition do, too, that there is insufficient provision regarding the status of the indentured labour.

It is inevitable that friction will occur between the Nauruans and the people of the productive work force. We welcome the Legislative Council and the fact that there is to be transference of power to the Nauruans, but I think we must have regard to minorities. We of the Opposition feel that the position at the moment is not as clear as it should be. There is no reason why the indentured labourers should not participate more in community affairs, either by virtue of representation in the Legislative Council or, at the very least, >by having a vote. The term “ British citizenship “ has been used in reference to the Gilbert Islanders and other islanders. It may be argued that although British migrants in Australia may stay here for only a certain number of years and then go home, while they are here they are able to participate in the election of a particular government.

In any case, the plain fact of the matter is that in a world that is getting smaller all the time, industrial disputes with political implications are likely to arise. Our thoughts drift back to the time, earlier this year, when we had a difficult problem at Mount Isa. Looking at it calmly in retrospect, we can see that if various elements had moved a little more quickly, the dispute might not have festered and erupted as it did. I use that analogy because, on looking at the Bill, it seems to me that friction could arise between the indentured labour force and the islanders. The Minister for Territories could be away from Australia at the time that such a problem developed, and having regard to the inadequate rights of the indentured labour force, I am a little interested to know at what point of time the Legislative Council would deal with the matter, particularly as there would be no representative of the indentured labourers, of equal status to the islanders, who could get up and put a point of view.

I shall summarise the Opposition’s attitude. We certainly welcome the establishment of a local government body for the islanders, but I have personal reservations about whether our own courts ought to be supreme. I am somewhat concerned about the fact that the High Court of Australia is to be a sort of appeal court. I feel that a semi-imperialistic link is being maintained at a time when all countries are shedding their colonies or de facto colonies. I agree that things can be accelerated too much. In conclusion, we welcome the creation of the legislative apparatus, but I feel that there is a serious omission in the fact that there is not a clear cut statement of what the future of the indentured labour is to be. If the indentured workers are to return to the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, or to Hong Kong if they are Chinese, I do not :think it should be a case of our ‘saying: “ Well, you have earned high wages for a time. You can now go somewhere else.” The indentured workers, after .all, are the corner stone of the economy. I feel that they should have parity in regard to political rights.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– The Bill that we ‘are discussing provides for the establishment of a Legislative Council in the Territory of Nauru. As the Minister for Works (Senator ‘Gorton) said in his second reading speech, the Bill is the basis of an agreement that was reached between ‘representatives of the Nauruan people and the Government. There have been a number of discussions between representatives of the Nauruan community and the Government. Expeditions and examinations have been made by missions of the United Nations Trusteeship Council. To the extent that the Bill is the result of an agreement between the Nauruan community and the Government, we think ;t is a good thing. As the Minister mentioned in his second reading speech, the Bill provides for a certain degree of self-government for the Nauruans. A Legislative Council is to be established. Part III of the Bill provides for the establishment of the Legislative Council. The legislative powers of the Governor-General are described in Part VI of the Bill and the powers of the Executive Council are dealt with in Part VI. The Minister has mentioned that there will be little alteration to the judicial setup except that there will be the right of appeal to the High Court of Australia which does not exist at the present time.

One of the things which I think would attract our interest is the fact that the Nauruan community agreed that the powers of the Legislative Council should be restricted to some extent. Clause 26, which is in Part IV of the Bill, provides that the Legislative Council may make ordinances except in relation to defence, external affairs and the phosphate industry. The powers of the Legislative Council are comparable administratively with the powers of other advanced territories. I notice that reports from the Government have stated that the Nauruans have agreed to exclude the phosphate industry from the powers of the Legislative Council. One of the reasons for the exclusion, I think, is that economically the industry is working satisfactorily.

When discussing this Bill, we need to look quickly at the history of Nauru. Australia became involved with this Territory during the First World War. After a time, the Territory was administered under mandate. Then, in 1947 the three Governments concerned - those of Britain, Australia and New Zealand - agreed with the United Nations Trusteeship Council to enter into agreements in relation to Nauru. We are bound by a number of these agreements to advance the status of the inhabitants of Nauru.

There are certain observations I wish to make about a problem which has been mentioned by Senator Mulvihill and which, I think, has escaped the notice of the Government or, at least, has escaped notice to the extent that no reports, examinations or advice have been forthcoming as to what will be done about indentured labour. I have now reached the central point about which the Labour Party is concerned. The Labour Opposition, while accepting that this Bill provides the basis for an agreement with the people of Nauru, says that it does not go far enough. Discussions should be held as to what might happen with this sort of population. I will mention the arguments on this point later. At the moment, on behalf of the Opposition, I move as an amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time.

At end of motion add “but the Senate regrets that the Nauru Agreement between the three Governments set out in the Second Schedule contains no terms which provide for the political, economic, social and aducational advancement of the indentured labourers in the phosphate industry”.

I invite honorable senators to look at the Trusteeship Agreement for Nauru, which sets out the obligations in respect of looking after the Nauruan community. Article 5 of the Agreement provides -

  1. it will, in accordance with its established policy:

    1. take into consideration the customs and usages of the inhabitants of Nauru and respect the rights and safeguard the interests both present and future of the indigenous inhabitants of the Territory; and in particular ensure that no rights over native land in favour of any person not an indi- genous inhabitant of Nauru may be created or transferred except with the consent of the competent public authority.
    2. promote, as may be appropriate to the circumstances of the Territory, the economic, social, educational and cultural advancement of the inhabitants.

What strikes the Opposition is that, while we have had control over this Territory and while we have been faced with the international problems which came from the Second World War, particularly with relation to helping the economic growth of underdeveloped countries and aid to our Territories which costs a lot of money, no government has thought about looking at the question of the people who constitute the work force in the phosphate industry. While it is argued that this is a purely transient force, surely it is a work force. It is indentured. It is employed by contract. Some of these workers spend a short time in Nauru and then go back to the Gilbert Islands, Ellice Islands or Hong Kong. No figures are available to indicate whether some of these people remain permanently in Nauru. I am surprised at the absence of any consultations between our Government and the British Government as to what might happen in the future. The question must be posed sometime. We pose it now. Apart from the agreements that have been brought to this Parliament why is it that the British, Australian and New Zealand Governments have not looked at the problem of the future of those people in regard to not only their presence in the country itself but also their future when the phosphate industry collapses? Various estimates have been made as to when the supplies of phosphate will be exhausted. A few years ago it was estimated that in 50 years’ time the phosphate deposits on Nauru would be worked out. Since then the production rate has been accelerated and the forecast has been reduced to from 25 to 30 years. This imposes an obligation upon our Government to meet the Nauruan people and to put to the Trusteeship Council an outline of what is necessary for the future. This has been done in various discussions already. The most recent was in June of this year. A public statement was issued by the Minister for Territories (Mr. Barnes). It refers to the agreements which were reached at that time and which finally developed into the Bill before the Senate now.

In view of the limited time at our disposal, 1 will make little reference to this statement except to say that in these discussions one of the aims of the Nauruan community was to set a target date for independence. Leaving aside the special question of looking after the people who constitute the work force, it seems to me that some consideration ought to be given to what might happen with regard to this target date. I refer to the Press statement which was issued on 10th June 1965 by the Minister for Territories on the discussions that had taken place. The Minister said -

The Australian delegation indicated that the Administering Authority did not consider it appropriate to establish now, ahead, of any practical experience of the operation of the Legislative Council, any specific target dates for independence or complete self-government.

The Authority did however propose that after two or three years’ experience of the working of the Legislative Council and the Executive Council further discussion should take place (i.e. in 1968) regarding the possibility of further political progress.

The Nauruan delegation maintained that their definite target was practicable and asked that their views be conveyed to the three Governments of the Administering Authority.

So, it seems to us that there is a question to be answered here. Certain agreements have been made and this issue will come back for consideration again.

Let me come back to the other question which concerns the Opposition. I refer to the labour force which is recruited from outside Nauru. Among the persons who constitute this force are many British subjects. There are those people who are indentured and who are brought to Nauru under contract. These people come from Hong Kong, the Gilbert Islands, and the Ellice Islands. Then there are the Europeans. Nobody seems to know- and I cannot get any figures - how many of these people are eligible for Australian citizenship and how many other than the British subjects may have a real stake in the country. These people have an interest in Nauru and their position ought to be recognised in future discussions. The Government cannot put this problem aside.

It is probably true that, in negotiations on claims for self-determination, an attempt should first be made to solve the important and real problems. The Government considered the critical matter of re-settlement - whether the Nauruans might go to Fraser Island or Curtis Island. It also considered proposals to get the population to leave Curtis Island by the payment of compensation. The Nauruan people said that those proposals were not satisfactory. Having gone some way along the path to self-determination, it seems to me that this is the time to pay some regard to the people about whom we are concerned.

We might solve the basic problem of the grievances of the Nauruan people. We might be able to do that temporarily, while the phosphate deposits are being exploited. But we must remember that this year the extraction of phosphate will be increased from about 14- million tons to 2 million tons a year. That means that the people will be put out of business more quickly. As a result of some of the suggestions that they make for the rehabilitation of their country, the period might be extended a little. The target date probably will have to be determined on the basis of the exhaustion of the phosphate deposits, because Nauru is a one industry island. It is almost what is called, in industrial parlance, a company town. Having regard to the fact that one day the deposits will be exhausted, what is the future of the people who come to the island from other British possessions, looking for stable or continuous work? Later I will quote some figures that illustrate the proposition that I am putting.

The indigenous people of Nauru are not doing too badly. Recently they had a grievance about the rate of royalty to be paid on phosphate. That grievance was settled at about the time of the conference to which I have referred. The rate of royalty was increased from 3s. 8d. to 13s. 6d. a ton for last financial year. This financial year it will be 17s. 6d. a ton. Whilst it may be argued that the rate of royalty in respect of some other adjacent islands is higher, the fact is that because the royalties are paid into a long term investment trust the position is becoming stable.

One of the real problems is the one about which I have been speaking, namely, whether the community can be re-established and can achieve ah economy which can sustain the Nauruan population. I suggest that the matter of the non-Nauruan people has been lost sight of. Even if the Government has solved one problem by agreement.

  1. worse problem will arise if these people have to go back to the British possession from which they came.

In view of the time factor, I will have to be as brief as possible. I wish to quote some population figures which are contained in the report to the General Assembly of the United Nations on the Administration of the Territory of Nauru for the year 1963- 64. This is the latest report. At the end of June 1964, on the island of Nauru there were 835 Chinese, 395 Europeans, 1,023 other Pacific islanders and 2,661 Nauruans. The total population was 4,914. The total number of immigrants was 2,253. The number of Nauruans is now 2,814.

The work force for industry is largely indentured labour. An appendix to the report from which I have just quoted sets out details of the Nauruans in employment. It shows that, at the end of June 1964, 425 Nauruans were employed by the Administration, 143 by the British Phosphate Commissioners, 42 by the Nauru Co-operative Society and 63 by the Nauru Local Government Council, and that nine others were in employment, including those who were selfemployed. The total number of Nauruans in the work force was 682. At the same date, 86 non-Nauruans were employed by the Administration, 1,371 by the British Phosphate Commissioners and 244 by other people. A total of 1,700 non-Nauruans were employed as indentured labour and were the basic work force of the island. That situation is reflected in other figures which I have not time to quote. The “ Pacific Islands Year Book “ shows that the figures in relation to non-Nauruans have been fairly constant. It is true that some come and go, but since 1948 those figures have represented the general pattern.

We members of the Opposition suggest that Australia, as a member nation of the United Nations, has certain obligations which compel us to have some concern for the people of this island. I refer to article 76 (b) of the United Nations Charter, which reads -

  1. to promote the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, and as may be provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement.

The report of the Trusteeship Council mission made in June of this year sets out the obligation that is placed on the Australian Government in relation to the issue of independence. The mission put to the Australian Government the message from the Nauruan people that a target date should be set formally and that the island should be advanced quickly towards independence. It also reported on other matters. The report is on record. People can read it, so I will not take up the time of the Senate by quoting from it.

The proposition that we members of the Opposition, put forward is that, in respect of Nauru, Australia is in a very satisfactory financial position. Our association with Nauru costs us practically nothing because of the benefits that we derive from it. The little that we do is in the form of scholarships and other assistance for people who come from the island to Australia. Let me compare our position in relation to Nauru with what might be called our great liability in respect of Papua and New Guinea. Since the Second World War we have spent £201 million on various types of assistance for the latter Territory. We have also spent £380 million on economic aid to other countries.

I suggest that we should pay regard to the problem about which I have been speaking. Even if we put aside the important matter of setting a target date for independence because we have an agreement with the people of Nauru and there has been some progress towards self-determination. But we still have to face up to the problems of the re-settlement and rehabilitation of these people. At some stage the Australian and British Governments will be faced with the problem of what to do with the indentured labour. The Opposition suggests that this is the time for the Australian Government to pay regard to this problem. A striking feature is that, the more one reads about this Territory and the more one reads of discussions between the Government and the Nauruan people, the more one finds that there is a complete absence of consideration for the people other than the indigenous people, except as to figures in a report and the necessary industrial legislation.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– I support the Bill and oppose the amendment. I have listened with very great interest to the speeches of Senator Mulvihill and Senator Bishop. I think both honorable senators conveyed some very good information to the Senate, but they were unable to put emphasis where emphasis was due. I believe that the Australian Government has a very good record in relation to Nauru. It was my privilege to visit Nauru with a parliamentary party, of which Senator Tangney was a member, in 1953. From time to time she has made speeches in this place about Nauru.

I should like to mention to honorable senators some of the peculiarities of this island. It is small with a circumference of about 12 miles. It is virtually on the equator and about half way between Melbourne and Honolulu. It is possibly one of the most isolated parts of the world. It has no recognised airfield, and accordingly the only means of visiting the island is by ship. The ships which go to Nauru are very slow phosphate carriers and it takes three weeks or even longer to reach there. On arrival, it is not certain whether the ship will be able to go alongside the cantilever. If there are storms in a particular time of the year, three, four or even live weeks may elapse before passengers can go ashore. So, as I have said, Nauru is possibly the most isolated part of the world when we consider it in relation to the certainty of ingress and egress. It has a telephone service with the rest of the world for about an hour a day. Provided the weather is propitious, the voice at the other end will be heard, but quite often the telephone service cannot be operated. It is most important that the Parliament have regard to the isolation of the island when considering its problems.

The Nauruans are a mixed MicronesianPolynesianMelanesian people. There’ are about 2,500 of them and they are possibly the wealthiest of the, if I may use the word, native peoples of the world at the present time. But they are not adapted to the work of mining the phosphate deposits on the island. Consequently; very few Nauruans are employed in that field. All the hard work of mining, all the hard work of maintaining the machinery in a satisfactory condition in that difficult atmosphere of rock dust, and all the hard work of transporting and drying the phosphate is done by indentured people. As the term “ indentured people “ suggests, they sign an indenture dr an agreement before going to the island. These people are recruited, some from Hong Kong - being of Chinese extraction - and some from the Gilbert and Ellice Islands colony - a colony of very small islands covering a vast area of the Pacific Ocean.

The laws and ordinances at present in force in Nauru pay very great attention to the indentured labour. On page 28 of the report to the General Assembly of the United Nations Mission on the Administration of the Territory of Nauru for the year 1963-64 is set out in great detail the terms and conditions of recruitment of workers. There is information about legislation relating to labour, housing, medical services and amenities. Time is short, so I cannot deal in much detail with the contents of the report, but the point to remember is that the contract of indenture is normally for 12 months. However, as the report states, the period may be adjusted to suit shipping arrangements.

Once a year the British Phosphate Commissioners send their ship to the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, returning to their homes those who have worked for the preceding 12 months on Nauru, and picking up an equal number of Gilbertese to work for the next 12 months. Likewise, once a year the British Phosphate Commissioners send their ship to Hong Kong. As well as buying stores, clothing materials, household furniture and that kind of thing from the cheap market of Hong Kong, the ship takes home the Chinese who have worked for 12 months on Nauru and returns with others for the forthcoming year. Indenture is usually for only one year. I do not think the future of these indentured labourers and technicians is a matter of prime importance to this Parliament this afternoon, because there are very strict ordinances relating to their employment, insurance, amenities and housing. As well as passing these ordinances, the Commissioners ensure that the amenities are of high standard. I have seen their quality.

As an instance of the way in which the indentured people are treated, I point out that for the convenience of the Chinese on the island the British Phosphate Commissioners, who comprise representatives of the Australian, New Zealand and British Governments, have provided a Chinese theatre and a school for any Chinese children who have accompanied their parents to the island. Every detail relating to the requirement of the Chinese identured labourers is considered. Likewise the Gilbertese. There is a magnificent school for the children of the Gilbertese. As I have said, very great care and attention have been paid to these matters. I was interested to read that the four people whom the United Nations sent to Papua and New Guinea took the opportunity to slip across to Nauru. Their report on the island was most favorable. They reported that when they asked the identured people whether they had any complaints to make, they said they had none. So these people who work on the island for a year or a little longer, depending upon the availability of shipping, are quite happy with their conditons

For those reasons, I say that the Labour Party’s proposed amendment - prompted no doubt by humantarian ideas - is not backed by sufficient facts to warrant its acceptance. I do not think it is necessary, in the light of what I have seen of the island and of what I have read in the 12 or 13 years since I was there. The housing provided for the indentured people is excellent. The children are taught in schools specially established by the Administration under the British Phosphate Commissioners for children of that particular race. There were no complaints to the United Nations visiting commission.

I should like to salute the arrival of such a bill in this Parliament. I am proud of the fact that the administration by Australia has been so gradual and successful. It is not rushing the people forward. In 1951 the idea of the Council of Chiefs - an old feudal idea, as it were - was abandoned and the local government council was established. It was my privilege, as leader of the delegation in 1953, to present to the local government council on behalf of the delegation a coloured reproduction of a photograph of Her Majesty the Queen. I know that that is still in the chamber of the local council, from photographs that I have seen from time to time. The people there are very keen on a number of worthy organisations, which give them a sense of responsibility and control. For instance, the Boy Scouts organisation is very important in Nauru. We are used to scouts being of the ages of 10, 12 or 14. There, the average age of the scouts is about 28 to 30. An interesting feature is that those who have gone through the Boy Scouts movement there have become community leaders. It has been my privilege in the last few years to meet here men who have to negotiate with the Department of Territories, and whom I met as scouts 13 years ago. The Government has seen to the encouragement of these worthy organisations to give the local population a sense of responsibility. It has been very generous in its advice and direction with regard to the building of schools and hospitals and the provision of scholarships for Nauruans.

The Australian population no doubt has played a part in educating the Nauruans for this stage of development. As you would know, Sir, the products of this island come to a number of Australian ports, including Newcastle, Sydney, Melbourne, Geelong, and Wallaroo in South Australia. The people of Geelong have taken a great interest in this island. Some young Nauruan men have attended the Geelong Technical College, and there has been a close citizenship bond between the Nauruans and the people of Geelong. The contacts that have been made between these Australian places and Nauru have developed in the Nauruan people, despite their great isolation which I mentioned earlier, an interest in the Australian governmental system and the Australian educational system. With this background, they should have a very, very successful period of further self determination.

I believe that this Bill is adequate. I am not concerned with it in the same way as is Senator Mulvihill, in relation to appeal to the High Court. I think it is excellent that there should be an appeal to the High Court. As is well known, the High Court judges are men of great integrity and great legal knowledge. It is excellent for a small community to have a court outside its own territory prepared to adjudicate on questions of high legal importance. Having studied the second reading speech and the Bill, I think an excellent start is being made. I should like to pay tribute to the devoted work of the officers of the Department of Territories who, despite the difficulty of getting to this place, have of recent months, I know, given painstaking attention to the questions before us today. I congratulate the Government on the Bill and I should like to say how glad I am that the President and the Speaker of another place are making arrangements to provide a presidential chair as a link, as it were, between this Parliament and the new Legislative Council of Nauru. For the reasons that 1 have stated, I oppose the amendment and support the Bill.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

– It is getting late, and I do not propose to intrude into this debate at length. The Bill provides a significant step forward towards self government for the Nauruan community. This, I gather, is not objected to. There is no opposition to it from the other side, but we are told that the Bill does not provide things for the non-Nauruan population and that it should in fact do that. It is said that we should, in the Bill which deals with Nauru as a result of agreement with Nauruans, have some provisions in relation to indentured labour from China, Hong Kong, and the Gilbert and Ellice Islands. These people are indentured workers, as we have been told. The contracts are for one year, and are renewable at will. There is a restriction that families of Chinese cannot stay for more than three years and families of Gilbertese more than six years. So there is a floating, changing population all of the time.

These people retain their ties with their homelands and consequently do not take a full part or join in with the Nauruan community. Nevertheless, they are provided with significant political, educational and social facilities. We have heard something of them. The Chinese elect a workers’ committee. The Gilbert Islanders elect an islanders’ representative committee. They meet with the British Phosphate Commissioners regularly every month and occasionally with the Administrator. They have such political representation as they need. Their children go to the joint schools that are run by the Australian. Government and they get full educational opportunities. They have their own housing settlements. Recently this year they told the United Nations inspecting committee that they were perfectly happy with their conditions and did not wish to change them in any way. Therefore, I think that there is no need to add the words proposed to the motion and I oppose the amendment.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Bishop’s amendment) be added.

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

AYES: 20

NOES: 22

Majority .. ..2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

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

page 2280

INCOME TAX BILL (No. 2) 1965

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to impose a tax of 10s. in the £1 on certain income of partnerships, trusts and superannuation funds if they are used for tax avoidance purposes. The Senate has already passed through all stages a Bill containing provisions for the assessment of tax on these classes of income. There was much debate and earnest consideration of those provisions and they were adopted by the Senate without a single division. The Senate should not now deny the Government the right to impose a special rate of tax designed to prevent tax avoidance which in 1961 the Ligertwood Committee put at £14 million annually. Rejection of the Bill would be an invitation to the tax avoiders and the consultants who have put such effort into helping them to press on with their devices. The loss would very soon become appalling. The aim of this Government is to defeat the tax avoider. The Bill already passed imposes reasonable tests. As further protection, the Commissioner of Taxation has been given a discretionary power under which he will, in effect, be able to ensure that the 10s. rate does not fall in inappropriate circumstances. Anyone who has at heart the interests of the great majority of taxpayers who meet their tax liability without resorting to devices designed to avoid tax will readily see that this Bill deserves the unanimous support of the Senate, and I now commend it to honorable senators.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I indicated to the Senate yesterday, and again this morning when we were dealing with another income tax bill, that we have no objection to the provisions of this Bill. That is still the position. We do not oppose the second reading.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- It would be very much in conformity with my wish, in view of the terms used in the second reading speech by the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Henty), that there should be a short delay. But if that would cause any inconvenience to the great majority of honorable senators, I will con tent myself only with a suggestion to that effect. I want it to be clearly known that I regard it as an abuse of the occasion for the Minister to present this Bill in the form that opposition to it represents a cloak for tax evasion. That is a great perversion of the cause I stand for. I have made it clear since the day on which the Ligertwood Committee’s report was tabled - I read the report immediately and conveyed my view to the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) - that in my view the rackets there disclosed should be subjected to immediate remedial measures. I have made it clear that I have not one shilling’s worth of interest in the partnerships, trusts or superannuation funds which are the means by which tax avoidance transactions are said to be carried on. Nor, so far as I know, has any one of my clients.

With some knowledge of the law - only some - and with a practice of the law for some years giving experience - limited, but some - it shocked me to think that the rackets that were revealed by the Ligertwood Committee’s report had not been long pursued by the officers of the Commissioner of Taxation. If they failed to condemn the rackets under section 260 of the Act, they should have advised the Minister, long before the Ligertwood Committee disclosed them en masse, to bring to this chamber legislation that would put as end to them. Let it be quite clear, in view of the terms of the Minister’s second reading speech, that it has been part of my advocacy that some of those rackets, so far from being terminated on 1st June 1961 when the Ligertwood Committee’s report was tabled, were not terminated even in November 1964, when legislation was introduced. Provision was made in that legislation for continuance of the enjoyment of some monstrous tax evasion schemes. I speak - with a spirit of resentment to which I think I am entitled - to repudiate, from the cause that I espouse in this matter, any association whatever, in fact, word or purpose, with the tax evader. I claim for every individual person in this country, in being adjudicated upon as a tax evader, the right of access to a court. I will stand and die by that principle from the point of view of public life in this country. It is well known that in modern times the great bureaucracy that grows continually under the demands of complex modern life represents an increasing inroad and intrusion upon the fundamental rights of the citizen which are guaranteed by free and independent courts. Although defeated today this does not represent the close of the cause.

The principle that has to be understood is that the Bill provides that a functionary who does not even presume to emulate a tribunal or court shall be invested with discretionary powers to discriminate between individuals as to the imposition of a penal tax on the basis that the people concerned are tax evaders. This great contest that is going on in our social life was the subject of the work of a renowned committee of inquiry in Great Britain between 19SS and 1957. This Committee was presided over by Sir Oliver Franks and had been set up by the Conservative Government. After noting that administrative tribunals were required by modern demands, the Committee stated -

But as a matter of general principle - we are firmly of the opinion that a decision should be entrusted to a court rather than to a tribunal in the absence of special considerations which make a tribunal more suitable.

I recall it was said of the so-called Court of the Star Chamber that it was never a court administering the rule of law but was an agency for the application of government policy. I thought the quotation came from Macaulay but I have not been able to find it there. However, I found in Macaulay this reference to the Star Chamber, coupled with the Court of High Commission. He branded them as a class of courts - the memory of which is still after the lapse of two centuries-

I can add at this date “ three centuries “ - held in deep abhorrence by the nation.

The Commissioner of Taxation does not pretend to be even a tribunal, much less a court. He is a commission. It is my complaint that he is to be invested with a discretion to apply or exempt penal tax in relation to transactions as intimate in the affairs of the. individual as partnerships, trusts and superannuation funds. He is to do this according to his discretion unguided by a rule of law, operating as he is required to do by the Act in secret and with a duty to raise the revenue required by the Budget of the nation from year to year. It is a completely improper set up. In addition, the Commissioner of Taxation- is entrusted by this legislation with duties under which he is to fix the reasonableness of benefits of superannuation both of employees and members of the general public. Under section 79 containing new provisions, he is to judge for himself the amount of benefit to which people should be entitled individually. He is to have some guide lines but those guide lines include considerations which the Commissioner himself thinks fit to take into account.

For the purposes of the record of this speech, I remind the Senate that the Commissioner of Taxation has indicated guide lines with an upper limit on lump sums on retirement of £40,000 and annual payments by way of pension with an upper limit of £5,000 but he has made no secret of the fact that in some instances he has also indicated the exercise of discretion for some individuals of £70,000 to £80,000 by way of capital retirement benefits built up with an exemption from taxation. That has to be considered in relation to equity as against the rights of other taxpayers.

I conclude by citing a line from Cicero that has been my companion for forty years. I pretend to know nothing of Cicero that I have learned beyond this line -

Amicus Plato, sed magis arnica Veritas.

I do not wish to translate except to be understood as conveying by the term “veritas” that I mean true doctrine. I oppose the Bill.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

.- -I am not in a position to vote on the. second reading because I am paired but I want to pay a tribute to Senator Wright for his fine exposition of this Bill. What we have heard from Senator Wright in opposing the Bill indicates that he stands strongly for certain principles and particularly against the erosion of the powers of the Parliament. He opposes the transference of those powers to such people as the Commissioner of Taxation.

It is regrettable that this legislation is designed to continue the erosion of the powers of Parliament. It is surprising that the Menzies Government should be guilty of quite a long list of attempts at erosion of the powers of Parliament when we remember that before we came to office in 1949 we> talked about bureaucrats and so on. I am afraid that this Government has done as much as anyone to build up the bureaucracy as against what we consider to be the basis of real democracy. I pay tribute to Senator Wright for the magnificent work he has done in connection with this taxation legislation. I want to say that there is at least one here - and I am sure there must be others - who appreciates his contribution. I certainly support him in his opposition to the Bill but as I have said I am not in a position to vote.

Question put -

That the Bill be read a second time.

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

AYES: 39

NOES: 3

Majority . . . . 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

In Committee.

The Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- As I have been privileged to speak while the Senate proceedings have been broadcast this afternoon, I want to make it completely clear - as I did during the debates on this legislation - that nothing I have said indicates the slightest want of integrity of the Commissioners of Taxation, past and the present, in whom I have the greatest confidence. I wish to be permitted to say how grateful I am for their consultations, especially with Mr. Belcher, throughout this debate.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2283

CUSTOMS TARIFF (DUMPING AND SUBSIDIES) BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9th December (vide page 2200), on motion by Senator Anderson.

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

.- The measure before the Senate is to amend the Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1961. The Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson) has pointed out that it enables action to be taken to counter new forms of dumping which have become evident since the main Act was passed. The Government takes the view - and I think it is shared generally - that dumping in all its forms must be countered whenever it damages or threatens to damage an Australian industry.

The Bill vests in the Minister for Customs and Excise the power to determine the export price of goods exported to Australia where, in his opinion, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the documentary export price has been fixed with a view to avoiding dumping duty or other special duties payable in accordance with the provisions of the legislation. The Bill is designed to enable counter action to be taken against practices known as sales dumping and package deals, and to make clear that counter action may be taken against imported goods, competitive with those produced in Australia, which are carried at freight rates that are significantly lower than the normal rates. As there was some doubt whether the existing provisions of the Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Act embodied powers to counter all forms of freight dumping, an amendment is included in this Bill. It merely restores the provisions which were incorporated for many years in the old Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act. The proposed amendments to Australia’s anti-dumping law stem from the Government’s determination to protect local industry against the invidious practice of dumping in all its forms.

This Government is finding it more and more difficult to work out answers to the probings and challenges of predatory capitalism. Only governments can stand between the ordinary people and the inhabitants of the jungle of the financial system under which many people throughout the world - including ourselves - are obliged to live. If the trade practices of local operators have now been brought to the full light of public scrutiny, so have the exporters from overseas come in for their share of the uprooting of their rackets.

This Bill completes the trinity - the three pronged attack on the tax dodger, the trade conspirator and now the dumper. I hope they will all meet with the full rigour of the law if they transgress. The Opposition supports the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2284

SULPHURIC ACID BOUNTY BILL (No. 2) 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9th December (vide page 2201), on motion by Senator Anderson -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– This Bill provides for the extension of the period of payment of a bounty on the production of sulphuric acid.

Senator Anderson:

– I suggest that this measure and the Pyrites Bounty Bill (No. 2) 1965 be discussed together at the second reading stage.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman). - There being no objection that course will be followed.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I am discussing them together; they are complementary. Provision has been made in the past for assistance to be given to Australian pro ducers of pyrites, which is used in the production of sulphuric acid which in turn is used in the production of superphosphate. A bounty is payable on the production of pyrites. The copper mines of Mount Morgan, and of Mount Lyell in Tasmania, produce pyrites more or less as a byproduct. The goldmines of Kalgoorlie and two or three other mines are in receipt of the bounty. This matter should be kept under close scrutiny, because the price that is now being paid for copper is very substantial and a measure of prosperity is coming to the copper mining industry. The copper mining interests have not had to collect their bounty, because they are receiving more than the minimum price laid down and are operating profitably. The Opposition supports a continuation of the bounty on pyrites and sulphuric acid until 1969. We hope the day will come when this industry will be self-supporting.

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

– I regret that the time available to discuss this measure is limited, but I believe that the importance of this subject requires that something be said beyond the bare confines of the Bill. It is not necessary for me to emphasise the important role that sulphur plays in our economy. Sulphur is needed for the manufacture of superphosphate, being a constituent to the extent of one-eighth of each ton of superphosphate that is produced. Approximately 80 per cent. of our total production of sulphuric acid is required for the production of superphosphate.

Unfortunately, we have had to import a great deal of our sulphur requirements. I believe it is necessary for us to look quickly at the figures for the last four or five years. In 1959, 1 million tons of sulphuric acid was produced in Australia, whereas in 1964 a total of 1,542,000 tons was produced. To service that production it was necessary to import 153,000 tons of sulphur in 1959 and 374,000 tons in 1964-65, that being the latest year for which figures are available. This dramatic rise in the quantity of sulphur imported emphasises the development of our agricultural industries and the increased use of superphosphate.

A significant aspect of this matter is that to a great extent we are relying upon imported sulphur, although we do contribute largely from local resources, including zinc concentrates and lead concentrates, the production of which is incidental to other industries. If we are to increase our Australian resources, we must increase the manufacture of pyrites. From 1959 to 1964 the production of pyrites declined. The relevant figures for the various years were 32 per cent., 30 per cent., 27 per cent., 24 per cent., 25 per cent., and 19 per cent. That shows that our production of sulphur from pyrites is declining. We cannot regard this position with any complacency. There is evidence that to service our agricultural industries we will need to import an increasing amount of sulphur, unless we can develop local production.

I have before me figures which show the cost of the imported product. In 1961-62 the f.o.b. value of imported sulphur was £1,856,000, whereas in 1964-65 it was £3,195,000. It is interesting to note that in the intervening period f.o.b. costs declined from £10 9s. lOd. to £8 10s. a ton. However, the landed cost in 1964-65 was £13 14s. a ton. The complete cost of our importations was £5i million. We have suddenly been confronted with a very sharp rise in the f.o.b. costs and consequently in the landed costs. It was revealed in an answer to a question that I addressed to the Minister that the landed cost of sulphur today is £17 18s. 3d. a ton. This will mean that next year, assuming we do not import any more sulphur - that is improbable; almost certainly we will need to import larger quantities - the cost will be £6.7 million. This is an economic factor of considerable importance. We need to do something regarding our policies in connection with the bounty and our attitude towards this industry which is of great importance to Australian agriculture.

A study of the Tariff Board’s recommendations discloses that it was aware of the increasing cost, but the position has deteriorated rather rapidly since the Tariff Board examined the situation. I believe that something ought to be done to arrive at an assessment of the international position regarding sulphur. Why is it that 12 months ago we were quite happy in a situation of world supply that seemed to indicate that there was adequate sulphur available for the demands then existing? World prices had been falling. Suddenly, the position was reversed. Whether that was due to increasing competition or increasing requirements for sulphur, I do not know, but I doubt very much whether either explanation covers sufficiently the position where there has been practically a 50 per cent, increase in world prices.

It was stated in an answer which was given to me recently, that the position with the British Phosphate Commission, which arranges these purchases, is that outside the contracts already arranged; world prices will increase further. The prospect is that landed costs will continue to rise as new contracts have to be negotiated. This highlights the necessity to safeguard Australia’s alternative source of supply. It is evident that pyrites is the only real source! The Tariff Board had something to say regarding the form of bounty assistance that is being given. I notice in the Bill that the Government has decided to retain the 12i per cent, profit margin where the pyrites bounty is applied.

I think that we need to look at what the Tariff Board said on this matter in its annual report. The Board stated that it had-

  1. . concluded that where bounty payments are subject to profit limitation, development of the industry may be retarded and efficiency is likely to suffer.

It also stated -

Even more important than the administrative difficulties is the fact that once a manufacturer has achieved the specified rate of profit there can be a lack of incentive to increase production and sales. Furthermore, a profit limitation acts as a disincentive to increasing efficiency, reducing costs, and keeping abreast of current technological development. It can also encourage wasteful expenditure and a relaxed attitude to cost control.

I think that we need to take considerable note of those recommendations. Yet the profit limitation has been retained in the Bill that is before us. If we are to consider the future of the pyrites industry we need to look at fostering measures that will increase the efficiency of the industry and put it on a basis that is more competitive with imported sulphur.

The Tariff Board in its report on the Sulphuric Acid and Pyrites Bounty Acts, had something to say relative to the industry. I think it is of such importance that I should bring it before the Senate. It covers the cost factor of the transport of pyrites from the source of production to the point of manufacture. We know that pyrites contain at the best approximately SO per cent, sulphur. Therefore, a lot of unwanted material has to be transported for considerable distances. The relevant words in the Tariff Board’s report are -

The resultant freight costs constitute a serious cost disadvantage to acid manufacturers using pyrites as compared with those using brimstone, which is almost pure sulphur. Ocean freight on brimstone amounts to about £5 per ton;

The report continues -

If elemental sulphur could be produced from pyrites at the mine much of its freight disadvantage vis-a-vis brimstone would be eliminated. Furthermore, such a separation of elemental sulphur from other pyritic material may also largely eliminate the extra costs incurred when acid is made from pyrites rather than brimstone. Professor Hunter of the University of Sydney emphasised the importance of further research into this question, which he considered to be worthy of Government encouragement.

I have referred to this report because I think that the Government, through its agencies, such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, should direct research towards this problem of producing sulphur more economically from our nation’s resources.

The question of the basic cost of producing sulphur from Australian pyrites brings to my mind the position that exists in Western Australia. Currently a proposition is being considered for the manufacture of superphosphate at Merredin, which is an inland centre in the heart of our wheat producing areas. It is interesting to note that within 80 miles of Merredin a very valuable deposit of pyrites of high quality has been discovered. Here we have a set-up which, because of the element of cost in transporting the material, could very well come close to disappearing. I hope that very vigorous investigation will be pursued towards the more economic production of sulphur.

I have no qualms about taking up the time of the Senate on this matter because I believe that it is a problem that must be faced, and faced very soon. Current research work shows that the disappearance of sulphur in our soil is becoming a problem of considerable practical interest. Some time ago we were given a publication from the

C.S.I.R.O. entitled “Soil and Pasture Research in South-western Australia “. I want to refer to one passage in it which illustrates the point that I am making, that our soil is becoming rapidly deficient in sulphur and that in many places, particularly in Tasmania, the sulphur problem is becoming of greater significance than the phosphate problem. The C.S.I.R.O. publication states -

But, unlike phosphorus, sulphur has a low residual value in the soil; it is removed by leaching much more readily. Suspension of super applications may therefore be followed by the development of a hitherto unsuspected sulphur deficiency.

What is happening is that there is a differential loss. Phosphorus is being lost less rapidly than is sulphur. Consequently, as we develop the fertility of the soil by the application of phosphorus, the sulphur deficiency becomes an inhibiting factor. In many places we have been wasting our phosphorus resources because we have been applying a form of phosphorus that contains sulphur. In fact it is the sulphur element which has been achieving the improvement in our yields. So we have to look closely at this problem of increasing our available resources of sulphur, especially in the light of world conditions and costs that are threatening the economic basis of our great fertiliser industry. I hope the Government does make a much more careful examination of this problem of supporting, the Australian production of pyrites because I feel fundamentally it can become more important than the search for increasing phosphate requirements.

Senator MATTNER:
South Australia

– I wish to point out that the Bill provides for the payment of a bounty on the -average costs of acid producers with respect chiefly to pyrites. Whilst it is the average price that is considered, those firms whose costs happen to be above the average price are suffering in comparison with those which are able to produce sulphur from pyrites at a lower cost. South Australia happens to be in this position. The cost of production of sulphuric acid using pyrites as a base is higher than the loaded average cost. If this bounty could be extended in its present form for another three months it would certainly give a great lift to the producers of sulphuric acid in South Australia. I am not going to attempt to follow

Senator Prowse in making an extensive survey of the industry. I am well aware of, and appreciate sincerely, his argument as to the needs of sulphur. I think we will have to have a good solid look at the influence of the production of sulphur on our overseas balance of payments position because the importation of brimstone will cost us a great deal of money in the future.

Senator Mulvihill:

– From what countries would we be able to get the brimstone?

Senator MATTNER:

– We can get a good deal from the United States of America. If any trouble develops in the Pacific, all the sources of our brimstone supplies will be cut off. The trouble is that as far as any relativity between the producers of sulphuric acid from pyrites and the producers of sulphuric acid from brimstone is concerned, pyrites has never been on an equal standing with brimstone. It has been so much cheaper to produce sulphur especially from brimstone.

I have here some of the facts relating to this industry in South Australia. Over a 10 year period the works were erected in that State. The search for pyrites was instigated by the Commonwealth Government during the war years. The small town of Brokunop outside Nairne is dependent upon the production of pyrites. The industry there was established at the instigation of the Government, This company has been producing sulphuric acid from pyrites for 10 years and has made a profit of £92,850. The company has been unable to set aside any great amount for depreciation. The object of the bounty paid on pyrites is. to help in writing off the cost of plant over a period of years. Since 1956 this company has paid back to the Government £144,000. The reduction of the benefit from £3 to £2 10s. will cost this company £50,000 for the year. What South Australia is concerned about is this: The product from this company is subject to price control. South Australia has been hit harder than any other State as far as the use of sulphuric acid in the production of superphosphate is concerned.

I repeat that the Government should have a very good look at the question of whether we are going to tie the whole of our sulphuric acid production to the use of brimstone. I am not saying anything about the report of the Tariff Board, but that factor has to be taken into consideration in the near future if Australia is to become anywhere near self-supporting in its production of sulphuric acid. I do not know what can be done. South Australia is glad of the bounty. I know that discriminations cannot be made between State and State, but I do point out that South Australia is suffering severely because the bounty has been reduced from £3 to £2 10s.

Senator ANDERSON:
New South Wales Minister for Customs and Excise · LP

– in reply - I rise only to thank the honorable senators for their contribution to the debate. Much of what was said by Senator Prowse was, on his own acknowledgment, beyond the scope of the Bill. Nevertheless it was appropriate that he should use the opportunity afforded by the debate on this Bill to make the point he made. I acknowledge also the comments made by Senator Mattner. The recommendations of the Tariff Board, which the Government has adopted, make provision for a review of these bounty proposals before the expiration of the period of the bounty. To that extent, this matter will come under review by the Tariff Board and the Government, which in the final analysis will have to consider and pronounce judgment on any report the Board might make to it. On the question of profit limitation to which Senator Prowse referred, I point out that this is a matter of policy which has to be taken into account by the Government with other matters.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2287

PYRITES BOUNTY BILL (No. 2) 1965

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 9th December (vide page 2201), on motion by Senator Anderson -

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 amendment or debate.

page 2288

ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER 1964-65

Statement of Expenditure

In Committee

Motion (by Senator Henty) agreed to -

That the Committee approves the statement for the year 1964-63 of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36a of the Audit Act 1901-1962.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 2288

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL (No. 2) 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 22S4).

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– This is a machinery bill containing amendments that the Government considers necessary to the Broadcasting and Television Act, which was amended by this Parliament as recently as last May. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill but takes the opportunity afforded by its introduction to criticise the Government for the way in which it frequently brings before this Parliament bills relating to the television industry and the control of this most important form of mass communication in the final hours of parliamentary sessional periods. The Senate will recall that in the dying hours of the last session the Government in typical fashion introduced a number of amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act. I used the term “ typical “ advisedly, because on practically every occasion on which amendments have been introduced to this important Act they have had to be dealt with in cursory fashion by the Parliament in the dying hours of a sessional period. We have now an amendment introduced to legislation which was considered by the Parliament as late as last May. I might immediately ask: Is it any wonder that, despite the careful drafting of legislation of this nature, the Government finds it necessary, because the Parliament is always forced to make a cursory examination of the legislation, to introduce amendments year after year, practically every year since 1960?

On behalf of the Opposition I object strongly to legislation relating to this important medium of mass communication being left to lie around until the dying hours of the session when bills are being. churned out by the Senate as if this place were some kind of sausage machine. We were told by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson) in his second reading speech that the purpose of this legislation is to clear up certain doubts and difficulties that have arisen in the application of section 92c of the principal Act. That is the section relating to directorships of companies controlling television station licences, the section inserted in May last. I need not read that section. According to the Minister for Customs and Excise, it has now been represented to the Government - obviously by people affected by and concerned with this legislation - that there is some doubt whether the policy of the Government is carried out by the operation of this section. That policy, as stated by the Minister, is that if a person were to retain existing interests in licences, it would be logical that he should be permitted to be represented on the boards of companies controlling the licences. Hence the introduction of the present legislation.

Frankly, because of the attitude that has been adopted by Sir John Williams of the Melbourne “Herald” and because of the editorial in yesterday’s Sydney “ Daily Telegraph “ - Sir Frank Packer’s newspaper - pressing for the complete repeal of the legislation passed in May of this year, I suspect that the present measure is being presented in an endeavour to offer to those gentlemen some form of appeasement. When the amendments of last May were before the Parliament, the Opposition urged that they be backdated to June 1960 in order to rope in everyone connected with the control and ownership of this industry, to put them all on equal terms and to have no exceptions whatsoever. But now, because the Government failed to take cognisance of the views that members of the Opposition expressed at that time, the Government finds itself in some difficulties. Of course, it is not the duty or responsibility of members of the Opposition to assist the Government in extricating itself from its difficulties.

As I said earlier, in the last week statements have been made by Sir John Williams and Sir Frank Packer, calling on the Government to take action, or virtually demanding action by the Government or by certain Ministers, to relax the controls that were placed on them and on their empires as a result of the legislation that was enacted in May last. It certainly will be interesting to see whether those threats - direct in one instance and implied in the other - are heeded in any way by the Government in the future. The position reminds me of the words of Blount who, about 300 years ago, wrote about a honeymoon. He referred to married people who love well at first and decline in affection afterwards. As he said, it is honey now, but it will change as the moon does. In view of the statements of Sir John Williams and Sir Frank Packer, it appears to me that the present season is one of moonshine for the Menzies Government, as far as those gentlemen are concerned.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Perhaps the Matrimonial Causes Bill will help them.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I think they have more to do with the Broadcasting and Television Act. I hope that the Government, rather than heed the demand for relaxation of controls - a demand that is being strenuously made by these people - will take note of the advice that has been tendered to it by one of its constituent organisations, namely, the Victorian Branch of the Liberal Party. According to the Melbourne “ Age “ of 30th June 1965, that Branch, at its convention, carried a motion asking that vigorous steps be taken immediately to ensure that television companies carry out the terms of their licences. Honorable senators might be interested to know that a former senator, Mr. Hannan, was reported as having said at that convention that there was a growing feeling that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board could not run a milk bar.

One could go on for ever criticising and castigating the Government for its mismanagement, inertia and lethargy in connection with this important section of administration. The Government has done nothing to make the Williamses, the Packers and other people of that nature live up to their statutory requirements. It certainly has failed to implement, even if it has not completely ignored, every recommendation presented to this House by the Senate Select Committe on the Encouragement of Australian Productions for Television, which is known shortly as the Vincent Committee.

The Government has failed completely to protect the interests of Australian artists, actors, producers and directors because for far too long it has kotowed to those who now exert extremely powerful influence on this community. I hope that in the interests of the Australian people the Government will not allow itself to be subjected in the future, as it has been in the past, to the whims, wishes and fancies of the powerful newspaper magnates who set their own positions, influence and financial empires far above the welfare and interests of the people.

As I have said, the Opposition does not oppose the measure. But we object strongly to amending measures of this nature constantly being brought before us in the dying hours of a sessional period. We hope that in future the Government will heed not the demands of the powerful newspaper interests but the reasonable requirements of the Australian people.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– in reply - Mr. President, I just want to make the point that the Bill will do no more than clarify what was in fact the purpose of section 92c of the principal Act. Senator McClelland, who led for the Opposition, indicated its support for the measure but at the same time he discussed subject matter that goes far beyond the implications of this Bill. I want to say only that it is the Government’s view that the Broadcasting and Television Act in its amended form as at June 1965 has been and is effective legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2289

REFERENDUM (CONSTITUTION ALTERATION) BILL (No. 2) 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9th December (vide page 2170), on motion by Senator McKellar-

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Mr. President, this Bill was presented to us only yesterday morning. As the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) said, it is perhaps simple and clear, lt provides for the abolition of the use of numerals to record votes in referenda and substitutes the use of the word “Yes” or the word “ No “ written in one square to indicate the voter’s wish. Though this measure is simple and clear it has the disability that it is new. Any new idea, no matter how simple, takes a good deal of absorption.

We have, however, the advantage that people are not familiar with -referenda. We have had only three in recent years - one in 1946, one in 1948 and another in 1951. So there will be no violent disruption of an existing referendum practice with which the people are thoroughly familiar. Unfortunately, in both State and Federal elections they are used to recording their votes by the use of numerals and we now propose to adopt an entirely new system. I do not think that anyone can, with confidence, predict what will happen under the new system. We can hold hope for it and have faith in it, but we must await the event. However, I will risk one prediction: There will be many electors who will do things none of us would ever conceive if we thought about it from now until referendum day. They will do the most extraordinary things. We do not oppose the Bill. Accordingly, I address myself no further to it except to say that I hope special precautions will be taken to make the method of voting very clear to the people long before the referendum is held.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- As one of those who oppose the referendum, I wish to say that this simplification of the method of voting recommends itself to me. I am glad to know that even this simplification is. casting a shadow of gloom over those who espouse the cause of this referendum as expressed by the gloomy nature of Senator McKenna’s approach to it.

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– in reply - I want to direct the attention of honorable senators to an error that I made in my second reading speech on this Bill. When citing the date in relation to the arguments in favour of and against the proposed law I said that they must be forwarded to the Chief Electoral Officer by the 28th of this month. I wish to correct that date. It should be the 30th of this month. Although the error was not mine, I want to correct it

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2290

BRIGALOW LANDS AGREEMENT BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 2256).

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

. -At the commencement of my speech I want to make it quite clear that the Australian Labour Party in this chamber, as in the other place, does not oppose the Bill. However, I want to direct attention to certain features. Frankly, the performance this week has been a farce as it has been over preceding weeks. The Government and its immediate predecessors have perpetrated farces on this Parliament. They have been completely irresponsible in their management of the business of the Parliament.

Only this week we had before us the Income Tax Bill in relation to which the Government got itself in a jam and had to extricate itself ignominiously, even though it did achieve victory by devious means. Then we had the Trade Practices Bill. Although this legislation was on the stocks for near enough to five years, we were allowed only two days to debate it. We have just dealt with the Broadcasting and Television Bill which will correct, or attempt to correct, certain anomalies which have arisen in the application of previous legislation. A minimum time was allowed for us to debate that Bill. Now, in the dying stages of this sessional period, we have to debate bills relating to two developmental projects. When we realise the responsibility of the Government to undertake developmental projects we sometimes wonder whether these delaying tactics occur because of mismanagement, ignorance or malintention. I think that very often there is a basis of mal-intent in the approach to the problems. We are now debating a bill to amend the Brigalow Lands Agreement Act 1962, the title of which reads -

An Act relating to an Agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland with respect to the Development of Brigalow Lands in the Fitzroy River Basin.

When we realise the comparatively large area involved in the description “Brigalow

Lands in the Fitzroy River Basin “ we appreciate how comparatively small is the amount being given as assistance under a Commonwealth grant. Peculiarly enough, Queensland very rarely benefits from Commonwealth grants.

No one is more frank or more ready than I am to admit that which is true and correct. We know that the Commonwealth Government belatedly came to Queensland’s assistance in regard to the construction of beef roads with a measure of extraordinary generosity. It is particularly extraordinary when one realises the significance that Gladstone Harbour will have in the development of Australia, and Queensland in particular, in contributing to export earnings. The Commonwealth made a miserable grant of £100,000 to assist in the harbour works at Gladstone. When we think of the area which constitutes the Fitzroy River basin we realise that it is possibly one area of Australia which is most amenable to effective irrigation. The Fitzroy River basin embraces more than 58,000 square miles. A great portion of the land is of a reasonably good nature from an agricultural and pastoral point of view. The area lends itself to damming in a major way, not only of the Fitzroy River but also of its tributaries, the Nogoa, the Comet and the Dawson. But no real attempt has been made by the Government to investigate the possibility of damming these rivers. Irrigation could affect favorably the development of the brigalow lands which are now under discussion.

We know that the purpose of the Bill is to correct the errors which were inherent in the original Bill. Anyone who knew that area and its potentialities and difficulties, realised that the Government was wrong in its approach to development of the region. In utilising section 96 of the Constitution under which it is entitled to make grants for specific purposes, I do not know whether the Federal Government was being intolerant, repressive or ignorant. Certainly if the Queensland Government did not accept the conditions of the grants under duress, the Nicklin Government in 1962 was either ignorant or careless. But I think it was the intolerance of the Federal Government which made it almost impossible for the Queensland Government to determine reasonable conditions to be associated with the development of the lands in question. We now have an amending Bill before us to correct that situation which should never have occurred. In the developmental scheme there was a limitation of areas, a limitation of the extent of fencing, a limitation to two watering points and a limitation to one point in regard to tick eradication.

It provided specifically for the pulling and burning of brigalow, which is not a particularly difficult type of vegetation to pull and destroy, and for sowing the area with suitable pastures. By no possible stretch of the imagination could those who are well versed in the utilisation of land and desirous of settling themselves and their families, I believe, get on this land unless they had a reasonably large amount of capital - an amount of £12,000 was laid down by the Queensland Government - or readily convertible assets to provide that capital. Land holders were entitled to a loan of £24,000 for the purpose of developing properties. Under this Bill the amount is to be increased to £30,000. Fencing is to be extended and the number of watering places increased, if necessary. Points to assist in tick eradication are to be provided and there is provision for financial assistance for the purchase of breeders, if desired, by the owner of the property.

Interestingly enough, when the resumptions took place original holders were to be granted a property - there was nothing wrong with that - to develop from their own resources, but not less than onequarter of the area was to be sold at public auction, thus alienating lands from the possession of the people. It surely is accepted that this is a retrograde step, but not in the eyes of the present Commonwealth Government or of the present Nicklin Government and its immediate predecessors, which have adopted all sorts of means to achieve alienation of land. The Queensland Government is departing as rapidly as it can from leasehold tenure, irrespective of the conditions associated with it, in order to embark on freehold tenure.

Out of the gross national product only £7,250,000 was provided under the original agreement over five years for this purpose. The period is to be extended to eight years. Originally repayment was to be made over a period of 25 years. This period is to be extended to 28 years. The scheme provides only for a comparatively small fraction of the area that is suitable for re-subdivision. It does not cover some of the most effective fattening country in the Commonwealth. We frequently hear the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr. McEwen) and other representatives of the Government and of primary industry say that beef must play a greater and greater part in overseas earnings. There is no suggestion of providing an extension of more than a comparatively miserable 700,000 acres of brigalow land. The Government has been remiss. We heard when the scheme was about to be implemented, from people who knew the country and its possibilities for cattle fattening and grain growing, that the conditions laid down by the Commonwealth Government and accepted by the Country-Liberal Government of Queensland were impossible. In fairness to the Queensland Government, it probably accepted the conditions under duress. More flexibility was then called for. Now, more than three years later, the Commonwealth Government has to recognise that the conditions were too inflexible. But we do give the Government credit for at last attempting to correct its sins of commission. A number of people have suffered over the past three years. Some of these original blocks range from 6,000 to 10,000 acres in area. This legislation will permit of larger areas and of the opening up of more blocks. I have mentioned that the earlier settlers on these properties went in with £12,000 either in cash or in readily convertible assets and that they were given loans of £24,000. Now, because of difficulties that have occurred and which could not have been foreseen by any group of practical people - and this Government claims to be a practical one - these earlier settlers find it necessary to look for more money. They now face a capital expenditure of between £40,000 and £50,000.

Those who bid at auction for 25 per cent, or more of the freehold properties paid an average of £30,000. They are now faced with an additional expenditure of from £30,000 to £40,000 to develop their properties to the full extent to which they are capable of being developed. Therefore, they are committed to a capital expenditure of between £60,000 and £70,000. As I said earlier, it is a comparatively easy task to pull brigalow because it is not deep rooted. It can easily be crushed and burnt. But the big problem is suckering, and this is a much more serious problem in dry times than it is in normal years. This area has an average annual rainfall of approximately 25 inches but there has been a series of dry years and suckering will be a big problem. Very little research work has been done on the problem of suckering. If something more is not done to evolve an effective method of controlling suckering then, irrespective of what anyone may say, and irrespective of the amount expended by either the Commonwealth or State Government this brigalow scheme could quite easily fail.

Originally, the State Government was required to construct roads, at its own expense. It will now be able to spend a proportion of the money advanced by the Commonwealth Government on that work, but I remind the Senate that the moneys advanced by the Commonwealth are loan moneys carrying a rate of interest equal to the bond rate ruling at the time of the loan.

At long last this Government has seen the wisdom of permitting some flexibility to apply to its scheme. For the past three years there has been no flexibility. The conditions laid down by the Commonwealth have had to be rigidly carried out. So far as I can see, there is no provision for granting financial assistance to those who went on to the properties that were made available early in the undertaking. I do not think either the Commonwealth or State Government has any intention of providing financial assistance to the earlier settlers who have endured hardships.

I have already mentioned that a large proportion of the Fitzroy watershed is good land. I have pointed out that the average annual rainfall is 25 inches and I have emphasised that there are four eminently suitable dam sites on the Fitzroy River, and its major tributaries. Many reports have been made about the irrigation potential of this area, but the Federal Government has done nothing about it, except, perhaps, to send a few scientific officers there occasionally when representations are made. This part of Queensland offers a potential for export income which, if not unexcelled, is of a major nature, but the Federal Government cannot see fit to do anything for Queensland except to provide grants for beef roads, and a miserable £100,000 for development work on Gladstone Harbour.

In conclusion, let me say that I do not think we should be dealing with a major developmental project at this late stage of the last day of the sessional period, when half the honorable senators have left. I do not blame them for having done so, because we realise how ineffective and .inefficient the Government has been in its control of the Parliament, how it panics on occasions and pays no regard to the rights of members of this chamber or of another place. It has ridden roughshod over everything that is decent in a parliamentary way, has been completely contemptuous of the rights of parliamentarians and has neglected its responsibility to the people. We of the Australian Labour Party do not oppose the Bill, because it shows that something is being done. However, what is being done in 1965 could have been done, if there had been an effective, efficient and responsible Government in office, when the original measure was introduced in 1962.

Senator MORRIS:
Queensland

.- Since I have been in Canberra I have met quite a lot of southern people, many of whom have been interested in the well known and well publicised brigalow scheme. They have come to me and asked: “ Would you give us some background of the brigalow scheme, because we want to understand it more?” Their interest in the matter is understandable, because this is a big scheme. Lack of knowledge of it is natural in people who are not Queenslanders, but I cannot find that excuse for Senator Dittmer. He should know the truth of this matter. If he does know it, then he has misled the Senate deliberately. But I will be charitable and say that he does not know the facts.

Senator Dittmer:

– I rise to a point of order. Senator Morris knows that I do not mislead. I certainly do not mislead deliberately. I ask for the word “deliberately “ to be withdrawn. I want to make it clear to Senator Morris and other honorable senators that I never mislead. [Quorum formed.]

Senator MORRIS:

– I will repeat what I was saying. I was presenting an alternative.

I said that there are many people who do not know much about the brigalow scheme.

Senator Dittmer:

– Excuse me, Mr. Acting President, but what about my point of order?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order! No point of order is involved.

Senator Dittmer:

– I draw you attention to Standing Order No. 424.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin). - Order! Does the honorable senator take a point of order?

Senator Dittmer:

– Yes.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will hear the honorable senator on it.

Senator Dittmer:

– Standing Order No. 424 states -

Every such objection must be taken at the time when such words are used, and will not be afterwards entertained.

The honorable senator said that I misled, and deliberately misled, the Senate. I think that is offensive and that I am entitled to a withdrawal of those words. I have never misled the Senate, and I certainly have never deliberately misled, because I am always sure of my facts, unlike other honorable senators.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Morris, will you indicate what you did say?

Senator MORRIS:

– Yes, Mr. President. I said that I had been asked many times about the brigalow scheme. I said distinctly that as a result of what Senator Dittmer had said I was forced to accept that either he was deliberately misleading the Senate or - and I was about to proceed to say “ he knows very little about the brigalow scheme”, when I was interrupted. I challenge anybody to say that I said he deliberately misled the Senate.

Senator Dittmer:

– Mr. President, I am not going to cop that first part from him.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Cant:

– Let Senator Morris make a proper statement of what he said.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Dittmer:

– I am not going to let him get away with that.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! While I am on my feet no-one else will stand. Senator Morris, you cannot say that an honorable senator is deliberately misleading the Senate. I ask you to withdraw that statement.

Senator MORRIS:

– In deference to you, Mr. President, I withdraw it.

Senator Dittmer:

– In deference to me.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator MORRIS:

– I will now proceed. I am not at all surprised that it became necessary for attention to be drawn to the state of the Senate because we had been sitting here for 20 minutes listening to what was alleged to have been a speech when actually it was a’ rerun of something that I have heard ad nauseam in this chamber. It was a broad criticism of what the Government has not done, with no recognition of what the Government has done.

Senator Dittmer:

– I did pay a tribute to the little bit it has done.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator MORRIS:

– Let us examine the facts. I recognise that all honorable senators will not want to hear a full description of the brigalow scheme, and it is not my intention to give such a description now. However, at some time I will take an opportunity to do so, because unlike some people I do know this scheme and the facts of it, and I will present them.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The honorable senator is a very experienced man. We have heard that before, and we will hear it again.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator MORRIS:

– Apparently honorable senators opposite are a little bit touchy. They do not like facts being pointed out to them.

Senator Cavanagh:

– We are provoked.

Senator MORRIS:

– Provoked?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Provoked by inaccuracies.

Senator MORRIS:

– Mr. President, in the light of these circumstances I do not intend to be provoked, even if things are said that are unjust. I will try again to present the facts, because very few people apparently know that the proposal for the development of the brigalow area was originated in 1 960- 61. The Queensland Government asked the Commonwealth Government for assistance. It had prepared a scheme very adequately, but it was decided that there should be a further investigation. Dr. Paterson, who was then with the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, made a thorough examination of the scheme and already a great deal of land has been developed in the area. About £7.5 million was advanced for the purpose and already 4i million acres of land have been developed.

Under this Bill, there are to be some variations of the scheme, but not because of a host of mistakes in the early legislation. It is proposed to extend the developmental scheme by 700,000 acres and in the process to vary the provisions of the scheme to make it possible for settlers to purchase breeking stock - a vital need today - and to do many other things.

As for the suggestion that the scheme has been a failure, I should like honorable senators to know that the Queensland Government has auctioned many of the blocks that have been developed and the prices obtained at auction have been very far in excess of the upset price and the expectations of the Queensland Government. If ever there was a developmental scheme that has been a success it is this one. Honorable senators would derive much benefit from a personal inspection of the scheme. They would realize that it is not a case of correcting errors inherent in the original legislation as was suggested by Senator Dittmer. It is not correct to say that the Queensland Government was forced to accept conditions under duress. This is a fine co-operative effort between the Queensland Government and the Commonwealth Government. A host of other things could be said to refute Senator Dittmer’s comments. However, in view of the obvious irritation of members on the Opposition side over these facts I shall postpone the development of this argument until another occasion when I have more time.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Coming from the heart of the brigalow area myself, I must rise, late as’ it is, to support the Government on this Bill. This is a very good Bill. The scheme has been going for several years and it is inevitable in a scheme of this sort, which has no precedent in our history, that there should be teething troubles. One remarkable thing about the scheme is that there have been so few teething troubles. There may be more but these troubles will be ironed out. The scheme will be a success and prove a masterpiece of statesmanship on the part of the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments. The scheme has had some setbacks because of the drought. This was not foreseen but we hope that good years will come again and that the scheme will thus be able to go ahead. The Bill provides for an extension of the scheme by another 50 blocks and further road development. It will result in extra production which we need so much. The Bill will hasten development of an important part of Queensland. Complementary legislation has been passed in the Queensland Parliament to put into operation modifications in the scheme. The limit of 10,000 acres on auction blocks will bc removed but a block must not exceed a living area. All these things will be taken into account in operating the scheme, which must progress. I would think from some of Senator Dittmer’s remarks that he docs not know too much about the brigalow country. He said that brigalow was not a very difficult type of vegetation to destroy. Experience has shown that it is in fact one of the most difficult types of vegetation to destroy in order to develop land. But I pass over Senator Dittmer’s remarks without further ado.

The money spent on the brigalow country by the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government will prove to be one of the finest investments that either Government has ever made.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– I thank the Senate for a speedy passage of the Bill. I am satisfied that both Senator Morris and Senator Lawrie have adequately answered the criticisms of Senator Dittmer.

Senator Dittmer:

– That shows how Ignorant the Minister is.

Senator ANDERSON:

– AH I can suggest is that Senator Dittmer take a good look at himself.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2295

WEIPA DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 2257).

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

.- On this Bill I could make remarks similar to those that I made in relation to the Bill that we have just passed. I trust that when I deal dispassionately and effectively with the problems associated with the development of the deposits at Weipa honorable senators opposite will not attack me or my party. When honorable senators opposite speak on this subject I trust that they will do so truthfully and with a realisation of what is involved in this matter. They seem to have the idea that any statements they make, no matter how irresponsible, are impressive. I deplore the introduction of this Bill at this late stage in the sittings. I deplore also the fact that so few honorable senators are present, although I concede that none of those absent is to blame for the inefficiency and carelessness of the Government.

The Bill provides for a measure of assistance in the development of a major mining industry. By way of loan £1,635,000 is to be provided but not even £100,000 is to be provided as a grant. The production will assist the internal ultilisation of aluminium and also to earn overseas credits. It is proposed in the immediate future to produce 1,200,000 tons of bauxite, and within a few years, 2,500,000 tons. Possibly, not so very long after that production is achieved, a much greater amount will be produced.

Senator Henty:

– How many tons of bauxite are refined to produce a ton of aluminium?

Senator DITTMER:

– Four, of the particular grade of bauxite at Weipa. It depends on the percentage of alumina in the bauxite. At Weipa it is approximately 50 per cent.; in the Darling Ranges in Western Australia it is approximately 33 per cent. A difficulty in treating the bauxite at Weipa has been overcome. In the process of time, production of aluminium from bauxite can make a real contribution to our overseas credits, but the Federal Government cannot see any way to make a grant to the Queensland Government for this purpose. It makes many grants to other States, but Queensland seems to be anathema to the Federal Government. Probably some honorable senators opposite from Queensland will say that millions of pounds have been provided for beef roads in the State, and £100,000 for the Gladstone refinery. I am not aware of any other grants that have been made to Queensland, although money has been made available as loans.

The Australian public owns a very small percentage of, or has a very small interest in, the great commercial deposits controlled by Comalco, which is a combination of Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd. and the Kaiser group, which is completely owned overseas. In the area that has been prospected deposits have been proved of 600 million tons of bauxite containing -50 per cent, alumina. A much larger area is known to be bauxite bearing, resting on laterite beds. Not so far away is a comparatively large area held by the Aluminium Company of Canada, which has up to 20 per cent, interest in the proposed refinery at Gladsstone, along with Pechiney of France, the Kaiser group, Comalco and Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd.

An amount of £1,633,000 is to be made available as a loan by the Federal Government to the Queensland Government in the next 18 months. Repayment will be made over 30 years, commencing at about 15th July 1967. The Queensland Government is to purchase the waterside facilities in existence at Evans Landing. I believe that the Federal Government has a responsibility to see this project in the correct perspective and to exhibit a sense of proportion. What will Queensland get out of the 1,200,000 tons of bauxite produced? It will get a township with a population of between 4,000 and 5,000. As the centuries pass, there will be just a hole in the ground. An amount of £30,000 a year is to be paid in royalties and £1,635,000 is to be borrowed to provide facilities including the deepening of the channel from Albatross Bay along Emily River for about eight miles and the establishment of wharf facilities, including loading facilities. Of the production of 1,200,000 tons of bauxite, 600,000 tons will go to the refinery at Gladstone. Some 300.000 tons of alumina will be produced. Of this, 100,000 tons will go to Bell Bay. Some of the rest will go to Pechiney of France and some will go to Japan. It is hoped that other markets will be found. The other 600,000 tons of bauxite will be sold overseas. Two other Japanese companies have just entered into contracts; one will take 200,000 tons of bauxite a year and the other will take 100,000 tons a year for 10 years.

I think we are entitled to look at the broad perspective of this subject. Queensland will not have a smelter within its boundaries, although it has one of the really great commercial deposits of bauxite in the world. It is one of the richest deposits. In Western Australia, Alcoa of Australia Pty. Ltd., in association with the Western Mining Corporation Ltd. and with a reserve of 400 million tons of 33 per cent, alumina in the Darling Range, could within a matter of a few years establish a refinery at Kwinana and produce 200,000 tons of alumina a year. The smelter at Port Henry in Victoria could produce between 40,000 and 50,000 tons of aluminium. Australuco, which is the offspring of Alcan, will spend between £1 1 million and £15 million on an area near Newcastle and will use primarily Queensland bauxite. But the Queensland Government could not see fit to find a way to provide power at an economic price for a smelter in Queensland. The Victorian Government has been able to do so. I give credit to it. I know that this is a Conservative Government, but I pay tribute where it is due. I suppose that no-one on either side of the chamber is fairer than I am. No-one pays more regard to the truth and to the facts than 1 do. Even though this was done by a Government led by Mr. Bolte, I pay due regard to the fact that he was prepared, even using the brown coal deposits, to make electricity available at an economic price. So Victoria has a smelter at Port Henry and Victoria has an aluminium industry though it does not have any deposits of bauxite.

Queensland does not have a smelter. But. it has a tremendous deposit of 600 million tons of proven 50 per cent, grade bauxite. It is estimated that there is possibly the best part of 2 billion tons of bauxite in the area. Yet Queensland cannot establish a smelter. It will extract a miserable 6d. a ton royalty on the bauxite and the rate will not fluctuate even if the price goes up. I know that it has also been agreed that the rate will not fluctuate if the price goes down, but we have seen in recent years that the price does not go down. I am sure that if the price did go down, no government would be more willing to negotiate for a lower royalty than the present Queensland Government would, in an endeavour to assist a major industry and a big power.

I know that Senator Morris, Senator Lawrie or someone else will say that £52 million will be spent at Gladstone. Why will it be spent there? Simply because Gladstone happens to have the harbour facilities and everything that is necessary for the effective, efficient and cheap concentration of alumina from bauxite. If the bauxite could have been sent to the southern States or to another country economically, I am sure it would have been sent there. It is the fabricators of materials who enjoy a high standard of living, not those who produce the raw material. As is happening in Western Australia, raw materials are being distributed all over the world in order to raise the standard of living in other countries. At least the Western Australian Government is making some provision for the future. In the unreasonably distant future iron and steel works will be constructed in that State, but in Queensland no such provision is being made for the future. Probably Senator Morris has drawn attention to a particular clause relating to this aspect of the matter, but no definite obligation is cast upon the company concerned to build a smelting works in Queensland. The establishment of such a works is to be considered after a certain period of time and in conjunction with the provision of electricity at an economic price.

The Queensland Government is not doing what it should in relation to the development of that State’s resources. Let us hope, in the interests of Queensland, that there will be a change of Government in that State. Really it was only an accident that the Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party were elected to occupy the treasury bench. We must realise that Queensland will not develop its resources of bauxite to the extent that it should. The same can be said of other raw materials. I do not want to digress and talk about what is happening in relation to hard coking coal and how those responsible are trying flat out to export that product without knowing what the reserves are and what will be the ultimate needs of Australia.

We welcome the assistance that is provided for in the Bill, even though it is being given grudgingly. The money is to be made available by way of a loan; there is no suggestion of a grant being made. There is no suggestion that the Queensland Government will ensure that it collects sufficient harbour dues to recompense it for the tremendous expenditure that will be involved in providing facilities, not for Queenslanders, but for a really big industrial undertaking. The companies concerned could quite easily have made a contribution to the expenditure involved. There has never been a statement by the Premier or the Treasurer of Queensland about how the State will be reimbursed, how long it will take to recoup this money, and who will pay for what I believe will be constant dredging in this area. I admit that I am not an authority on this last aspect of the matter; I have never swum in the Emily River. I do not know even whether the engineers of the Harbours and Marine Department would be authorities on the matter. However, I have been informed that it is quite likely that there will have to be reasonably continuous dredging.

I hope that when this money is made available to Queensland that State will not fail, as it has in the past, to collect tint which it is entitled to. I hope that the people of Queensland, who ultimately will have just a very large hole in the ground, will be adequately recompensed for the expenditure they are about to undertake to provide facilities for a major industrial and mining undertaking.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

.- I wish to reply to some of the comments of Senator Dittmer, who criticised the Queensland Government at great length for its alleged failure to develop the Weipa area and who said that eventually there would only be a hole in the ground there. I remind the honorable senator that these deposits have been known for a considerable time.

Senator Dittmer:

– Since 1902.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Yes. When the Nicklin Government came to power after the Labour Government had been in office for a long while nothing had been done to develop this field.

Senator Dittmer:

– Do not be ridiculous.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Dittmer will remain silent.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– It was only as a result of the efforts of the late Ernie Evans, Minister for Mines in Queensland, that this scheme was brought to fruition. Today we are told that 700,000 tons of bauxite are being exported and that the undertaking will increase to the stage where 2i million tons of bauxite will be exported from Weipa in the future. This is not a small mine. It is a big mine on any man’s standards.

The only thing I would like to say in regard to the development of the port and town of Weipa is that road access should be hastened. Some carriers have recently knocked a temporary track through and they are able to get vehicles through, but a good road is the one thing that is needed up there. Senator Dittmer asked: “ What will Queensland get out of this? “ Queensland is going to get a sizable town in an area which until now has had nothing except a small mission. Queensland is going to get a new city at Gladstone. If Senator Dittmer had seen Gladstone recently he would not have made the remarks he made and would not have asked what Queensland was going to get out of this, because Gladstone is being developed at a tremendous rate. A big industrial development is taking place in the establishment there of the alumina refinery. I commend the Government for this agreement. It is the start of something really big. Development is taking place in a sparsely settled part of this continent and this development must grow and grow. I heartily support the Bill.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– in reply - I only want to say that once again Senator Lawrie has answered the points of criticism raised by Senator Dittmer. The fact is that in this instance the State of Queensland sought a loan. It did not seek a grant. Senator Dittmer has asked what Queensland is going to get out of this. I remind him that we should in this place - on the Opposition side as well as on the Government side - think in terms of national development and not in terms of the development of isolated areas. There is going to be tremendous development that will assist in the development of the nation as a whole and not only in the development of Quesnsland. Senator Dittmer referred to the expenditure of £52 million. I think that out of his own mouth he answered the question that he was postulating.

Question resolved in the affirmative. -

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

Clause 1 (Short Title and Citation).

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– I wish to refer to clause 1 briefly which refers to the Weipa Development Agreement. I wish to clear up some matters in relation to this area. Bauxite was discovered, not at Weipa but nearby, in 1902 by a man named Jackson, a State mining engineer. He thought the deposit was iron ore. On assay it turned out to contain 33 per cent, of alumina. In 1946 a geologist, Dr. Whitehouse, went up there and brought back samples of bauxite. He recognised the deposit as bauxite. Only one sample went as high as 50 per cent., the others going lower. Subsequently, in the 1950’s, Mr. Evans, the chief geologist of Consolidated Zinc Pty. Ltd. went up there on a prospecting tour for oil. He recognised the possibilities of the field. Sir Maurice Mawby had pointed out to him that the ore was on a laterite bed and that there was a possibility of rich bauxite deposits on top of these beds.

It was this geologist who brought samples back which proved to be of commercial value. Negotiations then took place with the Labour Government led by the present Senator Gair and an agreement was practically entered into. But because of an unfortunate stroke of circumstance for Queensland and the Queensland people an argument developed within the Labour Party. A group then fortuitously, under pressure from Mr. Evans and Sir Arthur Fadden, was forced to take control of the treasury bench after they had been seeking co-operation - the Country Party with one group and the Liberal Party with another group. The agreement was practically finalised. It just happened that Mr. Evans and Mr. Nicklin signed the agreement. For the information of Senator Lawrie, I would probably know a little more than he does, but I readily excuse his ignorance.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2299

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE VETERANS’ RESIDENCES BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 2259).

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– This Bill is designed to extend the classes of persons who may benefit from the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans’ Residences Fund. It will now apply to the widows of deceased members, mothers of deceased former unmarried members, and former female members who would be classified as eligible for benefits under the War Service Homes Act. The Fund has come from prize money from the various wars, particularly the Second World War. The money has been allocated to the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) in his second reading speech said -

An important amendment which is proposed in the Bill is the insertion of a section requiring the submission by the Trustees to the Minister of an annual report for presentation to the Parliament.

He also said -

I consider that opportunity should be provided to the Parliament to examine the activities of the Trust and determine whether the Fund is being applied to the most worthy objects. The presentation of an annual report will achieve this purpose.

We commend the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2299

QUESTION

SUPERANNUATION

(Question No. 567.)

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that nearly 10 years ago it was suggested in writing to the Superannuation Board that, because of the inflationary trend and the obvious solvency of the Superannuation Fund, there would be a surplus of nearly £61/2 million?
  2. As this forecast has now been vindicated, will the Treasurer have the correspondence laid on’ the table of the Senate, particularly that prepared by the Superannuation Board which rebuked contributors by saying that the Board was not obliged “to enter into lengthy correspondence” with any official organisation or any contributor on the actuarial aspects of the Superannuation Fund?
  3. Does the Treasurer agree that such a high handed attitude is unworthy of the Board and that action should be taken to prevent a repetition of such unjust treatment?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answer - 1, 2 and 3. The question appears to refer to an exchange of correspondence between the General Secretary of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and the President of the Superannuation Board. However, the quotation from the then President’s letter of 20th February 1958 is incomplete and, therefore, out of context. In the succeeding paragraphs of his letter the President questioned the assumptions about future earning rates of the Fund and pointed out that any surplus must be distributed in an equitable manner.

He said: “However, Mr. Bennington’s assumptions as to future interest earnings of the Fund are made on the rather optimistic thought that, for the next 10 years at least, and possibly longer, moneys will be able to be invested at 51/2 per cent. It could be pointed out that superannuation business consists of very long term contracts. When contribution rates are fixed, and valuation bases are adopted, consideration must be given not only to the immediate interest rates available from investments made now, but also to the likely interest earnings for extended periods in the future. Surplus arising in the Superannuation Fund belongs to contributors and pensioners as a body and must be distributed in an equitable manner. It is therefore undesirable to single out for special treatment any particular section of contributors or pensioners.”

It will be recalled that, subsequent to this correspondence, the Quinquennial Investigation of the Superannuation Fund, as at 30th June 1957, showed a surplus of £2,897,000, as a result of which benefits for existing pensioners were improved and a rebate was made on contributions payable by existing contributors for similar benefits. The next actuarial investigation, as at 30th June 1962, also showed a surplus and the honorable senator will be familiar with the decisions that were then taken and incorporated in the Superannuation Act 1965.

page 2299

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH LEGISLATIVE DRAFTING

(Question No. 592.)

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. What is required by way of staff and facilities to achieve the optimum of order and efficiency in Commonwealth legislative drafting?
  2. What administrative measures are being taken to avert the accumulation of bills introduced by the Government at the end of each legislative period of the Parliament?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -

  1. The first requirement is an adequate drafting staff. There are at present 22 legal professional positions in the. Parliamentary Drafting Division of the Attorney-General’s Department, of which seven are vacant. The vacancies have been advertised, and applicants are being interviewed. Facilities such as a library and printing, clerical and stenographic services are also required; these are available.
  2. The preparation of legislation is a continuous process, and work both in the originating department and in the Parliamentary Draftsman’s office commences as soon as the necessary policy decisions have been taken. Much of the legislation introduced during a particular legislative period has been worked on for many months previously. To assist in concentrating administrative and drafting efforts while Parliament is adjourned, lists of legislation proposed for a particular legislative period are drawn up as the previous period closes, and the legislation is introduced in the new period at the earliest possible time.

page 2300

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

(Question No. 676.)

Senator O’BYRNE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. In view of the serious situation in the drought ravaged areas of Queensland and New South Wales which has taken the proportions of a national disaster, will the Prime Minister call for an immediate report on the economic consequences to the nation of the loss of young breeding ewes that will die within a very short period of time through lack of feed or water or both and so set the wool industry back 10 years?
  2. Will the Prime Minister also have investigated the economic consequences of a greatly reduced wool clip next year, and for the next four to five years, even if the drought breaks soon?
  3. Will the Prime Minister have a further report made on the possibilities of purchasing the sugar cane from the glutted sugar industry and diverting the chopped up cane for feed for starving stock in New South Wales and Queensland?
  4. Will the Prime Minister declare the drought stricken areas of Queensland and New South Wales a national disaster area?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions - 1 and 2. The Government has well in mind and will continue to keep under notice the economic consequences of the drought conditions in parts of New South Wales and Queensland, including aspects of the kind referred to by the honorable senator.

  1. Any government action with respect to the possibilities mentioned would be a matter for the

State Governments concerned rather than the Commonwealth Government.

  1. Attention is invited to statements made by the Prime Minister on 26th August, 12th October and 7th December, in which the Commonwealth’s position in relation to drought relief measures was explained in detail, and the extent of Commonwealth financial assistance to the States for drought relief indicated. In these statements and in answers to questions in another place, the comprehensive nature of the Commonwealth’s approach, which is to support the budgetary position of New South Wales and Queensland to the extent necessary to permit the States to finance drought relief measures, has been made quite clear. The question of the declaration by the Commonwealth of drought-stricken areas in New South Wales and Queensland as national disaster areas does not arise.

page 2300

QUESTION

EDUCATION

(Question No. 748.)

Senator TANGNEY:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Will the Government consider allowing as a taxation deduction fees paid by part-time University students and post graduate teachers who are pursuing courses which will ultimately be of benefit to the community as a whole?
  2. Are increased rates of the fees causing hardship to such students and discouraging others from continuing their studies?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers -

  1. The question of authorising, as a deduction for income tax purposes, the cost of a person’s own education or part-time education has from time to time been considered by the Government but up to the present it has not felt able for budgetary and other reasons to agree that such a concession be granted.
  2. Wastage among part-time students in universities has always been heavy and is due, no doubt, to a number of factors. However, I know nothing to suggest that increased fees have been a major factor in wastage or in discouraging people from taking up part-time courses. The Commonwealth is anxious to provide equal opportunities in universities for part-time and full-time students and the increased number of Commonwealth university scholarships available in 1966 will provide greater opportunities for part-time students, both in their first year and in later years.

page 2300

QUESTION

INVESTMENT IN PUBLIC COMPANIES

(Question No. 768.)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that, after it became known that M.L.C. Ltd. would take over the control of H. G.

Palmer (Consolidated) Ltd., some of Australia’s leading financial institutions made large investments in debentures of the last named company?

  1. What companies coming within the provision of the Life Insurance Act 1945-1961 or the Insurance Act 1932-1960 made investments of this nature?
  2. When were the investments made and what were the amounts involved?
  3. What was the date of the announcement that M.L.C. Ltd. would take over the control of H. G. Palmer (Consolidated) Ltd.? 5.Has the Insurance Commissioner taken any action relating to these transactions in accordance with section 54 of the Life Insurance Act; if so, what is the nature of the information available?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers -

  1. I understand from Press reports that some leading financial institutions made investments in debentures of H. G. Palmer (Consolidated) Ltd., after it became known that this company would be taken over by the M.L.C. Ltd. 2 and . 3. This information is not presently available to me, nor is provision made for its publication under the provisions of the Life Insurance Act 1945-1961 or the Insurance Act 1932-1963.
  2. The take-over bid by the M.L.C. Ltd. to the ordinary shareholders in H. G. Palmer (Consolidated) Ltd. was formally made on 30th April 1963 and the take-over occurred on 1st July 1963.
  3. I draw the attention of the honorable senator to section 57 of Division 7 of the Life Insurance Act 1945-1961, which prevents the disclosure of information obtained by the Insurance Commissioner under that Division. The honorable senator may rest assured, however, that the Insurance Commissioner is keeping himself informed on developments in this matter as they happen.

page 2301

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 787.)

Senator McKENNA:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

With reference to an announcement by the Department of Civil Aviation on 30th March last that the German airline Lufthansa had been authorised to operate one service per week between Frankfurt and Sydney, instead of the two services sought, thus putting it on the same reduced basis as Qantas Empire Airways Ltd.; and to the Minister’s statement in the Senate on the 18th May last, that the Government had invited the German authorities to enter into a further study of the traffic flow between Australia and Germany in October 1965-

What was the result of the conference projected for October last; and

What is the position generally, and, in particular, of both Qantas and Lufthansa in relation to air services between the two countries?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I have the following answer to the honorable senator’s question -

  1. The German authorities, late in July, suggested that the study of the traffic flow between Australia and Germany, which Australia had proposed for October 1965, should be broadened into a discussion of the interpretation of the basic principles of the agreement. The reply was given to them that, whilst Australia was perfectly happy to have the proposed traffic flow study take place, as planned and agreed, it considered that the broader discussion which had been held as recently as March 1965, should not be repeated before early 1966. It was pointed out that the respective civil aviation authorities would then be in a better position to review basic principles, and their application, as they would have before them almost 12 months evidence of the impact on the situation of the introduction last April of the German air service. The German and Australian civil aviation authorities are continuing their efforts to find a mutually acceptable and convenient arrangement for further exchanges on the matter.
  2. Qantas and Lufthansa continue to operate one flight a week each between Australia and Germany. The question whether traffic demand between the two countries requires any increase in frequency by each of the airlines will be easier to assess by February or March 1966 when the figures for almost 12 months operation will have been exchanged and analysed.

page 2301

QUESTION

DECIMAL CURRENCY

Senator HENTY:
LP

– On 30th November, Senator Cavanagh asked in a question without notice whether the Treasurer could arrange for decimal coins to be made available for the purposes of testing the mechanisms of vending machines. The Treasurer has furnished the following reply -

Subject to certain security precautions, specimens of the decimal coins may be obtained for machine testing purposes on application to the Decimal Currency Board in Sydney, and to the Commonwealth Sub-Treasury in the other State capitals.

page 2301

QUESTION

F111A AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 772.)

Senator DEVITT:

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

  1. In view of the worsening situation in Vietnam and the possible substantial increase in Australian troop commitments in that area, and in the light of reported American criticism of the inadequacy of our contribution, will the Minister undertake to make immediate representations for the purpose of speeding up delivery of the TFX F111 bomber to replace the obsolete Canberra bomber, and thus provide essential convoy and fighting zone protection for Australian troops?
  2. Can the Minister dispel fears that increasing American requirement for this aircraft will cause delays in fulfilling current Royal Australian Air Force orders?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for Air has supplied the following answers -

  1. No. The existing arrangements which provide for the delivery of F111 A aircraft to the R.A.A.F. in the latter half of 1968, are considered adequate.
  2. There is no reason to expect that there will be any delay in fulfilling the current R.A.A.F. order.

page 2302

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported -

Decimal Currency Board Bill 1965.

Currency Bill 1965.

Reserve Bank Bill 1965.

Superannuation Bill 1965.

Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill (No. 2) 1965.

page 2302

TRADE PRACTICES BILL 1965

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill.

page 2302

NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Appointment of Joint Select Committee

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to inform honorable senators that I have received letters informing the Senate of the appointment of senators and members to the Joint Select Committee on the new and permanent Parliament House. The Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) has appointed

Mr. Anthony, Mr. Aston, Mr. Chipp and Mr. Drury and the Leader of the Opposition in another place (Mr. Calwell) has appointed Mr. Whitlam, Mr. Barnard, Mr. Benson and Mr. Nicholls. Mr. Clyde Cameron has been appointed jointly by the Leaders of the Opposition in the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Henty) has appointed Senators Drake-Brockman and Wedgwood and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has appointed Senators O’Byrne and Cavanagh.

page 2302

VALEDICTORY

The PRESIDENT:

– Honorable senators, we seem to have reached the end of the business for this year. I want to express my appreciation and thanks to honorable sen ators for the co-operation they have given to me during the last 12 months. Particularly do I thank the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Henty) and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator McKenna).

There are one or two things I want to say in regard to staff members. We have had a very busy year and the members of the staff have done extremely well. They have a big burden on their shoulders and there will be an even greater load during the coming year because of the spring meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union which is to be held in Canberra. I know honorable senators do not overlook the matter but I think it worth while that I should remind them of the work done in this House by the Clerk and his staff - for they are all in it - in connection with the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. At the same time I wish to pay my respects to Mr. Alan Turner, the Clerk of the House of Representatives, who has been untiring in his efforts on behalf of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It makes it much easier to carry out this work when there are men in this field of activity of the quality and enthusiasm (if the two Clerks.

I wish to thank the Press, because by and large Press representatives have treated us very well this year. When there is news they report us. I think that the association of the Press with the Parliament must be carefully preserved.

In regard to Library matters, I want to say that the Library will be much better in the future. We have gone a long way during the last 12 months and we will go much further during the coming period. I anticipate that our reference section will be improved considerably in the near future. I wish to thank other members of the parliamentary staff. They are all around the place and we do not see them. They are hard working people, remaining here late at night and carrying on the work of the Parliament. We thank those people for the services given to us and the willingness that has always been evident to do what they can to make our work here as light as possible. There is one staff member I want to mention particularly. I refer to Mr. Phillips who has long been manager of the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms. He joined the staff in 1951 and has become part of the place. This is his last year of service in the Parliament. He retires at the end of the year. For all the things that have been done for us I say: Thank you very much for the service given during the year.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

– Mr. President, on behalf of Government supporters I would like to extend to you our best wishes for Christmas and the New Year. I want to thank you for your assistance and co-operation throughout the year. I congratulate you on the way in which you have presided over the work of this Senate. It is not easy. We all are human. We all have our frailties and moments when we get a little hot under the collar. But you have always been just and have kept the proceedings well within bounds. On behalf of all of us I would like to thank you for your work in this field.

In the last few months I have had the honour to lead the Government in this chamber. It is a very great honour to have held this position. My pleasure in it has been greatly tempered by the fact that I came to the position because of the illness of Senator Shane Paltridge. We all felt sad when we heard that Senator Paltridge was so ill. I am happy to say that Senator Paltridge is now recovering. I think we can expect to see him back next session. I know I speak on behalf of all of us when I say that we hope to see him here. We wish him well. We wish him the happiest of Christmasses. I want to thank my team mates behind me for putting up with what they have had to put up with. In this life we make mistakes when we first come into a new field. I thank them for having put up with the mistakes I have made. They have helped me considerably with their co-operation throughout this time. Their co-operation has helped to ease the burden of the work.

I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) for his help, too. I thank the other members of the Opposition also. The Leader of the Opposition has even gone as far as to advise me in times of stress. I have appreciated this. His long experience in and knowledge of the procedures of the House have been of benefit and help to me. I thank the staff for the work they have done. You, Mr. President, have mentioned them all. I join with you. on behalf of Government supporters, in saying that we appreciate the hard work they have done. We thank them for the efficient way in which they have carried out their duties. Without their advice on the procedures and Standing Orders of the Senate we would fare ill. I would like you to know, gentlemen, that we appreciate very much the work and the help you have given us over this year. We look forward to leaning on your shoulders and obtaining some assistance - perhaps not more - next year. I would like to thank the members of the Press also who have faithfully written all the news we have made. And we have made news in the last three or four days if I have read the headlines correctly. Whenever we do make news the Press faithfully records it. I extend my best wishes to the “ Hansard “ staff who must have the most arduous of jobs. I think we all agree that our speeches, when we read them in “Hansard”, appear in a far better way than we ever hoped to be able to deliver them ourselves.

So, I conclude and on behalf of the Government say to all of you: “A merry Christmas and a happy New Year “.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Mr. President, 1 endorse all that the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Henty) has said. I thank him for the good wishes he has extended to members of the Opposition. To you, Mr. President, I offer congratulations upon completing one more successful year of your long term as President. In that period you have shown us your usual happy blend of firmness and tolerance. You have even demonstrated that today. I am delighted that Senator Henty has made reference to Senator Paltridge. We on the Opposition side were distressed to learn of his rather serious illness. We rejoice in the news that Senator Henty has given us. I would like to assure Senator Paltridge that we have not forgotten him, that we think of him, and we wish him well.

I thank Senator Henty for his reference to me. I congratulate him upon his period of office as Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. The business of the Senate has run smoothly thanks to his readiness to co-operate with the Opposition whenever it has been possible. It is true that the business of the Senate has been conducted very smoothly during his term as Acting Leader. The business has been conducted quickly, efficiently and, I am delighted to say, without protracted and late sittings. That is a matter for which Senator Henty can take a great deal of credit. 1 include Ministers in the thanks that I extend, especially for the many courtesies I have received from them arid their staffs. To Government senators I convey, on behalf of the Opposition, the very best wishes for Christmas and the New Year. I trust to see them all back in good health.

To my own team, I extend warm greetings and good wishes for the coming season. I trust that they will return in good health to the Senate also. I thank them in particular for their co-operation and their extraordinary loyalty under all conditions throughout the year. To our friends on the cross benches 1 extend the season’s greetings, and I say without offensive intent that despite their promiscuous behaviour when they love and leave the Opposition and in turn, love and leave the Government, we still wish them well for the period ahead. We welcome the occasions when they decide to be with us.

Senator Henty has referred to the work of the Clerk. We are indebted indeed to Mr. Odgers and his officers. We are fortunate in this chamber to have Mr. Odgers as our Clerk, new in the office but very rich in experience of it. I am sure that he has made and will continue to make a very worthy successor of our very worthy former Clerk, Mr. Loof, whom I think we might also remember on this occasion. To the other officers and the staff of the Senate we are indebted for countless courtesies and invaluable help down the years. “ Hansard “ is merciful and helpful to all of us. I am happy that you, Sir, have made reference to the retirement of Mr. Phillips, the Manager of the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms. He has had a difficult job catering for and satisfying the most vocal group in the Commonwealth - the Federal Parliamentarians. We shall certainly miss him. He has been with us now for a very long time. I express thanks to him in particular for the many ways in which he has helped us. I must also express thanks to the officers of the Australian Broadcasting Commission who faithfully - perhaps more faithfully than the Press - record our observations from, time to time in broadcasting the proceedings of the Parliament and also in their news services. They are constantly in touch with what goes on in this place and keep us intimately in touch with the electors. To the gentlemen of the Press Gallery I extend the very best wishes of the Opposition.

The year has been very strenuous and very interesting. I think it has reflected credit on the Senate. The debating strength of the Senate has been greatly strengthened in recent times by the influx of new talent. I think this assures the future of the Senate for a long time to come. There is an adequate element of youth and life in it. There is, on all sides, energy, ability, debating strength and real willingness to work. I welcome this as one who is rather dedicated to the status and the future of the Senate, and I look forward to the development of the Senate along the lines that I now foresee.

Senator MCKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– I would like to endorse the remarks of the Leader of the Government (Senator Henty) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). I thank you, Sir, for the very efficient manner in which you have carried out your duties. I also thank the Chairman of Committees (Senator Drake-Brockman) for the work he has done. There is one other person to whom all of us on this side feel grateful, despite the fact that on some occasions we feel a certain amount of hostility towards her. I refer to our loyal Whip, Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin. How she stands up to the rigors of her position I do not know. Were she a man I am sure she would have had ulcers long before this.

Senator O’Byrne:

– She does not have them; she gives them.

Senator McKELLAR:

– There may be something in that. In any case, we do owe her a great debt of gratitude. I thank the members of the party that I have the privilege of leading in this place - small in number as it may be - for the assistance that I have received from them and for their loyalty to me since I was given the privilege of leading them. 1 also wish to say how much I appreciate the invariable courtesy and co-operation of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). I thank personally the other members of the Opposition and all honorable senators.

I conclude by wishing all honorable senators a very merry Christmas and a very happy new year. I join with Senator McKenna in hoping that we will see the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Paltridge) back here before very long, restored to health. I also join with Senator McKenna in hoping that we will see all honorable senators back here when we meet again, in the best of health and ready to continue the good work that has been done during the past 12 months.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– Unfortunately, Senator Gair has been called away. But he made a special request to me to express our thanks to you, Mr. President, for the manner in which you have conducted the affairs of the Senate over the period in which we have been here. It has been suggested that you have been firm but tolerant. I certainly agree with that in every respect. I am particularly grateful to you, however, for your tolerance. I also thank the Chairman of Committees, Senator Drake-Brockman, the Clerks who always put us right when we look like going wrong, the members of the “Hansard” staff, the attendants, the staff of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and all other honorable senators. My return to the Senate has been an enjoyable experience. The people thought that I would be the better for three years’ rest. It has been very pleasant to come back.

I reciprocate the good wishes that all the previous speakers have offered. In regard to Senator McKenna’s reference to promiscuous behaviour, I must tell him that I am too old for that; I am now an extinct volcano. At this time we have the best of feelings towards all other honorable sena tors. I am glad that every previous speaker has mentioned Senator Paltridge. I have always been a great admirer of him. I, like all other honorable senators, felt it very much when I heard that he was stricken with a serious illness. I was delighted to hear Senator Henty say that he is now progressing well.

Senator Henty has certainly had a very gruelling introduction to the leadership of the Government in this place. But he does not seem to have lost any weight. He seems to have stood up to it very well. I thank him for the tolerance that he has exercised at times towards the rebels who gum up the works and hold things up. I hope that there will not be any hard feelings towards any of the rebels in his party. After all, rebels brighten things up. The Senate would be a terrible place if everything went just like clockwork and nobody ever held things up. I believe that members of the Government can take some credit unto themselves for the fact that, in spite of all the obstacles and hurdles - some were like 10 feet high steeplechase obstacles - it got through all its business and achieved the great bulk of its objectives. I conclude by wishing everybody the best for the coming season.

page 2305

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Henty) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 2305

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Henty) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till a day and hour to be fixed by the President, which time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

Senate adjourned at 5.54 p.m. till a day and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 December 1965, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1965/19651210_senate_25_s30/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant