House of Representatives
18 September 1957
22nd Parliament · 2nd Session
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- GOSFORD TELEPHONE EXCHANGE
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE BILL 1957
- LOAN (HOUSING) BILL 1957
- LOAN (WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT) BILL 1957
- QUESTION
- ADJOURNMENT
- ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.
page 707
QUESTION
AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE
Dr EVATT:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES
– As the Prime Minister proposes to-morrow morning to make a statement of great importance in relation to defence, will he, in accordance with the usual custom, endeavour to make a copy of that statement available in advance to the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP
– 1 always do that, unless it is completely impossible. I will follow the same practice on this occasion.
page 707
QUESTION
AUSTRALIAN RIVERS
Sir EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES
– My question is directed to the Minister for the Interior. First, I would congratulate him upon his progressive move regarding river gaugings and rainfall records throughout Australia. As our largest river system, the DarlingMurray, traverses four States, and our other major rivers affect more than one State, will he investigate the establishment of a federal inter-agency river basin committee? Such a committee would have State representation and would make an economic analysis of Australian river basin projects to determine the value of their ancillary benefits, and the costs of river improvement, such as the provision of water supply, the prevention of flood damage, and the secondary advantages of dams for hydroelectric power, navigation, irrigation, and so on.
Such a committee was established in the United States of America in 1950 as a result of co-operation between the Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Federal Power Commission and Army Corps of Engineers - the main bodies associated with river improvement in that country. The committee has now established a formula showing the primary and secondary ancillary benefits that are associated with such river improvements, and the best means of properly evaluating their financial advantages to the community. As the present drought conditions are causing tremendous losses in river valleys - losses which would have been prevented by river improvement - I ask the Minister to regard this matter as urgent, and supply an early answer.
Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for the Interior · PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP
– I thank the right honorable member for Cowper for his words of congratulation, and for his question. The proposed extension of the work of the Bureau of Meteorology is a logical extension. We are establishing a service which will begin to correlate the meteorological information available on the rivers of Australia in a way which will allow us to produce data upon which river works can be adequately designed. I do not think that any country in the world which is so dependent on its water resources as we are knows so little about those resources as we do. 1 am afraid that I would have some reservations about establishing the sort of committee to which the right honorable gentleman refers. Though the function of correlating meteorological data is properly that of the Federal Government, the conservation, flood mitigation, irrigation and power generation works to which the right honorable member refers would normally come under the control of the States. Though some future constitutional modification may allow the Federal Government to enter that field, I would regard our responsibilities at the moment as ending with the provision of data.
It is quite true that a good deal of this work has been done in the United States of America, but I believe that there the navigational power of the federal government was invoked. I think that it would be straining things a little to assume that our navigation power would cover all of the matters to which the right honorable gentleman has referred. Nevertheless, it is a useful suggestion. It is most constructive - especially from the longrange point of view - and I shall be very glad to give to further consideration.
page 707
QUESTION
SNOWY MOUNTAINS SCHEME
Mr GALVIN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA
– My question to the Prime Minister concerns the agreement between the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victorian governments regarding the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme and the effect of the agreement on South Australian rights under the River Murray Waters Agreement. T ask the Prime Minister: Is he aware that the Premier of South Australia has claimed that, despite repeated requests to the Prime Minister for a copy of such agreement, no such copy has. been made available to him, and that he has now stated that if he does not receive a copy within one week the South Australia Government will be forced to take legal action to protect South Australia’s rights? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that a copy of the agreement will be made available to the Premier of South Australia, not only because a courteous request has been made, but also to improve the good relations between that State and the Commonwealth and to avoid a legal clash between the two governments?
Mr MENZIES:
LP
– As I have more than once informed the Premier of South Australia, when there is an agreement in relation to the Snowy Mountains scheme he will at once be provided with a copy of it, At the moment no agreement exists because signatures are still required. The negotiation of the agreement has been a long process. The rights of South Australia under the River Murray Waters Agreement have been kept well in mind. In the view of the Commonwealth Government and that of the other contracting parties, the Governments of Victoria and New South Wales, those rights are in no sense affected adversely by the proposed agreement. We think, and I am sure that all honorable members will agree with us, that in order that the Snowy Mountains scheme shall be put on a firm foundation - it is a vast undertaking - we should concentrate our efforts, as we have been doing, on securing a final agreement with the two participant States. One of them has, I believe, already signed. The other one will sign, I imagine, within the next few hours. The Commonwealth will then sign. I have indicated to my friend the Premier of South Australia that when there is an agreement he will at once be furnished with the full text of that document.
page 708
QUESTION
ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE
Mr FORBES:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA
– Is the Minister for Air aware that the City of Adelaide Squadron is the only Citizen Air Force squadron not equipped with jet planes? Is he aware that this squadron, in relation to the proportion of volunteer aircrew personnel and ground staff, has the best record in Australia? Does he not think it is about time that the achievements of this squadron were recognized by providing it with something more up to date than Mustangs?
Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP
– I am aware of the facts to which the honorable member has referred. Number 24 squadron of the Citizen Air Force in South Australia is equipped at present with Mustang aircraft. The plans of the Air Force provide for it to be equipped in the course of time with Vampire aircraft. There are two reasons why it has not been so equipped so far. The first reason is that the base from which the squadron operates, Mallala airfield, is grass covered and is not suitable for the operation of jet aircraft. Until plans, which now exist, for moving the squadron to Edinburgh air base have been carried out, the squadron must remain equipped with piston-engine aircraft. The second reason is that the conversion of a squadron to jetpropelled aircraft necessitates a period of training. Two-seater trainer aircraft of the Vampire type are required, but these aircraft, for the time being - I emphasize those words - are in short supply in the Air Force. Plans exist for the conversion of the squadron to Vampire aircraft, and they will be carried out in due course. I am aware of some criticism which has been expressed by a newspaper in South Australia about the present state of No. 24 squadron and which refers, quite unfairly I think, to a state of dissatisfaction in that squadron. My own knowledge enables me to refute any suggestions of dissatisfaction in that squadron, and to say, on its behalf, that its morale, the extent to which it is manned by Citizen Air Force personnel, and its enthusiasm are up to the highest standards of the Citizen Air Force squadrons.
page 708
QUESTION
TERRITORY RICE LIMITED
Mr NELSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY
– I address a question to the Minister for Territories. In view of the grave concern that is felt in the Northern Territory about reports circulating concerning the prospects of Territory Rice Limited, which holds large concessions of rice land in the north, will the Minister inform the House whether he is satisfied that the financial resources of the company, which represents American interests, are of such a nature as will permit the financing of the developmental policy laid down in the terms of its agreement with the Commonwealth? Is the programme of development behind schedule, and what are the prospects of the company? Is it in arrears with payments for work performed on its behalf by the Commonwealth? If so, what is the amount involved?
Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP
– I am quite aware that rumours have been assiduously spread by people, who might have taken a more responsible attitude in the matter, on the subject of the honorable member’s question. Many of the matters to which he refers, of course, are matters relating to the management of the company’s own affairs; I can only undertake to answer on behalf of the Government. The Government has an agreement with Territory Rice Limited; 75 per cent, of Territory Rice Limited capital is American capital, and 25 per cent, is Australian capital. Under the terms of the agreement, the transfer of land to the company takes place only when certain progress has been made in the planting of areas and the proving of their suitability for rice. So far as the Government is concerned, every aspect of the agreement with it is being properly discharged. We have no reason to believe that the agreement will not be carried out to its full. The question of the financial resources of the other party to this agreement was, of course, one on which the Government satisfied itself before it entered into the agreement, and I can assure the honorable member and the House that behind the American party to the agreement there is very substantial capital - very substantial indeed. Any of the affairs relating to the internal management of Territory Rice Limited would not come within my jurisdiction. Any question relating to that matter could be addressed to the management.
page 709
QUESTION
TRADE WITH CHINA
Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND
– Can the Minister for Trade say whether the department has any account of any strategic materials exported from this country being redirected to red China or, as the euphemism has it, continental China? If it has, what exactly are the circumstances under which the redirection is made, and what is the approximate value of the goods involved?
Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP
– I personally have no knowledge that the department has any account of the re-export to continental China of goods that are on the prescribed list. I shall inquire whether there is any information in the department on this point, and advise the honorable member.
page 709
QUESTION
SNOWY MOUNTAINS SCHEME
Mr CHAMBERS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA
– I address a question to the Prime Minister, supplementary to that of the honorable member for Kingston. The right honorable gentleman has indicated that the signatures are about to be placed on the Snowy Mountains agreement. Is it not a fact that the request of the Premier of South Australia was really for a copy of the draft agreement, or at least for an opportunity to see the agreement before it was signed, believing, of course, that South Australia was vitally interested in it? Is it not possible for that request to be granted?
Mr MENZIES:
LP
– The request of the Premier of South Australia was to see the draft agreement in whatever form it might assume, before the negotiations had concluded and the signatures were attached. We, quite frankly, thought that undesirable because we wanted to bring these negotiations to a conclusion, and to a conclusion which would be satisfactory to the contracting governments and not injurious to anybody with rights under other legislation or agreements.
Dr Evatt:
– But that might stop consideration of South Australia’s views, in relation to some important clauses of the agreement.
Mr MENZIES:
– It is not proposed that South Australia should be a party to this agreement.
Dr Evatt:
– Or be permitted to approve of it.
Mr MENZIES:
– Or to approve of it. This is a contract between three governments - those of the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victoria - and my own earnest desire, and also that of the Government, is to bring the contract to finality as soon as possible.
Mr Calwell:
– Does the Premier of South Australia admit that South Australia is not a party to the agreement?
Mr MENZIES:
– I have never heard that he claims it to be a party to the Snowy Mountains agreement. I have not heard of that claim and I do hot believe that it exists.
page 709
QUESTION
AUSTRALIAN AIRMAN IN MALAYA
Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES
– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Air, concerns an airman who recently was posted to Malaya in “ A “ category for two years and expected his wife to follow him soon after he left. On arrival in Malaya, he found that his posting had been altered to “ D “ category and was for less than twelve months, so that, consequently, his wife would not be entitled to follow him. In view of the fact that this young couple married on the understanding that they would be able to go to Malaya together, will the Air Force stand by its obligation to enable the wife to join her husband?
Mr OSBORNE:
LP
– I am aware of the circumstances of the particular serviceman to whom the honorable member has referred. I have looked into this matter and 1 find that the circumstances in which the young man went to Malaya have altered since he went there. The entitlement that he perhaps reasonably expected when he went to Malaya cannot be extended to him now because of the probability of his early return to Australia. I have not finally decided on what should be done in this case. The honorable member’s question rather precipitates such a decision, but I can only say to him that I feel that, at the present time, the difficulties in the way of enabling the serviceman’s wife to join him are quite considerable.
page 710
QUESTION
COPPER
Mr KEARNEY:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES
– Will the Minister for Trade say whether it is a fact that import licences covering 5,000 tons of copper wire bar and billets have been issued in very recent periods to the copper fabricating companies, Metal Manufactures Limited of Port Kembla, and Austral Bronze Company Proprietary Limited of Sydney? Does the Minister agree that the importation of such quantities of copper wire bar and billets from the United States of America and elsewhere adversely affects Australian production of copper and also threatens the employment of workers engaged in the smelting of copper at the works of Electrolytic Refining and Smelting Company of Australia Proprietary Limited at Port Kembla? Will the Minister investigate the issue of these licences and take action to ensure the extension of Australian industries concerned with the production and smelting of copper?
Mr McEWEN:
CP
– I know something of the case, but I think the honorable member has the figures wrong. Speaking subject to correction, I think an import licence, or permit. for 500 tons of copper wire bars was issued, although the tonnage may be greater than that. The circumstances are that practically the whole of Australia’s requirements of copper for fabricating purposes has been derived from Australian copper mines, the copper being refined and processed to the point of copper cake or copper wire bar at the refinery of the Electrolytic Refining and Smelting Company of Australia Proprietary Limited. Unfortunately an explosion which occurred in the furnaces there a few weeks ago has interrupted the supply, and licences have been issued only to the extent necessary to continue the availability of these requirements of copper to Australian industry.
Mr Kearney:
– Will the Minister investigate the accuracy of that?
Mr McEWEN:
– 1 know it is accurate.
Mr Kearney:
– That is not true.
Mr McEWEN:
– It is quite true.
page 710
QUESTION
JAPANESE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr LINDSAY:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA
– I direct to the Minister for Trade a question supplementary to a question I asked yesterday, which was not fully answered. We are all aware that the Japanese Government will not flood the Australian market with dumped goods, because the amount of goods will depend on orders covered by import licences. However, would the right honorable gentleman inform me whether any lists will be kept of the imports from Japan brought in by Australian companies or individuals? Would not such lists be useful to enable it to be known which companies, by using their general licences to import large quantities of goods to the harm of Australian industries and to their own gain, are the guilty parties? Would the lists not be a safeguard against abuses?
Mr McEWEN:
CP
– No. The position is that, when the Government issues an import licence to a company, to the extent that that licence is good for use within the sterling area it is to-day equally good for use in Japan, and the Government will certainly not keep lists of the companies that exercise their rights - quite legally - to import from Japan, and, to that extent, exercise some judgment to use the honorable member’s own words, regarding guilt or otherwise in that respect.
Dr Evatt:
– He just wants some record kent, that is all.
Mr McEWEN:
– If the right honorable gentleman will let me continue, 1 wish to inform the honorable member for Flinders that, as 1 think I explained yesterday, a record is being kept, not after but before the event he mentioned, and not for the purpose of forming a judgment against an importing company - because there will be no such judgment by the department or the Government, since a company in such a case would be acting legally - but for the purpose of having prior knowledge of what imports of Japanese goods can be expected to arrive in this country a few months hence. The purpose of these records is that we may know whether Japanese goods will be arriving in such volume as would harm Australian industry, it being the announced policy of the Government to ensure that serious harm shall not occur to Australian industry as a result of imports from Japan. So, that kind of record will be kept before the event, but we shall not keep a record of the kind to which the honorable member was alluding, after imports have arrived here.
page 711
QUESTION
TULLY FALLS HYDRO-ELECTRIC SCHEME
Mr EDMONDS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND
– By way of preface to a question which I direct to the Treasurer, I assume that the right honorable gentleman is aware that the Tully Falls hydro-electric scheme is to be opened by Mr. Nicklin, Country party Premier of Queensland, on the 23rd of this month. I ask the right honorable gentleman: In view of the fact that the Labour government of Queensland, now out of office, had to bear the full cost of construction of this scheme, and proceeded with it despite the relentless refusal of the Menzies-Fadden Government to provide one farthing of financial support for it, does he not believe it to be a hypocrisy and a sham that the opening should be attended by a flood of federal Ministers and supporters of this Government?
Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP
– It is just as well to give a little of the history of the subject of this question. The Tully Falls scheme, which is to be opened on Wednesday next, I think, was promised by every successive Labour government in Queensland since 1926. Tt is to be opened in this year of grace. 1 957, by virtue of the financial assistance that was given, if not directly, then indirectly by the Menzies-Fadden Govern ment to Queensland since 1949. Successive Queensland Labour governments have received from Commonwealth governments, during the last ten years, a total sum of £522,000,000 from all sources, of which only £104,000,000 was received from the Chifley Government. In view of these facts, who is more entitled to open this monumental work which has been made possible by the practical co-operation of the Menzies Government than is the man who is the leader of the Country-Liberal Government in Queensland?
page 711
QUESTION
DISALLOWED QUESTION
Mr DOWNER:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA
– My question is directed without notice to the Prime Minister, and it is supplementary to those that were asked by the honorable member for Kingston and the honorable member for Adelaide.
Mr SPEAKER:
– Order! If the honorable member’s question is supplementary to the other questions, it will be out of order.
Mr Downer:
– I rise to a point of order, ls not an honorable member entitled to ask a supplementary question?
Mr SPEAKER:
– Not a second supplementary question.
page 711
QUESTION
MERINO SHEEP
Mr CURTIN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES
– Will the Minister for Trade give to the Parliament an undertaking that under no circumstances will the Government lift the embargo on the export of merino rams? Is the Minister aware that when he allowed the export of Australian stud merinos to South Africa and the United States of America in 1955, he endangered the future of the Australian wool industry? Is he aware that three merino rams which were exported to South Africa in that year sired 300 lambs, and that during this spring 300 more lambs are expected? Does he not agree that at this rate of reproduction South Africa will have sizeable merino flocks in a few years? Does the Minister recall the statement he made to the Parliament in October, 1955, to the effect that four rams were sent to South Africa, four to the United Kingdom, and four to California to be used by scientists in the study of genetic problems in breeding? Has he or the Government received any reports from any of those three countries concerning the result of those scientific studies? If neither the
Minister nor the Government has received a report concerning the breeding of lambs from Australian rams, will he instigate inquiries at once into the matter? Will he also have inquiries made into what has happened to the rams that were allowed to go to the United Kingdom and California?
Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Primary Industry · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP
– I shall answer the question. Representations were made by the Graziers Federal Council of Australia for permission to export merino rams, but it was informed that the decision of the Federal Government still stood. The decision was that, if it could be proved that a significant majority of the Australian wool-growing interests were willing to agree to the export of rams, the matter would then be considered by the Government, and not before. The number of protests that I have received since the council made its representations has been overwhelming, and therefore I have not thought it appropriate to submit a recommendation either for or against to the Government. As to the rest of the honorable gentleman’s comment, which is purely a matter of opinion, far too many questions are involved for me to give him a detailed reply. I think I can say that the results achieved overseas were not as great as he has suggested; in fact, it can well be said that expectations have not been fulfilled. The results have been relatively negligible, and I do not think they present any danger to the Australian woolgrowing industry.
page 712
QUESTION
TARIFF BOARD REPORTS
Mr L R JOHNSON:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– Will the Minister for Trade advise the House why the Government has failed to give either full or partial effect to three important reports submitted by the Tariff Board? These reports concern the manufacture of certain alkaline and chlorine products, the manufacture of socks, and the manufacture of wool tops, woollen yarns, piece goods, blankets and rugs. Why was the Tariff Board permitted to waste time and public money in conducting inquiries in relation to those matters without being advised that its reports would not be acceptable to the Government? Does the Minister intend to disregard the board’s advice in the future to the extent that it has been disregarded in the past?
Mr McEWEN:
CP
– The Tariff Board operates under a statute of this Parliament as a body to advise the Government.
Its reports are treated as advice to the Government. The records show that the advice of the Tariff Board has been followed to an overwhelming extent by the Government, but on occasions, exercising its authority, the Government has not followed the advice of the board. That is the position.
page 712
QUESTION
WOOL
Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA
– Is the Minister for Trade aware that Japanese wool buyers have removed from Australian wool stores only a small percentage of last year’s purchases? Is there any suggestion that there was an over-purchase during that year in order to make the trade deficit of Japan as large as possible in view of the then proposed Japanese-Australian Trade Agreement?
Mr McEWEN:
CP
– I think that is nonsense. Last year the Japanese bought, I think, over 800,000 bales of wool. The suggestion that only a small proportion of that quantity has been removed from Australian wool stores is absolute nonsense.
Dr Evatt:
– What is the figure?
Mr McEWEN:
– I have not the figure in my mind, but I know that a certain amount of the wool purchased by the Japanese, as well as by other overseas buyers, is left in Australian stores for some time. I also know that in the case of Japan only a small proportion of the total amount purchased is involved. The situation is not different, measurably or in principle, from that which has existed over the years with all buyers of Australian wool.
page 712
GOSFORD TELEPHONE EXCHANGE
Mr DEAN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES
– Some time ago the PostmasterGeneral was good enough to inform me that a decision had been reached to install an automatic telephone exchange at Gosford, New South Wales, and that it was proposed to commence the work in the latter half of 1957. I now ask the honorable gentleman whether it is intended to proceed with the work as scheduled, as the connexion of quite a number of telephone services is awaiting the installation of that exchange.
Mr DAVIDSON:
Postmaster-General · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · CP
– I remember the inquiries made by the honorable member about the provision of these facilities at Gosford. A week or so ago, I did see in the information coming through to me from the department some reference to this project, but I have to confess that at the moment I am not quite clear as to what the reference was. Therefore, I should prefer to give the honorable member the information by letter, rather than try to recall it now.
page 713
QUESTION
DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS IN CANBERRA
Mr J R FRASER:
ALP
– I ask the Prime Minister, in his capacity as Minister acting for the Minister for External Affairs: Will he consider initiating discussions between officers of the Department of External Affairs and the heads of diplomatic missions in Canberra with a view to securing an agreement under which members of the staffs of diplomatic missions here employing labour, either in a domestic, household or other capacity, would undertake to pay award wages to, and provide award conditions for, those employees? Will he also seek an undertaking that all employees of the staffs of diplomatic missions in Canberra will be covered by insurance under the workers’ compensation ordinance? The Prime Minister will realise, I am sure, that at present these provisions do not apply. He can accept my assurance that cases of real hardship have occurred which, I believe, could be obviated with goodwill on both sides.
Mr MENZIES:
LP
– As I am not very well furnished with first-hand knowledge on this matter, I will certainly look into it.
page 713
QUESTION
NORTHERN TERRITORY WATER SUPPLY
Mr SWARTZ:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND
– My question is directed to the Minister for Territories. In view of seasonal conditions in the Northern Territory, which create a large heavy-rainfall area close to the coast, where rain falls for a short period during the year, tapering off to a very low rainfall area at the river sources, can the Minister say whether any investigations are being conducted at present into water use in the Northern Territory and, if so, what success has so far been achieved?
Mr HASLUCK:
LP
– The problem of conservation of water resources and the location of further water resources was recognized as being the key to Northern Territory development quite some time ago. About three or four years ago, policy directions were given on that matter. As a result, we have recently established a water use branch in the Northern Territory Administration. A director of that branch, with suitable qualifications, has been appointed and a number of other positions, which will be filled by the Public Service Board, have been created. The general purposes of this branch are, on the one hand, to find out what the water resources of the arid interior and other parts of the Northern Territory are, and, on the other hand, to make sure that such water resources as exist are used to the best advantage and are not wasted. For a commencement, the water use branch is giving attention to the two main towns in the Territory to ensure that the domestic water supply for those towns will be adequate to their needs, and is proceeding with some geological investigation to assemble the quite extensive information that is already available about the amount of water that exists either on the surface or under the surface in the Northern Territory. We believe that this work is quite vital to the further progress of the Northern Territory and realize that perhaps water is the limitation to progress there more than in any other part of Australia.
page 713
QUESTION
SYDNEY GENERAL POST OFFICE CLOCK
Mr MINOGUE:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES
– I ask the PostmasterGeneral: When does the Postal Department intend to replace the clock on the General Post Office, Sydney? Can the PostmasterGeneral tell the House the reason for the delay and the estimated cost of replacing the clock?
Mr DAVIDSON:
CP
– The subject of the replacement of the clock on the General Post Office, Sydney, has been referred to in this House on a number of occasions, in questions and in debates, and by my predecessor and by me. The position has not changed since the last time I spoke on this matter. The reports of architects and engineers on the task of replacing the clock indicate that a very considerable strengthening of foundations in the General Post Office building would be necessary before the clock could be safely replaced. As a result of this factor and increased wages and so on, the cost of replacing the clock is now estimated at £200,000.
I have said before that, although I appreciate the desire of Sydney members to have the clock replaced in the interests of civic pride - I do not see any other argument much in favour of it, although that is a strong one - at the same time, in the administration of the Postmaster-General’s Department, I face demands from members throughout Australia for capital expenditure required to provide the communications necessary for the development that the country so badly needs. I consider that, while that situation prevails, the expenditure of £200,000 on the replacement of the clock at the Sydney General Post Office could not be justified. Nevertheless, I assure those honorable members who are vitally interested in the matter that, immediately the position improves, and it is possible to proceed with the work, it will be undertaken.
page 714
QUESTION
RURAL AUTOMATIC EXCHANGES
Mr FAIRBAIRN:
– I direct a question to the Postmaster-General. Where a postmaster or postmistress retires, and it is impossible to get any local resident to take over the local telephone exchange, will priority for the installation of a rural automatic exchange be given to the district concerned rather than to other places where telephone facilities are already available? I refer particularly to Westby, in my electorate.
Mr DAVIDSON:
CP
– As 1 stated the other day in reply to a question, the provision of rural automatic telephone exchanges in country areas is receiving close attention from the Postmaster-General’s Department. We hope eventually to replace the present manual services with rural automatic services throughout Australia. Supply difficulties that have prevailed until now have made it necessary to determine priorities for the installation of rural automatic exchange equipment, and the highest priority is given to areas in which no telephone service already exists. Second highest priority is given to areas in which services have been available, but will cease, perhaps because the people operating the manual exchange are going away, or for some other reason. The priorities are determined, in each State, by a State committee which investigates all the factors bearing on the matter, and recommends how rural exchanges shall be provided, and in what order districts shall get them. 1 take it from the honorable member’s question that Westby already has a telephone service, but is likely to lose it. Of course, we always try to preserve existing services, but, in such circumstances, Westby would be lower in the priority list than newly developed areas where services are not yet available, and where local people are not available to operate a manual exchange.
page 714
QUESTION
PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA
Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
– I ask the Minister for Territories again whether it is a fact that Chinese living in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea are to be granted citizenship. If so, will they also become naturalized citizens of Australia? Will citizenship confer on Chinese in the Territory greater rights than are enjoyed by Papuans, who are already citizens of Australia?
Mr HASLUCK:
LP
– The exact effect of the Government’s decision is that Asian persons residing in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea without restriction, or persons of Asian parentage who were born in the Territory, may apply for naturalization as Australian citizens. After naturalization is granted, they will have exactly the same rights as Australian citizens on the Australian mainland enjoy. Those who will be affected by the decision are people living wholly in the European manner alongside, or integrated with the European community. They have no home except the Territory, and in all the implications of the term they can be regarded as good citizens. They have English education, are of Christian religion, and in every way are fitted by cultural and general social background to live on equal terms with other Australian citizens. I am sure that the honorable member will realize from the experience that he gained during his recent visit to the Territory that the indigenous people, numbering about 1,750,000, are, both in their present standard of living and in their prospective future as a self-governing people in the Territory, in a position entirely different from that of an immigrant community in the Territory.
page 715
GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE BILL 1957
Message recommending appropriation reported.
In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message):
Motion (by Sir Arthur Fadden) agreed to -
That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to amend the Gold-Mining Industry Assistance Act 1954-1956.
Resolution reported.
Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.
Ordered -
That Sir Arthur Fadden and Mr. Beale do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.
Bill presented by Sir Arthur Fadden, and read a first time.
Second Reading
Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
McPhersonTreasurer · CP
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Gold-mining Industry Assistance Act 1954-56 to give effect to the liberalized subsidy proposals which I announced in my budget speech. Before I explain the pro.posed amendments, may I remind honorable members of the importance of the goldmining industry to this country. The annual value of gold produced in Australia and the territories is between £16,000,000 and £17,000,000 per annum. Apart from a minor quantity used for industrial purposes, the whole of this output is added to Australia’s international reserves. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that certain populated areas of Australia are largely dependent for their existence on continuance of gold-mining operations.
There is no doubt that the subsidy scheme has been of great assistance to the industry. However, since the scheme was brought into operation, there have been further increases in the cost of mining and treating gold, but no increase in its official price. Moreover, the supplementary income from premium gold sales has dwindled. In consequence, some producers, even with the subsidy, are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.
Under the subsidy scheme; gold producers are divided into two classes - small producers and large producers. Large producers, those whose output exceeds 500 ounces per annum, may claim subsidy if their average cost of production exceeds £13 10s. an ounce. The rate of subsidy payable to large producers varies with a mine’s cost of producing gold. Under the formula arrangement, the amount of subsidy payable in a year on each ounce of fine gold produced is threequarters of the excess of average cost of production an ounce over £13 10s. with a maximum rate of £2 an ounce.
During recent months, the Government has received representations on behalf of the Chambers of Mines of Western Australia, Victoria and Queensland for an increase in the maximum rates of subsidy payable. These representations have stressed that rising costs are pressing very heavily on certain sections of the industry, and especially on those producers whose recovery rate is declining. The Government has carefully considered these requests and, as 1 announced in my budget speech, proposes to increase the maximum rate of subsidy payable to large producers by 15s. an ounce.
At present, the maximum rate of subsidy of £2 an ounce is payable when the average cost of production is £16 3s. 4d. an ounce. The proposed new maximum rate of £2 15s. an ounce will be payable if a mine’s cost of production is £17 3s. 4d. an ounce or more. This will mean that a mine can still operate without loss if its cost of production does not exceed £18 7s. 6d. an ounce. When costs reach this level, a mine will be making a trading loss of £2 15s. an ounce on the official price of £15 12s. 6d. This loss will, however, be offset by the new maximum rate of subsidy of £2 15s. an ounce.
Under the act, the formula applies only to large producers. Small producers, those whose output of fine gold does not exceed 500 ounces per annum, receive a flat rate subsidy, because few keep adequate books of account. It is proposed that this flat rate subsidy be increased by 10s. an ounce to £2 an ounce and be payable, as heretofore, without regard to production COStS or profit rate.
As I said earlier, subsidy is offered to certain gold producers in order to retain as going concerns those mines on the margin of profitable production. For the continued operation of a mine, it is necessary to find, test and prepare ore bodies for future working. The cost of these development operations is, within certain limits, allowable in ascertaining cost of production for subsidy purposes.
The management of a mine whose cost of production is narrowly covered by receipts from sales and subsidy may be finding it difficult to carry out reasonable development. Indeed the Government has received many requests for further assistance in meeting the cost of development. To a large extent these requests will be met by the proposed increase in the maximum rates of subsidy. Large producers will be entitled to claim subsidy of three-quarters of their average cost of production above £13 10s. an ounce, until their average cost reaches £17 3s. 4d. an ounce instead of £16 3s. 4d. an ounce as at present. This will be of very considerable benefit to mines whose development may be restricted by increased costs.
The Government also proposes to offer further assistance to certain producers to meet development expenditure. Section 10 of the Gold-mining Industry Assistance Act imposes, inter alia, a limit on the amount of development expenditure allowable in cost of production for subsidy purposes. It is proposed that the limit be liberalized.
Sub-section 10 (3) of the act sets out how the cost of development of a gold-mining property for a year is to be determined. It is not proposed to vary this. Sub-section 10(4) sets an upper limit on the cost of development allowable in ascertaining cost of production for subsidy purposes. As the act now stands, this limit is the lesser of -
- the average cost of development in each of the two years immediately preceding the introduction of the scheme, expresed as so much per ounce of fine gold produced in those years, and
- £3 10s. an ounce.
However, the Treasurer has a discretionary power to determine that where the cost of development for each ounce of fine gold produced in a year exceeds this limit, he may allow some or all of this excess to be included in cost of production, if he considers that special circumstances warrant it.
Minister for Supply and Minister for Defence Production · Parramatta · LP -- I move- >That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to authorize the raising of loan moneys totalling £33,160,000 for financial assistance to the States for housing. The provision of £33,160,000 in 1957-58, for which approval is now being sought, represents an increase of £1,010,000 over the amount advanced to the States in 1956-57 to meet in full their requests for housing finance under the 1956 housing agreement. Advances to the States will be made in accordance with conditions already approved by the House and incorporated in the Housing Agreement Act 1956. Of the total amount of £33,160,000, which it is estimated will be advanced to the States in 1957-58, £26,528,000 will be available for the erection of dwellings by the States. The balance of £6,632,000 must be allocated by the States to building societies and other approved institutions for lending for private home-building. The amounts provided in 1956-57 for these purposes were £25,720,000 and £6,430,000 respectively. In accordance with the requests of the States, the estimated amount of £33,160,000 will be allocated among the States as follows: -
Minister for Primary Industry · Lowe · LP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. This biil provides for the raising of loan moneys amounting to £8,000,000 for expenditure in the year 1957-58 under the war service land settlement scheme in respect of the acquisition, development and improvement of land for subdivision and allotment to eligible ex-servicemen and the provision to settlers of working capital and finance for the purchase of stock, plant and equipment. lt is anticipated that this amount will be advanced to the States in the following proportions: -
Lawson .- It is usual, after a battle, for the combatants to rest, but after the last war, which was of six years' duration, we find that all countries engaged in activity that was rather unusual. That activity may have had several causes. Perhaps the shortages of so many things which occurred during the war years made it necessary for countries to catch up by increased production after the war. lt may have been that because of uncertainty that appeared to exist as to the status of the nations many of them thought they should make the most of the opportunity to become economically strong. Whatever may have been the reasons, tremendous advances have been made in many directions. In none of them have these advances been so great as in respect of communications and transport. These advances may have been due to war-time activities because communications systems were vastly improved as the result of investigations and discoveries made during the war. During the time of conflict one must make the best of every thing and certainly the best was made of the communications facilities available and these were carried over into peace-time activities. In the case of transport also, great advances took place, particularly in the use of aerial transport. After the war we came to a new realization of what air transport could mean, particularly to a country such as Australia. Since then, we have progressed in the development of wireless telegraphy and wireless telephony; and the expansion of telephone services throughout Australia has been very great. We have developed teleprinting also for both private and comercial uses. In a town in my electorate the local newspaper is now taking daily teleprinter messages. That is a revolution and probably this is one of very few instances in which a provincial newspaper uses this device. The use of facsimile transmission has also taken its place in country centres. In country areas the development of rural automatic telephone exchanges has been of immense value. The use of wireless receiving sets has expanded throughout the country and television is now established in some of the capital cities. Our postal services have gained a new lease of life. All these improved methods of communications, which Australia, in particular, enjoys to-day have brought people much closer together. Improvements in transport have had even a wider application. Although international wireless communications have improved they have not brought to us such great advantages as have improvements in international air services. Only about a fortnight ago Australia had the privilege of entertaining the President of the Republic of Viet Nam, and yesterday the Government entertained here at Parliament House the President and members of the Viet Nam Parliament. It would not have been possible for those gentlemen to have visited Australia but for the fact that air transport provides so rapid a means of travel between countries. Aircraft have displaced ships, very largely, as a means of international travel. Within our own borders diesel-electric or electric, locomotives have greatly im proved our railway services. For private as well as public purposes, the provision of better roads and modern cars has made road transport much more comfortable, pleasant and speedy. As a consequence of all these improved facilities, relations between our neighbours - local, State and national - have become much better. Australia has now reached a stage at which she exists on better terms with other countries because travel facilities have improved trade, diplomatic and political relations. Even holiday visits by Australians to overseas countries are much more readily available, and as a result many of our people are enabled to appreciate what is going on overseas and their minds have been broadened. In the local sphere, residents of country towns who never previously visited Sydney, are now enabled to make visits for a day or a week to distant cities which, 30 or 40 years ago, they might never have expected to see and, as a consequence, their minds have been broadened. In this changing world we naturally look around us for information, because some of the problems we are facing are greater than we possibly realize. We might regard England or the United States of America as countries on which we might model our development, but neither of those countries provides a suitable model in that respect. England has a large population in a small area - only about three times the size of my electorate - and the United States has a large population, a large proportion of which is centred in big cities, or big country towns as the Americans might call them although they would be regarded as cities according to our standards. Those countries are not the best examples on which we might model our development. They got over their growing pains during a phase of their existence when they did not suffer disabilities or problems such as those that now confront Australia. Our problems are singular to this country and for that reason we must tackle them ourselves. The right honorable member for Cowper **(Sir Earle Page)** referred to some of these matters in his speech last week and urged that we should get the best value for public expenditure, particularly loan expenditure. Dealing with transport he urged that the coastal river systems should be dammed to provide navigation improve primary production, and open up timber country which is now relatively inaccessible. There is probably no limit to the suggestions that could be made in those respects. I want the committee to consider, however, how far the Commonwealth is responsible for our development and how far the States are responsible in that respect. There is a great deal of misconception as to State and Commonwealth functions and responsibilities, and also as to the degree local government comes into any plan to make a round whole of any movement that is undertaken. I find a great deal of misunderstanding throughout the electorate as to where Commonwealth and State responsibilities commence and finish and where they overlap. {: .speaker-JWR} ##### Mr Chambers: -- ls not money usually the first consideration? {: .speaker-KDS} ##### Mr FAILES: -- Perhaps money is the first consideration, but I do not think the honorable member wishes to sidetrack the discussion. The existence of uniform income taxation tends to give people a wrong idea. That has proved very suitable. Under it the Commonwealth levies and collects the tax and hands back to the States, according to a formula, what is considered to be their share. That seems to be a very sensible proposition. I do not propose to canvass that or to debate it. But after the States receive that money, it is for them to apportion it to their various departments. That should be well known. With public works, a different state of affairs exists, as the honorable member knows. In 1928 when the Financial Agreement was made between the Commonwealth and the States, the Commonwealth agreed to raise the loans and apportion the moneys to the States according to a pre-arranged formula. But the Commonwealth is entitled to its share of the loan raisings also, and over the last few years, knowing the difficulties in which the States have found themselves, the Commonwealth has not taken out its share of loans but has given the entire proceeds to the States. So, in both tax reimbursements and loan moneys the Commonwealth has heavily subsidized the State Governments. That brings me to a point on which I intended to speak later, namely the politics that are indulged in in these matters. It does not get us much further ahead if State Governments, and the Commonwealth Government also for that matter, indulge in politics on matters which are the concern of the Australian people. There is only one Australian people although there are seven different governments, and it is for the benefit of the Australian people that we all should be working. I point out that hospitals, which are strictly a State responsibility, have become partly the financial responsibility of the Commonwealth, although their administration is still left to the States. In the field of agriculture the Commonwealth is encroaching to some extent, not on State rights, but by assisting the States in their agricultural programmes. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization is doing very valuable work and is passing on the benefits of its knowledge to the State governments. This misconception about State responsibilities and Commonwealth responsibilities is not confined to the electorate. Only a few days ago in this House an honorable member was criticizing the Government for not having done sufficient with regard to land settlement. But land settlement is a very jealously guarded privilege of the State governments, and they would not have any part or parcel of Commonwealth interference. However, the State governments are, understandably, very pleased to receive assistance from the Commonwealth Government in such things as war service land settlement. Commonwealth assistance in this field has been of great value to the States in their land settlement problems. Housing is definitely a State responsibility, but in this field, too, the States receive considerable financial assistance from the Commonwealth Government. I might mention also education, roads and air transport. With regard to road3 this is the type of problem which is constantly occurring: The Commonwealth Government has introduced in this budget, a tax on diesel oil fuel, and we are now receiving complaints from bus operators, for instance, that they are already heavily taxed by their individual State governments, both by road taxes and some form of registration fee or tax. These operators say that this added impost on diesel oil is unfair. Here is a case where proper cooperation between the States and the Commonwealth appears to be lacking. It was never intended by the founders of the Constitution that the Federal Government would be a senior government and the State governments subordinate to it. The whole idea and conception of federation was a partnership between the States and the Commonwealth, with the Commonwealth accepting the responsibility for those things which affected all the people, irrespective of what State they might live in, and with the States looking after their own domestic affairs. There should be more co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States. That applies to each matter to which 1 have referred - hospitals, agriculture, housing, education, and roads. Air transport is in rather a different position. Air transport knows no boundaries of State; it knows no boundaries of continent, so it is logical that the Commonwealth Government should accept the responsibility for it. The Commonwealth has accepted the responsibility for air transport over the years, but unfortunately the planning which took place in the early days of air navigation did not envisage the tremendous advances that have taken place. I do not hold the present Minister, or the department, responsible for the position facing us to-day, but I do say that the Commonwealth Government has to face up to this very big responsibility that has grown up over the years. The problem has not been adequately solved and will become even more difficult as time goes on. Only a short while ago the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** made a statement in this House on this very matter. He pointed out that airlines were incurring deficits and were operating under extremely marginal conditions due to two quite unrelated causes. He said - >The first cause is that the airlines have been unable to make profitable returns on DC3 aircraft, which still comprise in numbers the main element of the Australian aircraft fleet. DC3 aircraft are not new. They are very good and very reliable aircraft, but they are not new. They have been in use throughout the world for a great many years and I would expect that the owners of these aircraft have by now written off their cost, and that the only expense in connexion with them is their operating cost. So, I question whether the use of DC3 aircraft is a valid reason why airlines have been unprofitable. The Prime Minister went on to say - >This has adversely affected the small operators of intrastate feeder services and has also contributed to the marginal results achieved by trunk route operators. The remedy suggested by the Government is that it is willing to extend subsidy assistance to the operators of essential air services in rural areas. It is also prepared to help selected operators obtain suitable replacement aircraft for the DC3. In order to qualify for this assistance the airlines concerned must agree to provide air services to specified areas at frequencies, fares, and freight rates approved by the Minister. That remedy relates only to the actual operation of aircraft in these areas. The position which has arisen in rural districts over the years is this: The Department of Civil Aviation has felt - possibly as a result of having burned its fingers once or twice - that it should not spend too much money on aerodromes in remote areas without some assurance that the services running to those areas would continue and would be satisfactory. So the proposition was put forward that if local people cared to select an aerodrome site, develop it to a standard required by the Department of Civil Aviation, and get a company to operate a service to that aerodrome, the department would consider taking the aerodrome over at a later stage. Local authorities who adopted this scheme naturally expected that the department would, when those conditions had been fulfilled, take over the aerodrome. Up to that point of course the whole of the money had to be found by the local residents - perhaps through a municipal council, a shire council, or even a progress association. Having developed an aerodrome, and having got an airline operator to establish a service, it was then expected that the Department of Civil Aviation would take over the responsibility. That has occurred in my area on a great many occasions. The catch lies in the fact that, whilst the Department of Civil Aviation is responsible for measures relating to the safety of aircraft, the safety of aerodromes, the safety of navigation and for the efficiency of an airport, it does not license the operators to fly to the airports, nor does it have anything to say about the operation of aircraft other than from the safety angle. The result is that some operators neglect airports in country areas because they find that they do not fill their aeroplanes every day by calling there; or they change the schedules so frequently that they do not get the custom that they expect and they reduce their services. In such cases, the Department of Civil Aviation says, " As you have not a regular air service " - something over which the local people have no control - " we will not take over your airports ". That has happened in many country districts. The proposition that I have read regarding assistance to the operators does not overcome the difficulty except when the operator is willing to accept the subsidy, and if he does accept it he becomes subject to the conditions that 1 have mentioned. J believe that some operators may prefer to be free to run their lines as they wish, which they cannot do if they accept a subsidy. So we come to the question of whether the aerodromes should be taken over by the Department of Civil Aviation or whether the department should give greater assistance to the local authorities that are running them. I read again from the statement of the Prime Minister - >In reviewing civil aviation policy the Government also gave consideration to its very extensive responsibility for the provision and operation of ground facilities, especially airports. It noted the considerable financial outlay which would be required to develop DC3 aerodromes to take larger types of aircraft and concluded that there was no real justification for aerodrome development on this scale. Why was there no justification for aerodrome development on a scale better than the DC3 scale? Why should people living in the more remote parts of the State have to accept aircraft of the standard of the DC3 if more modern aircraft are available? Once again, the local people are entirely in the hands of the operators. If the operator sells his DC3 aircraft, as one operator is proposing to do, and says to the local people or the Department of Civil Aviation, " You will have to give us better aerodromes or we will not be able to land in this locality ", that decision is likely to mean that the locality will not have any air service. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- I thought that the honorable member believed in private enterprise. {: .speaker-KDS} ##### Mr FAILES: -- The honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** will have plenty of opportunity to speak later on. The Department of Civil Aviation will have to assist the local authorities to build better aerodromes or these areas will be denied an air service. The Prime Minister, in his statement, went on to say - >Modern, pressurized aircraft, like the Handley Page Herald or Fokker Friendship, will soon be available for purchase for rural air routes and in addition to bringing a greatly improved standard of comfort, speed and capacity to such routes, have the all important ability to use existing aerodromes. Unfortunately, whilst a date in 1959 has been given for the delivery of the aircraft, it appears that only some of them will be available then, and that most of them will not be available until 1961. That means that country areas, which provide the tremendous wealth of this country, particularly the export wealth, will be denied one of the greatest benefits of the present day - modern, quick, speedy, safe and efficient air transport. This can be obtained only if the department is prepared to go further than it has gone hitherto. In the past, local authorities have developed their own aerodromes, but the department must give more help, either by taking over the aerodromes wholly or partly, or by giving the local authorities greater subsidies so that the landing grounds may be brought up to modern standards. Otherwise, country people will be denied the better aircraft that are available, and will be forced to go on using DC3 type aircraft. Another possibility is that, instead of having several aerodromes close together, one aerodrome of improved standard might be constructed to serve the whole area. That could only be done with some co-ordination between the Commonwealth and the States. It would require better roads to be built to the aerodrome. Train services to the districts concerned would have to be taken into consideration so that the air services would not be competing with them. It would be necessary to consider whether an area had a train service. Many areas have not. To return to the theme on which I started, I say that greater co-operation is needed between the Commonwealth Government, State governments and local governments in order that the best advantage may be taken of the facilities that we have, and the facilities that we expect to have as the years go on. {: #subdebate-24-0-s1 .speaker-JUQ} ##### Mr CLARK:
Darling .- The previous speaker, the honorable member for Lawson **(Mr. Failes),** set out to excuse the Government for the inadequate manner in which it had dealt with a number of problems, including land settlement and financial assistance to the States. In the Northern Territory, where the Commonwealth Government is in complete command of the situation, there is no policy for substantial land settlement. In relation to air services, the Labour government laid down the policy that where an aerodrome was established by local authorities and an air service was provided, within a very short period the Government would take over the aerodrome and ensure its continued operation and maintenance. This Government has fallen down in that regard. It is not much good apologizing for what the Government has not done. The honorable member should, instead, use his best endeavours to see that the country people receive the co-operation that they need. 1 wish to deal with a number of matters relating to the budget, which is an annual stocktaking and report of our national progress and well-being. The main theme of the budget has been profits before people. Indeed, this Government has always placed a premium on profit, and been concerned more with the welfare of vested interests than with the welfare of human beings. That is borne out by the tax concessions which have been made in the budget. They reveal how little sympathy this Government has for, and how little it is interested in, those who are most in need in this country. The question of social services, which is of very great importance to the people, has been passed over very lightly. The difference between the policies of Labour and the policies of this Government may be expressed simply in the statement that Labour believes in a wider distribution of the national income - a matter in which this Government has failed to show any interest. The pensioners have received a miserable increase. For a long time they have been crying out for better consideration, and the widespread dissatisfaction with what this Government has done for them is clearly shown by the number and size of the petitions presented on their behalf by honorable members from both sides of the chamber. Very small and inadequate increases have been granted to pensioners in certain categories. Those in other categories have not been assisted at all. I have in mind especially the dependent wife of the invalid pensioner, whose allowance has been completely overlooked. I should like to refer once again to the continued imposition of tax on the income of the invalid pensioner who receives a little help from some other source. Persons in receipt of superannuation and workers' compensation are similarly treated. This is a social injustice. The Government should introduce legislation to place these people in the same category as the old age pensioner. When Labour was in office it brought down legislation designed to encourage private firms and companies to establish their own superannuation schemes. There has been, since the war especially, a huge growth in the staff pension and superannuation schemes offered by private enterprise. This is revealed in a report which has just been released by the Bureau of Census and Statistics. It shows that about 75 per cent, of the schemes operating have been launched since 1940. Ninetytwo per cent, of all large undertakings have superannuation schemes. For medium sized and small businesses the figures are 64 per cent, and 28 per cent, respectively. The most common type of scheme is that financed through an insurance company, though the larger firms usually finance their own schemes. In the schemes that are wholly organized through life assurance companies, employees are contributing annually, on the average, £32 a head, and employers £49 a head. In many cases the employee does not contribute at all. The report also points out that, of late, Government securities, such as bonds, have not been the main avenue of investment, but that on the contrary money has been more readily invested in company shares and debentures - undoubtedly because of the greater return, and the greater security, offered. A person who buys government bonds at a certain price may have to accept a lower price when he wishes to dispose of them. This Government should establish a national superannuation scheme for pensioners. The people have shown that they want it. Non-government superannuation is financed, substantially through industry and the scheme which I suggest could be financed in a similar manner. Industry could be taxed according to its ability to pay, as was done when the social services contribution scheme was introduced. Retired persons would be much happier, and much better off, if they had the benefit of a superannuation scheme. The Australian Labour party has long favored such a scheme, and a similar proposal made to the conference of British Labour parties, which was recently held in the United Kingdom, gained strong support. Indeed, if Labour were returned to office in this country I am sure that the matter would be given very serious consideration. Unfortunately, there is little prospect that anything will be done about it while the present Government is in office. A number of honorable members have referred to immigration. I believe immigration to be essential, and am not opposed to it, but I am concerned about the failure of the Government adequately to provide employment for immigrants. Indeed, it cannot provide employment for the people who already live in this country! Yesterday, in answer to a question, 1 was informed that the Government had been unable to find employment for 1,250 persons in immigrant camps. That is a sorry reflection upon the prosperity of this great country. People come here from other lands where, in some instances, employment and greater security are offering because they believe that Australia is a land of great promise. On arrival here they are herded into immigrant camps under most unsatisfactory conditions and are not found employment. This is a very sorry state of affairs, and I hope that the Government will soon amend its financial policy and put an end to it. The problem of unemployment which faces this country to-day is very serious indeed. When my colleagues sought the imposition of prices control by government regulation they were opposed by Government supporters, who said that prices could be adequately controlled through competition between firms. We all remember being told that the law of supply and demand would solve the many pressing problems which confronted Australia. We were told that prices would fall as soon as production was sufficient to meet all our needs. At the moment we have a glut in meat, wheat, eggs, butter and a number of other items, but prices have not fallen. The local consumer is being called upon to pay more in order to susidize the loss of export income in the United Kingdom, where prices have indeed fallen. It is my belief that the view of the Government is that prices can be stabilized or reduced only if there is widespread unemployment, and the Government certainly is increasing unemployment by its inflationary policy. I appeal to the Government to do something to solve this vast problem of unemployment. When the workers receive more money, they can purchase more of the commodities available in the community and thereby create greater employment, but when wages are increased there are cries of calamity; we are told that there is inflation and that there is too much money in the hands of the people. Various figures have been given by the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** and other honorable members as to the number of persons registered as unemployed in Australia. I think those figures are grossly misleading and that, in fact, tens of thousands more persons are unemployed than are suggested by the figures. To substantiate my statement, I shall take figures from the monthly review of statistics issued by the Commonwealth Statistician. Between June of 1954 and June of 1955 the population of Australia increased by 214,000 and 83,100 extra persons were taken into employment during that period. Between June of 1955 and June of 1956, the increase in our population was 227,000, but only 45,800 extra persons were taken into employment. The latest figures that I have been able to obtain are those for April ot 1956, which I shall compare with those for April of 1957. The figures show that between those two months our population increased by 220,000 but that only 1,700 additional people were taken into employment. It is believed that about 80,000 additional persons become available for employment in Australia each year. In 1954-55, 83,100 more people were employed than in the previous year, but since then the number has fallen substantially. In 1 955-56, about 40,000 fewer extra people were taken into employment than in 1954-55, and in the next year about 82,000 fewer. That means that 120,000 people have not been accounted for. Where are those people to-day? They are probably in the ranks of the unemployed. Many people do not register for unemployment relief or for placement in a job because they would have to queue to do so. They do not wish to queue, so they battle on and try to obtain jobs themselves. Some of the figures relating to the movement of employment are rather interesting. In the manufacturing industries, the number of people employed fell by 3,400 in the twelve months ending on 30th June last, in the building and construction industry by 6,000, and in commerce by 3,300. So we see that in some of the industries which are of the greatest benefit to Australia, such as the building industry, there has been a great fall in the number of persons employed. I am not going to say that there are, in fact, 120,000 people unemployed. The figures to the end of August show that 60,000 persons were registered as unemployed, but they do not include immigrants in the various camps. When they are added, the number would be greater than 60,000. Working on the basis of the average wage in this country, the total purchasing power of these unemployed people, if they were in employment, would be in the vicinity of £50,000,000. So the purchasing power of the Australian community is reduced by that amount, with the result that our primary industries are suffering because of a loss of business and our secondary industries are suffering because of a loss of consumers. When one man loses his job and ceases to buy goods made by another man, the rolling stone of unemployment gains impetus. That was Australia's problem in the depression of the 1930's. The rolling stone in that instance gathered the moss, so to speak, of further unemployment. The restrictive measures of the Government are so severe that unemployment is now reaching dangerous proportions. Only by the release of credit can the slack be taken up, but the Government's policy of credit restriction is acting to the detriment of the nation. Much has been said already by other honorable members on the subject of housing, but I desire to add two or three comments. The Government has a responsibility to provide every citizen in Australia with a decent and adequate home. It must provide houses for those people who are unable to find the means to house themselves. It must build homes for rental and it must give rental rebates to meet the needs of pensioners, people who are unemployed and people with low incomes. It should also build homes for sale on a nominal deposit and a low rate of interest. During a previous election campaign, the Leader of the Australian Labour party, in his policy speech, promised that our party would provide ali the funds necessary to build homes at a very low rate of interest for the people. It is unfortunate indeed that the Australian Labour party was not returned to office to carry out that promise, because this Government has failed to provide houses for the people, particularly those in country centres. I received a letter from the municipality of Condobolin in which the council complained of lack of assistance in its attempt to provide homes. If I read a portion of the letter, it will convey the council's attitude more clearly than I can explain it. It is as follows: - >The Council was interested to learn from recent press reports that the Right Honorable the Prime Minister is of the opinion that the present lag in housing is not due to lack of finance, but to the shortage of man-power and materials, and it has asked me to point out that such is not the case in this area. Since writing to you on 19th February, 1957, the Council has addressed loan inquiries to a number of lending institutions, including the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia, but all the bodies concerned have indicated that housing finance is not likely to be available to the Council in the foreseeable future. There are no registered building societies in the area covered by the Condobolin Municipal Council and the only avenue through which houses can be built for the people, either for rental or for sale, is the local governing body. It has been unable to obtain any assistance. It requests that action be taken by the Government to ensure that in areas where a council is performing the function of a building society adequate funds be made available through the Commonwealth Savings Bank or other sources to enable local government housing schemes to be developed to the fullest extent possible. What have members of the Australian Country party to say about that? I notice that one of them has just entered the chamber. Are they satisfied with what this Government is doing to provide finance for housing in country centres, or are they dissatisfied with it? I ask them to give support to the policy of providing funds to meet cases such as I have mentioned. {: .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr Anderson: -- Housing is a State matter. {: .speaker-JUQ} ##### Mr CLARK: -- The honorable member for Hume has uttered the parrot cry that this is a matter for the States. There is a tendency to pass the buck, but I say definitely and deliberately that the CommonwealthState Housing Agreement, initiated by the Labour party, still requires the Commonwealth Government to provide the whole of the funds necessary to build houses under such housing schemes. The present lack of housing is due only to the inability or lack of desire of the Government to provide these funds. It cannot pass the buck to the States. This is entirely a Commonwealth responsibility because, as was pointed out in the letter from the Condobolin municipality, the only problem is to obtain the necessary finance. Earlier in my remarks, I pointed out that the budget would assist those interested in the earning of profit rather than the people generally. I propose now to outline a few facts in relation to taxation. The business world might express some mild dissatisfaction with what the Government has done for it, but it has done far better than individual taxpayers. Of total tax concessions of £56,850,000 in a full year, the business world has benefitted to the extent of more than £43,000,000. Individual tax-payers have gained only £8,500,000 in the way of minor concessions. Although total tax concessions amount to £56,850,000 in a full year, this is considerably less than the Government will raise in additional taxation compared with last year, when the Government's total revenue from all sources was £1,234,443,238. This year, it is to be £1,321,700,000, or £87,256,762 more than last year. Sales tax has been increased by £3,748,648, and income tax on individuals - I emphasize " individuals " - will yield an additional £71,322,994, or, in round figures, £71,000,000 out of the additional £87,000,000. A concession has been granted to the business community as against the individual. Even the Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden)** was honest enough in his speech to acknowledge this fact. He said - {: type="i" start="1"} 0. revenue from taxation in 1957-58 is estimated to be nearly £107,000,000 greater than revenue last year . . . but the greater part of the total increase is attributable to income tax on individuals. . . Income tax collections from individuals are estimated to increase this year by £71,300,000. 1 also want to emphasize this comment by the right honorable gentleman - 1. . pay-as-you-earn collections during 1957-58 are also expected to be higher. I understand that last year, the Taxation Branch collected £60,000,000 under the pay-as-you-earn system. In other words, the Government obtained a forced loan of that amount. Of course, the money is paid back at the end of the taxation year, but even while it is being paid back the Government collects new taxes for the coming year. Therefore, I should say that the Government would have the benefit of a permanent forced loan of about £60,000,000, on which it pays no interest. In addition to ordinary taxation, the people are forced to lend this amount of money to the Government for its purposes. I said earlier that invalid pensioners and persons qualified to receive invalid pensions, as well as the recipients of compensation, are taxed unjustly. When I have raised this matter previously, I have been told that it is difficult to apply the relevant provisions fairly. The point I make is this: Any person who is in receipt of an invalid pension and who has other income should not be taxed to a greater extent than age pensioners. Furthermore, persons who are in receipt of compensation, or who are qualified to receive invalid pensions, should receive this benefit. I have before me a current income tax return form. According to the " Notes for Guidance ", on page 3, "Invalid Relative " means - >A person . . . who is in receipt of an invalid pension or for whom a certificate of invalidity has been obtained from the Commonwealth Department of Health, or a doctor approved by the Director-General of Social Services. The Government could apply this concession to persons who are qualified to receive invalid pensions in the same way that the concession is allowed to invalid dependants. I criticize the Government for not doing so. I have a number of other points to make, but my time is running out. I am strongly opposed to the Government's practice of financing capital works and services out of tax collections. For this purpose, taxes amounting to over £200,000,000 a year are being collected from the people. I contend that that amount should be returned to the people either by means of reduced taxation, or improved social services. The amount that will be needed for capital works and services this year is £122,400,000. A further £35,000,000 will be required for war service homes. While admitting that these items are essential, I consider that they should be financed by loan money or bank credit, not by interest-free money obtained from the people by taxation. The expenditure this year on the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric undertaking is expected to be £18,300,000. This scheme will benefit future generations, and the cost of implementing it should not form a complete charge against current taxation revenue. The work should be carried out with loan money, or advances from the banks. If the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** says he cannot get the money by loan, then the Government's credit is low. The necessary money should be obtained by way of loan or as an advance from the Commonwealth Bank. The millions of pounds that are obtained from the taxpayers for the purpose should be returned to them. The Government was wrong in introducing this practice, and it has handed on the benefit to private industry. For instance, the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited has set about increasing its capital by raising the price of steel by 5 per cent, compared with last year. The financial editor of the " Sydney Morning Herald " recently offered this comment - >For every 20s. that BHP requires in profits for plant expansion, it has to charge the public 33s. 4d. more in steel prices, passing over the 13s. 4d. to **Sir Arthur** Fadden. General Motors-Holden's Limited has done the same thing. It is regrettable not only that the Government do this, but that it allows private enterprise to carry out a similar policy, and by raising the prices of its products, add to the cost of living in Australia, to the detriment of the people. Another matter that I should like to mention briefly is the tax evasion that is allowed by the Government at the present time. I have before me an article that appeared in the Sydney "Sun" of 10th July about President Consolidated. It reads as follows: - >President - better than anticipated. > >And last of all is the company structure with its carrv-forward losses, which can be utilized by the buyer for taxation purposes. It will he remembered that this company went insolvent. {: #subdebate-24-0-s2 .speaker-KLL} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Makin:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. Motion (by **Mr. Ward)** proposed - >That the honorable member for Darling **(Mr. Clark)** be granted an extension of time. {: #subdebate-24-0-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- The question is - >That the honorable member for Darling **(Mr. Clark)** be granted an extension of time. All those in favour say " Aye ", those against, "No". I think the "Noes" have it. Opposition members interjecting, {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The committee will divide. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: -- No division has been asked for. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- A division has been asked for. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: -- Who asked for it? {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- I am asking for it. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order! A division has been asked for. The question is: " That the honorable member for Darling **(Mr. Clark)** be granted an extension of time ". The committee will divide. Ring the bells! {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- I ask that the division be called off. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Is it the wish of the committee that the division be called off? I think the " Ayes " have it. A division is not demanded. The committee will come to order. I call the honorable member for Isaacs **(Mr. Haworth).** {: .speaker-JUQ} ##### Mr Clark: -- Was the motion that I be granted an extension of time carried, **Mr. Temporary** Chairman? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order! I ask honorable members to be helpful to the Chair. I may say to the honorable member for Darling **(Mr. Clark)** - and I am sure he is aware of this - that there was a call for a division; then, when the division was about to be taken, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honorable member for Melbourne **(Mr.** Calwell) indicated that the division should be called off. I then submitted to the committee the question whether the division should be called off. Honorable members indicated by their response that they did not desire to proceed with the division. The time of the honorable member for Darling having therefore expired, there was no other course for the Chair than to call another honorable member. {: #subdebate-24-0-s4 .speaker-KGP} ##### Mr HAWORTH:
Isaacs .- Before the honorable member for Darling **(Mr. Clark)** resumed his seat he made a statement about the attitude of the Government to the budget, and he said that the Government had given more consideration to taxation reductions than it had to social welfare, The Taxpayers Association of Australia does not seem to agree with that statement. I can understand the concern of the Labour party about the proposed tax reductions, because at all times it has confessed to being a high tax party. It has always been entirely opposed to any kind of tax reductions. I submit that this budget is designed to assist prosperity, not to retard it, and I believe that the budget, from that point of view, has much to commend it. Perhaps one of the most extravagant statements ever made in this Parliament was that made recently by the right honorable member for Barton **(Dr. Evatt)** when he said that, in the last financial year, the economy of this country had reached stagnation point. Those are rather hard words. I believe that they are untrue and that their accuracy is not supported by the multitude of statements and reports that were made about the time of the presentation of the budget. One has only to look at the financial reports and statistics that have been published throughout Australia to see the falsity of the charge made by the Leader of the Opposition. I wish to refer the committee to the following comments made by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics in the publication ** The Australian Balance of Payments, 1952-53 to 1956-57 ":- >A surplus of £80 million was recorded on current transactions in 1956-57 compared with deficits of £259 million and £235 million in 1954-55 and 1955-56. The improvement resulted mainly from a trade surplus of £262 million; in addition, the deficit on invisible transactions was £5 million less than in 1955-56. What I regard as another very potent remark appears in the concluding statement of the Commonwealth Statistician. It is this - >As a result of these transactions, international reserves increased by £211 million in 1956-57 compared with falls of £73 million and £142 million in 1955-56 and 1954-55 respectively. This is the first substantial addition to international reserves since 1952-53, although there was a small increase also in 1953-54. At the end of June, 1957, total international reserves were £566.5 million. This does not look like stagnation! Those remarks of the Commonwealth Statistician are supported by the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank. At the very outset of the latest annual report of the bank, the following statement appears - >The year 1956-57 was marked by a dramatic improvement in the health of the Australian economy. Those are very significant words, because we know that the report of the bank deals with the question of Australia's finances in a very detailed way. The Governor of the bank goes on to say - >The growth and development characteristic of the post-war period continued but on a sounder basis and with a considerable easing of inflationary pressures. More stability developed in the labour market and the rate of increase in prices slackened, reflecting levels of expenditure more in accord with the flow of resources available. Those comments show what a wild statement the Leader of the Opposition made when he referred to stagnation of the economy. There has been a most noticeable improvement in the economy, and that improvement will have to continue if we are to keep pace with our increasing population. It seems to me that the opportunities open to us in the fields of primary production are vast. There are also, of course, splendid opportunities in the secondary industries, but they are particularly noticeable in the primary industries. It is only necessary for the Government to give suitable encouragement for these industries to continue to develop and to exhibit the very dramatic improvement from year to year to which the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank referred. One of the most outstanding and spectacular increases of primary production has occurred in the mining industries, which have played such a big part in providing the exports upon which we are so dependent. One has only to consider the value of the output of the mining industries, excluding the production of uranium, over the last three years to appreciate just how greatly production has increased. In 1954, the value of minerals produced was £149,400,000; in 1955, it was £164,800,000; and in 1956, it was £173,400,000. The figure for 1957 has not yet been disclosed, of course, but it is undoubted that over the last three years there has been a gradual increase in the value of the products of our mining industries. In regard to the export of metals, the increase of value has been even more noticeable. In 1954, we exported £58,000,000 worth of minerals, and in the last two years the figure increased gradually to £71,000,000 and £77,000,000 respectively. So, the increase has been constant. In this budget the Government has decided to go further along the way of encouraging the search for oil in particular, but assistance in that direction will be limited to £500,000. That may seem a large sum of money in our eyes but, in reality, it is only a very small proportion of the sum that has already been spent in oil exploration work in Australia and Papua. It seems to me that if we wish to encourage investment of Australian capital in this important industry, which will be of benefit to us both locally and in respect of exports, we must be prepared to show the world that we want to attract overseas capital here for that purpose. I believe that there is only one way in which to do that and that is the course followed by the Canadian Government and the American Government. In short, we must give the investor the right to claim as a tax deduction the amount of money that he ventures into mineral and oil exploration. We must offer him a tax deduction of much more than one-third of the amount of call. We cannot disregard these methods, which have already revolutionized the assistance mining has received in Canada and America. We would be very wise indeed to copy in this country the Canadian and American deduction system which provides, as a deduction, the entire amount of money spent on oil exploration. We certainly have to go very much further in this direction than we have gone in the past. As I said earlier, only one-third of the amount of call is allowed as a tax deduction. That is not sufficient. The Treasury method of providing a subsidy will only add to the already great administrative work of the Department of National Development, because that department will have to approve of the locations of oil wells before the subsidy will be granted. That system will entail all types of delay in the industry, as well as an increase of staff of the Department of National Development to enable it to police the locations and ensure that the subsidy is well spent. Later in my speech I shall have something to say about the subject of increasing Public Service staffs. I believe that the system to be used will slow up the allocations and slow up movement in the oil mining industry. I am satisfied that if the Government will only encourage private enterprise by the tax deduction methods I have mentioned, which are in operation in other countries, it will noi only save money, but will also help to encourage greater progress than has been made in the past. Private enterprise does not want the interference that would be caused by the fact that under the subsidy system the Department of National Development must approve of the location of the wells. Examination of the white paper shows that we need very much more capital in this country so that we may get away from the present wretched system of having to pay for public works out of revenue. That system is the cause of great embarrassment to people who believe that taxes are too high. If Australia intends to finance development from savings then development must be a slow process, notwithstanding the fact that we have derived considerable finance in the past from overseas. I understand that since the war 10 per cent, of our total public investments has been financed in this way. But in the last ten years our population has grown by 2,000,000 people and, if recent trends continue, it will increase by another 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 in the next decade. One of our major problems in the future will be to finance capital works needed to provide for this extra population. In the past, Australia has financed most of her own development from savings. In fact, about 70 per cent, of public works have been paid for out of revenue. The question is: How long can we continue to do this, in fairness to taxpayers of the present day? Capital works can be financed from two sources only - internal savings and overseas borrowings. It is clear that the great bulk of the finance must come from within Australia, but I think that our attitude towards overseas interests which desire to extend their investments in Australia has been too parsimonious and niggardly to bring the desired response. I am glad to see in the budget that the Government is considering encouraging overseas investment in Australia by the use of a withholding tax system. Such a system will do something towards encouraging overseas investments, for which we offer a terrific potential, particularly in the mining industry, as well as in other fields of primary production. Anything that we can do towards attracting capital will be all to the good, lt is quite impossible for the Australian investor alone to finance development. The Treasurer, in the course of his budget speech, announced that a survey of Federal administration was to be carried out by a committee of the Cabinet. This proposal has already been the subject of wide comment. Much of the public comment has been derisive, and much of the private comment has been ribald. During the last twenty years there has been increasing widespread alarm in Australia at the mounting number of persons who are supported from public funds - employees of Federal and State departments, local government, and various statutory authorities associated with the State governments. I take it that it was recognition of this alarm that prompted the Government to announce the survey now proposed. What the Government has apparently not realized is that there is a feature of Public Service growth that is becoming dangerous. Each year, about this time, this same question is raised, and each year the nett effect is that Public Service empire-building goes on. Attention .is drawn to the increased departmental expenditure, but year after year the figures continue to grow. This year, there was even an apparently soundly based suggestion that the Treasurer himself wanted to halt the spread. So it has become fashionable to be cynical about this question. The effect of the failure of successive governments to come to grips with this selfgenerating tendency of the Public Service has been to debase the governments themselves. No one, in my opinion, can therefore be blamed for being frankly derisive about this new proposal. I fully agree with the critics of the proposal who say that a Minister of the federal government has neither the time nor the status to conduct such a survey. What the Government apparently has failed to realize is that members of the Cabinet, the Ministers themselves, are being held responsible by public opinion for this sprawl of administrative functions. There is only one way in which the mounting alarm of every taxpayer can be allayed, and that is to entrust the survey, not to a committee of the Cabinet, but to a committee of the Parliament. No foreign principle is involved in that suggestion. The House of Commons has such a body, with five sub-committees, to enable it to give to departmental estimates that detailed and careful study which this House is not able to provide. Committees of this Parliament should have, too. something of the power of investigation that committees of the United States Congress have. It is a well-known fact that our system of government is one of checks and balances. Indeed, this system has proved to be the only one in the world that can withstand the innumerable forms of tyranny that are constantly presenting themselves in a number of different guises. There is nothing fixed about the number or kinds of these restraints or counter actions that are needed from time to time. Throughout the modern history of the British people there have been constant adaptations to keep our nations free and strong. I have no hesitation in saying that our greatest need now is for a new group of checks and balances to deal with this new danger of over-government, and it can be supplied in the federal sphere only by this Parliament. I suggest that no member of the Parliament can honestly say that he has reviewed to his complete satisfaction the spending of the money that has been raised in taxes in the name of the Parliament. Is it not the business of the Parliament to act as a warden of the taxpayers' money? My proposal to restore confidence in the Government's ability to control its servants is that there should be created a group of committees of this Parliament, representative of both Houses and reflecting the state of the Houses, charged with the task of keeping the functions of government departments constantly under review. Each of those committees should have clearly defined sections of the federal Administration to keep under review. Let them have an independent power of investigation, in the exercise of which they will be responsible only to the Parliament. Let them also report their findings to the Parliament in such detail as they think fit. Let no one pretend that anything less than this clear-cut proposal will be of use. The members of this Parliament must be the watchdogs of the spending of the taxpayers' money. Another problem which is of very great concern, not only to the Government but also to honorable members on both sides of the chamber, is that of social services. I believe that the provision of social services will never be placed on a satisfactory basis until some form of national insurance to look after aged people is introduced. The present system needs to be overhauled. It serves some sections, but others have great difficulty in making ends meet. The pensioner who lives alone should receive more than those who are able to share their household expenses with others. I think it was the research professor of economics at the University of Melbourne, who said that old people are like the rest of the community - a few have no money worries, many have enough to live on in adequate comfort and dignity, and the balance, that is those who are without provision for their old age, just have not enough to meet their needs. If we were to add another 20s. to the pension, some would be a little better off; but it would not meet the needs of those who are lonely. The proposals that have been made to assist organizations to build homes for the aged are most commendable. Successful results have already been produced. The proposed Commonwealth contribution of £2 for every £1 raised by the various organizations will help to hasten the result for which many have been looking, that is, the provision of homes for people who need caring for and company for the lonely. It is a long-term plan, but it is important in any scheme of social services. Reference was made by the Treasurer in his budget speech to the Commonwealth aid roads grant. I am glad that the Government has decided that further assistance shall be given for the provision of roads. Not only the road users but also everybody else in the community will benefit in one way or another from a better road system in Australia. I appreciate the following paragraph in the Treasurer's budget speech - >Legislation to authorize the provision of thisspecial assistance for roads will be introduced, shortly. This special assistance should be regarded as an interim measure which will be reviewed,, together with the Commonwealth aid roads legislation, before that legislation expires at the end of the next financial year. That statement indicates that the Government fully understands the deplorable position that our State road systems have: reached. Since the last time I spoke on the road: transport system, which was in April last,, the Government has made several announcements which were indicative of its increasing, interest in the matter. It has appointed a special Cabinet sub-committee to study ways and means of improving the Australian road system. That, together with the proposed appropriation for this year, is an indication of the importance that the Government attaches to the need for a new roads programme. The public will want te* see in the new programme two points that I shall now mention. They will expect tosee, first, a clearly defined national roadsplan to cover the remaining months between now and when the current legislations expires in 1959. They will be looking forward, too, to a clear statement about systematic finance to meet the cost of a national roads plan to cater for our present needs. If those matters receive attention, we will be moving very quickly towardsovercoming the difficult problem that is associated with the Australian transport system, and the Government will have shown that, like the governments of all the other major countries, it considers that a good road transport system is an essential factor not only in the strengthening of the national economy but also in the defence of the country. 1 think the budget is a good one and that it deserves the support of the committee. It is impossible for me to cover all aspects of it in the time that is allotted to me, but I do hope that during the remainder of this financial year the Government will review the matters to which I have referred and which I think call for examination. {: #subdebate-24-0-s5 .speaker-JUX} ##### Mr MINOGUE:
West Sydney .- The most extraordinary aspect of this debate, which has been in progress for nearly three weeks, is that scarcely one Liberal or Australian Country party member who has spoken has had a good word for the budget. Several of them have condemned it out of hand. I shall refer to that later. Three weeks ago, the Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden)** presented the budget. A week later the Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt)** replied to him, pointed out its weaknesses and referred to the poverty that would follow. Last night the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** told us that everything was all right. That was not the first time in the history of this Parliament that the Prime Minister had said such things. I well remember that during the last sessional period every newspaper in Australia and many organizations condemned the MenziesFadden Government for its failure to build homes for the people, but the Prime Minister said in this chamber on that occasion that the statements made about the shortage of homes were exaggerated and that in two or three years the situation would work itself out. Last night he made a similar comment on unemployment. He accused members of the Australian Labour party of mis-stating the facts when they said that thousands of people were out of work, and he said he hoped that in the next three or four months those people who were out of work would be employed. Many new Australians have been out of work for ten or twelve months. In the Prime Minister's view, another three or four months will not matter, and they will get work sooner or later. If all of our disabilities were confined to the budget, possibly there would be some hope for the future, but we must remember that the Japanese Trade Agreement has been signed. We recall that in 1952 thousands of people were out of work and that almost every factory in the Commonwealth had dismissed employees. At that time the Australian Labour party won the Flinders seat in Victoria. Whereas the Government had formerly won this seat with a majority of 3,500, at the by-election the Labour party won with a majority of 3,000. We may see similar happenings if the Japanese Trade Agreement results in Japanese goods being dumped in this country. A similar trend was apparent in the by-election for the New South Wales State seat of Ashfield. I shall read to the committee some comments made by the very reputable owner of a business in New South Wales on the effect of the Japanese Trade Agreement. This is what he said - >Please let me supplement the information given in your Ottawa correspondent's article on the effects of the Canadian-Japanese trade agreement (Sept. 2). > >In the first nine months of 1954, 57,000 dollars worth of clothing made from woven fabric entered Canada from Japan. In the first nine months of 1956 clothing imported from Japan was valued at 3,198,000 dollars- five times the rate of 1955 and 56 times the rate of 1954. > >Inroads into the Canadian market by Japanese cotton T-shirts have been rapid. In the first nine months of 1956 Japan exported 3,120,000 T-shirts, compared with 948,000 in the same period of 1955. Imports at this level represent about half the Canadian market for this type of garment. > >The Canadian knitted wool glove industry which once employed 1,200 has been drastically reduced. Japanese knitted wool gloves first began to appear in quantity (post-war) in 1948, and by 1953 little remained of the Canadian industry. > >Canadian manufacturers of gloves, of rayon, nylon, and cotton fabrics were the next to suffer. In the period of 1952-1956 Japan increased exports to take more than half the market for rayon and nylon women's and children's gloves. Japanese textile gloves are entering Canada at the rate of 6 million pairs a year. > >A relatively recent attack on the Canadian textile market is in braided and woven elastics. Canadian mills have lost one-third of the market for braided elastics to imports from Japan and imports of woven elastic are gaining rapidly. > >Building up is an onslaught on the men's and boys' sports cotton shirt field. At least 45 per cent, of the Canadian market has gone to Japanese imports, but the increase has been so rapid thai full figures are not yet available. > >It can happen here, and probably will, despite Minister McEwen's soothing assurances. That is what happened in Canada, with the result that a government which had been in power there for twenty years was swept out of office. We do not want unemployment here, even if it were the means of sweeping this Government out of office, but we warn the Government that what happened in Canada can happen here. The Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** said that 52,000 people are out of work, but the Prime Minister has said, in effect, that there is no unemployment and no shortage of homes. I should like to take the Prime Minister to West Sydney to show him what is happening there to-day. We are afraid that after the Japanese Trade Agreement has been in operation for another two or three months and Japanese goods have been dumped in this country, there will be a vast amount of unemployment in every city of the Commonwealth, especially Sydney. There is little need to tell honorable members the miserable story of the almost open abandonment of full employment in the attempt to achieve stability. They know this themselves from men seeking work in their own electorates. The number of men in employment now is lower than the number in employment a year ago, but since then 60,000 Australian and new Australian men have been added to those seeking work. Many have found it, but for every one who has found it another has been displaced. The Government, of course, does not accept our figure and says that although more than 52,000 are registered for unemployment, only 20,000 are drawing the unemployment benefit. " After all ", says the Government, " what are 20,000 unemployed? " The Government forgets that there is a means test applicable to the unemployment benefit, and that there is an understandable reluctance by many people to apply for it. The statistics conceal the true extent of the reduced opportunities of employment, yet we are told by the Government, in effect, that unemployment does not exist. Unemployment does exist, and I shall tell the committee about the miserable pittance upon which unemployed persons have to live. The payment of unemployment and sickness benefits commenced in 1945. The amount then was £2 10s. a week for a man, his wife and one child, which represented 52 per cent, of the then basic wage of £4 16s. a week. In September, 1952, the benefit was raised to £4 15s., which was 41.8 per cent, of the then basic wage. In the present budget, the benefit has been raised to £6 2s. 6d. If the relationship of the benefit to the basic wage, which is now pegged, had been maintained, the amount would now be £6 13s. If the federal basic wage for the six capital cities had not been pegged, that wage would now be £13 5s., and if the unemployment and sickness benefits were to retain the same relationship to the unpegged basic wage as they had in 1945, when they were first introduced, the benefits would now be £6 17s. a week for a man, wife and one child. The permissible weekly income has now been increased to £2 a week but it should be at least £2 15s. a week. Yet the Government tells us that we should not be talking about unemployment! I shall deal now with the housing position, which I mentioned earlier. The New South Wales Minister for Housing, speaking, last week about the unjust amount of loan, money made available by the Commonwealth, said that he would not be able to let one contract until June next. New South Wales receives only 5s. of every £1 of tax collected by the Commonwealth in that State and has to pay 5 per cent, interest tothe Commonwealth on money that is lent to it. The Government has made many promises to ex-servicemen about housing. The Chifley Government found the finance not only to fight a war but also to rehabilitate the soldiers when they returned. Though the Menzies-Fadden Government has been in power during the period of great prosperity over the last seven years, when our wool cheque has been about £301,000,000 a year, it has not been able to house the ex-servicemen who fought for our homes. That is a disgrace. Ex-servicemen come to me every day of the week and ask how much money they would need to buy a home. The Government will advance £2,750, but that will not buy a home. Unless those men have £1,000 or £1,200, it is useless for them to approach the War Service Homes Division for finance to buy a home. When the Minister for Social Services **(Mr. Roberton)** was in charge of war service homes, he said that the delay in making advances was two years, and that is the position now. When the ex-serviceman approaches the War Service Homes Division, he is asked how much money he has. When he gives this information he is told that it is a very small deposit and he is sent to a solicitor who arranges for finance at 12 per cent., 15 per cent, or 16 per cent, for the eighteen months or two years that the applicant has to wait for finance through the division. Is that fair to the ex-serviceman? This Government has only twelve months left. When Labour takes office after the next election, it will have the burden of finding money for the ex-servicemen who are now waiting for finance. In addition to interest, the ex-serviceman has to pay his solicitor to draw up a mortgage; but he still has to wait for eighteen months or two years for finance through the Government. The Government should explain the position to the exserviceman and say that no further applications will be received for one or two years, or whatever time is needed to meet outstanding applications, ft would be far better to tell the young men and women who are trying to get a home that they must wait for two years before they can receive any money. They should not be sent to moneylenders who charge high rates of interest, or to private banks where, usually, they have no chance of obtaining a loan. Unless they are willing to pay extortionate interest rates, they have no chance of borrowing, no matter what deposit they may have. If the Government does not assist exservicemen, it cannot be expected to help civilians who are looking for a home on a low deposit. Homes should be available for every one. The Commonwealth should build homes irrespective of who will pay later, because it is the people in those homes who do the work in secondary industries, which bring wealth to this country. But this Government has never thought of that. The work force on the Sydney wharfs has to be reduced by 500, and the number of men working in every factory in Sydney is being reduced. Hundreds of men are walking the streets looking for work, but if they are over 40 years of age, they have no chance of finding a job. Australian Country party members say that whilst a pension at 65 years of age may be all right, people should work until they are 70 years of age. But to-day men cannot obtain a job when they are 40 years old. Government supporters stress the fact that although the age pension is only £4 7s. 6d. a week a further £3 10s. a week can be earned, One would think that every pensioner is earning extra money. Many pensioners do not own their own home, and many of them are single. We are told that married pensioners living together should receive less than double the present pension. I am very disappointed in the honorable member for Sturt **(Mr. Wilson).** When he came into this House four or five years ago, I thought he meant to do something about improving pensions, but I find now that his policy is to reduce pensions. A recent newspaper report reads - > **Mr. Wilson** (Lib., S.A.) tonight asked the Federal Government to review its system of Social Services payments. > >He was speaking in the Budget debate in the House of Representatives. > >He said there was unfair distribution under the present system of paying a flat rate of £4.7.6. to all old-age pensioners. That means that the pensions of a married couple should be reduced. The report goes on - >Some old people got more than they needed, and others got much less than they needed, he said. > > **Mr. Wilson** said an old couple who owned their own home, received a permissible income of £7 a week, plus the pension, were not badly off. ft is regrettable that, every time Government supporters talk about *pensioners, they* say, " What about the money that they may earn? " There are very few pensioners who can get employment. The newspaper report continues - > >A single old person whose only income was the £4 7s. 6d. a week pension, and who had to pay rent out of that, was suffering severe hardship. > >Forty per cent, of Australian old-age pensioners were in this class, he said. That is indicative of this Government's attitude towards the pensioners who were pioneers in this country. A man in my electorate has been confined to his bed and a wheel-chair as a cripple for the last five years. His wife must stay at home to look after him. The Government allows her £1 15s. a week, and the crippled husband is allowed £4 a week. Their total income is £5 15s. a week. This case is the most distressing that one could imagine. The wife has written to the authorities on several occasions, but I am sorry to say that their reply is that she is receiving £1 15s. a week, and her husband £4 a week; that, as man and wife, they can live on the total income of £5 15s. a week; and even that the amount should perhaps be reduced because they are living together. I turn now to the funeral benefit, which I hoped would be increased in this budget. At present, it is £10, and Opposition members, by letter and by questions in this chamber, have asked the Government to increase it. A deputation from a women's organization in West Sydney also came to Canberra to request that the funeral benefit be increased after the body of a man who had died in a residential in Sydney remained unburied for five days because no one would take responsibility for the burial. The Government was asked to increase the funeral benefit so that, in such circumstances, proper burial would be assured. However, this budget makes no provision for increasing the funeral benefit, which is to remain at £10, the amount that has been fixed since the introduction of pensions. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- It would cost more than that to bury the Prime Minister. {: .speaker-JUX} ##### Mr MINOGUE: -- Never mind about him. Our concern is for those who are neglected. I shall now discuss the effect of the heavy intake of immigrants into Australia. The honorable member for Wentworth **(Mr. Bury)** yesterday condemned the Government for maintaining the immigration intake at such a high level. The Labour government and the present Government agreed that immigration was necessary, but immigrants should not be brought here to starve, and to be held in immigration centres for ten or twelve months without jobs. It is only logical and common sense for us to try to prevail on the Government not to bring immigrants to Australia until work and accommodation are available for them. If the immigration intake is maintained while jobs are not available for the newcomers, the existing unemployment will be increased. I turn now to Lord Howe Island. The residents of that island have been very unjustly treated during the last eight years, and I have been deeply concerned about their problems throughout the time that I have represented them in this Parliament. The Treasurer collects income tax and payroll tax from the residents of the island, which is approximately 400 miles east of Sydney, but the Government does nothing for them. They have sent representatives here to Canberra, at considerable cost to themselves, since the fare between Lord Howe Island and Sydney is about £10, and that from Sydney to Canberra between £3 and £4. An airstrip is needed on the island, which is only seven miles long, but the Commonwealth will do nothing to provide it, although a radar station, and nineteen people who are associated with it, are maintained on the island by the Commonwealth. The people of Lord Howe Island have to make a living as best they can without any help from this Government. Before I conclude, I should like to say that the West Sydney Federal Electorate Council of the Australian Labour party will hold its eighth annual ball at the Sydney Town Hall on Friday, 27 th September. The proceeds will be used to help invalid and age pensioners in the West Sydney area. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- Ha, ha! {: .speaker-JUX} ##### Mr MINOGUE: -- This may seem a laughing matter to Government supporters who perhaps share in the proceeds of a wool clip worth £301,000,000, but it is not a laughing matter to those who are concerned with the function. The Sydney City Council has supported the pensioners in many ways. It voted £3 1,000 for Christmas relief last year. **Sir Edward** Hallstrom each year gives a Hallstrom electric refrigerator valued at £130 as a prize for a competition, and the Halvic Industries organization donates a valuable prize. Donations of prizes are made by many other good people also. I have been accused of advertising functions such as this from my place here. A lot of rubbish is talked here at times, but we should do what we can for the needy people who are so neglected by this Government, which claims to serve their interests. At least 1 ,200 people are expected to attend the function that I have mentioned. Although we do not expect many Liberals to come along, we should be glad if they would open their hearts and support this function for the benefit of the pensioners. Tickets are only 4s. each, and there will be a picnic supper for which those who attend are invited to bring their own food. That is fair enough. All joking aside, it is very sad to see the conditions in which some of the poor people of Sydney live. The St. Vincent de Paul Society, which never seeks public recognition, provides for those in need 25,000 meals a week at 7 Young-street, Sydney. No one can honestly say that a pensioner can feed himself adequately, and buy clothing and other necessaries on £4 a week. I trust that Labour will be returned to office at the next elections, so that it will have the opportunity to improve the lot of the aged people who pioneered this country by long years of hard work. It is all very well for Government supporters to say that those people should have saved in earlier years. Those who buy tobacco and drink are being taxed to meet the entire defence bill of Australia. {: #subdebate-24-0-s6 .speaker-JLR} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Mr Adermann:
FISHER, QUEENSLAND -- Order! The honorable gentleman's advertising campaign is over; his time has expired. {: #subdebate-24-0-s7 .speaker-L1I} ##### Mr LINDSAY:
Flinders .- We all know that the honorable member for West Sydney **(Mr. Minogue)** has the kindest of hearts, but those of us who can interpret his sayings realize that there is no need to weep over his prophecies. The honorable member has introduced a new note in this chamber by using the time of the committee to advertise functions in his electorate. We cannot all be there, but we wish him success. I do not know whether the honorable member knew that the speaker who was to follow him would be the holder of the seat in this Parliament that he mentioned at the beginning of his speech. The honorable member said that the Australian Labour party held the Flinders seat after the byelection of 1952 because of the general unemployment at the time. He claimed that that factor had led to the election of the Labour candidate. I feel that I should contradict him on this matter because, after all, I should know something about it. The result of that election was not brought about by unemployment at all. Labour's victory resulted from a mixture of three circumstances. First, our overseas balance had declined slightly just as it did about eighteen months ago. This Government, in its wisdom, saw fit to introduce certain regulations which revived our prosperity by leaps and bounds during 1954-55. Our prosperity is still very high. With its usual policy of courage and no favouritism to anybody, the Government hit its own supporters in the Flinders electorate more than anybody else in that district. Those supporters decided - perhaps with reason - that, without disturbing the best Government Australia has ever had, they might give it a slight prod. That was the second reason. I need not tell honorable members that the third reason was that I was not a candidate. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- The honorable member is too modest. . {: .speaker-L1I} ##### Mr LINDSAY: -- I am like the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith **(Mr. Curtin)** in that respect. Unlike the honorable member for Brisbane **(Mr. George Lawson),** who devoted his entire speech yesterday to the benefits which, he said, had accrued to Australia because his leader, the right honorable member for Barton **(Dr. Evatt)** was God's gift to Australian politics, and to an attempt to persuade us that the Leader of the Opposition was not being a help to outside influences which might detract from our well-being, I propose to address my remarks to the subject of the budget. I should like to ask the honorable member for Brisbane, who is in the chamber, why, during his 30 minutes address to the committee, he tried only to separate his leader from association with any known Communist in Australia. He failed to mention that the Leader of the Opposition has no semblance of financial knowledge. It could be true that, after many elections, the honorable member for Brisbane has realized that the right honorable gentleman has no knowledge of finance beyond the extravagant promises that he makes at election time. With that lack of knowledge, the Leader of the Opposition can hardly qualify to criticize this budget which is, in every way, a great budget. I firmly believe that Australia has a great future. I believe also that every Tom, Dick and Harry in Australia has laid the foundation for this future and will see the country through. We have a potential as great as that of the United States of America in its younger days, but as we are starting to develop our country a century later, and have the help of machinery and other ancillaries which were not available to the American colonists, we should be able to go ahead just as fast as they did. if not faster. There is, however, one great difference between those days and the era in which we live to-day. It lies in the fact that, after our one-time colony separated from the British Empire and won its freedom, it knew that no powerful enemy was waiting to destroy it in its infancy by a threat of war with enormous odds agains it. The American colonists did not have to contend with a cruel and despotic nation, backed by slavery in its factories, spreading its doctrines by insidious infiltration. The honorable member for Gellibrand **(Mr. Mclvor)** said that this budget could be rightly called a big man's budget. I can honestly say that this Government and the party that I support have always been for the little man, and I believe that the Government is living up to its reputation with this budget. It realizes that it is not the few, but the many, who will bring greatness to Australia. Therefore, the £56,000,000 tax remission has been spread over the entire community. If it is true, as the Opposition has suggested, that pressure groups run this Government, surely the big companies should have been remitted the whole of the ls. in the £1. additional company tax which was levied last year. Provision has been made in this budget for company tax relief to the extent of sixpence in the £1. This concession will be of great help to the small companies. The big companies will not derive as much benefit from it because of their larger capital structure. By raising the exemption from the pay-roll tax from wages bills of £6,240 to £10,400, the Government is assisting small companies. Those small companies total no fewer than 16,000. They will be able to employ more workers and expand as a result of this concession. In my little corner of Australia, that concession is most important. We have no transport, water or power, so we are limited to small factories. We have no railways, and residents who want to work in big concerns have to travel long distances to and from work. For that reason, many families have to say good-bye to their children when they reach working age because they have to leave for the city. We need more small factories so that the young people can be employed nearer their homes. I hope that this budget will give incentive for the establishment of more businesses and for the expansion of those that already exist. The honorable member for Corio **(Mr. Opperman),** in his excellent address, compared personal income tax rates in Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. This was afterwards attacked and contradicted by the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley).** I should like to cite for that honorable member's benefit some figures, which perhaps he will be able to understand, and which will bear out the contention of the honorable member for Corio, and of myself, that the taxpayers of this country are in a better position than those of the United Kingdom and of New Zealand. Let us consider the position of a man who earns the amount of salary paid to honorable members of this Parliament, and for purposes of comparison and simplicity of calculation let us suppose that he has no family. If he earned that salary in the United Kingdom he would pay £1.076 15s. in income tax, whereas in Australia he pays only £795. Let us then consider the case of a man with a wife but with no other dependants. lt is possible for both to earn money, as a lot of childless couples do, so that later they may build a home in which they can bring up a family. If the husband earns £18 and his wife £10 a week, they have a gross income of £1,456. The tax on this amount in Australia would be only £132 ls. 8d., and I do not think anybody could say that they would be ground down by the imposition of this rate. In England, however, the couple would have to pay £205 15s. During the time I was away from home with the British Army 1 paid tax in the United Kingdom. I am paying tax in Australia now, and I know perfectly well which rate of tax J prefer to pay. The honorable member for Fremantle said that indirect taxes were greater here than in the United Kingdom, but I, for one, prefer to have the extra money that is left to me because I pay a lower rate of income tax, so that I may spend it in the way I wish. 1 point out, however, that the Government has reduced the sales tax payable on articles that are used in the home. Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m. {: .speaker-L1I} ##### Mr LINDSAY: -- Before the suspension I explained that the budget was calculated to help the little man, and that the £56,000,000 to be given by way of taxation relief would be spread over a wide field - a field in which it was most needed. This relief has not been distributed among those who form pressure groups, as has been suggested by honorable members opposite. In the time remaining to me, I should like to touch on one or two other points. A government which is faced with the task of budgeting for an expenditure of £319,000,000 upon defence services and war and repatriation services and providing another £243,000,000 for the national welfare fund has not much left to give away to all the others who are clamouring for it. I think it can be safely said that no sane person could possibly expect us to spend less than the £190,000,000 which we have allotted to defence if we want to retain a modicum of security. To support that statement, I point out that the United Kingdom, which has a small land mass, spends £1,276,000,000 a year on defence. If we were to expend on a comparable basis per capita, we should be spending another £56,000,000 on this most important branch of our activities. In stating that figure, I do not take into consideration the size of Australia compared with the United Kingdom. We also propose to spend £129,000,000 on war and repatriation services, and I do not think any one will begrudge the extra benefits to be given to those who have been maimed or those whose husbands lost their lives in defending this country for us. I therefore commend the Government for increasing war pensions. I must frankly admit that I am disappointed with the provision for social services. 1 have the greatest regard for the Department of Social Services but, as 1 have said before, 1 feel that a complete review of this field is necessary. An extra 15s. a week for an aged couple is a generous gift to pensioners who own their homes, have every electrical gadget and own a motor car, but to the single person who has no home, it is only a glimmer of a ray of hope for the future. Perhaps there was no time to prepare for this budget the inner scheme which I hope will be introduced one day. Many petitions for increases in pensions have been presented to this Parliament. 1 have submitted one, for I agree that the case of the pensioner should be put forward, but I do not agree that half the basic wage, as has been suggested in these petitions, should be paid to pensioners. Should the pension bc increased to that extent, a couple who own their home, have every electrical gadget, and own a motor car, would be in receipt of exactly the same amount as the working man who receives only the basic wage. His wife might have family responsibilities and, therefore, be unable to go to work. He might also have children to educate and clothe, and at the same time he might be paying off his home. For those reasons, I feel that there must come a time when we must introduce a scheme to help individual cases of hardship. The increase of the Commonwealth contribution towards homes for the aged is a welcome provision. Now that the Commonwealth will pay a subsidy of £2 for every £1 collected from the community, it will be possible to establish many more homes. Quite a number have been established already and these have been wel comed by the inmates not only for the roof that is provided for them but also for the company they enjoy in them and for the feeling of not being forgotten. I hope that many more people will be made aware of the fact that the aged are not the sole responsibility of a government. 1 hope it will be possible to bring home to them the realization that the people themselves have a responsibility through churches, societies and other media, to provide for the aged. The grant towards the cost of building homes for the aged is increasing that awareness. I do know that in my electorate many people are collecting money for the building of homes for the aged. This Government will go down in history as the first which has dared to tackle the transport problems of a continent which, with its vast distances, has for a long time needed better communications. The standardization of the railway gauges between capital cities will speed up the transit of goods. It should also relieve the roads of much unnecessary heavy traffic, and help in tying the economy to industry. As a lesser issue, I hope it will help to populate Australia with the best type of citizens. I refer to those who are killed annually on the roads, many of them by heavy transports, and a number of whom are young children. This country cannot afford to have so many of its best citizens killed in this way. The proposed grant of £3,000,000 to the States for roads will be very welcome. As we all know, and as we have all heard for some time, the roads are deteriorating rapidly. Especially is this so in Victoria and New South Wales which, although they contribute the lion's share of the petrol tax collections, perhaps do not get as much in return as they should for expenditure on road work. I trust that more money will be given for the relief of those two States, although they cannot expect to get any more by way of petrol tax reimbursement before the termination of the present agreement in 1959. I should like to draw the Government's attention now to an allied question, that of tourism. The tourist potential of Australia, with its excellent climate, its scenic beauty, its beaches and many other attractions is enormous. {: .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn: -- Its snow. {: .speaker-L1I} ##### Mr LINDSAY: -- Yes, its snow. The recent Olympic Games put us very largely in the world's eye, and the Sell Victoria campaign has done much for us in the eyes of America and, for that matter, Great Britain. It is a great pity if this publicity is not fostered before it grows cold and dies. We have not the antiquity of Great Britain, we have not any old castles, but we have the splendid assets to which I have referred. It is of interest to note that every year 1,107,000 people visit England and leave behind them no less a sum than the equivalent of £212,500,000 in foreign currency, the currency which we all need. I would not suggest that we could get that amount, but if we could start in a small way some of this tourist money should be encouraged to come to Australia. I noticed in the press to-night that the Victorian Government is moving in this direction, and I hope we will not allow that government to get ahead of us. I do not visualize the establishment of a ministry, such as exists in some continental countries, but perhaps a small department could be set up to help in this project. I conclude by saying that this is a good budget. By a series of good budgets the financial position of Australia and her continued prosperity are assured. We have consolidated our position and, at the same time, given help in many directions, especially to small businesses and people on low incomes. The only criticisms that I have heard of this budget have been that people have said they would have liked a little more to come their particular way. I have heard no particular criticism that the other fellow got too much or even that he got too little. The prosperity of this country is steadily rising and will continue to do so if our economy is kept on an even keel with no sudden changes permitted, either upward or downward. I have been involved in three elections and in four budgets, and I can see no reasonable expectation of the gloom which has been predicted by members of the Opposition on all these occasions. Such predictions can only cause the outside world to lose confidence in, what I have already said, is a very great country with a great future. I congratulate the Treasurer on introducing a very fair and encouraging budget and I look forward to further progress during the year which will enable him to bring down an even better budget next year. {: #subdebate-24-0-s8 .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes .- Last night the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** addressed himself to the task of discussing the budget and, as usual, he blessed his own side by cursing the Opposition. That is an old political trick. But one of his statements must be challenged from this side of the chamber because of its implications. I refer to his charge against the Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt)** that the Labour party was exploiting the unemployed. That is completely wrong and we throw the lie back in the teeth of the Government. To be alert to the problems of unemployment - of incipient unemployment - and to be aware of the dangers of unemployment is the guardian task of the Labour party in this and every other parliament. For that reason we find that there is no dart or fire in any attack levelled against this side of the chamber in the repeated assaults made from the Government side in regard to unemployment. There are many and varied statistics on unemployment, some of which are open to question; but at least those which are as variable and as up to date as the Government can find place the figure of unemployment at 60,000. By a reasonable estimation of those people affected, the number of unemployed could be as high as 100,000. But for the Prime Minister to say in the face of that figure that the Labour party is exploiting the unemployed, since there is in the budget no sane plan for the gathering up of unemployment in the country beyond the ordinary amounts handed out, dole-like, to the States, he is playing with fire and he can be answered most freely from this side of the chamber. The Prime Minister thinks in terms of class. When the honorable member for Kingsford Smith **(Mr. Curtin)** says that there is unemployment in his electorate, the Prime Minister thinks that it could not possibly happen in his own electorate of Kooyong. That is the difficulty and the trouble, and that is what we are trying to drive home. I should like to recommend to the Prime Minister the thought of a great poet, John Donne. It expresses the simple philosophy of man belonging to man. He said - >No man is an island entire of itself; > >Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. Is not that dramatically true of unemployment? Every man is a part of the continent; every man in this country is a part of the continent of full employment left as a legacy by the Chifley- Government to this Government. Any whitling away of employment is a dangerous, almost subversive, element in the economy. Therefore, when the Prime Minister; in a rhetorical phrase, insists that this party and this Opposition is not so deeply concerned as he is about unemployment he is, of course, begging the question completely. But in that way he attempts to attack his opposite number on this side of the chamber. Such an attack has no validity and it will be rejected by the people just as honorable members on this side reject it. What the Prime Minister and his followers should remember is that any man out of employment has his own little depression in his own little home. That unemployment becomes the trickle; the trickle becomes the flood and the flood becomes the deluge. It is all right to say, in general terms, that there is only a specified number of people out of work. But is not that the writing on the wall? Is not that the challenge? Is not there something in it that should be considered instead of just tossing it across the table and saying, " You are only playing politics. You are only trying to make an issue out of unemployment. You are only exploiting unemployment." It is completely wrong and wicked for the Prime Minister, knowing the facts, to say what he did. The Government's budget will put men out of work. It will not put any in work and it will prevent work in the future because it contains no widespread, developmental plan. It is, as has been said, a ha'penny budget - a little bit for everybody and nothing much for anybody, and nothing much for the important developmental jobs in this country that keep men in work and take up the slack when private industry cannot carry them. True enough, there is money for the States. .True enough, there si is money for certain public works; but there is not enough and the credit squeeze has not been eased. Of course it has not. This budget does not build any more houses outside the short-termed plan that the Government has laid on the table for us to study. This budget builds no more hospitals; it builds no more bridges and no more, schools. It builds no bridges of hope in the community that one of these days housing will catch up the lag in the community and we will be able to go places- as the honorable member for Flinders **(Mr. Lindsay)** pleaded we should go. That is the nub and the crux of the position. The average man in the home, the average worker, is not stirred by a discovery, made over the week-end by the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank, that prosperity is suddenly amongst us. The worker knows that that is not true so far as the worker is concerned. He is not so much concerned about what the Treasurer produces in the. way of a towering list of figures; he wants to know right here and now what is in the budget for him. The answer is that mert is very iittle, because the credit squeeze continues. The dangerous trend on which I want to concentrate to-night is the employment situation. There is no new development. The Prime Minister has already attacked the Leader of the Opposition and made sweeping statements which have no substance. We say that the Government is making a grievous mistake in ignoring the trend of unemployment in this country. I use that preface to hang upon it the hard, sober facts of unemployment in an industry in despair which I found when I made a tour recently of the northern coal-fields. Some *months* ago the Australian Labour party decided that its leader and some ot his colleagues, including the coal-miners' representatives, should make a tour of the coal-mining electorates, and we began that tour last Saturday. {: .speaker-KEP} ##### Mr Falkinder: -- In Hunter? {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- We began the tour on Saturday. If we can give the situation in a nutshell - if honorable members can appreciate the plight of the coal-miners - it is supplied by the fact that once a man loses his job on the coal-fields - because for him it is a case of the coal-fields and nothing else - there is nowhere else for him to go. Let me quote from the handout issued last week-end by the Department of Social Services. There are many figures here, but I will concentrate on those relating to the Cessnock area, which I visited. At Cessnock, the Bellbird Colliery has been closed down. Here it was that sabotage by the mine-owners in the past' completely ruined a great national asset. A certain **Mr. X** is attempting to buy the colliery, under the- lap, from the Minister for National Development **(Senator Spooner),** the Joint Coal Board, or whatever authority exists, in order to exploit it, take the easily winnable coal, and close it again, so that once more the miners will be faced with a crisis in the only industry which sustains the town. Here are the figures - they are not extensive but they are certainly indicative of what is happening in the coal-mining towns: In Cessnock 300 miners are out of work. They cannot get jobs. They have been out of work for six weeks or more. The statistics issued by the Department of Social Services show that in Cessnock 266 miners have lodged claims for the unemployment benefit. 1 want honorable members to remember that there are no vacancies in other industries in Cessnock. Two hundred and sixty-six men leave the mines; 266 bread-winners are unemployed; 266 families face the despair of knowing that if there is no work in the coal mines there is no work anywhere else. Why has not the Government, with its vaunted prosperity, with its lie that the economy is bursting at the seams, surrounded vulnerable areas such as this with light industries so that the miners' children may have jobs? If the Government is seeking to create a psychology of hatred among the miners, it is going the right way about it by spending money everywhere but in the mining areas, and pulling the whole apparatus of the Joint Coal Board apart because one section of it is controlled by a Liberal Government and the other section by the Labour Government of New South Wales. That, in a nutshell, is the story of Cessnock. The Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt)** and myself saw many deputations during our visit to the coal-fields. One of the things that completely rocked us was a deputation of women, the wives of the miners. They were not angry; nor were they sullen. They were cleanly dressed and pleasant; but they had a story to tell which throws back into the Prime Minister's teeth the lie that we are exploiting unemployment. The Prime Minister is exploiting unemployment by ignoring the fact that it exists. These women spoke to us quite calmly and they told a story which was, by understatement, all the more grievous in the telling. They said there was no chance for them. They were living on the dole - the unemployment benefit - and there were no prospects of Bellbird being re-opened. There were rumours and counter-rumours, but nothing else. Bellbird was like a bell ringing in their minds - " If the mine opens, we eat but if the mine closes we remain; on subsistence ". These people put their case clearly in a country which is supposed to be abounding with prosperity and. I felt ashamed of this Government and itsattitude towards unemployment. These women asked what were the prospects for their families. One million pounds, has been expended by the State Government on a technical college. There are 800 students at the college, and there is not onejob in the industry for them. What sort of story is that to tell the Australian people? At Kurri Kurri is one of the finest high schools, where the boys have been taught to a higher standard and have gained scientific knowledge in order that they may apply it to the coal mines. But the coal industry is dying because of the ravages of the owners and their ignorance of the real value to the nation of their asset. It is dying, too, because of the carelessness of the Federal Government. That is the terrible story of the coalfields. Make no mistake about it; the coalfield towns are not ghost towns. They have vitality. They have a desire to stay there, a desire to develop into big cities of the future, but they do need help, and what sort of help are they getting from this Government? To-day coal at grass amounts to 1,000,000 tons, made up of 247,000 tons in the northern fields, and 731,000 tons in the western fields - in the electorate of my friend the honorable member for Macquarie **(Mr. Luchetti).** The coal at grass has been won because the miners co-operated and accepted automation on the promise that they would not lose their jobs in the industry and be put on the industrial scrap heap. But 4,000 miners have been displaced from the industry, and still total production has increased. That is all the Government is looking for. That is what the Joint Coal Board demanded and that is what **Senator Spooner** is looking for. lt is all right so long as the profits are coming in. The mine owners are doing well and the Government is doing well, but the miner is standing at the pit head in the cold breeze of incipient unemployment, which may become grievous and widespread. There is still criticism of the miners, although with mechanization - which they did not ask for but accepted for the sake of the industry - the output per manshift has increased from 2.5 tons to 3.75 tons and will be 4 tons by the end of the year. Our contention on this side of the House, and the contention of the miners, is that because they have accepted mechanization of the industry, because they have accepted automation - coal mining is one of the first industries to do so and is an ideal industry in which to practise it - they should not be the victims of their own circumstances. If there is a plan for automation, there should be a plan for looking after the miner, his wife, and family, and his future, and, indeed, the towns that exist for the benefit of the miner. Surely under the charter of human rights, and even in accordance with the ordinary Australian philosophy of fair play, a man who wants to live in a certain town and work in a certain way, should be allowed to do those things. But people talk glibly, and the Minister in another place says, " Well, if there is a redundancy of workers, shovel them to somewhere else ". That is a criminal attitude towards human flesh and blood. Besides, it is silly, because economically it will not pay off. Many of these men are no longer young. They have lived their life underground. They are miners, the most exclusive and conservative tradesmen in the world. All that the Government can say is that the Opposition is trying to aggravate the problem of incipient unemployment. In fact, we are trying to wake the Government up to what is happening. Surely, coal is sufficiently necessary to our way of life for us to put up a fight for its place in the national economy! lt should have number one priority. It seems to be thought that now that there has been over-production in the mines, and there is coal at grass, nothing more can be done about it. But the United States, with its almost illimitable resources of oil, has a tax on oil so that it may protect its coal resources, lt is agreed by authorities such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization that coal will come back into its own; but it has to be helped over this interval of overproduction and redundancy of labour, and that is not being done at the present time. There is no plan. Development goes by the board. What is the Government doing about these things? We know that the Chifley Government set out to spend £20,000,000 and finished up spending almost £40,000,000. This Government followed with its amenities and rehabilitation scheme under the authority of the Joint Coal Board. We have new collieries, model collieries and pilot collieries - the sort of collieries we need in this economy - and they should be operated so long as coal deposits last. The Newstan colliery made a profit of £250,000 last year. It is worth every penny of £2,000,000 to-day, and every £1 of that is taxpayers' money. But what has happened? The Minister has decided to sell. There was a sensation about that and a question was asked in the Parliament. {: .speaker-KZE} ##### Mr Roberton: -- Which Minister is that? {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- I will come to you, too, at the end of the queue, but let me go on. A question was asked in the Senate about the sale of the Newstan colliery. **Senator Arnold,** who comes from Newcastle, a coalmining district, addressed this question to the Minister for National Development **(Senator Spooner)** - >I ask the Minister for National Development is it a fact that the Newstan colliery in northern New South Wales is a most efficient colliery? Is it one of the cheapest producers of coal and does it bring to this Government a very good profit? If so, why has the Government determined to sell Newstan to private enterprise? That was a very good question, but **Senator Spooner** rose and said - >Newstan is an efficiently controlled colliery, with a good staff. It is a good colliery from every angle. The question is, rather: Why should the Government own the colliery when private enterprise is willing to invest in it? 1 suggest to honorable members mat that is the nub of the situation. Will this Government suggest to the people of Australia that it is a nursery for private enterprise, and that it will use the taxpayers' money to nourish a risky proposition into a winner and then sell it without goodwill? That is the story. The Commonwealth whaling station, the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited and other national assets have all been butchered on the block of private enterprise. lt is a most disgusting fact that when a Minister was asked why a £2,000,000 asset had to be sold he just tossed off the matter by saying, " Why should the Government own a colliery? Private enterprise is willing to invest in it ". I shall show him why the Government should own a colliery. The coal industry has a bad history. Having mentioned that, we should try to forget it and try to do something for the future. Coal has not been mined for the community, but for profit. There has been national sabotage of the coal deposits of this country. I ask any honorable member, or any member of the public, to go to Kurri Kurri or Cessnock or the adjacent mines and see, with members of the miners' federation, what has happened to a national asset. They will discover that millions of tons of coal have been lost for ever because of the actions of the greedy entrepreneur and mine-owner who have aimed to get easy coal. They have let water seep through and gas occur. Because they mined the pillars the roofs caved in and the mines were wrecked. This happened simply because they had a captive mine such as those owned by Huddart Parker Limited, the Adelaide Steamship Company Limited, and the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited whose objectives were not the preservation of their mines which were a national asset but the getting of cheap coal for their ships. That is the horrible, gruesome story of the exploitation by the capitalist mine-owners of the coal-fields. If the miners' union is difficult, and if it fights and stands up for its rights, it-is only because of the intolerable bosses that it has experienced. Returning to Cessnock, where much of the employment exists, we saw men looking for work. We found out, from interviews with the miners' federation, that the State Government, seeing the position, realized that there had to be a master plan for the rebuilding of the coal industry. The State Government prepared to join forces with the Commonwealth Government, if it had a plan. In the meantime, relief work had to be provided. So the State Government offered £150,000 in order to provide work for the 300 or 400 men who were out of work. In reply to its representations to the Federal Government, what answer did the State Government receive from the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister has said that the Opposition exploits unemployment. Well, he creates it because he refused to provide another £150,000 in order to give these men work for three months until Bellbird was resuscitated. When, -a deputation went to the Minister for National Development **(Senator Spooner),** he had no answer for them. He exhibited an unwilling, stupid, indifferent attitude to the miners. He said, " Never mind, when one door shuts, another door opens ". He had an admirable philosophy for a man in a good position who knows that everything is all right for himself. A valiant attempt was made by the Labour government before it was defeated in 1949 to rehabilitate the coal industry. It created the Joint Coal Board, which was working smoothly because the Federal Government had a soul and the State government had a soul. There was an intelligent approach to a social problem, and we were going places. I have mentioned that the amount expended was about £40,000,000. The object of the Government was to assist everybody in the industry whether they were coal-owners or coal-miners. Coal mines were financed substantially. Enormous amounts were paid in subsidies. Mines were taken over, equipment was purchased and priorities were granted. Open-cut operators were heavily financed to get into the industry and were later heavily compensated to get out. In those days there were no constitutional difficulties. Nobody raised the bogey that the mines should be socialized because, in effect, the socialization of mining was accomplished without any application to the court. Within the limits of human capacity and with an understanding of the peculiar problems of mining, things were being done. Amenities such as clinics, schools and swimming pools, were part of the programme. Since this Government has taken over, the old hatred of the miner has worked like a yeast through the industry, which is falling to pieces. A further report on Cessnock and Kurri Kurri indicates that there is despair abroad at the moment. If there is no new planning those towns will disappear. The mines will close, and a tremendous asset will be lost. I have spoken about the women's protest - a pathetic thing indeed. I have spoken about technical colleges that cost millions of pounds, and their futility in the absence of jobs for the trainees. What should be done? The miners have issued a charter concerning what should be done, and it is relevant to the Prime Minister's gibe about employment. He should study it. The owners have wrecked a national asset. Something must be done on a vast scale. I believe that the mines should be socialized or nationalized. I understand the difficulties. The Leader of the Opposition spoke to the miners on constitutional difficulties relating to section 92 of the Constitution, and the matter of Privy Council appeals. He agrees that something should be done. The socialization of the coal industry has been approved in the United Kingdom by Churchill, Eden and MacMillan. The tories overseas agree that this is one national asset that cannot be let go. Willy-nilly, they accepted the complete socialization of the industry. So far, according to cabled reports that I have read, London Bridge has not fallen down. The coal industry in Britain is thriving. It is going ahead and developing assets. From this side of the chamber, we pray that the Government will consider those facts: The immediate requirement for the coal industry is some new control, short of socialization or nationalization which is a long-range plan. There is no national plan for coal. The State and Commonwealth governments and the mining unions should confer. They have wide powers under the Coal Industry Act, and they could use the ingenuity of the nation to save this industry, which is failing. There should be a greater use of coal in the production of chemicals, synthetics and oil. Look what happened in the case of the Newnes oil leases. There was an opportunity in connexion with the Newnes shale, which had a high oil content. The industry was stolen from the people, and disposed of piecemeal in the great process of barter that went on when this Government came to office. It has been declared that about 25,000,000 tons of coal is about to be won from two Victorian coal seams which have a lesser potential than the New South Wales seams had. The honorable member for Hunter **(Mr. James)** has made many speeches in this House pleading that the West German plan or some other plan for the extraction of oil from coal should be used. Chemicals, synthetics, acrylics and oil are all by-products of coal, but the Government does nothing but allow the coalowners to make a lot of money. It has no plan for the industry. We require a national fuel board in order to plan to conserve our diminishing *assets.* What I am about to say will make the honorable member for Hume **(Mr. Anderson)** furious. The coalminer should have a shorter working week. In the little time I have left let me explain why this is so. The Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** is accustomed to boast proudly that he is the chairman of the International Labour Office. Let him look up his conventions and he will see that a convention has been agreed to, because of the threat of automation to the coal-owners, that the coalminers should have a 36-hour week. Although the International Labour Office has declared that convention, we have not ratified it in this House, and it has not previously been mentioned here. But Britain has ratified it, and so has New Zealand. If it is fair enough to establish an efficient mine, as at Newstan, by the use of automation, it is fair enough to look after the miners properly. Altogether, 4,000 men have been laid aside, and have disappeared from the industry. There are 300 men in one town alone, as the Leader of the Opposition and I saw on our tour, who have been left unemployed. These things could be cured so easily. The future of the coal industry is a big question. The Prime Minister had to talk of unemployment, so he tossed it off, trying to make a gibe about it. I have endeavoured to put a case history to the Prime Minister and his party to-night on the disabilities of the coal industry. If he thinks that we are fooling about unemployment, let him go to the coal areas where unemployment can be dangerous. Let him look also at that other place where unemployment becomes incipient and then dangerous - the waterfront. Both the coal and the waterfront industries are in the doldrums. Something more must be done about them than merely making a snide remark across the table and then disappearing from the chamber. Rehabilitation would not be difficult. The miner says, " Give us back our birthright - a job, the right to work at that job in our own town; the right to live in the place we like, at the trade we are trained in ". Is that asking too much? As I have explained the request, it is simple enough. Not one item in this plea is propaganda, or not justified by experience. The miners' pension fund is bankrupt because 4,000 men have left the industry - it will have to be subsidized so that men can be eased out slowly. There is no national plan for the industry. By contrast, Britain has a fuel board. So too, has the United States of America - and it is one of the great research institutions in the community. It watches the mining industry - a great national asset - and prevents it from being savaged by the commercial entrepreneur or destroyed by the competition of oil. We know, from our own rough island story, that if another war should assail us we shall need all our national resources. Our coal resources are diminishing. We should try to conserve them, and in doing so should not forget the human factor, the plight of the miner. We should listen to what he is telling us. We should examine the simple charter to which I have referred. It is based on general principles and is a fair and reasonable document. We should see what can be done about its acceptance. In view of the constitutional difficulty, we should bring together representatives of the State governments, the Federal Government and the miners at a round-table conference, and make the sky the limit in rehabilitating an industry to which this country owes much, and to which it will owe so much in the future. {: #subdebate-24-0-s9 .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · Curtin · LP -- I feel that 1 should lose no time in offering my congratulations to the honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** for the undoubted success of his speech - considered in one aspect. Even in the absence of the honorable member for Hunter **(Mr. James)** I feel sure that the coal-mining industry need never fear that it lacks a spokesman in this chamber. If the honest miners of Hunter are ever looking for some one to replace their representative, their thoughts need not stray beyond the representative of the salubrious, but somewhat precarious, electorate of Parkes. I should hate to think that further tension was arising within the Australian Labour party, but I think that it is apparent to all honorable members that a new contender for a possible vacancy has entered the field. With the exception of his reference to the coal-mining industry, the honorable member for Parkes devoted the main part of his speech to an attempt to attack the budget on the question of unemployment. If we kick away the suppositions that the honorable member made about unemployment the whole of that part of his speech collapses. He started from an assertion to the general effect that there was widespread unemployment in Australia; that the present Government did not care at all about unemployment; and that it had not continued the policy which the previous government had initiated for the establishment of full employment in Australia. The fact is that the honorable member, when his colleagues were in office, was content with an unemployment figure of 5 per cent., and that ever since the present Government has been in office nothing like that figure has obtained. The highest has been of the order of 1 per cent., and full employment has been realized to an extent not previously known in the Australian Commonwealth. Moreover, the current trend is revealed by the figures for August. I shall not weary the committee by quoting them because they are perfectly well known to honorable members, including the honorable member for Parkes. They show that the present trend is towards a diminution of, not an increase in unemployment. Furthermore, if one examines this budget and compares it with previous budgets, he will find that the Government, by way of increased provision in this spot, and in that spot has taken care of the small amount of unemployment that has emerged in certain industries. 1 do not want to linger further on the honorable member's speech, and propose to proceed to look at the budget as a whole. I fear that in these debates we sometimes tend to get onto a particular subject and stay there. It is, of course, quite right that honorable members should speak on a subject that is uppermost in their minds, or of which they feel they have particular knowledge to offer to the Parliament, but in doing so we sometimes tend to lose sight of the budget as a whole. The budget, of course, is the principal economic statement of the parliamentary year. It is not the only statement. From time to time the Government announces measures in various fields of economic endeavour which, in their total, add up to an economic policy, but there is no other single statement in the course of a year in which economic pronouncements are made over so wide a field and the Government submits itself to judgment on economic measures. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt)** and most speakers on his side of the committee who have followed him - though not all of them - have rather tended to ignore the fact that a document which is presented as a statement of economic policy surely invites judgment on economic grounds. The only contribution which the right honorable gentleman made to what is a debate on the state of the economy was his repeated assertion that the economy was running down. However, he produced no convincing proof that the economy was running down. During the whole of his speech he said nothing which would convince any reasonable and attentive listener that the economy was, in fact, running down. And even assuming that he had accepted that onus of proof, and had proved that the economy was running down, surely one would have expected someone who started with an assertion like that to offer some comment on what he would do, if he had the reins of office, in order to change this state of affairs. Of course, he merely made the assertion and, having made it, let it rest there, offering no contribution to this debate to indicate that he had a single idea on any economic measure that would help this country. Furthermore, a great part of the speeches offered on the Opposition side of the chamber have been of the kind that raise a scare in one section of the electorate, and then go on to raise a scare in another section. I can illustrate that by referring again to the speech by the Leader of the Opposition. In one part of that speech he raised the scare that there were not going to be enough jobs, and that his chief concern about the state of the economy was that there was going to be unemployment, or that there was unemployment. In another part of his speech the scare he raised was that something was being done in respect of big companies - big business - that was wholly improper, and should not be done. Surely it is inconsistent to raise a scare about unemployment and, at the same time, do something which shakes the confidence of those who provide employment. That is typical of the inconsistency in the whole economic thinking of the Opposition. Jobs are provided, by and large, by employers. There are a few self-employed people, but most of the wage-earners of this country have a job which is provided for them by an employer. One of the fundamental lessons which we need to learn in this country is that the set of economic circumstances that creates jobs is just as important as the filling of jobs. You cannot attack and shake confidence in one direction, and expect that jobs will follow in another direction. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- That is a new philosophy. {: .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr HASLUCK: -- It is not a new philosophy at all, but merely common sense, as every Australian outside of this Parliament knows. In general, the Leader of the Opposition painted a picture of a state of misery in Australia to-day. In contrast with that, 1 should like the House to think for a moment of the budget - irrespective of whether it is the perfect budget that some people say it is, or the imperfect one that other people say it is - as a record of great national achievement. In this budget, we see a reflection of the enormous changes that have been taking place in this country. Every one of us knows of the great growth of population that has taken place, the great growth of production, the great growth of trade and the rise in the standard of living. All things of that sort, together with many other great national achievements, are reflected in the document now before the committee. As Australians, we can take some pride in the record of national achievement and progress which is represented by this budget. Turning from that statement, and asking the committee to consider the budget in that light, I should like to analyse some of the main headings of expenditure in the budget. The total of the budget, in broad figures, is £1,300,000,000. Of this total, roughly one-fifth goes in payments to or for the States. The total of £266,000,000 which goes to the States is applied by the State Governments, together with the other revenues they collect, for the carrying out of a variety of services and a number of developmental projects in each of the States of the Commonwealth. That sum of £266,000,000, provided in the budget now before the committee, is, of course, not inclusive of the other sum of £200,000,000 which is available to the States in loan moneys, and which is allocated by the States in the State budgets for housing and developmental works of various kinds. After that large provision for the States, we get a smaller provision - quite properly a smaller provision - of approximately £30,600,000 for the Territories of the Commonwealth, and that £30,600,000 is applied in the territories of the Commonwealth for the carrying out of those services and the performance of those functions that the State governments perform in the States. After these payments to the States and the provision for the territories have been subtracted, we get a budget of £1,000,000,000 for what might be termed purely federal purposes. One large item in this is £122,000,000 for capital works and services. 1 should like to illustrate the sort of things that are provided within that total for capital works and services just to indicate again the point 1 tried to make earlier about the great national achievements of this country to-day. In that total, there is a sum of £6,250,000 for a nationwide system of civil aviation. Using that as an illustration, cannot we, as a nation, take a very proper pride in the fact that, in spite of the great distances and great difficulties, geographical, climatic and so on, which exist in this country, we, as a nation, have established a system of civil aviation which will bear comparison with systems in any part of the world? Another major item is the £35,000,000 provided for war service homes - an increase of £5,000,000 on the amount provided last year. Having mentioned that, I also want to mention, in order to avoid any possible confusion, that it is quite apart from the additional £30,000,000 which is made available by the Commonwealth as Commonwealth aid for housing - not for war service homes, but for normal housing in the States. Another big item in this general group of capital works and services is the £30,000,000 provided for the PostmasterGeneral's Department. Again, looking at this as we looked at civil aviation, cannot we see in our post office, not merely something that belongs to this government or that government, to this party or that party, but something which belongs to the nation and represents a magnificent achievement - a service of which we, as Australians, can rightly be proud? So we could go through these items. We come to the item of £18,000,000 provided for the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme, a great national project which has attracted world interest and which is making a great contribution, and will make an even greater contribution in the future, to supplying the power and the water which are the key to a great deal of Australia's future prosperity. After we have passed from that group of capital works and services, we come to a group of business undertakings. 1 will not dwell on that. It represents a considerable sum for the ordinary maintenance expenses of the post office, broadcasting, Commonwealth Railways and so forth. In all cases, the expenditures are balanced by revenue on the other side, but they do represent in the budget a total of £150,000,000. Contemplating all this, surely we can see in the budget itself a record of national achievement and real accomplishment - something of which, as Australian people, we can be proud. My firm belief is that while we need to strive always and most rigorously to get economy in expenditure and efficiency in government services, we also have to recognize to-day that the efforts and the enterprise of the Australian population are transforming our country at a pace at which progress has never taken place before. Public undertakings have to keep pace with that progress. Furthermore, we must have the confidence of a young people in the future of a young country. Let us get out of the attitude of skimping our cloth, trying to dress a growing and vigorous young man in the clothes of childhood. Let us live up to the achievements of the Australian nation to-day. As 1 look through this budget, I personally am not appalled, as some people profess to be appalled, by this great total of £1,000,000,000. I see it as a reflection of something magnificent and grand that is happening in our part of the world. Proceeding with the analysis of the budget, we come down to a group of items of expenditure under war and repatriation services and social service benefits. The items for war and repatriation services, which include war pensions, the servicing of war and repatriation debts and the cost of the administration of war and repatriation services, come to a total of close on £130,000,000. The amounts for the payment of social service benefits of various kinds come to £243,000,000. The largest item under social services is the payment of close on £122,000,000 for age and invalid pensions - also increased this year. Then there is close on £60,000,000 for child endowment, and close on £40,000,000 for hospital and medical benefits, and related services. Altogether, more than one-third of the revenues handled by Commonwealth departments goes for the payment of benefits which I think can be well described as payments which we, as a nation, have laid upon ourselves because, being a civilized people, we recognize our obligation to look after the less fortunate members of the community and to pay our debt to those who, having served the nation in the past, are no longer able to take their place in the economic activities of our country. After we have accounted for the various groups of expenditure which I have mentioned - all of which are, I submit, inescapable items of expenditure - we come down to a total of less than £300,000,000 which is directly under the management of Commonwealth departments. Out of that, the largest item is £190,000,000 for defence. As a previous speaker said to-day, the burden that falls on Australians per head of population for defence is still less than that which is being borne by the populations of Great Britain, the United States of America and some of the other countries which are allied with us. Yet this vote of £190,000,000 does, I think, reflect the virility of our nation, and the determination of our nation that it will defend itself and that it will share in the common defence of the principles for which we and our allies stand. Could any people who stand where we stand in the world to-day, both geographically and philosophically, do anything else than accept this burden of defence or, if necessary, something more? I am sure we would be false to those who have gone before us, and false to those who will come after us, if we did not do our duty in this regard, and I say unhesitatingly that that is the opinion of the vast majority of the Australian people who have pride in their country. Having disposed of those items, we come down to three remaining groups which form really a comparatively small part of the total budget of £1,300,000,000. There is £60.000,000 under the heading of departmental expenditures; there is £15,000,000 for subsidies; and £27,000,000 for Miscella neous Services. I shall dispose of the subsidies first. The £15,000,000 for subsidies is mainly for the dairying industry, some assistance to gold mining, and some assistance to other particular industries. Talking of the contribution to unemployment and that sort of thing, do not let us forget that support of industry is also support of employment. It is not only the wage-earner in the factory; it is the little fellow who is running a dairy farm, and the " cocky " who is growing maize who are also a part of the whole structure of employment in our country. Then we come to the item of £60,000,000 for departmental votes. A great deal of this is for the maintenance of what is broadly, and sometimes not very flatteringly, described as a bureaucracy. But it would be a mistake to run away with the idea that the whole of the £60,000,000 is for the maintenance of a bureaucracy. Let me give an example of the sort of things that are covered by the departmental expenditure. One item is £5,500,000 for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization which, by its investigations and its studies, has contributed so much to the increasing of the wealth of this country and the overcoming of many of the natural problems of this country. Another £1,400,000 is for the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. AH those funds are being substantially applied to research and investigation, and not simply to the maintenance of what is called a bureaucracy. Another item is the sum of *£2,250,000 for the* maintenance of what broadly might be called our foreign service - the service by which we are represented in all parts of the world, and by which we are able to be better informed on international affairs in which we have to take part, and better able to make the Australian view effective in the world at large. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Is that the total cost of the overseas service? {: .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr HASLUCK: -- Of the Department of External Affairs, yes. If we turn to some other smaller items under departmental headings, there are things like £650,000 for the meteorological service. Although every one may not appreciate the morning weather report, when we think of the morning weather reports in relation to primary industry, the maintenance of our communications, and the carrying out of the normal daily activity, one realizes that £650,000 for meteorological services is a real contribution to the carrying on of the life of the whole Australian nation. Then we have £1,000,000 for the Marine Branch of the Department of Shipping and Transport - not something maintaining a bureaucracy, but something that is maintaining the safety of navigation and the operation of shipping to and from and around our coasts. Then we have £800,000 for the Division of Mineral Resources, the officers of which have over the years contributed so much to the discovery and exploitation of mineral resources throughout Australia. I mention these few items to indicate that when we see a departmental vote, neither we in the chamber nor the people outside should think of that departmental vote as simply representing the salaries paid to keep a lot of clerks sitting at their desks. Those clerks are essential. Without them, the government of the Commonwealth would not continue. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- You could not get on without them. {: .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr HASLUCK: -- I agree that Ministers of either party - but possibly Labour Ministers more often than non-Labour Ministers - could not get on without their advice and assistance. Ministers might flounder if they did not have the benefit of the clerks behind them. We see that in all departments there are these activities which have a wider and a more imaginative application than the shuffling of papers on a desk. In the same way, one's imagination can be kindled if one turns to the list of Miscellaneous Services, which is the sole remaining group of items on the expenditure side of the budget. I shall pick a few at random. One is £1,000,000 for the Australian National University; £1,250,000 for the Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme, which has assisted so many young people, including those from humble homes, to get the higher education which will stand them in good stead personally and enable them to make a greater contribution to the life of their community. There is £400,000 to assist in Antarctic research, and £5,000,000 for assistance to our Asiatic neighbours under the Colombo plan. There is £1,800.000 for assistance to approved organizations for the building of homes for the aged, and £1,800,000 as a subsidy to the shipbuilding industry in Australia - surely another item which indicates there is a contribution in this budget towards the maintenance of employment. There is £4,500,000 for assisted British migration, and £300,000 as a subsidy for stratigraphic drilling to assist the search for oil in Australia. I quote these typical expenditures to show that in this budget there is the stuff to kindle the imagination of the people of Australia, not merely items that are going to impress us as taxpayers, because of the amount involved, but items which will appeal to us as Australians because they represent the great work being done on an increasing scale by a nation that is becoming greater and greater every year. Finally, I want to make one or two points about what might be called the economic considerations to which attention has to be given. Honorable members will have gathered from my remarks that in the framing of a budget first of all there is a certain inflexibility in expenditure, and the total of expenditures has some influence on the sort of budget you have to make. Of course, in certain circumstances less government expenditure would serve the economic interests of the nation best. In totally different circumstances, more governmental expenditure would serve the interests of the nation best, if applied in certain directions. Similarly, on the side of revenue collection, in certain economic circumstances, collection of revenue in such a way, and to such and such a degree, will have economic effects of a desired kind. In other economic circumstances, one would make revenue measures of a totally different nature. But mainly in framing the budget, a government has to reach its judgment on the economic circumstances in which it finds itself and, of course, the judgment which this Government has made was clearly expressed in the budget speech of the Treasurer himself. I shall quote a few sentences to recall them to the committee: - >During the past year our economy has gained greatly in stability and strength. . . . To-day it can be said that inflationary pressures have been reduced and the movement of costs and prices has slowed down. . . . We have, in brief, reached a state of substantial balance, both internal and external, at a high level of trade and industrial activity. The problem now, as always, is to preserve such a state of balance and at the same time keep up an adequate, though not excessive, rate of growth in terms of population, industrial capacity, living standards and defensive strength. That was the judgment on the economic condition of the nation to-day, which was reached after full consideration by the Government, and having taken into account the best information and advice it could get from those qualified to give it. Now, having made that judgment, surely it was a sound and proper conclusion to say that we should have a budget which was largely conservative. Outside the Parliament, some people have described this budget as a " stay put " budget. I would not accept that term in its entirety, because one remembers that there are certain bold moves in this budget. It proposes taxation concessions to the value of £57,000,000, increased social services benefits to the value of £22,000,000, increased provision of capital works to the value of £14,000,000, and other increases and changes which are being made in order to deal with the economic situation as we saw it, and in view of certain economic facts. But, while remembering those touches in the budget, I would, myself, accept the description of this budget as a conservative budget. And, surely, it had to be a conservative budget. If we are in such a condition as the Treasurer's speech described, why should we do anything precipitate to change it? Why should we do anything foolish, rash or odd in order to get into a different condition? There is an old adage to the effect that it is stupid to jump from the frying pan into the fire. We have not experienced the discomforts of the frying pan; yet, honorable gentlemen opposite want us to jump into the fire and endanger the comfort, security, stability, and the condition of prosperity which we have! Of course, this is a conservative budget! We, in Australia, are in the condition in which we have something that is worth conserving. So, the budget has been framed in order to maintain the stability and the prosperity we have, and to make those concessions and adjustments that may be necessary to meet one particular condition or another, but mainly to ensure that we keep in this country a firm footing of prosperity from which we can go forward to better things. {: #subdebate-24-0-s10 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .- I agree with the Minister for Territories **(Mr. Hasluck)** that we have in Australia something that is worth conserving. He seems to think that the only way to conserve it is to be conservative, but we on this side of the chamber say that to conserve what we have we must be progressive and imaginative. I would have expected from this Minister, who has administered Australia's territories for longer than they were administered by any Minister since they became a Commonwealth responsibility, something which showed how we could help to conserve Australia by developing the vast areas over which he has exercised superintendence for some six years. Yet his department, which is responsible in the budget for a greater expenditure than that of any of the departments, other than those of Social Services, Defence, Repatriation and the Treasury, was dismissed by him in one sentence. He had nothing to say about how population is to be attracted to the territories and how development is to take place in the Northern Territory, or in the still more puzzling Territory of Papua and New Guinea. Although he is in the best position in Australia to co-ordinate the welfare of the primeval people, the aborigines of the continent, he has himself admitted to me, in reply to a question which I asked a couple of weeks ago and which was placed on the notice-paper, that for five years he has had no conferences whatever with any of the Ministers in the States who look after half of the aborigines in Australia. In such matters he has been conservative in the sense of being static or laisser-faire. That has been his attitude to the whole front door of Australia, to Australia's protective umbrella, to the development of the least developed part of Australia - the part for which we stand on trial, in many ways, before the rest of the world. What are we doing with these primitive peoples? What are we doing with this undeveloped land? The Minister who has had the responsibility of those things for longer than any other Minister in Australia's history had only one sentence to say about them. I suppose we need not be any longer surprised, even if we are still disappointed, by the evasive contributions to the budget debate made by the members of the Cabinet. I regret to say that the members of the Ministry who are not in the Cabinet have not been given the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and for that reason we have heard nothing from, say, the PostmasterGeneral **(Mr. Davidson),** or, if we could understand him, from the Minister for Social Services **(Mr. Roberton),** although those Ministers look after the biggest business undertaking in Australia and the largest spending department in Australia, respectively. Of the Ministers in the Cabinet, we were first treated to a speech by the Minister for Immigration **(Mr. Townley),** who had nothing to say about immigration. One would have thought that since we are maintaining a very high rate of immigration - a higher rate than that of any other country except, perhaps, Israel - he would give some indication of how we propose, at a time when housing and jobs are becoming scarcer, to house and employ the 115,000 people we are bringing here this year. One might have thought that he would give some indication of how we are to make Australia as attractive as the countries in Europe from which we say we want to attract skilled population. But none of those things did he mention. I suppose we ought to be relieved that he did not repeat here any of those fallacious statistics for which his department is deservedly notorious. The next Minister from whom we heard was the Minister for Primary Industry **(Mr. McMahon),** and again, we heard from him nothing about primary industry. Nor were we surprised that he said nothing on that subject, because despite frequent questions put to him, both without notice and on notice, nobody has ever been able to ascertain any matter which comes within his jurisdiction as distinct from the jurisdiction of other Commonwealth departments, or of State governments. We get nothing but rather petulant complaints for our pains in seeking to discover something for which he accepts responsibility. This is the man who, in this Parliament, is supposed to be responsible for the development of those products which pay for 80 per cent, of our imports and make possible the bulk of the employment in secondary industries, which live so much on the imports paid for by our primary industries; we might have expected that he would have something to say about our prospects in regard to exports this year, or our prospects of improved primary production. But he said nothing about those things. Then we had the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt),** who had nothing to say about how we are to get out of a position in which, for the first time since 1952-53, we have ended a financial year with fewer people in employment than at its beginning. Let me remind honorable gentlemen that, in the latest figures which the Commonwealth Statistician has published - those which came out this month in the " Monthly Bulletin of Employment Statistics " - it is revealed that we ended the last financial year with 2,836,900 people in civilian employment and in the defence forces, or 7,200 fewer than when we began the year. It might be thought, " Perhaps people have stopped leaving school, or perhaps people of employable years have stopped coming to this country". But let us remember that in every year since the war, except in the financial years 1951-52 and 1952-53, there has been a rise in the number in employment. Sometimes, it has been as high as 95,000. The increase has never, except in the years 1951-53, and this last year, been fewer than 45,000 - in civilian employment and the defence forces. But. in this last year, 7,200 people fewer were employed at the end of the year than were employed at the beginning of the year. The Minister for Labour and National Service had no suggestions to offer as to how those people who had been displaced from employment, or, as one Minister put it, " released from employment ", could be again employed, or how the record number of individuals leaving school - a matter in respect of which my colleague, the honorable member for Macquarie **(Mr. Luchetti),** gave the figures a few nights ago - or the people coming here under the immigration programme, were to be employed. Then, to crown the performances, we were treated, last night, to a speech from the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies).** One would have thought that, on this occasion, which rivalled the great occasions after Suez and on defence, one might have had some explanation of the great retreats which followed those occasions - the retreat from Cairo one year and one week ago, and the retreat that the Minister for Defence **(Sir Philip McBride)** had to make from Washington without any Starfighters a couple of months ago. It was an amusing speech, a most diverting speech from anybody except a person occupying the position of Prime Minister. And how did it tally with the ideals and the magniloquent cliches which fell from the Minister for Territories? It was a speech full of sophistry, but it said very little about how we were to conserve this country and expand it and make it a better place for the people who live here already, and provide a brighter light on the hill for the countries in this area. {: .speaker-JS7} ##### Mr Brand: -- Did you not like it? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I enjoyed it greatly, but, after all, we do not come here primarily to be diverted, although, if we did, no one can divert us better than the Prime Minister. I confess, frankly, that I find this budget disappointing. I had been looking for greater benefits after the little budget that was snapped on us unexpectedly, in March last year. You remember the technique, **Mr. Chairman** - the premature election of 1951, followed by the horror budget, the premature election of December, 1955, followed by the little horror budget - not quite so horrific, but, nevertheless, fairly horrific, and to anybody less accustomed than we are to the cynicism, lack of good faith and lack of frankness which the Prime Minister displays in his political timing, it would have been an horrific budget. One would, therefore, have thought that after a financial year in which, we were told, the economy could afford no increases of social services, and a year in which we had to have some increases in taxation and undergo some increases in interest rates, we would have been given some more relief. But what relief have we had? True, we have had some increases in social services. There are increases in social services for those who have votes - the age pensioners, invalid pensioners, war pensioners and tubercular pensioners. All told, this financial year they will have an increased income among them all - the hundreds of thousands of them - of £9,500,000. Let us be fair. In a full year they will have an increase of income of nearly £16,000,000. But, with that fine sense of proportion which characterizes the Prime Minister and his Administration, we find that the Government's supporters outside will have a comparable increase in their collective income this year amounting to £13,000,000 and, in a full year, to more than £40,000,000. It is made up this way: This year some of the company taxation which was im posed in March of last year is being remitted to the amount of £13,000,000. In a full year the remission will be £14,500,000. That is fair enough in the Government's eyes because, after all, the pensioners are getting as much in a full year too. Then, in addition, in a full year the depreciation allowances which have been increased will mean that the amount of taxation paid by companies in Australia will be £26,500,000 less. That is fair enough the Government says because that is just over twice the amount that the pensioners will get in a full year as a result of this budget. Fair enough! Give a second helping to your supporters and let a few crumbs fall from your table. I do not want to spoil the rosy party too much, but I wish to refer now to the social services that have not been affected, and to the interest rate, which has been allowed to remain unchanged. Let me refer to the increases in the interest rate which have been made under this Government. You will remember, **Mr. Chairman,** that when the Curtin Government came into office just before the Japanese entered the war, with **Mr. Chifley** as Treasurer, the interest rate on Commonwealth loans was 3i per cent. In 1946, the fate was reduced to 3£ per cent. On 21st August, 1951, this Government increased it to 31 per cent, and, on 25th November, 1952, to 4i per cent. On 10th May last year the Government increased the rate to 5 per cent. {: .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck: -- The Loan Council increased it. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Oh yes, I understand that! The Australian Loan Council, of course, has made many decisions since 1952, and they have been ignored when the Commonwealth Government has chosen to ignore them. If the Minister were to study the tables at the back of the budget-papers instead of merely confining himself to the synopsis on the first page, he would find that the Government itself admits again and again that the Loan Council has passed a resolution that such and such an amount could, and should, be raised in the current financial year, and that this admission is followed by a statement that the Commonwealth agreed to raise so much of that amount. If the Minister doubts that, I shall show him afterwards the details of the successive years since 1952 when, as often as not, the Commonwealth has chosen to disregard the decisions of the Loan Council. Of course, it can do so, because the Commonwealth raises the loans. One would have thought that, as a result of the increases in the interest rate, Commonwealth loans would prove singularly attractive to the public. Yet we find that in the last financial year the amount of fresh money subscribed by the Australian people to Commonwealth loans was lower than in any year since the war. Let me give the figures to show the decrease in the amount of fresh money subscribed by the public in the last four years to Commonwealth loans - that is, the amount of subscriptions to loans less the amount of subscriptions by government bodies. In 1953-54 the amount of fresh money was £88,000,000; in the following year it was £69,000,000; in the year after that £48,000,000; and last year it was £35,000,000. Why is it that public loans attract less and less fresh money despite the increases in interest rates? I refer now to the social services that have been left untouched, not only in this budget but in every budget that the Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden)** has brought down. When this Government came into office maternity allowances ranged from £15 for the first child to £17 10s. and so on for later children. They are unchanged. Now, comparisons are often made with the Labour government's record. Let me remind honorable members that when the Labour party came into office in 1941 the maternity allowance was one-third of the amount it was when the Labour government went out of office and it still stands at that amount. Let me pass now to another social service which affects the greatest number of people in Australia - child endowment. When the Labour party came into office in 1941 child endowment was 5s. for the second child and later children. In 1945, the Labour government increased the rate to 7s. 6d. and in 1948 it increased it to 10s. That is where it remains. This Government gave child endowment in respect of the first child, but it has left untouched child endowment for all Other children, despite the fact that during its term of office, now close on eight years, the £1 has lost almost half its value. There might seem to be some improvement in one social service benefit to help the family man. We are told that the amount of the Commonwealth scholarship living allowance will rise from £3 5s. to £3 15s. a week if a scholar is living at home, and from £4 12s. 6d. to £5 15s. if he is living away from home. That is not a bad jump, but one must remember that the present payments, which will continue to the end of this calendar year, have been in operation since the beginning of 1953. Let me emphasize a couple of other points about the scholarship scheme. There are still only 3,000 scholarships available for the whole of Australia, despite the increased number of people who are leaving school; but that was the number available when the scheme was started! It is true that if a child receives a scholarship, his compulsory fees at the university or other tertiary institution are paid, whatever his parent's income is. But there is still a means test in regard to the living allowances that are referred to in the budget, and they will be the same as they have been for the last three and a half years. If the child who is going to the tertiary institution is an only dependent child, the full living allowance will be paid if the parent's income .does not exceed £600. If a parent has three dependent children besides the one who is going to the tertiary institution, he will get the full living allowance for the child who is attending the institution only if his income does not exceed £800 a year. The average annual income for people in work in Australia is more than £800. So the only people who can expect to get the full Commonwealth scholarship allowances for their children are the pensioners. {: .speaker-KCS} ##### Mr Drummond: -- It is a bad flaw in a good scheme. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- It is, indeed. I knew that the honorable member for New England, who was Minister for Education in New South Wales for so many years in the 1920's and the 1930's, when I received my education, would be the first to declare that it is not possible for young Australians, in greater numbers and with less hardship to their parents, to get the higher education that is necessary if this country is to be conserved, if I may again use the term that has been used by the Minister for Territories. Proportionately, Australia is spending on higher education less than any other industrial country, less than any other English-speaking country, or any Slavspeaking country if one dare to refer to Slav standards. There are a few other budget provisions which I thought, superficially, were quite attractive. The first is the promised suggestion that the Commonwealth will share the cost of surveying and building a standard gauge railway between Wodonga and Spencer-street, Melbourne. It will be noted that there is no provision in the budget for any expenditure on that project. Secondly, there was a belated and begrudging recognition of the Labour party's claim, as advanced so often by the honorable member for Batman **(Mr. Bird),** that there should be an automotive fuel tax. Thirdly, there is to be an increase, also belated and begrudging, from £30,000,000 to £35,000,000 of the provision for war service homes. To get the transport problem in its right perspective, let me merely refer to a publication brought out three years ago by the Department of Shipping and Transport. That publication showed that in 1953-54 Australia spent 34 per cent, of its national income and 29 per cent, of its gross domestic expenditure on transport. That percentage is three times the percentage in respect of transport and communications - I must group the two in order to quote the United Nations' figures on this subject - in any other comparable country. In Canada in 1953. the percentage of net domestic expenditure which was spent on transport and communications was 10 per cent., in the United Kingdom 10 per cent., and in the United States of America 9 per cent. It will be noted that we have a problem in relation to transport costs which should be a challenge to us all. If we look at the White Paper presented to us with the budget, what do we discover on the costs of transport to-day? We note on page 19 that last year expenditure on fares rose from £87,000,000 to £97,000,000, a rise of 1 1 per cent, and the biggest rise in the cost of fares in Australian history as disclosed by federal budgets. We discover also on page 20 that the freight on imports, fares paid in Australia to overseas shipping companies, marine insurance payments, expenditure on Australian ships in overseas ports and business expenses overseas rose by £9,000,000, a rise of 6 per cent. Thus, in the year just ended, transport costs once again rose alarmingly. What contribution has the Commonwealth made towards the situation? Under the Constitution, the Commonwealth has many powers to build railways in the States. The first of its legislative powers, which are listed in section 51, is over trade and commerce with other countries and among the States. What has been the attitude of this Government towards discharging that trust? Let me refer, first, to the 1949 railway standardization agreement with South Australia. Pursuant to that agreement, the Commonwealth has spent £4,250,000, the amount spent in each succeeding year having become smaller. In 1951-52, the first full year of its operation, this agreement, which was made by the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward),** on behalf of the Commonwealth, with the Premier of South Australia, cost the Commonwealth more than £1,000,000. In the next year, it cost nearly £1,000,000, and in succeeding years the expenditure has continued to fall until last year it cost the Commonwealth only £400^000. All that expenditure has done nothing to promote interstate trade; it has merely served to obviate interstate trade. Instead of being used to standardize the railway line between Port Pirie and Broken Hill, which is the busiest railway line in South Australia, it was used to standardize the south-eastern division towards Mount Gambier. The result, of course, has been to centralize activities in South Australia still further in Adelaide. Although the distance from Melbourne to Mount Gambier is less than that from Mount Gambier to Adelaide, freight rates between Adelaide and Mount Gambier are half of those between Mount Gambier and Melbourne. Anyone who reads the 1949 agreement will be appalled at the way the Commonwealth has fallen down on the task of implementing the terms of it. Tn 1955-56, 25.229 tons of freight passed through Mount Gambier to Victoria and 15,332 tons passed in the opposite direction. Through Cockburn, which is the border town on *t-e* line to Broken Hill. 124.423 tons of freight went to New South Wales and 815,673 tons of freight came from that State to South Australia. There passed through Cockburn and thus to and from Port Pirie twice the tonnage of goods that passed through Mile End, which is the goods depot for Adelaide, or through Serviceton, which is the border town on the standard-gauge railway between Melbourne and Adelaide. The tonnage which passes through Cockburn and on to the trans-Australia .railway has doubled since this agreement was entered into. In all that time, this Government has done nothing to promote interstate transport. The same remark could be made about the Government's record in regard to roads. Last year, the Hume Highway, which is the busiest highway in the Southern Hemisphere, was untrafficable for a whole week. The Commonwealth could allocate money from the petrol tax collections for the specific purpose of making the Hume Highway a first-class highway. What is the Government's record in regard to wharfs? Last year, it deleted from the stevedoring act the provision which enabled the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority to modernise wharfs. Now we find that it is selling the modern equipment which is held by the Commonwealth Handling Equipment Pool. What is its record in relation to overseas shipping? An overseas shipping line could assist our trade as much as, and more cheaply than, tariffs or bounties, yet the Commonwealth has done nothing towards establishing one, but has stood idly by while freights on imports and exports have risen by 50 per cent, or 60 per cent, during its term of office. Lastly with, regard to transport, what is the Government doing about shipbuilding? Last year it deleted from the legislation the provision which required that ships trading round the Australian coast should be built in Australia. That is the provision which we borrowed from America. Our shipyards, which now employ 5,000 people, could, if they employed another 3,000, treble their output, and we could carry all of our coastal trade and a good deal of our international trade in ships built in Australia. 1 conclude by referring very briefly to the housing position. We have ended the year wilh fewer houses .under construction and fewer houses completed than in the previous year. The increased allocation of £35,000,000 for war service homes will provide fewer homes than were .provided in 1951-52 with £28,000,000. There is a longer waiting list -and a higher average cost for war services homes than .ever before. For the last fortnight I have had on the notice-paper a .question about this delay. J asked: " How many houses are expected to be provided with this increased amount? " I am still waiting for a reply. This year's increased allocation is mere window dressing. We who have seen during the last year the expenditure on housing drop for the first time since 1952-53 and by the same amount as in that year can hardly be expected to thank the Government for bringing in a budgetary proposal which will not even go half way to making good that drop. For these reasons, I propose to vote for the Opposition amendment that the first item be reduced by £1. {: #subdebate-24-0-s11 .speaker-KZW} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Lawrence:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA -- 'Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-24-0-s12 .speaker-JSG} ##### Mr BRIMBLECOMBE:
Maranoa -- Like other honorable members, I offer my congratulations to the Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden)** on bringing down this, his tenth budget. That is a record which, I know, will not be bettered, except by the right honorable gentleman himself, for many years to come. The budget has been described in various ways, but I believe that the Treasurer made a very cautious approach to its preparation, and there were good reasons for doing so. As the committee knows, the prosperity of this country depends mainly on seasonal conditions. If the seasons are good, our production is up and our export earnings increase. At present the prospects of good seasonal conditions are not very bright. The Treasurer was very wise, therefore, in adopting a cautious approach to the preparation of this budget. He has announced certain concessions in income tax and has made provision for the unemployment which would follow adverse seasonal conditions. The average member of the public does not appreciate as fully as he should how dependent are living standards in this country on our export earnings, which are derived mainly from our primary industries. We -know that the great wool industry has pulled the economy of this country out of many difficulties down the -years. We -have -had ten or twelve good years, but -so far this year has not been so good. If -the season is adverse, our economy will suffer greatly, with the result that everybody in the community will suffer. No government, irrespective of its political colour, could reasonably do other than make provision for such a contingency in the way in which provision has been made in this budget. There are some matters with which I want to deal particularly. Certain adjustments are being made of the depreciation allowances which will be for the benefit of industry and the community in general, but I am very disappointed that the Government has not seen fit to extend the provisions to cover privately built telephone lines in country areas. This is a matter that I have raised in this chamber on several occasions. There are many of these lines, some of which were built at great expense - thousands of pounds in some instances - to the people who use them. People do not erect these telephone lines for pleasure; they do it mainly for business purposes. It is time that this anomaly was corrected and the people who make such outlays given some consideration. I appeal to the Government to have another look at this matter. I know that recently depreciation allowances have been extended to cover saleyards, whether sheep yards or cattle yards, in country and city areas. Privately built telephone lines are used for business purposes, in the same way as are these saleyards. I am sure that the Government, having had another look at this matter, will realize that this is a just and reasonable request. The next matter to which I turn is the sales tax. I know that in this budget some items have been exempted from sales tax and that on other items the rates have been reduced, but I desire to raise the matter of sales tax on the equipment used by Australian " ham " radio operators. The Wireless Institute of Australia has for many years been asking the Government for some sales tax concessions for parts of equipment used for this very worthy purpose. We all know what a wonderful job these amateur radio operators do in the community. Their wonderful work in providing communications in times of bush fires and floods has been recognized. They have done a remarkable job. As a matter of fact, one of them was decorated with the M.B.E. for his work recently during floods in New South Wales. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr Haylen: -- In Maitland. {: .speaker-JSG} ##### Mr BRIMBLECOMBE: -- Yes. He saved many lives. He was the only means of communication that the floodbound people had with .the rescue workers using " walkie-talkie " equipment on amphibious ducks and with the outside world. I think I could best put the case of the amateur radio operators by giving a summary of their activities and the reasons why sales tax exemptions should be granted to them. The Wireless Institute of Australia is probably the oldest organized body of amateur radio operators in the world and is therefore in the unique position of having fostered the development of communications and technical advances since the inception of the radio .art. Much, of the pioneering of high frequency, very high frequency and ultra high frequency techniques has been done by enthusiastic amateurs. The records of the institute show that amateur radio operators have made many outstanding contributions in the public interest. As far back as *1911,* an amateur radio operator was responsible for saving a ship in distress, and since then radio operators have played a major part in developing and operating bush fire and flood relief networks, the location of missing aircraft and the transmission of traffic to Tasmania during cable breakdowns, and air race communication networks. Apart from this, a vast amount of data has been compiled, and this has played no small part in perfecting the propagation prediction methods used by communication services throughout the -world. These people also made a wonderful contribution during the two world wars. Amateurs filled important posts in the communication branches of the three fighting services and augmented the ranks of marine operators. Apart from this, the institute conducted basic training classes as its part of the war effort. Between the two wars, the institute organized the Royal Australian Air Force Wireless Reserve and regular exercises were inaugurated. As a result of this, on the outbreak of World War II a large number of members immediately joined the armed forces to take up important posts not only in the Royal Australian Air Force but also in the Navy and Army. Prior training had fitted them to undertake highly technical assignments. In keeping with this policy, since the cessation of the last war the institute has organized emergency networks under the title of Civil Defence Emergency Networks and maintained a high .degree of 'interest. This network is available to the authorities in time of need and has the added advantage of extreme flexibility. When moments of emergency arise due to floods, fires and so on, because of his training and knowledge of equipment the amateur is able to maintain communications. This has been amply demonstrated in recent flood emergencies in New South Wales. In the industrial sphere, the amateur has played, and continues to play, an important part. Much of the knowledge acquired in his experiments goes into the perfection of some project or product. Because of his special understanding of frequency modulation and radar techniques the amateur was able to help materially in the establishment of the television industry, and many are engaged in their own television experiments. A firm basic training is fundamentally a part of institute policy. Classes are conducted to train young enthusiasts to the standards required by the PostmasterGeneral's Department for the amateur operator's certificate of proficiency. Ability to plan and construct is a part of the amateur's make-up. In the early days, each amateur had to design and make the major portion of his equipment. To-day, although most components can be purchased, it is still necessary to build them into one unit in such a manner rs to suit particular requirements. The equipment for emergency networks is specially designed for the work and represents an appreciable outlay, for which the amateur neither receives nor expects reward. In order to lessen the cost of equipment, which the amateur uses either to widen his knowledge of electronics, or to help maintain communications in times of emergency, the institute has. from time to time, approached the Commissioner of Taxation with the request that sales tax be removed from components used in communication transmitters and receivers. Unfortunately, the commissioner has been unable to give effect to this request. One difficulty was the policing of such a scheme. The federal executive and divisional councils of the institute, after long and careful investigation, reached the conclusion that a system based on the provision of a special application form allowing sales tax exemption would be workable. Responsible officers of the institute would be willing to investigate the bona fides of any applicant, whether a member of the institute or not, and arrange that the necessary exemption be issued by the taxation authorities. In this way, no extra work or cost would be incurred by the Taxation Branch. An exemption could be issued to study groups or clubs so that they could purchase equipment for training and stations. In these circumstances, some person would be required to become the responsible officer. These clubs, apart from interesting lads at a very impressionable age, would form vital links in any emergency network. [Quorum formed.] Looking to the future, the institute believes that any steps which encourage the training of more personnel in the scientific field are valuable. If some relief from sales tax can be given, the return to Australia in trained and enthusiastic operators will be invaluable. Tributes have been paid to this wonderful organization for the work that it has done. I shall cite a tribute paid by the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson)** to the work done during the New South Wales floods. He said - and this is reported in " Amateur Radio ", of October, 1950 - >In a recent broadcast over 2KM Kempsey in connection with the recent widespread floods in New South Wales, I made appreciative reference to the assistance given by the licensees of Amateur Wireless Stations. > >Since then, I have received further information of the part played by members of the Institute, both in the Kempsey area and also in other parts of the Slate affected. Accordingly, I would now like to confirm in writing the sentiments expressed over 2KM, and to say how pleased I am with the readiness shown, once again, by Amateur Operators to perform a public service, in times of emergency, with the facilities for which they are licensed. That speaks volumes for the wonderful work these people are doing. I shall now outline the cost to the Government if amateur radio operators are given some sales tax concessions. Active amateur operators number about 2,500, and they spend an average of about £20 a year. The total amount spent would be about £50,000. Of this. 25 per cent, is sales tax on parts and equipment. Therefore, the cost to the Government would be about £10,000. This is not a great deal to pay for this form of defence preparedness when nearly £200,000,000 is voted for defence in the budget. Amateur radio operators not only do wonderful work in maintaining communications in time of emergency, but also maintain contact with amateur operators in other countries, and even behind the iron curtain. Radio " hams " throughout the world are in communication with one another day and night. Their contact does a great deal to cement international relationships, and their work in this field should be recognized. I hope that the Government will sympathetically consider the request made by the Wireless Institute of Australia. I am able to speak with a little first-hand knowledge on this subject, because I have a " ham " operator on my property, and T know something of what his radio activities mean. This amateur radio work not only is of wonderful assistance to the community in time of emergency, but also is a wonderful hobby, and it should be encouraged. I leave the matter there, **Mr. Temporary Chairman.** I hope that honorable members will make themselves more familiar with the fine work that amateur radio operators are doing. I am sure that if honorable members learn more about it, they will support the request that these operators be given some concession. I want to deal now with the development of northern Australia. The honorable member for Capricornia **(Mr. Pearce),** on Thursday last, initiated his discussion of the matter with the suggestion that something should be done to expedite the development of the whole of northern Australia, but the limited time at his disposal forced him to confine his remarks mainly to the development of northern Queensland. I propose to discuss the development of the great area of the Northern Territory, which is under the direct control of the Commonwealth. I agree that, since 1949, great strides have been taken in improving communications, watering facilities, and housing, and in undertaking scientific investigations and various other activities in the Northern Territory. However, we are not doing the job fast enough. I agree with the honorable member for Capricornia that, if we do not tackle it in a different way, our time will run out and some other nation will do it. I recently visited the north, and I am firmly of the opinion that, although mining has great potential as a source of wealth for the north, and will be probably the most profitable activity for some time to come, in the long term the cattle industry ought to be paramount, because the country lends itself best to the grazing of cattle. Wonderful grazing land is there in abundance. The Minister for Territories **(Mr. Hasluck)** is doing the best he can to develop the Northern Territory with the money available. I intend to deal with that aspect of the matter during the consideration of the Estimates, and I shall leave it at that. With present methods, it will take us 200 years to develop the Territory to any appreciable degree. If our present methods are not good enough, we should adopt some other policy and different methods in order to develop the north. We all know that the cost of living is higher in the Northern Territory than anywhere else in Australia. That is one of the principal reasons why people go there for only a limited period and then return to the south. I do not blame them for it. Most of the public servants who go to the Territory get out as quickly as they can once they have served their allotted time there, and people who are not public servants go to the Territory for a short time to earn money, and then leave as quickly as they can. About 60 per cent, of the white population of the Territory are transients who are moving all the time. What can we do to develop the north more quickly? I intend to offer a novel and somewhat revolutionary suggestion, which, I have no doubt, will attract much adverse comment. I suggest that we should throw Darwin open, and make it a free port. If that were done, like Singapore, Penang, Hong Kong and other Far Eastern ports, it would go ahead by leaps and bounds. It would become one of the cheapest towns in Australia in which to live, and the Northern Territory would have a much lower cost of living. Darwin is 2,000 miles from the nearest large city, and therefore there would be no serious obstacle in the way of making it a free port. There would certainly be no constitutional difficulties, as there would be in relation to State territories. The Northern Territory is Commonwealth territory, and honorable members should give much thought and consideration to its development by means such as I have proposed. If we are to develop the Northern Territory properly, we must adopt new methods and do the job more quickly than we have been doing it up to the present time. I recall that it was suggested years ago that we should hand the Territory over to a company under a charter, and allow it to undertake development there. I, like nearly every other member of the Parliament, opposed the proposal at the time, but I am now beginning to think that we made a mistake in rejecting the idea, and that we should have handed the Territory over to private enterprise for development. A large development company would probably have done more to develop the north than the Commonwealth has done since it took control of the Northern Territory. I ask honorable members to give careful thought to the turning of Darwin into a free port. If it became a free port, the town would grow, the hinterland would develop, and progress throughout the north would be much more rapid than it has been in recent years. In conclusion, I want to say that, in my opinion, the budget has been very well received by the Australian people generally. They know that, while the reins of government are in the hands of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party, their future is secure, especially while the present Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden)** administers the Treasury. Government supporters are proud to have him as Treasurer in this Government. Members of the Australian Country party in particular are proud of his achievements as Treasurer. The right honorable gentleman has given noteworthy service in that office, and has had signal honours conferred on him overseas at various conferences that he has attended over the years. We wish him well during his coming trip abroad. He will be the top finance minister at the conference that he is to attend next week. His name stands very high in other countries, and Australia is indeed lucky to have such an able man administering the Treasury, and guiding the destinies of the nation, from the financial stand-no;nt. to the benefit of all. {: #subdebate-24-0-s13 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP .- The honorable member for Maranoa **(Mr. Brimblecombe)** discussed at some length, the interesting subject of " ham " radio operator. The importance of their activities justified the attention of the committee, and the time devoted to them by the honorable member. However, the people of Australia arP equally concerned about the ham actors wHo have played s'ich prominent parts in the debate on this budget, and who have featured prominently at the prima donna broadcasting hour as was the case last evening when the Prime Minister performed. The honorable member discussed the defence of northern Australia also. This Government's failure to give proper attention to the development of northern Australia gives cause for grave concern. It is apparent that the £190,000,000 to be expended on defence in the current financial year and the £1,000,000,000 that has been spent on defence over the last six years, could have been far better spent on the development of northern Australia, especially northern Queensland. It is an elementary fact that those areas require development by the provision of roads, aerodromes, bridges, and the like, in order that they may be accessible, not only in time of hostilities, but also in peace-time. There are great opportunities for development in the north, and this Government stands condemned for its failure to exploit them satisfactorily. Last evening, the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** subjected the committee to a long diatribe, lasting almost an hour, which was designed to stimulate the fast-flagging spirits of Government supporters. The right honorable gentleman's speech was inaccurate, uninspiring, pompous, and plausible, and was devoted principally to an attack on the perceptive and aggressive analysis of the economy made by the Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt),** who, of course, was justified in attacking this do-nothing budget for 1957-58. The Prime Minister took him to task for criticizing social service benefits, and contrasted Labour's social services programme with that of the present Government. However, he failed to take into account the fact that the Labour Government's period of office covered the dark and desperate days of war, and the years of post-war problems. However, his recollection of the war years was conveniently restored when it suited him. He attributed the ability of the Labour government to seek loan money successfully from the people at a rate of interest not exceeding 4 per cent, to the fact that we were at war. That sort of attitude does not impress the Australian people. The inconsistency of the Prime Minister's recollections on this matter is regrettable because he has attempted to confuse the people on this issue. I want to speak on child endowment because nothing can justify the failure of this Government to provide a substantial increase in child endowment payments, particularly having regard to the upward trend in living costs. I remind the committee that prices have risen in Australia over the past twelve months by 6 per cent. The United Kingdom and the United States of America consider they have a fairly critical state of inflation, but in the United Kingdom prices have risen over the past twelve months by only 2.1 per cent., and in the United States by 3.4 per cent., compared with 6 per cent, in Australia. Honorable members will recall that child endowment was first introduced in Australia by the Lang Labour Government of New South Wales. It is now a matter for alarm that the endowment for the first child has not been increased since 1950. This is a matter upon which the Government -stands indicted in the face of the annual report of the Auditor-General. This reveals that the Government is expending a totally inadequate amount on this important branch of social services. In 1955-56, expenditure on child endowment totalled £60,380,685, but the expenditure declined - actually declined - in the year just concluded to a total of £57,036,962. This year, an amount of £59,600,000 has been allotted to child endowment, but it is still less than the amount expended in 1955-56. It could well be that the factor responsible for this decline is a fall in the birth-rate or a lower incidence of children of eligible age; but whatever the circumstances, it is evident that the level of child endowment should at least be maintained in these times when parents are experiencing such enormous difficulty in supplying their children with adequate food and clothing. Surely the fact that expenditure from the National Welfare Fund on child endowment has declined by about £3,000,000 suggests that there is a good case for a substantial increase in child endowment rates. There has been a substantial loss in the actual value of endowment paid, apart from the lower rate which pertains to the first child, as a result of the increase in the basic wage of 128.4 per cent, that has taken place since a Labour government last fixed the endowment rates. To demonstrate this point, I refer honorable members to the case of a family man with three children under sixteen years. In 1948, under the last Labour Government's budget, such a family would have received an endowment payment totalling £1 a week. The basic wage was then £5 16s. a week. If the value of child endowment as a percentage of the basic wage were retained, this amount would need to be increased by 128.4 per cent. If that adjustment were made, a man with a family of three young children would receive child endowment totalling £2 5s. 8d. a week, but instead of retaining the value of endowment as it was paid by the Labour Government in 1948, this Government is paying only £1 5s. to the family. Therefore, the weekly loss in real value amounts to £1 0s. 8d. Of course, this deficiency increases according to the size of the family. For example, by the same yardstick, a family of four children would lose £1 13s. 6d. a week, and a family of five children would lose £2 6s. 4d. a week. The staggering revelation that the Government provided less for child endowment last year than it did for the preceding year should result in an immediate review of the position and a substantial increase in the payments to Australian families through this essential social service. I wish to direct attention now to the maternity allowance because the astounding fact is that this Government paid little more for the maternity allowance in 1956-57 than it did in 1955-56. An amount of £3,410,000 was allocated in 1955-56, and last year it was increased by no more than a miserable £61,000. The allowance paid for the first child is £15. The rates of maternity allowance have not been increased since their introduction by the Curtin Government in 1943. Since the basic wage has increased by 128.4 per cent, and the Government has failed to increase the maternity allowance correspondingly, that is, to £35 5s. 4d., the loss in the first-grade allowance is £19 5s. 4d. Similar circumstances apply in respect of the second and third-grade allowances as I shall prove. The second-grade maternity allowance was £16 under a Labour budget of 1948. If that figure were increased by 128.4 per cent., the extent to which the basic wage has increased in that period, the total would be £36 lis.; but the secondgrade maternity allowance is still only £16, so the loss in this grade is as high as £20 lis. The third-grade allowance is still at the 1948 level of £17 10s. By using the same yardstick, it should be £39 19s. 7d., so the loss in that case is £22 9s. 7d. Surely the Government is unjust in its failure to review the maternity allowance in the light of these facts. The budget under review must come as a profound disappointment to almost every section of the community, lt stimulates the tendency to profit inflation, widens the gulf between the rich and the poor and fails to correct apparent injustices. Government revenue has increased by £87,000,000, providing a record budget of £1,331,700,000. The Opposition has made it perfectly clear that all honorable members on this side of the chamber disagree entirely with the manner in which the Government proposes to raise revenue and to spend it. I wish to refer briefly to company taxation and depreciation allowances because it is significant that the major concessions in this budget are directed to please the palate of big business interests, the cartels and monopolies. The rate of company tax has been reduced to save business concerns an outlay of £14,500,000 a year. Depreciation allowances on plant and equipment are to be increased by 50 per cent, to provide one of the most big-hearted handouts to large industrial, commercial and rural concerns that this country has ever known. The cost to revenue in a full year will be £26,400,000, according to the statement made by the Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden)** in his budget speech. On the other hand, the nation has been horrified at the miserable pittance that is to be granted to pensioners and the general off-handedness of the Government towards social services generally. The Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** has made it perfectly clear that the Government could have provided more generous social service payments. Indeed, he has indicated that generous social service increases are likely to be made next year. Clearly the view has been taken that social service concessions should be delayed for political purposes. Obviously the intention is to delay a number of social service increases until the next budget, which will be the pre-election budget. The horror of all this humbug is that thousands of unfortunate and underprivileged Australians will suffer hardship and adversity for another twelve months. Justice in these matters is being delayed for miserable political advantages. This Government should understand that when justice is delayed, the feeling throughout Australia is that justice is being denied. The policy that results in age and invalid pensions representing a decreasing proportion of the basic wage is indefensible. In Australia to-day there are 465,781 age pensioners and 88,236 invalid pensioners. This makes a total of 554,017 men and women, most of whom have contributed generously to the development of this great country. They are entitled to just and: equitable social service arrangements, which will enable them to live in decent circumstances. Instead, they are beset from all directions, and their position is assailed rather than assisted. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- Why did not the Labour Government deal as generously with them when it was in office as we have done? {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I shall deal with that matter in due course. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The honorable member is accusing us of humbug. Why did his party not do as much when it was in office as we have done? {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Of course, it is easy to deal with the Minister's interjection, and if he will be good enough to behave himself for a moment I will deal with his point. The iniquitous provisions of the means test have not been modified in this budget, so that the average fortnightly pension is £7 13s. 7d., which amounts to £3 16s. *9id.* a week. To bring the age and invalid pensions to a level comparable with that obtaining in 1948, the Government should have granted an increase of 17s. Id. instead of the miserable 7s. 6d. that it has provided for. I have referred to the pension rate that prevailed at the time when the Labour government granted its last increase. Since then the basic wage has increased by 128.4 per cent. Perhaps the Minister is incapable of making the necessary calculations, but if he can prevail on his staff to do it for him, he will see that it cannot be disputed that in order to retain the value of the pension in comparison with the basic wage, the increase granted in this budget should have been 17s. Id. instead of 7s. 6d. The Minister knows that the means test is anomalous in many ways, but no attempt "has been made to modify it. In fact, many persons are prevented from obtaining benefits because of the iniquitous provisions of the means test. Before October, 1955, all pensioners were eligible for free medical benefits if they were in possession of a pension card, but this Government has whittled away this concession. As a consequence of Liberal Government legislation a means test has been imposed, with the result that many pensioners are now unable to obtain free medical benefits. Last year the expenditure on age and invalid pensions and on pharmaceutical benefits was less than expected, to the extent of £2,646,000 in the case of the pensions and £1,676,000 in the case of pharmaceutical benefits. The total expenditure from the National Welfare Fund was almost £3,000,000 below the estimated figure. These facts clearly demonstrate the niggardly attitude which characterizes the Government's administration of the National Welfare Fund and points further to the apparent fact that a more humane policy could well have been pursued. I wish now to speak on the subject of homes for the aged. This is a matter of great importance to the pensioner community. {: .speaker-JYO} ##### Mr Cleaver: -- I hope the honorable member can commend the Government for its efforts in this direction. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I intend to deal with the matter accurately, and I believe the honorable member for Swan would make a very different comment if he examined the facts concerning the manner in which money has been provided for homes for the aged. This matter has been the subject of a hoax that has been perpetrated on the Australian people over a number of years. There is obviously a desperate need for something worthwhile to be done to provide homes for the aged, but year after year the Government has tried to give the impression that considerable amounts were being expended towards this end, while in effect the Aged Persons Homes Act of 1954 has proved to be almost unworkable. The Treasurer said in his budget speech - >The Government will raise from £1,500,000 to £3,000,000 the maximum contribution it is prepared to make for homes for the aged in any single year. He went on - >Provision has been made for an increase of £1,049,000 in expenditure under this heading in this financial year. According to the Auditor-General's report on the Treasurer's statement for the year ended 30th June, 1957, the Commonwealth has so far expended no more than £1,585,367 under the provision of the Aged Persons Homes Act. The paltry amount of £751,137 was expended last financial year, and only a miserable £397,994 in the preceding year. According to the budget, estimated expenditure for this financial year is about £1,800,000. This year, as in previous years, the amount expended will depend on the extent to which approved organizations, particularly registered charities, are able to raise money by public subscription. Surely the Government cannot seriously contend that the appropriate yardstick to be used in this matter is the extent to which charitable organizations are able to attract public subscriptions. Each year, in fact, the Government has been making available twice the amount that it has been able to expend, because approved organizations have found it difficult to raise money. It is crystal clear that the Government should widen the scope of the Aged Persons Homes Act to allow local government authorities and the State governments to participate in the scheme. Then something worth while might be accomplished, instead of only half the allocated amount being expended, as was the case last year. The need for some modification of the present arrangement is desperate, because the housing plight of the aged has been aggravated by the total housing problem, which has never received from this Government the consideration necessary to effect any worthwhile alleviation. Surely the Government cannot feel content at the rate at which the housing lag is being overtaken, if it is being overtaken at all. According to the report of the Commonwealth Bank, loans were approved by major lending institutions for 35,700 houses last year, compared with 37,300 for the year 1954-55. The report makes it clear that this is a decline that Australia can ill afford, particularly if one accepts the advice and counsel of the Commonwealth Bank about the future and the difficulties that He ahead. The report has this to say on the question of housing - >Looking further ahead to the 1960:s, it seems certain that a substantial increase in residential building will become necessary. It is possible to forecast with some assurance that about 1960 there will be a very much higher marriage rate than now, following the rise in the birth rate after the depression years of the 1930's, and that this increased marriage rate will be reflected in an increased demand for housing. This is only one of the many important factors to be taken into account if justice is to be done in dealing with this great problem. The budget does nothing to allay the fears of the people that nothing of any consequence is being planned to satisfy a stimulated demand for housing. Another important aspect of the housing problem involves the question of immigration. Last financial year the Government spent £1,794,606 on immigration. The Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden),** .in his budget speech on 3rd September, had this to say about the immigration programme for this financial year - >For this financial year the planned intake is again 115,000 which is expected to result in a level net immigration somewhat less than the ratio of I 'per cent, of population. However, with an increase in the proportion of British migrants in the programme and higher passage costs, expenditure on immigration is estimated to rise by £1,450,000. In any case, if the Government pursues its immigration policy - that is, to bring out each year a number of migrants equivalent to 1 per cent, of the population - an expanding housing construction programme will be essential. The " Bring out a Briton " campaign is an excellent concept in many ways, but it is an undeniable fact that in the vast majority of cases accommodation offered by Australian sponsors is inadequate and certainly not conducive to happy and contented family .life. Any one who knows anything about families sharing homes knows that it is rarely successful and that dissension and friction result. The " Bring out a Briton " campaign has been conceived because of the failure of the Government to associate its immigration programme with the indisputable fact that Australian families, be they Australian-born or of overseas origin, arc entitled to decent and adequate living conditions. Already a very large proportion of immigrants of British origin have returned to their homeland after being brought to this country at the expense of -the Australian -people, because of the apparent failure of the Government toprovide adequate housing. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- And a lot more are waiting to go back. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- That is so. In a large measure, the current policy of courting the trading banks is responsible for the sub-standard rate of housing development. The trading banks are more intent on directing deposits to the lucrative hire-purchase sphere of commercial activity than to the housing sphere, because it is recognized that the average Australian cannot afford to pay interest rates on housing advances compatible with the extortionate rates charged for the shorter term hirepurchase transactions. In the face of thisvital and alarming trend, which is obviously against the best interests of the Australian people, it is impossible to justify the Government's decision to permit the trading banks to move into the savings bank field, a sphere of commercial activity which hitherto has been the exclusive domain of the Commonwealth Bank. The ability of the Commonwealth Bank to advance money for housing diminishes as -its functions are dissipated and its revenue, because of deliberate, malicious design on the part of the Government, fails to keep pace with its great national obligation. The majority of the trading banks have taken unto themselves substantial, if not controlling, interest in hire-purchase establishments. The English, Scottish and Australian Bank, I believe, set the ball rolling, in 1953 by the development of its own hire-purchase business named Esanda Limited. The National Bank of Australasia Limited has taken a 40 per cent, interest, in Custom Credit Corporation Limited. The Bank of Adelaide has similarly acquired a 40 per cent, interest in a well known institution - the Finance Corporation of Australia Limited. The Commercial Bank of Australasia Limited has established itself with a 45 per cent, interest in General Credits Limited, while the Bank of New South Wales has also gone off the beaten banking track by directing a considerable proportion of its deposits to the acquisition of a 40 per cent, interest in Australian Guarantee Corporation Limited. {: .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr Anderson: -- Is that true? {: #subdebate-24-0-s14 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Apparently the honorable member is in favour of the Australian people spending their money in the payment of extortionate rates of interest charged by hire-purchase, companies. The most recent defector from the great banking tradition is the Australian and New Zealand Bank Limited, which, as late as last Friday, announced its entry into the hire-purchase field through Industrial Acceptance Holdings Limited by the acquisition of 14 per cent, of the total shareholdings of that establishment. This trend undermines the ability of the elected representatives of the people to control the economy of the country in a manner which will reflect benefit on the community, and there is little likelihood that first things will come first while investment of the people's savings is accomplished" in the light of profit motive rather than more important circumstances. In the face of this unhappy trend, it is disturbing to learn that the Commonwealth Bank is about to receive the treatment, which is a process already applied to a number of successfully operating instrumentalities owned by the people of Australia. Of course, it is not the first organization to go. This great instrumentality has been outstandingly successful since the time of its inception in 1911. Since then, and up to 30th June last, it has been able to accumulate assets worth £2,053,000,000, and in that period it has earned a profit of £183,941,480. This Government has danced to the tune played by vested interests on a number of occasions. Every time big business interests have called the tune, it has disposed of many great instrumentalities. It would seem that the Commonwealth Bank is next in line. It follows in the train of Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited and Commonwealth Oil Refineries, the Commonwealth shipping line, the Australian whaling station at Carnarvon and a number of others, including government-owned coal mines and the Commonwealth Handling Equipment Pool. Only a couple of weeks ago some of the functions of the PostmasterGeneral's Department were handed out to private enterprise because private enterprise is now able to engage in the installation of switch boxes and things of that type. A great chain of events has occurred as a consequence of big business interests calling the tune. Now, of course, the banking interests, the prince of them all, are calling the tune and there is no doubt that the Government will bow the knee on this occasion as it has done in the past. There is adequate scope for the Government to avail itself of the provisions of section 10 of the Commonwealth Bank Act and section 27 of the Banking Act to take unto itself the powers necessary to control the economy of the country, to curb hirepurchase rackets and to direct the finances of this country to the welfare of the people. I commend those suggestions to the Government. There is no doubt that if they were adopted the people of Australia would benefit tremendously. {: #subdebate-24-0-s15 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 765 {:#debate-25} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-25-0} #### Sales Tax - Australian Wine Exports - Hungary - British Immigrants - Overseas Shipping Freights - Bell Bay Aluminium Project: Payment of Municipal Rates - Pensions - Poultry Industry - Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith War Memorial: Aircraft " Southern Cross Motion (by **Mr. Osborne)** proposed - >That the House do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-25-0-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne .- 1 desire to refer to a number of matters tonight. A few days ago, I asked the Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden)** a question, and said that, so far as my information went, not one company manufacturing washing machines in Melbourne had passed on sales tax reductions to the public. 1 have a letter from the Turner Manufacturing Company Proprietary Limited, and I think I should read it in fairness to that company. It is as follows: - >In view of the publicity appearing in the daily press over the last few days, we are prompted to write to you pointing out that this company immediately reduced the retail price of the Turner " Sapphire " Washer Spin-Drier, in accordance with the reduction in sales tax. > >The attached newsletter has been posted to all dealers throughout the Commonwealth handling this washing machine and all press and radio advertisements have been amended accordingly. If a company is misrepresented, even though it may be done unintentionally, 1 think it is desirable that the company's denial should be put forward. 1 mentioned, during the debate on the Wine Grapes Charges Bill 1957, that the Emu Wine Company Proprietary Limited, of South Australia, was selling its product in England and that this wine was being adulterated by those who purchased it over there. I asked for action to be taken to publicize our wines to a far greater extent than was being done, and I have received a letter from the managing director of the Emu Wine Company Proprietary Limited, in which he says - >My board have asked me to write and tell you that they are extremely disturbed at the statement you made in the House recently about this company's wines in England. > >We are aware that returning Australian overseas travellers make these disparaging remarks but the slightest inquiry from the Department of Primary Industry or the Wine Board would have advised you that our company is of very old standing and of the highest repute. He goes on to say that the company has been established in Australia since the 1890's. He also gives details of the company's sales overseas. They are considerable, and amounted to a large proportion of our total exports of wine. They conclude with these words - >As the statement made is most harmful and damaging to my Company who, in fact, have done an enormous amount for the Australian wine industry abroad, my Directors would be appreciative if you would correct the erroneous impression given, when the opportunity occurs. Without retracting anything I said about the lack of publicity for Australian wines overseas and of the difficulties which Australians abroad experience in purchasing wine to give to their hosts in Great Britain, I state the facts as the company wished them to be stated. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- The honorable member is only trying to square off to the company. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- 1 am always prepared to put the other man's point of view if he thinks I have done anything that might harm him. I am glad that the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** is now present because the third matter I want to raise relates to a letter which appeared in yesterday's " Sydney Morning Herald " entitled " Hungarian issue at Labour talks ", written by **Mr. D.** G. Fowler, adviser to the employers delegation at the 1957 International Labour Conference. It concerns the attitude of the Australian Government delegation at that con ference, on the question of Hungary. Lastweek the Government instigated a debateon Hungary - a most unusual procedure. I suppose it expected to gain a lot of party political value out of the discussion, but, asa matter of fact, it lost not only the debate but also any beneficial effect that it thought it might gain from it by way of electoral chances. Now, I quote the employers' delegate to prove how right the Opposition wasin its attitude in this matter. **Mr. Fowlerwrote** - >The report of the speech by the Minister for Labour and National Service, **Mr. H.** E. Holt: (" Herald ", September 13), does not give all thefacts as to how the Australian Government voted on the Hungarian "employer" issue at the 1957 International Labour Conference, or indeed on thegeneral issue of the Communist so-called EmployerDelegates. > >It is a fact that the Australian Government earlier in the conference voted to place on one of the technical committees the Hungarian " employer " delegate, much to our embarrassment and' against strenuous opposition from the free employers of the democratic countries. The attitude of the employer delegates was precisely that of the employee delegates. They have all been protesting for a number of years. To-night, the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia has issued a bulletin on this matter. It is headed, " Communists at the International Labour Organization ". 1 will read not all of it but the parts of it which are germane to the debate that took place last week. It states - >The Executive of the Associated Chambers of Manufactures has received a report from its representatives who attended the 40th Session of the International Labour Organisation in Geneva in June, 1957. > >The report expressed concern at the attitude of the Australian Government delegation on the Communist " employer " issue, and the obvious inclination on their part to do nothing to displease the Communists, even to the extent of sacrificing the interests of the employer section of the Australian delegation. The employers in Australia are objecting to the soft treatment which this Government was prepared to mete out to the Kadar regime and its representatives at the International Labour Organization conference, a month or so ago. The bulletin continues - >The International Labour Organisation is a tripartite body consisting of Government (2), employer (1) and worker (1) delegates from each of its seventy-seven members. **Mr. Anderson,** who issued this statement, says that the problem of seating Communist delegates at the l.L.O. conferences - {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . first arose in 1954 - It is not a matter of recent origin - when Russia joined the l.L.O. The employers in the free world claim that the so-called " employer " delegates from Russia and its satellite countries are not free but mere puppets of their Government, who must act and vote as they are told. (The free employers' contention has been proved by the experience of the past three years to be correct.) The free employers have consistently refused to accept on the Technical Committees the delegates who carry the label "employer " from the Iron Curtain countries. So have the worker delegates equally objected to the seating of puppets of dictator-governed countries. **Mr. Anderson's** statement continues - >Each time this occurs the Russians appeal to the Plenary Session of the Conference to be placed on the Technical Committees. The vote, therefore, in the Plenary Session on the Russian appeal is quite important. And then follows the indictment made against the Government by the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia. The statement goes on - >Despite entreaty from the Australian employers, the Australian Government voted with the majority in favour of granting the Communists deputy membership of three Technical Committees. > >It is clear to A.C.M.A. that the Iron Curtain countries are bent on destroying the tripartite concept of the l.L.O. and are doing their best to damage good management-employee relations to the free democratic countries. The conduct of the Communist delegates at the 40th Session was offensive and disruptive, and rarely did they make a constructive contribution to the debate. They continually used the rostrum to extol the virtues of communism and attack the United States of America and the democracies for " exploiting the workers in the interests of profits ". It goes on to say further - >The l.L.O. is drifting away from its original concept and becoming political. And now here is the second attack made by this organization on the Government - >We believe that the Australian Government support for the Communist countries is contributing to this unhappy situation, and the Communists are not slow to exploit it to the full. The document continues - >Australian employers in the past three years have persistently pressed our Government to change its overseas policy towards the Communists, but without avail. For three years the employers have been protesting, and for three years the employees also have been protesting. This is not a question of the Government changing its attitude at the recent session of l.L.O. after the exposure following the presentation of the United Nations Report on Hungary. The Government has had three years in which to do that. {: #subdebate-25-0-s1 .speaker-KSC} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-25-0-s2 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- The Standing Orders provide that honorable members may seek information from members of the Government either by asking questions without notice or on notice. I suppose it is the Minister's prerogative to decide whether he answers the questions or not. But when we do get an answer we like it to be truthful. I want to direct attention to a question which I asked on notice of the Minister for Immigration **(Mr. Townley)** and to which I have received a very unsatisfactory reply. This question was based on a statement made by **Mr. Reeves,** who, I understand, is the secretary of the British-Australia Society. {: .speaker-JMF} ##### Mr Aston: -- He is not now. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- He made the claim that the Department of Immigration was falsifying its figures in regard to British immigration to this country. I directed a number of questions to the Minister for Immigration in an endeavour to clear up this situation once and for all. For the benefit of the House I will read the question which I directed to the Minister. lt was as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. fs it a fact, as claimed by the Secretary of the British-Australia Society, that the Department of Immigration, when calculating the number of British migrants coming to Australia, includes - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Maltese, Cypriots, people from other Commonwealth countries, and students from Pakistan. Singapore, Malaya, Ceylon and Hong Kong: 1. British businessmen who stay here more than a year; (c) foreign persons who had resided in the United Kingdom and left there to come to Australia; and (d) Australians returning home after twelve months' absence abroad? 1. If not, in what way is the claim inaccurate? Here are the answers supplied by the Minister. They do not give a detailed reply to each question but a general statement which is supposed to be an answer to them. The Minister said - 1 and 2.- There were only two questions in actual fact, the first of which was broken into sections. The answer was - >The claim is inaccurate, firstly, because it assumes that it is the Department of Immigration which is responsible for the compilation of statistics of persons arriving in Australia. This function is, of course, the responsibility of the Commonwealth Statistician. I did not ask for any information about the number of people arriving in Australia. I was referring to immigrants and I specifically stated immigrants. Surely the Department of Immigration knows how many enter this country, and so it was natural that I should direct my question to that department. However, it is only a trivial point. The Minister's answer continued - >The claim is inaccurate, secondly, because it assumes that certain figures published by the Commonwealth Statistician refer to the number of British migrants coming to Australia, whereas these figures actually relate to " permanent arrivals " of British nationality. I did not ask about permanent arrivals. I asked about immigrants. The answer proceeded - >The difference is clearly stated in the Commonwealth Statistician's introductory note to the published statistics. This note reads as follows: - " In this summary the movements of oversea travellers are classified as permanent or temporary on the basis that ' permanent ' means residence for one year or longer (in Australia in the case of arrivals; abroad in the case of departures) irrespective of the stated intention of the passenger. The definitions were adopted in accordance with international usage and do not purport to representpermanent migration as such." So, even the quotation from the Commonwealth Statistician's introductory note makes clear the truth of the charge made by **Mr. Reeves** that British businessmen who stay in this country for more than a year are recorded as permanent arrivals. How does the Minister contend that that statement by **Mr. Reeves** is inaccurate? The Minister continued - >The Commonwealth Statistician in referring to net movement is careful to refer to "excess of arrivals over departures " rather than to " net migration ". And this is the important part - >In classifying " permanent arrivals " by nationality the Commonwealth Statistician records as British all persons whose stated nationality is shown on their passport as British. I invite the Minister to say specifically whether Maltese coming to this country travel on British passports. Is it not a fact that Cypriots travel to Australia on British passports? Cyprus is a British colony Why does the Minister evade the issue? Why does he not say whether those listed! as permanent British arrivals in this country include the people to whom I have directed attention? He knows full well that the figures have been falsified and that they include everybody who arrives in this country on a British passport, whether from Malta, Cyprus, or anywhere else. I think this kind of reply to questions; directed by honorable members should nol be accepted without some protest or criticism. The Minister's reply was intended to confuse and mislead the general public, but it is obvious that the allegation made by this organization and its officials has been borne out in fact. I turn now to another matter. I alsodirected a question to the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** regarding an important statement made by **Sir William** Rootes, chairman of the Dollar Exports Council, and a leading British industrialist. I asked was it a fact that this gentleman had called for the abolition of the shipping conference which regulates shipping rates. I asked whether the Minister was aware of the statement that had been made, what his information was, and whether the Government had any alternative proposal to deal with the problem of the exploitation of the Australian primary producers in particular by the shipping combine. The Minister replied as follows: - >I have no official knowledge of the views of **Sir William** Rootes on the matters mentioned in these questions. Well, it is the Minister's business to know. Is **Sir William** Rootes, the chairman of the Dollar Exports Council of no consequence? I should imagine that if the Minister had not noticed the statement himself, some official on his staff would have directed his attention to it, because it is a matter of great importance to the primary producer in particular that something should be done about the activities of the shipping combine insofar as they affect our primary industries. I have gone to the trouble of taking out a few figures and I find that the amount payable overseas in respect of freights for the year 1955-56 was £103,000,000. That does not include all the moneys paid in freight. According to what I understand it is the amount paid overseas to the shipping combine. Let us examine what it represents as a drain upon the overseas reserves built Cip by our export industries. In 1955-56 - and let us accept the Treasurer's own state.ments - despite the talk about the 30 per cent, increase in the price of wool, the record clip, and our prosperous trading position overseas, the fact is that whilst our overseas reserves, generally speaking, increased considerably, our trade balance was only in our favour to the extent of £80,000,000. The remainder of the funds that went into our overseas reserves was represented by loans raised overseas, other payments, and the influx of capital into Australia. Let me indicate what drain is made upon the Australian community by freight payments made overseas. In 1955-56, the whole of our wheat sold overseas represented £46,000,000 to the Australian producer. Our flour exports represented £20,000,000; our sugar exports represented £25,000,000; dried fruits £8,000,000; and cheese £4,000,000. The total of the receipts from sales of those five primary products overseas is exactly £103,000,000, which was the sum paid overseas in shipping freights. So, in effect what it means is that the producers in this country of wheat, flour, sugar, dried fruits, and cheese, were doing no more than building up . a credit to pay for the shipping freights that are now received by the shipping combines. I think it is about time- {: #subdebate-25-0-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! the honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-25-0-s4 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Primary Industry · Lowe · LP -- The honorable member for Melbourne **(Mr. Calwell)** to-night has expressed his regrets about certain statements he made in this House a few days ago. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- I did not express any regrets at all. I made a position clear from the point of view of the people concerned. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMAHON: -- I want to clear up one other point that you did not make clear. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- Do not misrepresent me. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMAHON: -- I will not misrepresent the honorable member. The honorable member referred to the quality of certain South Australian wines exported to the London market, and he asked whether or not those wines were blended with other foreign wines. The honorable member has been good enough to express his regrets for some of his statements. I personally would like to make my position clear, and also that of my department. Of course we do not object to expressions of criticism in this House of Australian exports if the criticism is fair and is based upon factual knowledge. But we do regret any tendency to knock Australian products, particularly when the information given is based upon hearsay evidence. The product referred to is the wine of the Emu Wine Company Proprietary Limited, a big and reputable Australian producer. This company is the biggest exporter of Australian wines and there is a ready demand on the London market for all it produces. Unfortunately the honorable member's statement received a great deal of publicity in London newspapers and the company thought that its prospects might be prejudiced. I would like to say that the Australian Wine Board is of the opinion that for the kind of palate and for the kind of person for which these wines are produced, they are in fact of high quality. They sell readily and are selling in increasing quantities. The second question was whether Australian -wines were blended with foreign wines. That is not a fact. Only Australian wines are sold by this company and English regulations prohibit the blending of wines unless it is clearly stated on the label that they are blended. From inquiries that have been made, it is quite clear that blending does -not take place, in bond, of Australian wines. Therefore, I. think it is fair to say that "'Emu " wines -are not blended with any others. I was very glad to hear to-day that certain Australian wines from the Barossa 'Valley were awarded six prizes out of seven entries in a recent Czechoslovakian competition. I think that fact shows the quality of our wines. We should be proud of this and should be prepared to extol their virtues rather than be critical of them. {: #subdebate-25-0-s5 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr BARNARD:
Bass .- I take this opportunity to refer briefly to a matter that has been dealt with by me and other parliamentarians in another place. It concerns the inadequacy of the ex gratia payment now being paid to the Georgetown Council in respect of the Australian Aluminium Production Commission's buildings at Bell Bay in Tasmania. I concede that ex gratia payments are a contentious subject. But I hold the opinion which is shared by you, **Mr. Speaker,** that it is about time that the Commonwealth accepted its responsibility by paying rates for the various buildings that it holds throughout Australia, computed on the same equitable basis on which they would be charged to any other owner or group of owners who are subject to the payment of rates in this country. That is a fair and reasonable proposition. I concede, too, that what I shall say in regard to the position at Bell Bay could apply to many other cases in other States. I am not raising this issue merely as a means of gaining some political advantage. The matter to which I refer has been raised on many occasions by other Tasmanian representatives in another place who belong to the party of which the Minister for Supply **(Mr. Beale)** is a member. Therefore, I hope that the Minister, who, I know, is not unsympathetic in these matters and is always prepared to listen to a case affecting the Department of Supply, will give due consideration to the facts as I present them. According to the twelfth annual report of the Australian Aluminium Production Commission, which was presented only yesterday in this Parliament by the Minister for Supply, the total value of fixed assets of the commission at Bell Bay amounts to approximately £9,000,000. According to the balance-sheet presented by the commission, the figure is precisely £8,763,480. Since the Georgetown Council assesses rateable value on a 5 per cent, basis, I believe, from the reliable figure which has been supplied to me, that the minimum rateable value of the commission's property would be in the vicinity of £53,000. The amount in rates that any other commercial or industrial undertaking would be obliged to pay to the Georgetown Council annually on a rateable value of £53,000 would be £8,000. The Commonwealth Government now pays to the Georgetown Council only £3,000 annually in rates. That is approximately 30 per cent, of the amount that the Georgetown Council, after a reliable and accurate assessment of the value of the commission's site and buildings, has a right to expect. The Government has adopted the principle, quite wrongly in my opinion, that it should pay to local government bodies only the amount which the Government believes ought to be paid and not the full amount of rates charged by the council. Therefore, I do not suggest that the £3,000 that is being received by the Georgetown Council should be immediately raised to approximately £8,000. But I suggest that, as there is a difference of £5,000 between the amount being received and the full amount of rates payable, a review is long overdue. In my opinion, it ought to be approved immediately by the Minister for Supply. Yesterday, I asked the Minister a question concerning this matter and his reply, in my opinion, was most unsatisfactory. That is why I decided to deal with the subject at the first available opportunity. I asked the Minister - . . what action has been taken to bring the ex gratia payment now being made annually to the Georgetown Council in respect of the Australian Aluminium Production Commission's works at Bell Bay up to a level that is commensurate with the real rateable value of the industry? The Minister replied - >I am afraid that the honorable gentleman begs the question. I do not concede the premise upon which his question is based. I shall look into the matter to see whether I can give him an answer based on the facts, and let him know. Earlier, in October, 1956, I raised this question with the Minister. On that occasion, I asked him two questions. I asked him, first, what action had been taken by the Minister to raise the ex gratia payment being made to the Georgetown Council, following the requests that had been made to him by myself and by other Tasmanian members on numerous occasions. I also asked the Minister whether he considered that the amount being paid was fair and reasonable, having regard to the fact that it was considerably below the full rateable value. As I pointed out a moment ago. the amount of rates that would normally be payable exceeds the ex gratia payment by approximately £5,000. In his reply, the Minister made several points. The first was that the Commonwealth was not obliged, legally, to pay rates. His second point referred to an agreement between himself and the Premier of Tasmania under which a figure had been arbitrarily decided upon as far back as 1954. His third point related to a personal consideration that nine-tenths of the services that were being enjoyed by the commission and its personnel who lived in the area were being provided by the commission. Finally, he said that only incidental services had been provided or were to be provided by the Georgetown Council and, therefore, in his opinion, the amount being paid was reasonable. That was the basis of the Ministers argument as contained in his reply to me in October, 1956. Those points are important and I want to deal with one or two of them. We all know that the Commonwealth is not legally obliged to pay rates; but considerable difference of opinion exists in respect of that principle. I have no doubt that the majority of members of this Parliament hold the view that if, as a consequence of government action, additional responsibilities have been thrust upon a local government authority, the Government should accept its full responsibility to the local authority concerned. The Minister's second point showed that he has no conception of conditions generally at Bell Bay or in the Georgetown area because nine-tenths of the services now being enjoyed by the commission and its personnel have not been provided by the commission. I am prepared to concede that the commission has done very well in providing for its employees on the job, and it ought to be given full credit for the lead that it has given in that direction. I refer particularly to the general manager who, I believe, has achieved remarkable success in his short term at that undertaking. But I remind the House that rates are not collected by local authorities in order to provide or improve amenities for employees on the job. They are collected in order to provide and improve amenities for employees and their wives and families in the town or district in which their industry is situated. Finally, I am prepared to concede that an agreement was arranged between the Minister and the Premier of Tasmania. That agreement goes back to 1954. I am sure that the Minister himself would not suggest that an agreement signed so many years ago ought not to be reviewed, particularly in view of the alarming deterioration in the value of the £1 which has taken place since 1954. If the Minister subscribes to that view, I must continue to disagree with him. I know that the Premier of Tasmania would agree with what I have said to-night. In any case, in my opinion the amount is inadequate. It will have to be reviewed, and I appeal to the Minister to do that personally, or to appoint an independent tribunal in order to achieve the same result. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-25-0-s6 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply and Minister for Defence Production · Parramatta · LP [11.111. - The honorable member for Bass **(Mr. Barnard)** has supplied most of the answers which I would have given him if he had not read them out. Though I approve of his patriotism as a Tasmanian - a characteristic which we all know that Tasmanians have in high degree - I sometimes wonder whether he is trying to help the aluminium industry, or trying to hurt it. I do suggest that this constant, carping criticism about the Australian Aluminium Production Commission - whether it should be paying a certain amount of rates, whether its plant should be expanded, and this, that and the other thing - does not do the industry any good. I say to the honorable gentleman that, as he has said himself, we are not obliged to pay rates, but we do pay them. I say to him also that rates are paid by the residents of the houses which the commission has built in the village of Georgetown. After all, until the advent of the commission Georgetown was a quiet, sleepy little village. The establishment of the commission's activities in the area has transformed this district, but it is now said that because, the commission has made it into a busy and active area we should pay for the privilege of having done so. That, to me, seems to be rather disjointed logic. It is also true to say that all the roads in the area - several miles in all - the water supply, the sewerage, and almost all of the necessary facilities there, have been provided by the commission. In fact, this district has grown by reason of the developing industrialization there, but it is now said that we must pay for having done that. I say that not only is there no legal obligation on the commission to pay, but also T doubt very much whether there is any moral obligation on it to pay, because we have not imposed extra burdens on the district. However, in fact, we do pay rates. Here is the crux of thematter: Some weeks ago during a discussion that I had with the Premier of Tasmania, that gentleman entered into a friendly agreement with the commission that it should* make an ex gratia payment of £3,000 a year for rates- to the Georgetown Council. That agreement still stands. I suggest to the honorable member that if he has any real complaint about this matter he should go to the Premier of Tasmania about it. After all, it is no longer a matter for the Commonwealth Government, or the Australian Aluminium Production Commission. We entered into an arrangement, though we need not have done so, to give some gratuitous assistance to the council. I have nothing whatever to add to what has already been said in regard to this matter - that we have done a fair thing by the Georgetown council, and that our fairness is recognized by the Premier's acceptance of the arrangement to which I have referred. {: #subdebate-25-0-s7 .speaker-KFG} ##### Mr GRIFFITHS:
Shortland .- I am glad that the Minister for Social Services **(Mr. Roberton)** has returned to the chamber because I wish to take up with him a matter that concerns his department. 1 do so because the Minister has consistently refused to adjust the case in question. I believe that that refusal is of a personal character, and does not result from the fact that an adjustment is not warranted. It may be said, with some truth, that technically the Minister is right in what he has done, but in principle he allowed a magistrate of his department to take action which was, I believe, unwarranted and would not have been taken if the case had been dealt with according to the spirit and intention of the act. The case to which I refer is that of a lady who has been a widow for some 25 years. Although, for ten years, she could have drawn an invalid pension, she struggled on without it, working in the Newcastle Court House as a cleaner, and often collapsing while at work as a result of heart attacks. She steadfastly continued work until she reached the age of 60 years. On 22nd August, 1956, knowing that she had six weeks' long service leave to her credit, and having been able to purchase a little furniture, she retired, and applied for the age pension. The magistrate who examined her case was told that she had owing to her six weeks', long service leave. The necessary evidence, was- taken , and she heard nothing more, until 21st November, 1956, when the department notified her that she was to be granted a> pension as from 8th November, 1-956. She immediately wrote to the Director of Social Services, in Sydney, but it was not until 10th January, 1957, that she received a reply - to the effect that she could not be granted a pension from a date earlier than 8th November, 1956, because she had received, by. weekly instalments, long service leave amounting to £66. I made inquiries at the Public Works Department, in Sydney, and was assured by an officer that payment for her long service leave had been made by mistake, because the department had thought that she had retired at not 60, but 59, years of age. The reply of the director will show that this is so. He said - >Further inquiries following receipt of your representations have disclosed that, had the Public > >Works Department been aware of **Mrs.- correct** age, i.e., that she was over 60, payment in respect of long service leave would have been made in a lump sum. The Minister, in his reply to me, also acknowledged that that was so, but he stood by what the department had done. He said that, because she had received these payments in six weekly instalments, she was not entitled to receive the pension from the date of her application. I remind the Minister that section 38 (3.) of the Social Services Consolidation Act reads - >In investigating the claim the Magistrate shall not be bound by any rules of evidence but shall investigate the claim and make his recommendation according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to legal forms or technicalities. I submit that the magistrate failed to do that. He knew, in the middle of September, as a result of the inquiries that he had made, how much this woman had due to her, and that she was to be paid in six weekly instalments. If the matter had been dealt with by the department or the magistrate according to equity and good conscience, this lady would have been told that she was entitled to the long service leave payment in a lump sum. The magistrate would have said, " I suggest that you see the department or your parliamentary representative, so that the matter can be rectified ". Although her last payment was made on 27th September, the department did not pay the pension until 8th November, some eleven days afterwards. Not only has the woman been robbed of seven or eight weeks' pension, but also she has had to pay tax on the long service leave money because she received it in weekly instalments. This woman, because she had received long service leave pay for six weeks, was deprived by the means test of the right to receive a pension from the date on which she applied for it, but I know of some men who, having received amounts up to £1,000 in lump sum payments for long service leave, bought motor cars, house furnishings or had repairs done to their homes, and still were entitled to receive pensions from the date of application. I think that this has become a personal matter with the Minister, due to other matters which arose at the time I made these representations. I cannot conceive any other reason why the Minister, who claims to treat pensioners with justice and equity in all his dealings with them, has refused to take action in this case. I do not know whether he is insincere in that claim, as is suggested by my colleague who interjects, but he is certainly insincere in this matter. If ever anybody were entitled as a matter of principle to be paid a pension from the date of application, it is this widow, who would have received from the Government, had she applied for an invalid pension when her doctor told her to do so some ten years ago, up to £2,000 by the time she had reached the age of 60 years. I ask the Minister to have another look at this matter to see if he can do something to repair the damage that has been done, because the magistrate at Newcastle, in his examination of an applicant for an age pension, did not act according to equity and good conscience, permitting no legal forms or technicalities to enter into the matter. {: #subdebate-25-0-s8 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP .- The Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** has sought to make a little political capital out of a rather extraordinary statement issued from the secretariat of the Associated Chambers of Manufactures. By way of introducing this topic, he referred to the debate which took place recently in this House on the subject of the Hungarian uprising of last October. He twitted the Government for having promoted the debate on that occasion, feeling, apparently, that the Opposition had come out of it with flying colours. In fact, he was so delighted with a performance which, for once, he felt showed the Opposition as opposing Communist influences, that, on behalf of his party, he rushed to secure 10,000 copies of the speeches made by Opposition members on that occasion, presumably for distribution amongst gullible immigrants from European countries who have fled here to escape the Communist influences to which the debate directed attention. I am cynical enough to believe that the new-found warmth and enthusiasm of the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** for immigrants from Great Britain is based on his conviction that most of the immigrants who come here from nonBritish countries are very unlikely to vote for a party which has shown itself to be so sensitive to Communist influences and which typifies, in the eyes of those immigrants at any rate, the kind of government which they had sought to escape by seeking a new life here in Australia. I do not remember the honorable member for East Sydney being so enthusiastic when I announced some years ago our scheme for Government nomination arrangements for British immigrants in order to increase the proportion of British immigrants beyond the figure which had obtained while the Labour party was in power. I do not remember him being enthusiastic when we subscribed so considerable a proportion of the fares of British immigrants coming to this country. But even if this is a late conversion, it is welcome news that he is on-side with us in our efforts to bring more Britons to Australia. I say that in passing. I should like to devote more time than is available to me .under the Standing Orders to the extraordinary statement of the Associated Chambers of Manufactures and to this rather snide attempt by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to present himself as the champion of that organization on this occasion. What humbug it all is! One week we are told by honorable gentlemen opposite that we are the tools of big business in this country, and the next week we are told that so regardless are we of the .interests of businessmen that at an important international gathering we side with the Communists in order to defeat the best interests of Australian employers. Of course, the facts are contrary to what has been said in this House. I turn now to the letter written by **Mr. Fowler,** which proceeded, apparently, from the debate we had in this House. He saw a report - by no means a complete report - of what I had had to say about events at the International Labour Organization conference. He wrote setting out his own version of what had been done by the Australian Government's representatives at that conference. The next step was the statement from the Associated Chambers of Manufactures. The remarkable thing about that statement - I say this more in sorrow than in anger - is that it is the most irresponsible and ill-informed document that I have known to proceed from any employer's organization in this country. It seeks to present this Government - and presumably myself, as its principal representative on that occasion, although I happened to be in the chair and therefore in a position of impartiality - as having sponsored the interests of Communist countries and Communist delegates, as having been reluctant to displease the Communists and, to that end, as willing to sacrifice the interests of the employer section of the Australian delegation. It goes on to talk about the Australian Government's support for Communist countries contributing to an unhappy situation which the Communists have not been slow to exploit to the full. It says later on that over the last three years Australian employers have persistently pressed the Government to change its overseas policy towards the Communists, but without avail. The facts of the matter, briefly stated, are that in 1954 the Communist countries were re-admitted to the International Labour Organization. Whatever one may think of that decision, it was a decision taken at the time and supported by the government members of that organization. Since that time, the problem of the place of so-called employer representatives from Communist countries and so-called free employers has been before the organization and has not yet been solved. Our critics among the employers - and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition seems to have fallen into the same trap - apparently have completely overlooked the provisions of the standing orders of the International Labour Organization itself. Those standing orders provide - >Pending final decision- That is decision by the conference - of the question of the admission of any delegate or adviser, such delegate or adviser, to whose nomination objection has been taken shall have the same rights as other delegates and advisers. In this case, there were the representatives of Hungary. Until the Credentials Committee had reported to the conference a decision to reject the membership of those delegates, under the standing orders they had the same rights as any other members of the conference. When we, as a government, voted to enable them to have deputy membership - mark the term - of the technical committees, the stand taken by the majority in 1954-1955 and 1956, we were acting in accordance with precedent, supported by the Commonwealth countries, including the United Kingdom. It is interesting to note that on this occasion our vote on the Selection Committee, which is the steering committee of the conference, was alongside those of Canada, the United Kingdom, Ceylon, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Sweden and Switzerland - to name only a few of the countries which voted as we did on that particular issue. Is anybody suggesting that these are Communist sympathizers or they are wanting in some way to defeat the legitimate interests of employers in this country? This Government has no need to apologize for its attitude to communism. No government in the history of federation has done more than has this Government to resist the influences of communism, both inside this country and outside it; and, for my part, no Minister for Labour in the history of this federation has done more than I have tried to do through the secret ballot legislation, through the disciplinary provisions of the arbitration legislation, and in a variety of other ways to counter Communist infiltration inside Australia. To suggest that we for our part are lining ourselves up in sympathy with Communist aspirations to defeat legitimate employer interests is just so absurd that I can hardly credit a responsible employers' organization lending its name to a statement of this character. Surely the depths of hypocrisy have been reached by honorable gentlemen opposite! In election after election they have been condemned by the Australian people for their attitude to communism, for the sensitiveness of their leader and many of those who sit behind that leader to the issue of communism. They now try to make some political capital out of an attitude taken by this Government in company with the other free democracies of the world, and condemn us for our stand on this international and internal issue that has affected the free world ever since communism came to power. J shall take the opportunity when more time is available and in a more appropriate place to speak frankly and directly to those who have addressed the House on this subject to-night. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The Minister's time has expired. {: #subdebate-25-0-s9 .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes **.- Mr. Speaker,** I am astonished and disturbed at the explanation, or lack of explanation, given to us by the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** in regard to the incident brought to the notice of the House by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell).** In the first place, the representations were made not by us, but by the Associated Chambers of Manufactures through **Mr. R.** W. C. Anderson, the press officer. It is not just a matter of what the Government did in the International Labour Organization. Sitting opposite me at the table is the chairman of the International Labour Organization, the highest position in that agency of the United Nations which can be bestowed upon any Australian. On him, as the leader of the l.L.O. , rests a very severe responsibility for what has transpired in relation to the admissions made in this letter. In an emotional speech, an angry speech, an abusive speech in some respects, the Minister has not justified in any way what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has charged him with through this letter, nor has he cleared up the doubtful position, and satisfied the thoughts left in our minds from something that happened at the l.L.O. which should never have occurred. It is useless to tell us in this country that because three or four democracies thought they should do this thing, he who was the leader of the l.L.O. and the director of its deliberations should fall into what obviously was a trap. That is the position that has not been fully explained. Last week, the Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt)** drew the attention of the Minister to the position by a query. He was not going to tell us anything about it. The Leader of the Opposition asked who were the Hungarian delegates, and the Minister said, " Oh, we rejected the employees ". Then he said, " We rejected the employers ". The Leader of the Opposition asked what became of the Government members, and the Minister said, " We decided to abstain from voting ". They were the Kadar contingent. That is the point he has left out. I do not want to misrepresent the Minister, and 1 should like him to indicate whether that is true. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- No, it is not true, and you know it. We abstained because the United Nations deals with the credentials of government delegates. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- As " Hansard " shows, you replied to the Leader of the Opposition, " We abstained from voting ". The DeputyLeader of the Opposition has brought forward something that should be concluded. Due to the effluxion of time, he was not able to complete his point. I beg to read the interesting paragraph in this document from the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia. It was represented at the l.L.O. and it makes this public complaint on the matter - >Australian employers in the past three years have persistently pressed our Government to change its overseas policy towards the Communists, but without avail. > >Our delegates were also amazed at the inconsistency of the Australian Government in voting to place a Hungarian " employer " representative on a Technical Committee much against the opposition of the employers' group. Later on in the Conference, when the credentials of the Hungarian delegation came up for consideration, the Australian Government voted with the majority against the acceptance of the Hungarian " employers' " delegate. This is the final paragraph - >The switch in attitude was brought about by the publication during the Conference of the findings of the Special Committee of the United Nations Organization on the problems of Hungary. The report was so damaging to the Hungarian delegation that even the Australian Government lost sympathy with them when it came to a second vote. The Government lost sympathy, turned turtle, or was sunk without trace. The letter concludes with this paragraph - >The Associated Chambers of Manufactures has asked its Internationa] Committee to further examine the position and to prepare a suitable submission to the Prime Minister. So no matter what the Minister says about irresponsibility, the Associated Chambers of Manufactures says it will press the charges and will make a submission to the Prime Minister. All I have to say about this is that it is a case of innocents abroad. The Minister went to the I.L.O. conference. He has been made much of and made a fool of at the same time and while it is in order at all times to slam the Labour party about its associations and affiliations with the Communists, he makes the overt act of leaving them in the I.L.O. conference and then comes back and can give no reason for it. When the Leader of the Opposition pressed him for it, he had to admit lamely under cross-examination across the table that he had done this very thing and substantial evidence that it is true is provided by this fierce and angry protest by the Associated Chambers of Manufactures. Therefore, the situation reaches the point that the Minister has been fencing. He has been worried. He has been trying to make out a case. He savaged his parliamentary colleague at the table on the same matter, and we are left with no explanation of a most extraordinary matter. Here is an Australian delegation composed of representatives of the Government, the employers and the employees. This is the standard statutory requirement of the International Labour Conference. It cannot be denied that the worker delegates from Hungary were rejected and the employer delegates were rejected: what of the government delegates? My view of the I.L.O. is that it is a log-rolling organization for rightwing organizations. It has decided that some one has to pay the piper, and it does not matter who it is. We in this country and in this Parliament ought to have a good look at the I.L.O. It has made a fool of the Government and brought the Australian nation into ill-repute because of the action taken either foolishly or through lack of knowledge of the log-rolling machinations in other countries. The Minister is in a grave difficulty. He cannot explain it. We put it up and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition brought it forward as a matter of urgency so that the people would be aware of what actually happened in I.L.O. and of the fact that the Liberal Government of the day supported the Communist government group while in this House Government supporters were censuring us. for our attitude to Communist action in Hungary. {: #subdebate-25-0-s10 .speaker-KZE} ##### Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · Riverina · CP -- Through you, **Mr. Speaker,** may I be permitted to make a brief reply to the honorable member for Shortland **(Mr. Griffiths).** If other honorable members, including the career boy on the Opposition side, would be good enough to listen, what I have to say may resolve some of the questions that arise from time to time. I want to say that no useful purpose can be served by bringing into the House individual cases for public discussion. So long as I am Minister for Social Services I shall refuse to discuss individual cases in this place. After all, when applications are made to my department for social service benefits of any description it is necessary for the applicants to give to the department, and by that very process, to give to me, confidential information, and I would be recreant to my trust if 1 betrayed that confidence in any way. I would like to make it clear to the honorable member for Shortland that no useful purpose can be served by bringing individual cases into the House and discussing them during the debate on the motion for the adjournment or by way of questions without notice. Having said that, might I be permitted to say that the case mentioned by the honorable member, like all other cases, would have been decided on the facts. Of course, the facts of a case are not always easy to ascertain. On occasion, the officers of my department are given a good deal of trouble in arriving at the facts of these difficult cases. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Why does the Minister not show a little sympathy for these people? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member for East Sydney will cease interjecting. {: .speaker-KZE} ##### Mr ROBERTON: -- Having ascertained the facts, it is the duty of the officers of my department and, indeed, of myself, to confine our decisions within the provisions of the law. We extend all our discretionary powers to the limit; we use what compassion is available to us to resolve cases of this kind in favour of the applicant. Beyond that we cannot go. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- Do not you ever make a mistake? {: .speaker-KZE} ##### Mr ROBERTON: -- I suppose that it would be possible to make a mistake, since we all have human frailties, but the case mentioned by the honorable member for Shortland has been examined by the Director of Social Services in Sydney, by the Director-General of Social Services and, on three different occasions, by me. {: .speaker-K6X} ##### Mr Coutts: -- What are you going to do about it? {: .speaker-KZE} ##### Mr ROBERTON: -- What I am going to do about it - I have already done. There was one good feature of the observations of the honorable member for Shortland this evening. I was very pleased to learn from what he had to say that it is not possible to dragoon a magistrate into submission. It obviously is not possible to dragoon the Director of Social Services in New South Wales into submission, nor is it possible to dragoon into submission any other officer of my department. I have evidence to prove that, with one or perhaps two exceptions in a Parliament of some 183 members, the officers of my department have the absolute confidence of members on both sides of both Houses of the Parliament. {: #subdebate-25-0-s11 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .- The Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** has found himself in a spot on this Hungarian matter and his record at the International Labour Conference last June, because last week, in an unusual sequence, he followed immediately after the honorable member for Chisholm **(Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes),** who, with the support of every member of this House, had proposed for discussion the continuing suppression of Hungary by the Russian troops. lt emerged, in the course of that debate into which the right honorable gentleman plunged for all it was politically worth, that he had presided over a conference at which the Australian delegates, only on the last day, voted to exclude the fictitious representatives of workers and employers sent to the conference by the Hungarian Government. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- The Kadar kids. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Yesterday, I asked the right honorable gentleman a question based on the letter written by **Mr. Fowler,** the adviser to the Australian employers' delegation at the conference. I put the question in a very moderate way. I asked the Minister whether the vote had taken place as **Mr. Fowler** had said, and also whether it was true, as **Mr. Fowler** had said in the letter, that Australia's vote was given against strenuous opposition from the employers' delegations from the democratic countries. That is, I was not going to assume that **Mr. Fowler** was accurate and that the Minister was inaccurate; 1 wanted to get at the truth. The Minister's reply took four times the space of my question, but it was not really a reply to the question. When he was halfway through, he said this, explaining- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! I direct the attention of the honorable member to the fact that he is reviving a debate. He must not pursue that line. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- It was not a debate, **Mr. Speaker.** {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member is quoting from " Hansard ", and if he pursues that line he will be out of order. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- The Minister's evasion can be verified by anybody who likes to look at the questions asked in this House yesterday, as recorded in " Hansard ". After seeing this letter in the " Sydney Morning Herald" yesterday, I went to the Department of External Affairs, where, alone, copies of the proceedings of the International Labour Conference are available. They are not available in our Parliamentary Library, and the Department of External Affairs will not send them over to it. So the mountains in this place have to go to Mahomet in the Department of External Affairs. The record there discloses that on 6th June last, at a meeting of the conference over which the right honorable gentleman presided - I think that it was the third day of the conference - the report of the selection committee was adopted, the selection committee having recommended that Government representatives from Hungary should be appointed to the conference committees on the application of conventions and recommendations, on forced labour and on discrimination. One might think there was some irony in appointing Government representatives from Hungary to the committees on forced labour and on discrimination. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- Does the honorable member say that this was recommended to the conference or to the committee? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- This was a recommendation of the selection committee to the conference. The Minister was in the chair of the conference before which the report of the selection committee came. He asked whether there were objections to the recommendation, and there were no objections, lt was recorded that **Mr. Jockel,** on behalf of **Mr. Holt,** government representative, **Mr. Gibb,** employers' representative, and **Mr. White,** workers' representative from Australia, voted in favour of the adoption of that report. I will concede that there is some historical justification for what the Minister says concerning the Government's attitude towards government representatives. It may be that all these subsidiary bodies in the United Nations should have on them representation which the United Nations accepts from their governments, but that does not apply to the other representation which the selection committee recommended and which the right honorable gentleman, in presiding over the conference, put to the conference and which all the Australian delegates adopted. That is, workers' representatives from Hungary were put on the conference committees on forced labour and on discrimination. This was on 6th June, eight months after the Russians invaded Hungary, while they were still there, and while it was notorious over the world and was being realized even in Russia and its satellite countries that the Hungarian people were being coerced. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- Have you studied the standing orders of the I.L.O? I would advise you to do so. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I gave the right honorable gentleman the opportunity yesterday under circumstances to which I cannot refer now, to give his explanation. He had an opportunity to give the explanation to-night and, for the second time, he has avoided it. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- 1 quoted a standing order that you are ignoring. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- United Nations' procedure and the past procedure of the Australian Government does not bind the attitude of this Government's representative to the I.L.O. conference on the representation of workers' delegates from Hungary. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The organization's standing orders do. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- If the workers' delegates from Hungary were unacceptable on 27th June they should have been unacceptable on 6th June. The Minister has had two opportunities to come clean and he is still besmirched. Since this matter arises out of inaccurate references by Ministers may I point out that last Thursday the Minister for Primary Industry **(Mr. McMahon)** told me that a report on investigations of the poultry industry in the United States of Amenca had received considerable publicity, that it had been distributed to a great number of people and that if I wanted a copy of it I could have one, or, in fact, half a dozen copies. So I went round and accepted the Minister's second offer - half a dozen copies. I found that each of the six copies I received was marked " confidential " so 1 asked the Minister what this meant. He said, " Keep this report to yourself. It is confidential. I do not want you to show it to anybody else, and I would be glad if you would give the copies back ". We compromised, he is taking back five copies and I am keeping one. He said that the report would not be printed in the form in which I had been given it because it contained certain resolutions which were a domestic concern of the Standing Committee of the Australian Agricultural Council, and that these resolutions would not be printed. I was also told that the publication, far from having had a wide circulation, had scarcely been released at all. Now, that is a second example of a fallacious answer to a question and, since the Minister to whom I am referring commented earlier on such conduct and reflected on others, I take this early opportunity of saying that once again a smart answer was quite inaccurate. I will be glad to see and to receive, as we all will, this report which he promised four months ago, which relates to investigations carried out at Commonwealth expense between July and November last year, and which is still not available to people in the industry which it covers. {: #subdebate-25-0-s12 .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr WIGHT:
Lilley .- This debate on the subject of the International Labour Organization has been very valuable for the reason that members of the Labour Party have now declared where the party stands in regard to the Kadar Government of Hungary. They have made it quite clear that they consider the Kadar Government to be a bogus government. They therefore must support the action of the Australian delegate to the United Nations when there comes before that body the matter of the recognition of the representation of Hungary at Lake Success. Honorable members opposite are now saying quite clearly and emphatically that the Kadar Government should not represent Hungary at the United Nations. So, I repeat, this has been a most significant debate, and one of great value, because now we know where the Labour party stands; and we wonder how the leader of the Labour party in this House is going to explain that to some of his comrades. My purpose in rising to speak to-night is to address the House on a matter which is, to me, of very great importance. I refer to the establishment of a memorial in which the world's most famous aircraft since aircraft were first invented will be used. That aircraft is the " Southern Cross," To me, the achievement of this objective means that we will have opened a book of the world's history at one of its most significant chapters - a chapter in which Australia played a greater part in an era of development than did any other nation in the world. We will have given to future generations of Australians an opportunity to see those pages of history and to take pride in the accomplishments of Australians who went before them. If we can do something to inculcate in the minds of future generations tradition and a pride in the achievements of Australians we shall have accomplished much. Not only do I feel this way, but I know that the majority of honorable members support this view. It has been clearly indicated that the Minister for Immigration **(Mr. Townley)** feels that way, having regard to the spontaneous response he made when the original suggestion was put. To-night I want to pay tribute to the work done by that Minister and by the present Minister for Civil Aviation and Minister for Air **(Mr. Osborne),** because the co-operation extended by them and the officers of their departments has made it possible for us to achieve our ambition. I should also like particularly to refer to **Mr. Macfarlane,** of the Department of Air, **Mr. Anderson,** Director-General of Civil Aviation, and his staff at Air House, Melbourne, and his regional directors, **Mr. Doubleday** and **Mr. Pickford.** I should like to refer especially to **Mr. Harold** Affleck, who was **Sir Charles** Kingsford Smith's mechanic for four years, and who has been charged with the responsibility for the removal of the aircraft from Sydney to Brisbane. Four months ago I gave to the House a report of the work being done by the committee concerned with this matter, and I tabled in the Library an artist's impression of the memorial that was to be erected. Since then the architect has advised our committee that the cost of erecting that memorial would be about £35,000. The committee felt that there might be some difficulty in raising from the Australian public a sum so big, so there has been a modification of the appeal target from £35,000 to £30,000. The reason 1 raised that point is that for the last three days the " Southern Cross " has been on exhibition in Hyde Park, Sydney. On Friday the Lord Mayor of Sydney announced publicly that he would sponsor an appeal to the citizens of Sydney so that they could contribute to the establishment of the memorial. Since then the Lord Mayor has not received any donation from any business house or from any citizen in Sydney; yet it is true that more than 20,000 people went to Hyde Park to see that aircraft, and that every person, even those of the bodgie type, who approached the aircraft did so in reverence and awe. Each was impressed with the significance and the import of this aircraft in the aviation history of the world. The people of Sydney who went to Hyde Park to see the " Southern Cross " contributed directly to the people collecting at the aircraft for the fund no less a sum than £1,058. I make that point to indicate that the people of Sydney are entirely sympathetic to the work we are doing. Unfortunately, however, the appeal launched by the Lord Mayor of Sydney has not met with support, because the people of Sydney have not been made aware of the fact that the Lord Mayor has sponsored the appeal. 1 am sure that if we could get the co-operation of the Sydney newspapers by getting them to appeal to the people of Sydney and to tell them that the Lord Mayor of Sydney had graciously agreed to do his utmost to support us, and would be prepared to receive donations which ultimately would be sent to the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, the response would be as magnificent as we expect it to be in the towns en route. My main purpose in addressing the House at this stage is to ask those honorable members who represent electorates through which the " Southern Cross " will pass on its last journey to Brisbane to contact the local committees that have been formed, and to give those committees their support to ensure that we do not fail to reach our target of £30,000. If we fail, it will be a disgrace to this nation, because it will mean that we have failed to pay full tribute to the man who proved himself to be the greatest aviator in an era of truly great aviators. The period between 1920 and 1930 was the period of greatest development in the history of aviation, and Australian aviators played the greatest part in that development. Let it be clearly understood that Australia is well to the fore in the history of aviation. Australian aviators blazed the trail across every ocean of the world except the North Atlantic. We should be proud of this fact and should be telling the people of Australia about it. If we do not tell them, we, as leaders in the community, will be failing in our individual responsibility. So I ask those honorable members whose electorates encompass the cities and towns of Newcastle, Singleton, Muswellbrook, Scone, Tamworth, Armidale, Tenterfield, Wallangarra, Stanthorpe and Warwick to get behind us in this appeal. Committees have been formed in all those cities and towns, and I believe that, with the support of the federal members of those districts, we will ultimately reach our target. {:#subdebate-25-1} #### Thursday, 19 September 1957 {: #subdebate-25-1-s0 .speaker-KID} ##### Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie -- **Mr. Speaker--** Motion (by **Mr. Harold** Holt) put - >That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.) AYES: 48 NOES: 18 Majority . . . . 30 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 12.9 a.m. (Thursday). {: .page-start } page 780 {:#debate-26} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: - {:#subdebate-26-0} #### Income Tax Age Allowances {: #subdebate-26-0-s0 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb: b asked the Treasurer, upon notice: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Are the members of the police force compulsorily retired at the age of 60 in Western Australia and South Australia? 1. In Victoria, are police sergeants compulsorily retired at the age of 60 and other members of the force at the age of 55? 2. If the position is as stated, will he consider amending the age allowance so that males compulsorilyretired below the age of 65 and females compulsorily retired below the age of 60 are eligible to make a claim? {: #subdebate-26-0-s1 .speaker-F4T} ##### Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. I understand that members of the Western Australian Police Force are compulsorily retired at the age of 60. A member of the South Australian Police Force is obliged to retire on attaining the age of 60 or, at his option, at any time not later than the last day of June next after his sixtieth birthday. 1. In Victoria, I understand, the retirement age for senior constables and lower ranking officers is 55, for superintendents, inspectors, station officers and sergeants 60, and for the Commissioner of Police 65. However, any member of the Victorian Police Force irrespective of rank may be required to serve for a further period not exceeding five years. 2. I believe that the age allowance which the honorable member has in mind is the income tax age allowance. The effect of that allowance is that no income tax is payable by a single person who is a resident of Australia and qualified by age (men 65 years and women 60 years) if his or her net income does not exceed £390. In the case of married couples both qualified by residence and age, no tax is payable if their combined net incomes do not exceed £780. The Government has considered requests for an extension of this concession to those compulsorily retired at ages below those at present specified, as well as requests that the concession should apply also to persons permanently incapacitated for work and to widows with dependent children. The justification for the special allowance is, however, the attainment of the age qualifying for the Commonwealth age pension. The allowance represents the Government's recognition of the thrift and prudence of those in our community who, having carried their share of the tax burden during their active years, have also managed to save sufficient to support themselves in retirement. By so doing they have disqualified themselves . from eligibility for the age pension, thus relieving the charge on the National Welfare Fund. To enable them to receive an income from private sources free of tax equal to the income which may be received by age pensioners some such provision as the age allowance was necessary. I do not think that there is the same justification for extending the allowance to meet circumstances other than those arising because of age alone. {:#subdebate-26-1} #### Overseas Funds {: #subdebate-26-1-s0 .speaker-JUQ} ##### Mr Clark: k asked the Treasurer, upon notice: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the total of overseas funds held at 31st August, 1957? 1. Are these funds invested? 2. If so, what is the total annual interest received? {: #subdebate-26-1-s1 .speaker-F4T} ##### Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows:- {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Figures for total overseas funds at 31st August, 1957, are not yet available. Figures for the last published date totalled £A. 566,500,000 at 30th June, 1957. 1. tn addition to funds invested at short call in London in British treasury-bills and British Government securities, the total includes gold, balances with foreign banks and working balances of the trading banks. 2. The information is not available. {:#subdebate-26-2} #### Postal Workers Wage Claim {: #subdebate-26-2-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that, following a discussion with a union deputation representing postal workers in regard to a claim for increased pay, he made a statement to the effect that he and the PostmasterGeneral would submit the matter for Cabinet consideration? 1. If so, has this been done? 2. What is the present position in respect of this claim for wage adjustment? {: #subdebate-26-2-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Yes. 2. A reply has, as undertaken in the discussion with the officers of the Australian Council of Trades Unions and the union, been sent to the president of the Australian Council of Trades Unions. {:#subdebate-26-3} #### Shipping Freight Rates {: #subdebate-26-3-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has **Sir William** Rootes, chairman of the Dollar Exports Council and a leading British industrialist, called for the abolition of the Shipping Conferences which regulate shipping rates? 1. Has this gentleman suggested action by the British Government in accordance with the terms of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act with a view to- breaking monopoly control and restoring competitive shipping? 2. If so, does the Government propose to support such a proposition or has it some alternative proposal to break the power of the shipping monopoly? 3. If it has an alternative, what are the details? {: #subdebate-26-3-s1 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - 1 and 2. I have no official knowledge of the views of **Sir William** Rootes on the matters mentioned in these questions. 3 and 4. The United Kingdom Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Act does not extend to the contracts entered into between the United Kingdom shipowner and the Australian exporter. Section 7c of the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906-1950 exempts these contracts, when ratified by the Australian Oversea Transport Association from the provisions of thai act. This amendment was made in 1930 by the Scullin Government, at the request of the Australian producers and exporters associated with shipment to the United Kingdom. Producer/exporter interests are now reviewing their organization, with a view to improving its effectiveness within the framework of the A.O.T.A. The Government has also been advised that a committee of A.O.T.A. is examining the constitution of that association. {:#subdebate-26-4} #### General Hospital, Toowoomba {: #subdebate-26-4-s0 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz: z asked the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has work been completed on the new thoracic block at the General Hospital, Toowoomba; if so, when will this block be brought into use? 1. Has this fully equipped building been provided as part of the Commonwealth antituberculosis campaign in Australia? {: #subdebate-26-4-s1 .speaker-JU8} ##### Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. I am informed that the building itself has been finished, and that the certificate of completion was handed to the board of Toowoomba Hospital on 28th August, 1957. Provision has been made in the building for the Commonwalth Health Laboratory, Toowoomba. This section was ready for use on Monday, 16th September, 1957. It is for the board of the hospital to say when the rest of the thoracic block will be brought into use. I understand that a chest physician who is to take charge of the block is due to arrive in Toowoomba on 17th October, 1957, and that the block will be brought into use shortly after that date. 1. The whole of the cost of the building, together with the cost of the furniture, furnishings and equipment, will be paid by the Commonwealth to the Queensland State authorities, in accordance with the terms of the arrangement under the Tuberculosis Act 1948. {:#subdebate-26-5} #### Assisted Passages for Immigrants {: #subdebate-26-5-s0 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb: b asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Do the assisted passage provisions apply only to the wife and children of a migrant who himself travelled to Australia as an assisted migrant? 1. If so, will consideration be given to making a migrant who has travelled to Australia on a full-fare basis eligible to apply for his family's admission under the assisted passage arrangements? 2. If bi-lateral agreements between Australia and Other countries preclude this, will consideration be given to entering into new agreements so that migrants who have sufficient initiative to pay their full fare to Australia will not be discriminated against? {: #subdebate-26-5-s1 .speaker-KWH} ##### Mr Townley:
Minister for Immigration · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - 1 and 2. Dependants of migrants already in Australia, whether the latter had travelled at their own expense or under assisted passage arrangements, are eligible for consideration for assisted passages under all schemes, except in the case of those from Italy and Greece where there is the additional requirement that the nominator must, himself, have travelled to Australia as an assisted passage migrant. Pull-fare migration from these two countries has mainly comprised unskilled workers and their dependants. The basic purpose of the assisted passage arrangements in respect of Italy and Greece has been to correct this occupational unbalance and to provide a measure of control over the occupations of the migrants receiving assisted passages. The overall limitation on the total migrant intake places a limit upon the number of migrants who can be received each year under the various assisted passage schemes. It is normal practice for the dependent family members of those workers who are granted assisted passages to accompany them to Australia. Where for legitimate reasons Italian and Greek workers granted assisted passages travel in advance of their families, we feel there is a moral obligation to permit these workers to sponsor as assisted migrants their dependent family members, who must have satisfied selection criteria before the embarkation of the breadwinner. Provision also exists for Italian and Greek migrants who have travelled to Australia under the assisted passage scheme to nominate for assisted passages their single unmarried sisters, and, in the case of single men, their fiancees. This assists in remedying the unbalance in the sexes which has, in past years, been a feature of migration from these two countries. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The necessity to keep within limits the assisted passage intake from Italy and Greece does not permit the facilities for assisted passage sponsorship to be extended beyond the categories already outlined. {:#subdebate-26-6} #### British Immigrants {: #subdebate-26-6-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact, as claimed by the Secretary of the British-Australia Society, that the Department of Immigration, when calculating the number of British migrants coming to Australia, includes - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Maltese, Cypriots, people from other Commonwealth countries, and students from Pakistan, Singapore, Malaya, Ceylon and Hong Kong; 1. British businessmen who stay here more than a year; (c) foreign persons who had resided in the United Kingdom and left there to come to Australia; and (d) Australians returning home after twelve months' absence abroad? 1. If not, in what way is the claim inaccurate? {: #subdebate-26-6-s1 .speaker-KWH} ##### Mr Townley:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's questions is as follows: - 1 and 2. The claim is inaccurate, firstly, because it assumes that it is the Department of Immigration which is responsible for the compilation of statistics of persons arriving in Australia. This function is, of course, the responsibility of the Commonwealth Statistician. The claim is inaccurate, secondly, because it assumes that certain figures published by the Commonwealth Statistician refer to the number of British migrants coming to Australia, whereas these figures actually relate to " permanent arrivals " of British nationality. The difference is clearly stated in the Commonwealth Statistician's introductory note to the published statistics. This note reads as follows: - "In this summary the movements of oversea travellers are classified as permanent or temporary on the basis that' permanent' means residence for one year or longer (in Australia in the case of arrivals; abroad in the case of departures) irrespective of the stated intention of the passenger. The definitions were adopted in accordance with international usage and do not purport to represent permanent migration as such ". The Commonwealth Statistician in referring to net movement is careful to refer to " excess of arrivals over departures " rather than to " net migration ". In classifying " permanent arrivals " by nationality the Commonwealth Statistician records as British all *persons whose* stated nationality is shown on their passport as British. The Department of Immigration in its " Statistical Bulletin " publishes certain statistics relating to " permanent arrivals ". These are described as such and are, of course, based on figures compiled, and definitions used, by the Commonwealth Statistician. Pollution of Beaches by Oil. {: #subdebate-26-6-s2 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb: b asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that as late as August, 1957, beaches stretching from City Beach to Scarborough in Western Australia were polluted by oil apparently dumped into the sea from ships? 1. Did the permanent committee of the Australian Port Authorities Association, at its next meeting following the Minister's answer to a question asked by me in March, and as the answer indicated it would, consider the steps necessary to give effect to the convention for the prevention of the pollution of the sea by oil? 2. Are the views of the committee now known? 3. If so, what is being done to introduce the legislation necessary to implement the provisions of the convention? {: #subdebate-26-6-s3 .speaker-KWH} ##### Mr Townley:
LP -- The Minister for Shipping and Transport has furnished the following replies: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Reports indicate that there have been some cases where beaches have been polluted by oil, apparently from ships at sea. 1. Yes. 2. The permanent committee of the Australian Port Authorities Association has not yet reached any final conclusions. It has received from the various port and State authorities comments on a draft model bill prepared by a sub-committee and the sub-committee is to examine the comments at a further meeting to be held later this month. 3. See answer to question No. 3. State legislation will only partly implement the convention. Complementary Commonwealth legislation will also be necessary and the Minister has informed me that his department is preparing draft legislation dealing with those aspects of the convention which fall under Commonwealth power.
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 September 1957, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1957/19570918_reps_22_hor16/>.