View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
15 May 1958

22^nd Parliament · 3^rd Session

PENSIONS
- Petition
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
QUESTION
- ALGERIA
QUESTION
- COWRA MILITARY CAMP
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN
QUESTION
- COAL-FIELDS
QUESTION
- AERODROMES
QUESTION
- ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE BAND
QUESTION
- TRADE WITH SOUTH-EAST ASIA
QUESTION
- EDUCATION
QUESTION
- POSTAL DELIVERIES
QUESTION
- QUESTIONS
QUESTION
- EXPLOSION IN SYDNEY HARBOUR
QUESTION
- PENSIONS
QUESTION
- TRADE WITH SOUTH-EAST ASIA
QUESTION
- RESIGNATION OF MEMBERS
QUESTION
- KOREA
QUESTION
- ASSOCIATED DOMINIONS ASSURANCE SOCIETY PROPRIETARY LIMITED
QUESTION
- ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE
QUESTION
- CHILD ENDOWMENT
QUESTION
- DAIRY PRODUCTS
QUESTION
- EQUAL PAY FOR THE SEXES
QUESTION
- DAIRY PRODUCTS
ST. MARY’S FILLING FACTORY
- Report of Public Accounts Committee
OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL 1958
MAIL EXCHANGE BUILDING, REDFERN, NEW SOUTH WALES
- Reference to Public Works Committee
PETROLEUM SEARCH SUBSIDY BILL 1958
- Second Reading
SNOWY MOUNTAINS HYDROELECTRIC POWER BILL 1958
- Second Reading
NAVIGATION BILL 1958
BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE
AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSTY
PRINTING COMMITTEE
LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL MEMBERS
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Commonwealth Motor Vehicles
- Trading Banks and Housing Finance
- Private Savings Banks
- Commonwealth Loans
- Treasury Bonds
- Government Loans and Finance
- Overseas Scholarships
- Colombo Plan
- Cathode Ray Tubes
- Import Licensing
- Australian Coastal Shipping Commission
- Delegation of Powers under Navigation Act
- Royal Australian Navy
- Telephone Services
- Housing of Migrants
- Maribyrnong Munitions Establishment
- St. Mary’s Filling Factory Control Authority
- Royal Australian Air Force Torpedoes
- Lucas Heights Atomic Reactor
- Adaminaby Dam

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1847

PENSIONS

Petition

Mr. DALY presented a petition from 650 citizens of Australia praying that the House -

Give immediate consideration to the matter of increasing the rate of age, invalid and widows’ pensions to at least 50 per cent, of the basic wage;
Amend the National Health Act to make the pensioner medical service available to all pensioners irrespective of means; and
-Provide increased pharmaceutical benefits for pensioners.

Petition received and read.

page 1847

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Dr. Evatt) agreed to -

That leave of absence for one month be given to the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen).

page 1847

QUESTION

ALGERIA

Dr EVATT:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for External Affairs: Has he any information about the situation - apparently a very serious situation - that has developed in Algeria?

Mr CASEY:
Minister for External Affairs · LP

– As the right honorable gentleman will have gathered from the reports, the situation in Algeria is extremely serious. The essential facts are that Algeria at present is a department of France. It is regarded constitutionally as a part of metropolitan France, and returns deputies to the French chamber. There are about 1,000,000 Frenchmen in a total population of about 8,000,000 in Algeria. The rebellion - I think it can be called that - has been going on since 1954. The French put forward a proposal, called the Loi cadre, about two years ago, under which Algeria would be divided into five regions, under a federal system which would provide for its own president and its own elected house, the only reserve subjects being defence and foreign affairs; but that has not been accepted by the rebels, who will accept nothing, apparently, other than complete independence.

The matter, as can be imagined, has been before the United Nations on more than one occasion - I think on two or three occasions. The last one that remains in my mind was at the last Assembly in 1957, when a simple resolution was passed by the necessary two-thirds majority merely to the effect that the situation should be resolved by peaceful means. It is an extremely serious situation having, as could be imagined, an intense impact on politics in metropolitan France. I should not like to make any prediction as to the outcome -of it. It is said that there are no fewer than 400,000 French troops in Algeria. They have been there for some time, and their number is appreciably more than half the ground forces of metropolitan France.

Mr Calwell:

– The French -have started a rebellion of their own.

Mr CASEY:

– The French have been attempting to keep order against apparently, an organized and self-perpetuating body of widely dispersed rebels. The figures for the rebels, which have been given at various times and from various sources, have been between 15,000 and 20,000, but as the rebels suffer casualties, their numbers, as I say, appear to be replaced almost automatically from the indigenous population. There is nothing more that can be said at this moment, except that I think that all sides in this House will very greatly deplore this situation of urgent importance in Algeria.

page 1847

QUESTION

COWRA MILITARY CAMP

Mr HOWSE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Interior. By way of explanation, I refer to the request by the Cowra Municipal Council that it be allowed to purchase the land and services of the former Cowra military camp. I now ask the Minister: Is he aware that it is estimated that there is £100,000 worth of services, by way of roads, electricity, water supply, and so on, at this camp? Is he also aware that the local council could use these services in the national good, for decentralization and other purposes? Will he give the council the first offer of these services, and if so, when is it likely that a decision may be expected?

Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for the Interior · PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have been rather awaiting the return of the honorable member to the House to acquaint him with a decision which has been made in this case. After his long period of intensive representations on behalf of the council, I am afraid that the answer may be somewhat disappointing. I am aware of the fact that the original cost of the installation of engineering services at this camp has been variously estimated and guessed at as a figure somewhat approaching that mentioned by the honorable member; but I have sought the advice of officers of the Department of Works who were associated with this type of war-time installation, and I understand that the installations were never designed for a very long life and, indeed, were put down in a way which provides a most inefficient pattern of engineering services, for possible subdivision.

I have also considered the somewhat nebulous proposals put to me by the Cowra Municipal Council for taking over this land, and I have sought the advice of the Department of Agriculture in New South Wales, and other parties, about the proposals. That has all been done in the hope of promoting some sort of compromise between the previous owner of the land, who definitely has rights, and the municipal council, which claims some rights in the matter; but unfortunately the council, as I am sure the honorable gentleman will know, has taken an all-or-nothing stand, and it has not been possible to bring about the kind of situation that he desires. The long and short of the matter is that, having been compulsorily acquired for defence purposes, and the land being no longer required by the Commonwealth for those or any other purposes, it is the considered view of the Government that the weight of obligation to the previous owner, while not absolute, is such as to demand that the first offer should be made to him at current valuation. I expect to make such an offer in the course of the next week or two, when it is possible to complete valuations now under way.

page 1848

– Order! It would be more satisfactory if the honorable member completed asking his question.

Mr RUSSELL:

– The moneys so received would go a long way towards defraying the cost, and the people who heard the band would be very proud of it.

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I think we can agree that the honorable member has achieved his purpose in asking the question.

page 1849

QUESTION

TRADE WITH SOUTH-EAST ASIA

Mr LUCOCK:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister, in his capacity as Minister for Trade. The indications at present are that economic conditions in South-east Asia are rather difficult. Are these conditions likely to affect sales of Australian goods to this area?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– As a result of a report made to me by the honorable member for Darling Downs, who recently successfully led an important mission to that area, the Government is aware that, due to some recession in, I think, rubber and tin prices in certain countries and, I understand, to a less than average rice crop in Thailand, conditions are not as buoyant in Southeast Asia as we, and certainly the people of those countries, would like. To that extent, it is perhaps a little more difficult to do business there. However, I believe that aggressive salesmanship by Australians with good quality goods to sell can secure very important orders for Australian industries. There are opportunities for the sale, in some cases, of foodstuffs, and, in others, of light engineering equipment, and certainly of items of heavy earth-moving equipment. Basic to the whole question is the general and growing disparity throughout the world between the prices for bulk commodities and the prices for industrial products. It is at the present time a prime point of the Government’s policy to concern itself with this problem, not only in the interests of our own country, but in the hope that we can give some leadership in world circles towards inducing a consciousness on the part of the powerful and economically strong industrial countries, which are importers of raw materials, of the. desirability of taking concerted steps to. stabilize and strengthen the prices of basic raw materials, including foodstuffs and other commodities, throughout the world- We know, as a government, that unless there is a restoration of equilibrium between commodity prices and industrial prices there will be neither economic stability nor- political stability in the primary exporting countries of the world.

page 1850

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Apparently the Prime Minister, in his “ Man to Man “ talks, has pointed out the great steps that this Government has taken in the matter of education. Will the Minister advise the Prime Minister of the discrepancy between the expenditure of £50 per head of population on the education of the white children of Australia and the £2 10s. that is expended on the education of the black children of New Guinea? Will the Minister suggest to the Prime Minister that, although the Prime Minister tells the States of their responsibilities in the matter of education, his Government has a long way to go before it fulfils its own obligations to the people of New Guinea?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I will not only not convey this to the Prime Minister, but I will also make the observation that the honorable member contributes nothing to stability throughout the world, and stability in our territory’ of New Guinea, by asking a question calculated to incite unrest and dissatisfaction, in circumstances which certainly do not justify his citing of these figures.

Mr Bryant:

– On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I regard- the Minister’s remark that I. want to. incite unrest in New Guinea as personally offensive. A few years ago the Minister had his opportunity to defend that place. He did not take it, but I- did. I ask for a withdrawal.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think the right honorable gentleman might consider the position. The suggestion that the honorable member for Wills is inciting unrest is something that the Minister perhaps should withdraw.

Mr McEWEN:

– I defer, of course, to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw. I say that the facts must speak for themselves.

page 1850

QUESTION

POSTAL DELIVERIES

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Postmaster-General. Is it a fact that letters posted in the outer suburbs of Sydney, can take two or more days to be delivered in the city? Is it further a fact that on more than one occasion since Christmas overseas mail has remained unsorted for a fortnight in the basement of the General Post Office in Sydney? If these conditions, or anything like them, exist, can the Minister say why plans to erect a £5,000,000 mail depot at Redfern appear to have been indefinitely postponed, and also whether steps are being taken to recruit an adequate sorting staff?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I must ask the House to come to order and to observe silence. I admit that we have had a strenuous time, but I feel that question time is so important that silence should be maintained so that all honorable members may hear the questions, and Ministers may have an opportunity to reply adequately to them. I ask the House to assist me by carrying out my request.

Mr IAN ALLAN:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister, in his capacity as Minister for Trade. In view of the announced intention of the President of the United States of America to promote a new world trade policy, and in view of the reply given by the Minister to a question asked a few minutes ago by the honorable member for Lyne, will the Minister give consideration to the issuing of an invitation to the governments of other countries in the South-East Asian region to join together, as suppliers of raw materials, in discussions with the object of reaching a common policy on marketing problems?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– There is no doubt that Australia and other south-east Asian countries have common interests and common problems. I have no doubt that there is scope for, and that there will continue to be scope for, an exchange of views. I offer the observation that the impending Commonwealth conference, which is to take place in Canada in, I think, September, would appear to provide the best early opportunity for a conference between the Commonwealth countries to examine the issues which the honorable member has so properly raised.

Dr Evatt:

– Is that Government policy?

Mr McEWEN:

– I am expressing the view that there is no doubt that this conference between Commonwealth countries on economic and trade matters is bound to take into account the very real, growing and quite serious problem of the disparity between commodity prices and industrial prices generally. It may well be decided that as this is a world-wide problem, no adequate conclusion can be reached merely by agreement between the Commonwealth countries. If that conclusion is reached, it may well follow that there will be a contact with other countries concerned, perhaps through the United Nations, or perhaps directly. I am sure that the problem is so real that it will not be allowed to rest without full consultation and without every step being taken to see that the great and powerful industrial nations of the world are made aware of the consequences of failure to adjust this price disparity.

page 1852

QUESTION

RESIGNATION OF MEMBERS

Mr DALY:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the right honorable gentleman and the Minister for Defence intend to retire from Parliament? Is it also a fact that the Attorney-General, the Minister for Repatriation, and the honorable member for Moreton also propose to retire in the near future? If so, will the Treasurer, in fairness to himself and the other honorable members concerned, arrange for a joint statement to be made denying the widely circulated rumour that they propose to form the nucleus of an organization being established in this city by a certain individual who has recently advertised for staff in the “ Canberra Times “ at parliamentary rates of pay?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– My answer to the honorable member emphatically is, “ Mind your own business “.

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I take it that questions and answers are addressed to you, Sir. Do you consider that the Treasurer’s reply was addressed to you?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I did not hear the latter part of the point of order, but let me say that the Treasurer’s reply was quite in order.

page 1853

QUESTION

KOREA

Mr BOSTOCK:
INDI, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for External Affairs any information concerning the recently held elections in South Korea? If so, has the result of these elections any significant implications for Australia? I should also like to know whether the Minister has any information concerning elections that may have been held recently in North Korea?

Mr CASEY:
LP

– About a fortnight ago elections were held in South Korea.. There are two main parties in South Korea - the Liberal party and the Democratic party. There are also a number of splinter parties and some independent candidates. The Liberal party was formed a great many years ago by Dr. Syngman Rhee, the present President. The elections resulted in some loss of seats by the Liberal party, but it still retained a comfortable majority. The elections were held without incident of any consequence at all. On behalf of the United Nations, and with the co-operation of the South Korean Government, the elections were observed by the United Nations Commission for the Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea, on which Australia is represented. The result of the elections further consolidates the two-party system in South Korea and I think it is generally recognized that it was a substantial advance towards the further consolidation of democratic processes generally in South Korea.

With regard to North Korea, I think elections were held there about six months ago. There were candidates from only one party - the Communist party - and to everybody’s surprise those candidates won all the seats.

page 1853

QUESTION

ASSOCIATED DOMINIONS ASSURANCE SOCIETY PROPRIETARY LIMITED

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that policy-holders in the bankrupt Associated Dominions Assurance Society Proprietary Limited are still waiting for a first dividend to be paid to them? Is it true that policyholders have been waiting for more than five years since the company went into liquidation for some return from their policies? In view of the Treasurer’s assurance to me last year that a first dividend would be paid as soon as the High Court approved of it, is he in a position to say when approval of the court is likely to be forthcoming and how long it is likely to be after the approval of the court is received before these unfortunate policy-holders receive a payment on their policies?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– At the present juncture, I have no further information to give the honorable member than that which I conveyed to him recently. However, 1 will inquire into the matter and see how it stands, and will supply the honorable member with whatever information I am able to get.

-Order! I direct the attention of honorable members to their conduct. If these interjections continue, we shall have an unhappy scene before the close of the sessional period.

Mr OSBORNE:

The fact that the principle of capacity of industry to pay is now adopted by the Commonwealth tribunal, as the basis on which the basic wage should be assessed, does not mean that there is no longer any element of needs or social responsibility in the current basic wage. Mr. Justice Foster made this clear as recently as the 1949-50 basic wage inquiry, when, as a member of the court which rejected the claim by the unions for the same basic wage for all adults, he stated: “ the male basic wage was a social wage for a man, his wife and his family”. The judge added that no claim was made by the unions for a “ unit “ wage upon which equality of wages could be based, as this might have resulted in a lower male basic wage. Equal pay based on the male basic wage would, he observed, put an intolerable strain on the economy; it was socially preferable, he said, to provide a higher wage for the male because of his social obligations to fiancee, wife and family; the productivity, efficiency and the needs and the responsibilities, and so on, of females were substantially less than those of males; and the redistribution of the wage fund so that young unmarried females would receive very increased spending power would, he believed, disturb the economy in a manner certainly to the disadvantage of the married basic wage worker and his wife and family, and probably the whole community.

In September last year, when I received a deputation on this question of equal pay, led by Mr. Monk, the president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, I quoted these pertinent comments of Mr. Justice Foster, and asked Mr. Monk if he would let me have the views of the trade union movement concerning them. That invitation has not been accepted. In most of ‘the States, legislation operates either directly or indirectly to prevent the State industrial tribunals from awarding the same basic wage to females as to males. In general, these tribunals have fixed a basic wage ranging from 65 per cent, to 75 per cent, of the male basic wage.

The secondary wage, or margin, represents, in the main, the assessment that industrial tribunals make of the value of the skill required to perform the job under review, but other considerations such as responsibility, the care required, the arduousness or risk involved, and the circumstances in which the job is performed, may also enter into the assessment. Generally speaking, the tribunals have approached the assessment of margins for females in the same way as they have for males. They have not been unmindful of the likely effect on male and female employment of the margin prescribed.

It is possible, from the decisions of the tribunals, to place in broad categories, the distinctions they have applied to male and female wages. In some cases, females receive the same total wage as males employed in the same classification; in other cases, females receive a percentage of the total wage; in still other cases, females receive the same margin. In some cases, females receive a different margin, though the classification for males bears the same name, and in other cases, the wage or margin is prescribed specifically for a classification in which females only are employed.

– I think that it needs to be added, but what is sought to be brought about by the responsibility placed on the Government and the Parliament by this recommendation of the convention, in respect of which we abstained, is that member States should do what they can to promote the idea and to ensure that, so far as is consistent with their existing methods of determining rates of remuneration, the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value is applied.

In a statement which I submitted to the Parliament in October, 1953, dealing with the action to be taken on this convention and recommendation, I made the following points: -

The Commonwealth Government does not oppose the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value.
It would be undesirable and unsound to propose legislation for the adoption of this principle in advance of a determination to like effect by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, which is the body empowered to deal with such issues and is generally so recognized.
This attitude conforms with that adopted by successive Commonwealth Governments, irrespective of party.
While any legislation by the Com monwealth Parliament would be applicable only to a limited number of employees, any such legislative action would be likely to have far-reaching repercussions in industry generally.
The differentiation between the amount of the basic wage paid to males and that paid to females rests substantially on the social factor of the family responsibilities of the male breadwinner.

At the Premiers conference in 1954, the Prime Minister quoted my statement as representing the views of the Government.

The principle of equal pay for work of equal value applies in the Commonwealth Public Service to the margins element in the wage, in positions to which both men and women are eligible for appointment. No consistent practice is to be found in the State Public Services and instrumentalities. Overseas developments in connexion with equal pay are sometimes advanced as arguments for similar action here. But, the manner in which the Australian wage is composed differs so materially from the practice of these other countries, that no precise parallel can be drawn. Even in the limited number of countries where there is legislation designed to apply the principle of equal pay, there are numerous exemptions and qualifications.

The Premier of New South Wales, Mr. Cahill, has recently announced that his Government will legislate for equal pay in that State. But the Premiers of some other States immediately announced that they did not intend to follow his example.

Dr Evatt:

– What were those States?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– Certainly, Victoria and South Australia, and I think also Queensland. No Premier, so far as I am aware - perhaps the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) has other advice - has said that he will follow the example.

Mr Costa:

– What about Mr. Shepherd’s policy speech?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– He has a long way to go yet. One of the things which might keep him out of office is his lack of realism and lack of awareness of the sort of facts that I am now putting before the Parliament.

It would be doubly unfortunate, in our view, if one State should act on its own in this matter. I say so, first, because of our firm belief that industrial issues of major significance to the economy should not be subjected to political bargaining and attempts at vote catching. Commonwealth governments, irrespective of political party - and I hope I have the confirmation of the Leader of the Opposition on this point - have consistently followed the course of leaving such issues to he determined by the industrial tribunals.

My second reason for saying so is that undesirable economic and industrial repercussions must inevitably result from legislation which can only apply to females working under awards of that State, or otherwise within the jurisdiction of its Parliament.

The industrial discontent arising from the differences between the basic wages of the Commonwealth and the States, produced by State legislation, are too recent to require emphasis. Equal pay legislation in one State would present much greater difficulties. Any direct benefits that it provided for some would be at the expense of many. Employment generally in that State would be prejudiced and employment opportunities for its women, in particular, would undoubtedly be reduced.

It will he readily apparent, even from these brief comments, that the question of female wage rates is highly complex, and the tribunals have found it necessary to make their decisions accord with differing circumstances. It is obviously much too complex a question to permit of some broad determination by any one Parliament I lay on the table the following paper -

Equal Pay for Sexes - Ministerial Statement.

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

– by leave - I move -

That the paper be printed.

The statement that has been made by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt) is of very great im portance. It is quite inconsistent with what he has said on this subject on previous occasions. I shall state the facts regarding the international aspect of the matter. In 1951, at the International Labour Organization conference, the Australian Government delegates neither supported nor opposed the convention for equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. I pause at that point for a moment to say that I do not suppose that anybody would dispute the universality of the principle that, if work of equal value, by definition, is performed by a woman and a man, their remuneration should be equal. Otherwise, there is discrimination, not on the ground of the work being different, inferior or not the same, but because of sex. That is completely contrary to the notions of the world. It is completely contrary to the platform of the Australian Labour party, not only federally but in every State of the Commonwealth.

The right honorable gentleman’s statement contained about fourteen buts, thirteen difficulties and ten statements to the effect that the time was not yet ripe for the introduction of equal pay for men and women for work of equal value. He said that all the States should be agreed on the principle and that the Commonwealth Government should not do anything until all the States agreed, although the convention of the I.L.O. is one which, in principle at any rate, is a binding convention recognized, I think, by all the western States of Europe except Spain and Portugal. The honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Whitlam) has made a special study of this question, as honorable members know.

The Australian delegates supported the resolution that was adopted at the conference of the LL.O. On 15th December, 1953, the Minister for Labour and National Service laid on the table of the House a paper in which he stated -

The Commonwealth Government does not oppose the principle.

Is that still the Commonwealth Government’s view?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– Yes.

Dr EVATT:

– You do not oppose the principle? That means you favour it.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

page 1861

QUESTION

DAIRY PRODUCTS

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– by leave - I desire to clarify a statement I made during question time, so that there will be no misapprehension. In answer to a question, I said that the return to dairy farmers this year under the stabilization plan would be 4s. 3d. per lb. That is correct. That is the guaranteed return. But a colleague has pointed out to me that, as is well known in the dairying industry, the actual return to dairy farmers is a figure representing the average of the guaranteed proportion of production and the unguaranteed proportion. The present estimate of the average return to dairy farmers is 43d. per lb. I desire to make sure that there is no ambiguity.

Dr Evatt:

– It is a very different figure.

Mr McEWEN:

– It is a different figure. I want to make sure that there is no ambiguity, or misunderstanding of the figure I quoted.

page 1861

ST. MARY’S FILLING FACTORY

Report of Public Accounts Committee

Mr BLAND:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– As Chairman, I present the following report of the Public Accounts Committee: -

Thirty-ninth Report, with appendices - Project 590- St. Mary’s.

I regret to say that, because of the great volume of work that has engaged our attention, we have been unable to process all the appendices. That will be done, and I assure honorable members that they will be made available as soon as possible.

Ordered to be printed.

page 1861

OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL 1958

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 1861

MAIL EXCHANGE BUILDING, REDFERN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Reference to Public Works Committee

Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works · Paterson · LP

.- I move-

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1913-1953, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report, namely: - Erection of a Mail Exchange at Redfern, New South Wales.

The proposal provides for the erection of a building at Redfern on a Commonwealthowned site bounded by Pitt-street on the west, Cleveland-street on the north, and Castlereagh-street on the east. The building is required to provide a central mail exchange to serve the Commonwealth in general and the State of New South Wales in particular. The proposed building consists of a lower ground floor, an upper ground floor, four mail handling equipment floors and a roof area on which will be provided related amenities and air treatment plant rooms. The structure will consist of a reinforced concrete frame with monolithic floors and face brick exterior. The estimated cost of the proposal is £4,170,000. I table the plans of the proposed building.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1861

PETROLEUM SEARCH SUBSIDY BILL 1958

Second Reading

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

By this bill the Government proposes to amend section 10 of the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act 1957. That act is administered by the Minister for National Development, and this bill, as the House has heard, was introduced in the Senate.

The act authorizes the Minister to make agreements to subsidize the cost of drilling for stratigraphic information useful in the search for oil. The announcement of the Government’s intention to subsidize the cost of drilling these holes was made by the Treasurer on 3rd September last year, and the act came into operation on 12th December last. Section 10 of the act deals with cases where drilling operations began after the Treasurer’s announcement but before the act came into operation.

Section 10 provides that, where a drilling operation was begun between those two dates an application may be made, and an agreement may be entered into, for the payment of the subsidy, either before the drilling operation is completed, or before the expiration of three months after the act came into operation, whichever date is the earlier.

In the drilling programme for the period, up to 30th June of this year, there is only one company which is affected by this particular section. It is the Australasian Petroleum Company, which is now engaged in an approved drilling operation at Puri in Papua. This is one of four holes which the company is now drilling in Papua, but the Puri hole is the only one of the four which is primarily intended to obtain stratigraphic information and therefore is the only one which comes within the ambit of the act and qualifies for subsidy. The search for oil is extremely costly, and the estimated cost of the Puri hole alone is nearly £1,000,000.

The Puri hole was begun after the Treasurer’s announcement but before the act came into operation. It therefore comes within, the provisions of section 10. The Australasian Petroleum Company applied promptly and did all required of it, but the time permitted by the section proved inadequate for the negotiations necessary before the agreement could be completed. The issues involved were complex, and the Department of National Development found that the matter took longer than could- have been expected when the act was drafted. The Minister was therefore unable to complete the agreement with the company within- three months. In the meantime the drilling at Puri is continuing, and’ :he company is supplying information to the Department of National Development. To enable the Government to pay the subsidy, on which the company was clearly entitled to rely, this amendment of the act is required.

No other point is involved. The bill proposes only to amend the act to remove the restriction on the time within which the Minister may complete an agreement contemplated by the section. This will be done by removing from section 10(l.)(b) all references to the agreement for payment of subsidy, and the Minister will thus be able, to enter into an agreement with the. Australasian Petroleum Company.

I commend the bill to honorable members.

Mir. CALWELL (Melbourne) [11.57]. - The Opposition offers no objection to this bill.

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

page 1862

SNOWY MOUNTAINS HYDROELECTRIC POWER BILL 1958

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13th May (vide page 1749), on motion by Mr. Roberton -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr CHAMBERS:
Adelaide

.- I think that of all the measures that have passed through this Parliament during the fifteen years in which I have been associated with it, this bill is the most important. I believe, also, that the Snowy Mountains scheme, with which the bill deals, is one of the greatest achievements in the history of Australia. If one studies the tremendous engineering feats that have been performed since the commencement of the scheme, one finds that certain works that have been carried out are recognized as the greatest of their kind ever undertaken in any part of the world.

I want to say at the outset, without attempting to achieve any party political gain; that it must be a matter of great pride for the Australian Labour party to realize the very great part that a Labour government played in the inauguration of this great national scheme. I believe that as the years go by, the scheme will stand as a monument to the great vision of a Labour government.

One may ask to-day what prompted the Labour government in 1949 to initiate this scheme. The Labour Government was prompted by the following considerations. First, we had been through the disastrous World War II., and the Government realized that if Australia was to be defended certain things had to be done. During the war we reached the stage when we called for the last ounce of effort from our working force. We called on almost every individual in the country to do his best to make it possible, for us to bring the. war to a successful conclusion. One of the lessons that the. Labour Government learned” during the. war was that if we were to defend this country in the future we would have to increase our population by bringing a. great number of people here from overseas countries. We realized that if we increased our population in this way we would have to feed the extra, people and find employment for them.

The Labour Government of those days gave an undertaking to all those who had participated in World War II., and to the Australian community generally, that we would ensure full employment for all our people. We envisaged a population increase of some millions, and we had to find ways and means of feeding and employing the increased population. As one method of overcoming these difficulties, we inaugurated’ the great Snowy Mountains scheme. I look back with a great deal of pride to a sunny afternoon in> November, 1949, when, as a Labour Cabinet Minister, I attended the turning of the- first sod in- one of the most picturesque parts of Australia. I felt most gratified that Australia, through the efforts of a Labour government^ was about to commence one of the greatest engineering schemes in the history of the world. This was something which was very much needed in this country. We promised the Australian people that they would be given full employment and this scheme was practical evidence of that assurance. It was also the start of the fulfilment of a promise that irrigation schemes would be established to use the surplus water from the Snowy in many areas through which it flowed and thus give greater impetus to primary industries. Secondary industries also had the prospects of new supplies of essential electric power from this scheme. The Labour Government realized what a tremendous advance this extra power from the great Snowy scheme would make in secondary industries.

Australia is a vast country, but its development has suffered great drawbacks through the periodical recurrence of tragic droughts. During rainy seasons the few large rivers have carried millions of gallons of water out to sea, whereas if this could have been conserved many severe losses from drought could have been averted. I vividly recall a sight which made me realize the great value of irrigation to Australia. Many years ago, I visited the Deniliquin district of New South Wales just after the irrigation scheme had been established there. I stood at a wire fence on the boundary of a property at a spot where the irrigation channel finished. On one side of the fence was lucerne three feet high, in spite of the fact that a drought was upon the land. About 200 or 300 yards beyond the place where the irrigation channel ended stock were dying of hunger and thirst. I am confident that this great Snowy scheme will play a tremendous part in the further development of Australia because of the assistance it will give to irrigation.

I am sure that this House will pass this measure, but I regret that there seems to be a lack of understanding concerning the position of South Australia. The Government does not seem to understand or want to admit that the amendment suggested by the Leader of the Opposition is prompted by a genuine desire to make this bill a perfect piece of legislation. One Government member said that the Prime Minister had made it quite clear that South Australia had nothing to fear from the Snowy Mountains Agreement. But if one reads the report of the speech which he delivered in this House on Tuesday evening, one will find that certain fears were expressed by him. That being so, is it not only logical that members of the Opposition, who were Ministers in or supporters of the Labour Government when this scheme was first commenced, should be as keen now as they and their colleagues were in November, 1945, that this scheme shall operate to the advantage of every State of the Commonwealth and benefit Australia as a nation? We want the people and the industries, both primary and secondary, to obtain the full benefit of this scheme.

If there is any doubt in the minds of members of the Opposition or of members on the Government side, let us clear it up. That doubt can be cleared up by the amendment suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Ward:

– All the States are taxed to pay for this scheme.

Mr CHAMBERS:

– That is so. Every individual is taxed to pay for it and the people of South Australia are as much concerned as those in Victoria and New South Wales. I was amazed to hear varying views expressed by members on the Government side. The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Forbes) criticized the Labour party because its spokesman in the Senate moved an amendment to this bill. He pointed out that after that amendment was defeated, Labour senators voted for the third reading of the bill. I think the honorable member was playing politics and I do not think the honorable member believes that any stable Opposition would vote against a measure of such importance to the nation merely because its amendment was defeated.

The arguments of the honorable member were somewhat upset by a speech by another Government supporter who said last night that he would oppose a certain bill if two or three amendments were not accepted. I find it hard to understand the mentality or the attitude of Government supporters on those two issues. I refer to this matter this morning because I want to make it clear that so far as I am concerned - and I think I can speak for members of the Opposition-

Mr Hulme:

– Not now.

Mr CHAMBERS:

– Yes, I can. I do not allow one or two incidents to take away from me a life-long devotion to a cause. I do not allow such things to influence my judgment. I realize that to some members on the Government side, the attitude I adopt may be disappointing.

Mr Turnbull:

– You are a glutton for punishment.

Mr CHAMBERS:

– That may be, but I want to make it clear that in matters appertaining to the development of this country I have just as high a regard to-day for the actions of Labour governments in the past - and I hope I shall for those in the future - as I have ever had. Members of this Parliament would not think much of me if, because of certain actions or statements for which I was responsible, I ran away from political thoughts and beliefs of a lifetime. I feel that I can speak for the Opposition, every member of which is keen to-day to see that the scheme for which a Labour government was responsible, and in respect of which it brought legislation into this

Parliament, is carried to completion. It is a scheme which has evoked the interest and admiration of the whole world. I do not believe that the people who say that Labour governments cannot govern are honest or serious. Of all the achievements of the National Parliament, the Snowy scheme will go down in history as one of the greatest. As the years go by, the Australian people will look on the scheme with a great deal of pride and pleasure, knowing that it was a Labour government which set Australia on the journey towards greater development by initiating a scheme to use the waters of these rivers to irrigate great areas and to enable more food to be produced for the Australian people, and for people in other parts of the world, as well as to produce the power needed to give employment to millions of people in Australia’s secondary industries.

This scheme is the admiration of the world - the greatest scheme that has ever been embodied in legislation of the Commonwealth Parliament. When I leave this Parliament, I shall be able to look back with a great deal of pride and pleasure, knowing that a Labour government with which I was associated placed on the statute-book the measure to initiate a scheme which will stand, in years to come, as a monument to the work, desires and dreams of the great Australian Labour party. I trust that there will be no party politics in this matter. T trust that the Government will believe that this amendment has been moved in all sincerity, and that the desire of the Opposition is to make sure that the great Snowy Mountains scheme will go down in history as the unanimous work of this Parliament. Tn the closing months of this Parliament I hope that we shall all come together so that we shall be able to say that we all played our part in putting through the legislation for a great national scheme.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– This Snowy scheme is a developing scheme. As the investigations in the field proceed, the form of the scheme changes. The scheme grows and becomes, I think, better. The scheme that we have to-day is not the scheme that we had in 1955, 1950, or 1949. I am certain that in 1965 the scheme, as it will have been developed then, will be even better than the present scheme. As I said, it is a developing scheme.

I think that the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) and the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Chambers), in their speeches, have been a little ungenerous to their predecessors. The Snowy scheme has been talked about for a long time. It was first seriously considered by the Stevens-Bruxner Government of New South Wales, under the Rendall Palmer and Trilton report. The scheme that was put forward then was not the scheme that was adopted. It was not as good as the scheme that was adopted, but it was the kernel and genesis of the whole thing- It is a little ungenerous of people not to recognize that. We on this side of the House recognize the work done by a previous administration. Do not let us try to hog all the credit. Now that I have made that point, let me admit that perhaps I myself have been a little hard on the honorable member for Adelaide.

I want to turn to the bill before the House. This scheme, as it has developed, is mainly an electricity scheme, but the debate has been mainly with regard to water. I think that is not unreasonable, because although the scheme is, financially, an electricity scheme - the whole of the cost will be recovered from the users of electricity - the water aspect, from the longterm point of view, may turn out to be the most important. I feel that the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) was a little astray in an interjection that he made to-day when he said that all the taxpayers of Australia were paying for this scheme. Ultimately, the scheme will be paid for by the users of electricity in New South Wales and Victoria. [Quorum formed.] I do not think that that will inflict any hardship on them, because the electricity will be provided at an economic rate. It must be remembered that it will be peak power, which normally costs more to generate than base load power.

Let me come to the question of the development of the scheme. One thing that has arisen recently is the possibility of using pumps to raise water a little way in order to drop it. through the system, a much greater distance, thus making a net gain in power. That system has been developed primarily, I think, as a result of experience in Austria. Modern pumps have a mechanical efficiency approaching 85 per cent.

That means that if water can be raised 400 or 500 feet, be stored in a dam such as the Adaminaby Dam, and eventually be dropped 3,500 feet to the ultimate outlets of the power station, there will be a considerable gain in power. This fact may enable the scheme to be advantageously re-designed. It may be important from the water point of view also because it will enable storage to be maintained at a higher level than would otherwise be the case. It will make them more valuable as regulators of the waters that will ultimately flow into the Murray and Murrumbidgee as a result of the scheme.

Let me now deal with the water aspect. I agree entirely with the contention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) that neither over the short term nor over the long term will the interests of South Australia in any way be prejudiced or damaged by this agreement. I agree also that since this water is vital to South Australia, those interests should not be prejudiced or damaged. Over the long term South Australia will stand to benefit immensely by the regulatory functions of the works that are being constructed on the upper Murray and Murrumbidgee catchments. Over the short term it will not be prejudiced in any way at all. because the water coming from the Tooma into the Murrumbidgee will not be in any way deducted at any time from South Australia’s share. We have rather tended to get away from the main point at issue and to take a narrow rather than a broad view. Let us look at this as a construction scheme. Let us look at the flow of water in the Murray as a whole. Figures are available showing the flow of the Murray below its junction with the Darling. I quote from the “ Short History of the River Murray Works “, the official history by Mr. Eaton, which states -

The average flow of the Murray River below its junction with the Darling River between 1891 and 1911 . . . was 9,328,000 acre feet per calendar year. The maximum discharge recorded since 1891 was 29,350,000 acre feet in 1917 . . and the minimum flow in drought years was only 2,329,000 acre feet in 1902 and 1,894,000 acre feet in 1914.

The figures cover the period from 1891 to 1914. I have taken out figures from various- official sources showing in detail the amount of water in acre feet entering South Australia each year. Under clause 49 of the River Murray Agreement, South

Australia is entitled to 1,250,000 acre feet a year. On looking back to 1891, which is as far as the records go, I find that in only three years - 1902-03, 1914-15, and 1944-45 - has the actual flow into South Australia been less than 1,250,000 acre feet. We can say fairly certainly - in fact I would say absolutely certainly - that after the completion of the regulatory works and reservoirs that are being constructed, South Australia will never get less than the maximum to which it is entitled under the agreement.

Let us look at storages constructed and projected. First of all there is, of course, the Hume weir, which has now been increased to 2,500,000 acre feet. Then there is the Adaminaby dam, or Lake Eucumbene as it is to be called, which will have a live storage of 3,500,000 acre feet. Burrinjuck dam has a live storage of a little more than 800,000 acre feet, and Lake Victoria which, honorable members are aware, is near the border of New South Wales and South Australia, has an effective storage of about 500,000 acre feet. Those figures total 7,300,000 acre feet. This storage, most of which is new, and the flow as revealed by the figures from 1891 onwards, will ensure that South Australia will always get its maximum share. The criticism of the scheme by honorable members opposite is, therefore, rather unreal and not related to the facts of life.

There are some projected storages which will further improve the position, particularly the storage at the Menindee Lakes on the Darling a couple of miles above its junction with the Murray. A projected storage dam of 2,000,000 acre feet will be constructed there. When that is done the flow of the Darling into the Murray will not be less than 400,000 acre feet even in a bad and dry year. It will not fail below that figure when the Menindee Lakes storage is constructed. Then we have a very important projected dam at Blowering, just above Tumut, of a little less than 1,000,000 acre feet. That dam is important not so much for the amount of water it will store, as for the fact that it will lie below the tail-races of the mam power houses on the Tumut system and it will therefore enable those power houses to be operated to the greatest advantage for the production of electricity without prejudicing the use of the water lower down the river, and without in any way prejudicing the interests either of South Australia or of the people who take from that system.

Mr Forbes:

– Will New South Wales ever get around to building that dam?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I agree that the New South Wales Government, as at present constituted, is unlikely to complete that or any other dam within a reasonable time. But I am not entirely certain that the present New South Wales Government is a permanent institution.

There is also the early possibility of a 1,250,000 acre feet dam at Billilingera, which will further regulate the waters of the Murrumbidgee. Looking at this as a whole, we can see that 11,500,000 or 12,000,000 acre feet of storage will be provided in this system. Having regard to the known flow in the Murray since 1891, which is as far back as the records go, it will be seen that at most the provisions of not more than an additional 500,000 acre feet a year is needed to give South Australia its full quota under clause 49 of the agreement. Furthermore, our records show that two bad years have never occurred consecutively. Also, even when a bad year is experienced on the Murray catchment, it is exceedingly unlikely that it will coincide with a bad year on the Darling catchment, which is subject to quite a different set of weather conditions.

For those reasons I find the argument that South Australia’s interests will be prejudiced somewhat academic. I believe that this bill is very much in the interests of South Australia, because it will save that State from the ill effects of the occasional year when the flow of the Murray falls below the stipulated minimum required for South Australia.

Let me look for a moment at the use that is made of this water at present. In round figures New South Wales uses 500,000 acre feet a year from the Murray and 500,000 acre feet a year from the Murrumbidgee systems - about 1,000,000 acre feet a year in all. Victoria uses about 1,000,000 acre feet a year from the Murray system. South Australia draws only 200,000 acre feet a year from the Murray system below its entry into that State. South Australia needs the water, not for use so much as to reduce salinity in the river system. The major part of that water is being used to flush out the salt which seeps into the river from the adjoining country when the level of the water is low, and, incidentally, that water may be necessary in order to sweeten the country and prevent the salting up of the land with the rising of the water table. So this -water may be very necessary for South Australia, but it is not being used for irrigation; it is being used for flushing purposes in -order to keep the salinity in the river below a certain level.

I shall not go into details, but I believe that, with the .provision of storage higher up on the Murray, it will be possible to change, to some extent, South Australian practices economically on that river so as to keep the salinity down and, at the same time, allow a greater amount of water to be drawn off for irrigation and other use. That could, I think, be done by certain locking works which would differentially raise the level of the river in times of drought. But T shall not .go into those matters, which are technical. I believe that there is a possibility of great economy in .the use of water inside the .borders of South Australia. But, of course, it is not only South Australia that is prodigal with this water. Evaporation losses in the upper part of the river between Victoria and New South Wales are very .great. I am told that losses from evaporation and percolation between Albury and the South Australian border are of the order of 500,000 acre feet a year. Perhaps this is an inescapable minirnum.

In Victoria and New South Wales, obstructions in the channels caused by the growth of river reeds, which, J think, are called cumbungi locally, have very greatly increased the .transpiration rate and made for a much less effective use of the available water. I think that this is a problem with respect to which the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, by the expenditure of a little capital on research, might well do as much as would be done by the expenditure of many millions of pounds of capital on additional dams further up the river, by .enabling us to make better use of the existing water by decreasing .transpiration and other uneconomic Josses. 1 suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme 5s likely not only to develop but also to grow. We hope that it will both develop and grow. We can see that new techniques will enable us to increase economically the amount of power and water available from the system, to make better use of the water which becomes available, and, furthermore, with the construction of these great regulator)’ works at the head of the Murray River, to make certain that the awkward periods of droughts do not materially affect the river flow available for the vital irrigation and other works along its course.

Let us turn our attention from the smaller works and look at this magnificent scheme as the great and developing asset which it can .be. Let us try to co-ordinate the river Murray works and the works of the Snowy Mountains scheme with wider irrigation works in the whole of the Murray system. It seems to me, for example - and I am indebted to -am interjector from the Government ranks who reminded me of this - that -the Menindee Lakes scheme must be considered a vital part of the Murray scheme, because it will affect water supply right down the lower reaches of the Murray - and even further up - for various reasons which I have not time to go into now- We have to remember that some of the best land in Australia lies along the Darling River from Menindee down to its confluence with the Murray at Wentworth. That loose red soil which lies particularly on the eastern bank of the Darling is some of the ‘best land available in the whole of Australia for irrigation.

J know that the authorities interested in other river systems may look on the Snowy scheme with a certain amount of jealousy as the scheme which is absorbing the funds that might be made available for expenditure elsewhere. I do not pretend to know very much about this matter in detail, and I certainly do not pretend to know very much about systems outside New South Wales, but I do know that there are, on the north coast of New South Wales, river systems which merit the closest investigation and the same kind of sympathetic interest in development that has been evident in the Snowy scheme. We must do one thing at a time. Let that be agreed. We must not waste our substance on uncompleted works all over -the country- That, of course, is one of the cardinal sins of the present New

South Wales Government. But, apart from the Snowy scheme, certainly in New South Wales, and, 1 believe, in other parts of Australia also, similar schemes could go forward with equal advantage to our country.

I support the bill.

Sitting suspended from 12.43 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide

– I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this bill. With other honorable members, I regard this scheme as one of the greatest that we have ever had. I was present at the opening and I have been through the area on several occasions since. I have been very pleased with the way the present Government has continued the work that was commenced by the Chifley Government.

The idea of the scheme is to take the water flowing east of the Great Dividing Range, through country that has a very heavy rainfall, into the Tasman Sea, and turn it to the western side of the range. This is being done by the construction of huge tunnels up to 30 miles long and over 1,000 feet below the tops of the mountains. The water will then flow into the Murray and Murrumbidgee rivers. On the way down, it will be used to operate power stations and a tremendous amount of additional power will be available for New South Wales and Victoria. I do not want to dwell on the details of the scheme, because they have been mentioned by other honorable members. I was present at the opening of the Guthega power house. This power house provides an additional 60,000 kilowatts of electricity for New South Wales. The new power house, T.l, will give a further tremendous increase in the amount of power available. Those who conceived this scheme and those who are carrying it out have wonderful minds and a deep knowledge of engineering. The vast chamber to accommodate the T.l power station at Tumut Ponds demonstrates their ability. This power station will be 1,000 feet under a mountain, away from bombing and other dangers.

The water which formerly ran into the Tasman Sea and is now being turned into the Murray and Murrumbidgee rivers, will be of immense value. The States should be pleased that this water will cost them nothing. The sale of power generated by the scheme will meet the cost of storing; the water and making it available. New South Wales and Victoria will obtain thebenefit of the water, and I should say that New South Wales will certainly receive the greatest benefit. The waters from the Snowy scheme will be used to increase production in areas at the back of Leeton, Griffith and Narrandera. Some years ago,, we regularly came by a DC3 aeroplane - the milk run, as we called it - from Adelaide to Canberra. We landed at Mildura, amidst the wonderful production there, and” at Hay, where the Murrumbidgee River was being used for irrigation purposes.

Mr Roberton:

– That is in the Riverina.

Mr THOMPSON:

– Yes, in the Riverina. From Hay, we would go to Narrandera and Griffith, and we would see the amazing transformation of the land there. Flying along for 200 or 300 miles, we would see immense areas of land suitable to produce crops such as are produced at Griffith and Narrandera. All that was needed was water, and the only way to get that water was to have a scheme such as the Snowy scheme to gather it when it was available in the wet seasons or the snow seasons, so that it could be distributed when it was needed. The cost would have been too great, if it had to be borne by irrigation alone. However, by using the scheme to generate power, the water can be made available without cost. The Blowering Dam and irrigation works will be built by the New South Wales Government, but the real storage of the water, so that it can be made available just like turning on a tap when it is needed, must be done in the great valleys of the Snowy Mountains.

The thought of this water being made available is very pleasing to me. As a young man on the land, I had a river flowing past my home. We would see it come up almost to the level of the road, but we could not get it on to the paddocks where it was badly needed. It was heartbreaking to see the level of the river fall without good use having been made of the water. Having had that experience in my younger days, I have a full appreciation of what can be done by irrigation. Undoubtedly, the storage of water in the Snowy scheme will be a wonderful benefit. A big storage area is available at Burrinjuck, but, even when it is filled, it does not hold enough to provide irrigation for vast areas of land in addition to the land already irrigated by it. However, the storage in the Snowy will enable the additional areas to be irrigated.

When this scheme was first introduced, I did not visualize one thing. It was introduced during the life of the Chifley Government by Mr. Nelson Lemmon, who was then the Minister responsible for it. I was here at the time and heard the debate on the scheme. I stated at that time that, although South Australia was not likely to get very much benefit from the scheme, I thought that South Australia would get some benefit from the additional water flowing down the western side of the Great Dividing Range. South Australia, of course, would not receive any benefit from the power generated in the scheme. I did not appreciate that, instead of merely taking the water from the eastern side of the mountains and putting it on the western side, water already flowing on the western side in the Tooma River, which is a tributary of the Murray, would be diverted into the Murrumbidgee River. That water was not water flowing down the eastern side into the Tasman Sea; it was water flowing into the Murray River.

At this stage, South Australia must be satisfied that it will have sufficient water in the future. It has been said that we have no need to worry, that we are entitled in dry periods to three-thirteenths of the water in the Murray at Albury. However, I do not know whether honorable members appreciate that it is not only the waters that come down the Murray above Albury that help to fill Lake Victoria; there is also the water that comes from the western side of the Great Dividing Range in Victoria. When people go to Seymour and see the Goulburn River, I do not think that they realize that the natural flow of that river is through Victoria, and that much of it finds its way into the Murray and is available at Goolwa, in South Australia.

In Victoria, there are great hydro-electric schemes. I am very pleased to see the Victorians undertaking such schemes, storing large quantities of water, and extending their irrigation areas. At the end of this week I shall be driving through some of those areas on my way home. When I am passing through Benalla and Sheppar ton I shall see the great new channel on the edge of the irrigation area at Shepparton, the purpose of which is to provide more irrigation, and rightly so. But I suggest that the more irrigation there is at Shepparton, and in Victoria generally, the greater will be the consumption of water that otherwise would be going into the Murray. Therefore, I sometimes wonder whether, instead of dwelling too much on the importance of the Snowy Mountains scheme, we should not be giving serious consideration to the fact that the development of this scheme will result in depletion of the supplies of Murray water going to South Australia.

In saying that, I do not question at al! the wisdom of what Victoria is doing. On the contrary, I pat the Victorians on the back, as it were, for making good use of the water that is available. But when one considers the position of South Australia, and particularly of its irrigated areas, one cannot help but be somewhat concerned.

Mr Roberton:

– The River Murray Agreement protects South Australia.

Mr THOMPSON:

– The Minister says that the River Murray Agreement protects us, but I point out that the protection applies only when there is water coming down the Murray to fill Lake Victoria. There is no difficulty when there is a big flow of water coming down the Murray, but when the river is only two or three feet deep the position is altogether different. If the waters of the Murray are to be used to generate electricity through the turbines and to irrigate land on the way down from the Snowy Mountains, I wonder whether there will be the volume that we in South Australia need.

I think that that doubt is behind all the strong feeling - let me put it that way - that has arisen in South Australia, on the part not only of the Premier and South Australian members of the Liberal party in this House, but also of the people. Those who live in the Murray valley and are dependent on water from the Murray for irrigation purposes, want to be assured that there will be sufficient water. They are looking not just one or two years ahead, but to a considerable time ahead. Only three or four years ago, the irrigation area at Loxton was extended, and many returned servicemen were settled on fruit-growing blocks which required water for irrigation. That area has developed wonderfully. There are also irrigation areas at Renmark, Berri and Barmera. Those are wonderfully productive areas, too: The more we plan to develop irrigation areas, the more certain we must be that sufficient water will be coming down the Murray. In addition to that, another aspect is of importance in this respect. I point out to honorable members that those living in irrigation areas are not the only people in South Australia who are concerned with the water that comes down the Murray. The people in the metropolitan area of Adelaide also are concerned.

At present, more than 90 per cent, of the water that is used in factories, and for domestic purposes generally, in the Adelaide metropolitan area comes from the Murray - from Mannum, over the mountains and down to Adelaide. All the water that comes down now is needed for present requirements. At the time that it was decided to construct the pipeline, from Mannum to Adelaide, I. thought that those responsible for the decision were looking a little too far ahead, but I am now convinced that they were very wise in deciding to do so. No sooner had the pumps been installed and started to pump water than our reservoirs became practically empty. Since the erection of that pipeline we have had no water restrictions. At great cost, we have been able to pump sufficient water, but, as I say, the work was completed just in time to save us serious disaster. For the last twelve months there has been practically no rain in the catchment areas of the reservoirs to supply Adelaide and its. suburbs. Nearly all the water that has gone into the reservoirs has come from the Murray River. Honorable members will therefore appreciate the concern of the people of Adelaide, as well as those in irrigation areas in the Murray valley, with the need to maintain a sufficient flow in the Murray. So far, we have not had a drought which has affected the flow of the river, although we have had dry years.

Before Adelaide received water from the Murray for domestic, use, we had to use sub-artesian bore water. As soon as that water was pumped into the mains, difficulties occurred.. The very next day, 1 had to call on an electrician to come and attend to my bath heater; because the saline content of the water was so great that it blew the fuse of the heater. When supplies began to come from the Murray, the South Australian Minister for Public Works said to me, “You will never have any more bother with your bath heater. The Murray water is so fresh that you will not have the trouble that you had with the bore water.” About four months later I said to the Minister, “ Have you started using artesian bore water again? “ He replied, “No, we are using only Murray water”. I said, “Well, the fuse of my bath heater has blown again. I can see what is happening. The Murray water is getting salty, too.” Shortly afterwards, a statement appeared in the press that the water, in passing through swamps which were impregnated with salt, acquired a salt content. Honorable members therefore will appreciate that, although there has not been a drought period, as such, in recent times so far as the Murray has- been concerned, the flow on occasion has been so low that the quality of the water has been affected.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) stated in the House recently that it never had been necessary to invoke the provisions of the River Murray Agreement. I hope that we shall never have to invoke them. I want to ensure that South Australia always will have sufficient water. When the Prime Minister was speaking, he said that some of the water would go into the Swampy Plains River and then into the Murray, and thus help to provide additional- water for South Australia. I interjected at the time; and- the right honorable gentleman agreed, that that suggestion involved a time factor. I think that it is in this respect that the Premier of South Australia made the- strongest point in his criticism. The Premier has. claimed that, by taking water from the Tooma and putting it into the Tumut long before water was put into the Murray from, the Snowy, South Australia would be prejudiced. The water will go through the power stations. Then it will go. into the Blowering, dam. thence to Burrinjuck and into the Murrumbidgee. The water will not go into the Murray River until it is used, up there. Unless the- people of South Australia are completely satisfied that no danger will arise to them, they will continue to, be concerned about the flow of that water.

I do not want to question the correctness of statements that were made by the Prime Minister, but -I should like to refer to some of them. He said there had been a meeting of the commissioners in connexion with the River Murray Agreement. I regret very much that he could not see his way clear to tell this -Parliament the result of that meeting. The right honorable gentleman said that until the information had been made available to the States concerned - Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia - it would not be right for him to make it available to us. I regret that he has not been prepared to inform honorable members of the decisions that were reached.

We have been told that the River Murray Waters Act is .to be amended, and the right honorable gentleman referred to a section which would have to be altered, but he also said that probably there would have to be other alterations to the River Murray Agreement. We in South Australia want to know more definitely what those alterations are to be and whether they will clear any doubts in our minds about our rights to the waters of the river Murray.

Claims to water rights have caused bloodshed in many lands. When pioneers were advancing through the western States of the United States of America and taking up land, arguments frequently arose about water rights. Some settlers would dynamite a bank and divert water to their property. Others would dam a river and cut off the water supply from others. Such actions led to bloodshed. One who had a river running through his property would claim that he had the right to use the waters of that river. Another would say that nobody had a right to erect a dam and so prevent him from getting water. These difficulties are not new.

The River Murray Agreement was framed partly to decide the rights of each State to the waters of that river. It was made many years ago by three States and the Commonwealth for the purpose of sharing the water. South Australia depends on that agreement for its share of the waters of the Murray. It was an essential agreement. Before locks were built along the river, an estimate had to be made of the demands that would be received for water for the irrigation settlements. There is no worry about the water in flood-time, but at other times it is essential that the irrigation blocks have enough water for their needs. A decision had to be reached about the area of land adjacent to the river Murray which could be served for irrigation. The people of South Australia want to be sure that sufficient water will continue to flow in the Murray to them.

The honorable member for Sturt (Mr. Wilson) and other supporters of the Government have stated that if an amendment had not been adopted in the Senate, they would have opposed the bill. The amendment provides that the River Murray Agreement is not to be affected by this measure. That might appear to be satisfactory and I hope that the position will be met by the amendment, but I have always felt that this was the Snowy Mountains scheme, primarily a great national scheme, as well as one to benefit New South Wales and Victoria and, incidentally, South Australia. I thought that the government of each State would make sure that the rights of all parties would be met honorably and fairly. Even now, while we may disagree with the security that is offered by this agreement, I do not question for one moment that New South Wales, Victoria and the Commonwealth believed that it would not be unfair to anybody else. I support the bill, but emphasize that the Opposition asks for acceptance of the amendment that will be moved at the committee stage. The amendment is designed to alter clause 2 by adding these words -

The Act shall not be proclaimed until after each House of the Parliament shall resolve that in its opinion all rights of the State of South Australia to waters of the River Murray are not adversely affected by the operation of the Act.

Honorable members might ask why the Opposition requests the insertion of that amendment. They ask: Why delay the proclamation of the act? We want that amendment to be included so that South Australians may feel satisfied that every care has been taken on their behalf.

Mr Roberton:

– It is already in the bill.

Mr THOMPSON:

– Yes. We have been told by the Prime Minister that the River Murray Agreement is to be altered, but what will happen if one State refuses to amend the agreement? If we agree to the proposed amendment, we shall provide full protection for the States under the River

Murray Agreement. Legislation along the lines of the bill before us has not to be passed by this House alone. Legislation has to be approved by the Parliaments of the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia before the River Murray Agreement can be altered. If the amendment is agreed to, Opposition members as a whole and not only those from South Australia, will be sure that South Australia has been protected and that its rights will not be adversely affected by this legislation. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been invested in the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme. That money is being provided by the taxpayers of the whole of Australia and not only by the taxpayers in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.

Mr Roberton:

– Temporarily.

Mr THOMPSON:

– I have not much time to deal with that aspect of the matter. The Minister for Social Services, who is in charge of the bill, has implied that the money will be repaid by the charges levied for hydro-electric power. I admit that, eventually, New South Wales and Victoria will use the power and will pay for the scheme, but the cheap power will not go out beyond those two States and the Australian Capital Territory.

I think this amendment is just. We are not trying to put something over. The bill can be passed, but we want to provide that, before it is proclaimed, the River Murray Agreement Act is amended. The Minister can then say that the agreement is satisfactory to the three State parliaments concerned. The Commonwealth will be able to proclaim this legislation and there will be no further difficulty.

Some Government supporters suggest that the Opposition is delaying the constitutional authority which is said to be necessary for the project in the Snowy Mountains but I consider that, in the best interests of all concerned, the Government could well accept the amendment so that the proclamation of the act will be postponed until everybody is satisfied that the interests of South Australia in relation to the waters of the river Murray are protected.

Mr ANDERSON:
Hume

.- The question of the protection of South Aus tralia has, I think, been fully covered. The amendments of the River Murray Waters Act, to which the last speaker referred, are purely additional safeguards. I think that most members on this side of the House, other than South Australians, regard some of the actions of the Premier of South Australia as being in the nature of horsetrading. When any new scheme is born, there are certain debits and credits. In the process of development of the Snowy Mountains scheme, there are some debits. Before the storage and regulating dams are made, additional waters will be flowing down both the Murray River and the lower Tumut River. These waters will be additional to the normal flow and may cause considerable damage to riparian landowners. Provision is made for dealing with this matter in the agreement which has been reached between the Commonwealth and the States of Victoria and New South Wales. Clause 3 of the second schedule provides that the Snowy Mountains Authority shall -

In investigating, planning, locating and constructing its works, take reasonable precautions for the prevention of loss by flooding in relation to land along the Upper Murray and Lower Tumut.

The authority is collecting data and making surveys of the river beds to ascertain what damage could possibly occur before the storage dams are constructed.

Both of these rivers have been very seriously neglected by the State governments concerned. The Murray, of course, has been neglected by both States, and the Tumut by New South Wales. There is an enormous number of snags on the river. There are areas where simple remedial measures could be taken to stop the formation of new channels. With local people, I went down the Murray, and I know the Tumut fairly well. It is obvious that some beautiful, rich alluvial flats are being damaged and destroyed for want of proper remedial measures. As most people will know, along these rivers are beautiful alluvial flats which are highly productive, but local residents are not developing them to the degree necessary in the national interest, simply because there is no security from flooding. If the rivers were snagged, if reasonable remedial measures were taken where there is a possibility of new channels being formed, I am quite certain that the land-owners would be prepared to expend considerable capital in order to maintain the best class of pasture that the land warrants.

In the second schedule protection is being given in relation to that matter. Landowners will be compensated for losses caused by flooding resulting from the additional water from the diverted rivers. To my mind, this is a serious matter. I hope that the data collected by the Snowy Mountains Authority will enable the authority to make adequate plans for dealing with it until the normal storage dams are constructed. An increased flow of water in a river bed can result in damage to certain areas by raising the water table. It is only just that the land-owners should be protected.

I do not like the proposition that compensation should be paid. There is always unpleasant litigation and a feeling of uncertainty about being properly compensated. In the national interest, I should prefer that the Snowy Mountains Authority did all the necessary work of snagging, correcting river channels, and taking all other remedial measures to ensure that the minimum amount of compensation will be necessary and that litigation will be reduced to a minimum. I believe that that is a method which would commend itself to the general public.

The second point I should like to raise is in relation to the building of the Blowering Dam. There will be a gain to the Tumut-Murrumbidgee system of over 500,000 acre feet per annum as a result of the diversion of the Eucumbene and Tooma rivers, a further 192,000 acre feet by regulation due to storage in the system, and 300,000 acre feet by regulation due to the Blowering Dam. Additional water amounting to over 992,000 acre feet will thus be available to the TumutMurrumbidgee system. One has to allow for a certain amount of evaporation, and it is estimated that the net gain to farms will be 700,000 acre feet- If we allow one foot per acre of irrigated area per annum, about 500,000 acres of country could be irrigated without the construction of the Blowering Dam. If the Blowering Dam is built, another 200,000 acres will be irrigated. The irrigated area will be increased by nearly 40 per cent. These figures are only approximate, because honorable members will appreciate that a great deal depends on the class of primary produce being grown in the newly irrigated area. Some crops require more water than others. But these are formidable figures. The Blowering Dam will give Australian another 200,000 irrigable acres. Its construction is estimated to cost £18,000,000. I do not know how long it will take. I imagine that construction by private enterprise would take a comparatively short time, but judging by the work of the New South Wales Government, the construction of the Blowering Dam will extend into the next century.

I should like to stress this point. Until the Blowering Dam is built, the full value of all the water available cannot be obtained. Great areas of the Murrumbidgee and Murray valleys are capable of irrigation. The taking of water on to that very fertile country is being delayed because the construction of the Blowering Dam has not yet been started or even considered. I think it will be found that the reason is that the State Government is marking time in the hope that more Commonwealth money will go into this undertaking. The other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) gave very formidable figures in regard to the enormous sums of money that had been made available to the States by the Commonwealth Government. New South Wales has wasted millions and millions of pounds in starting dam projects and never completing them. We have the instances of the Glenbawn, Keepit and Burrendong dams. Dams are started but not completed, and one is inevitably led to the conclusion that the allocation of funds in New South Wales is guided not so much by the needs of the State as by the political value of spending money in certain places.

No State government which understood the importance of rural production to the national economy could neglect the valleys of the Tumut and the Murray by failing to spend money on snagging and so maintaining the full production of those valleys. New South Wales has the task of building the Blowering Dam. Time and time again in the local press we have statements under the name of the Minister for Conservation in the New South Wales Government to this effect: “ We cannot do this. We have not the money. The Commonwealth has all the money “. If I were a South Australian, or a West Australian, I would be very critical of the amount of money which is concentrated in New South. Wales. The Government of the State is getting ample funds to build these dams. It has spent much more than £18,000,000 on starting such projects in other parts of the State. Enormous- projects are waiting completion, but the Government never finishes one: Instead it uses money to start new works. Unless the Blowering Dam is built, greater floods will go down the Tumut River, and 200,000 acres of irrigable land will be lost.

We cannot afford to neglect this opportunity. In that rich valley we have prospects of employing large numbers of our increased population in rural production, and in all the industrial undertakings and the essential services associated with that production. This will be possible because of the availability of a plentiful supply of cheap water. These opportunities are being neglected because we have in New South Wales a government that will not face up to its responsibilities. That is all I have to say about that aspect of the matter.

Mr Cope:

– The honorable member is saying this only for party political purposes.

Mr ANDERSON:

– I have no political motives whatsoever in making these remarks. I merely wish to direct attention to the fact that we will not be able to use the extra water in the most effective way until the Blowering Dam is constructed. It cannot be expected that the Commonwealth will spend all the available money in New South Wales. The only authority that can build the Blowering Dam is the Government of New South Wales. It has not started on the construction of that dam, and rumour has it that construction will be commenced in about 1970. We hope that the Government of New South Wales will change long before then.

Mr COUTTS:
Griffith

.- I am delighted to have the opportunity to make some comments on the bill before the House, and to associate myself with the amendment that the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) proposes to move at the committee stage. The purpose of that amendment, of course, is to ensure that the interests of South Australia will be adequately safeguarded.

I believe that this great Snowy Mountains scheme has not been given sufficient prominence throughout our nation. It is true that the scheme will benefit, primarily New South Wales and Victoria, and, to a minor degree, South Australia. The project was initiated principally to generate hydro-electric power for New South Wales and Victoria and to supply water for irrigation purposes to those two States. I am sure that these objectives will be achieved, and, as a consequence of the water conservation aspects of the scheme, added quantities of water will be available to South Australia.

It. is one of the proud boasts of the Australian Labour party that, after 50 years of talk about a scheme of this kind, it was left to a Labour government to initiate the project, which is recognized as one of the major hydro-electric and water conservation undertakings in the world.

Mr Turnbull:

– The Labour government laid the foundation stone only.

Mr COUTTS:

– It is known that members of the Liberal party boycotted the scheme. Only two members of the Parliament not associated with the Labour party attended the ceremony at which the first sod was turned. They were both members of the Australian Country party, and one of them has now passed away.

It is known that the former Minister for Works in this Government, the honorable member for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes) was most outspoken in his criticism of and hostility to the Snowy Mountains scheme. When a member of the Cabinet who is largely charged with the duty of carrying out the work is openly hostile to the scheme, how can we expect to see very much enthusiasm associated with the undertaking? The marvellous aspect of the matter is that the scheme has been carried on so successfully. I know that it is very difficult to persuade various Australian States to agree on any major undertaking. Alfred Deakin, in his book published some 25 years after his death, while admitting the faults in the Constitution said, “ The miracle is that there is a federation “. We may say to-day that the miracle is that there is a Snowy Mountains scheme in progress. We know that the New South Wales and Victorian governments could not agree, and it was left to the Commonwealth Government, acting under what it imagined were its defence powers, to commence the project. Once it was commenced, no government was big enough to resist it, because: the Australian people in all the States, no matter what political party was in power in the various State governments,, demanded that the scheme be carried through to fruition. Some of the Ministers of the Labour government which initiated the scheme are in> this House to-day. They include the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chifley Labour Government committed this Government and, ultimately, the governments of New South. Wales and Victoria, to the carrying out of this grand scheme.

I join with the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) in expressing the hope that when the scheme is completed - and I also hope that the tempo of construction will be speeded up - the same system that has been followed in the construction- and financing of the Snowy Mountains scheme will be applied to schemes in other States. Australia is the driest of the world’s continents, and every effort must be made to- take full advantage of all the available water. We receive very, large falls- of rain on the eastern seaboard, but west of the Great Dividing Range the country generally becomes drier and drier, the centre of Australia and a large part of Western Australia being mainly desert.

The Snowy Mountains scheme, broadly, involves the turning back to the western side of the Great Dividing Range of the great volume of water available from the large quantities of rain and snow that fall in the southern alps. In the process, large amounts of electricity will be generated. The scheme is of great magnitude. It is estimated that it will produce, upon completion, 3,000,000 kilowatts of electricity each year. At present this amount represents three-quarters of the total output of all steam generating stations in Australia. Two States, New South Wales and Victoria, will benefit from this electricity production. Industrialists will gain a great advantage in being able to draw on this increased electricity output. The generating station at Guthega, which has been in operation since 1955, has an output at present of 60,000 kilowatts, although it does not produce this quantity for 24 hours each day. Electricity has been produced at this station at a cost of .91d. a kilowatt-hour, making it prob ably the cheapest electricity produced in Australia. Honorable members can understand that industrialists who can draw electricity from this scheme will have a great advantage over those in other parts of Australia. I am somewhat at variance with several honorable members, some of them in my own party, who are critical of the system of financing the Snowy Mountains scheme. We all know that it is being financed from Consolidated Revenue which is collected from the people of Australia in the form of income tax, customs and excise duties on cigarettes, excise on beer, and sales tax on various commodities. The Australian public are paying their due, through taxation, towards the construction of this undertaking. The Commonwealth is merely channelling the money drawn from the taxpayers to the Snowy Mountains Authority, which is the constructing authority. The Commonwealth Government is charging that authority interest at the appropriate rate - I think it is 5 per cent. - for all the money advanced to it.

Some honorable members have said that because the people pf Australia are financing this project, no interest should be charged on the money. I would agree with that contention if the same principle were applied to money allocated to all State authorities for constructing electricitygenerating stations throughout the Commonwealth. However, I fail to see why money should be advanced, free of interest, to construct electricity, generating stations which will supply electricity to the States of Victoria and New South Wales, when the money which is used by the State authorities of South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland for the construction of electricitygenerating stations is obtained by way of loan from the Australian Loan Council on which they have to pay interest. If the money is to be advanced to the Snowy Mountains Authority free of interest, money should be advanced to the State electricity authorities for the construction of electricity-generating stations, free of interest also. The situation which obtains to-day is that interest is charged on the money advanced to the States of Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia. That condition should apply to the Snowy Mountains Authority because, as a result of the Commonwealth Labour government’s initiative in launching this scheme, the States of New South

Wales and Victoria will have a great advantage over the rest of the States of the Commonwealth because of the benefit they will receive from the scheme.

I have no doubt that this scheme completely assures that the industrial heart of Australia will reach from Newcastle to Adelaide, and the rest of the nation, so long as we live in the age of coal and water generating schemes for electricity, will be merely secondary to this south-eastern corner of Australia.

I am prompted by the remarks of the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) to refer to another matter. Much has been said, during this debate, about the rights of South Australia, and fears have been expressed by some honorable members from that State that its water supply will be jeopardized. South Australia does not draw its water from the Murray River only, the source of which is in the Australian Alps. A considerable proportion of the water which flows into South Australia via the Murray has its source in Queensland. The Darling River, which flows through the whole length of New South Wales, has its origin in Queensland, and carries water from the fertile area of the Darling Downs with its lovely towns of Warwick, Toowoomba and Killarney, the place

Where angels pause and wonder if Eden were more fair.

This water finds its way down the Darling into the Murray to supply the needs of the irrigation areas of South Australia and so reduces the salinity of the Murray in that State. What will be the position in South Australia if some future progressive Queensland Labour government decides to dam some of these rivers and hold back from the Darling, water in the State of Queensland? We are generous in Queensland, but I should hope that we are selfish also, to some degree.

The honorable member for Mackellar referred to the large Menindee Lakes scheme on the Darling in western New South Wales, where ultimately 2,000,000 acre feet of water will be impounded. This water will be used largely to irrigate the fertile plains of western New South Wales and it will also control the flow of water down the Darling into the Murray and through South Australia out to sea- The waters which will be impounded at Menindee will come via the Condamine, Warrego, the Balonne and a host of rivers which rise in the Dividing Range in Queensland and flow through western and southwestern Queensland into the Darling and through South Australia to the sea. It may be of interest to honorable members to know that the waters which ultimately find their outlet in the estuary of the Murray, in some cases rise near the Darling Downs city of Toowoomba.

Mr Killen:

– The southern States probably get Queensland fish, too.

Mr COUTTS:

– That is so. As I said earlier, the Snowy Mountains scheme is most ambitious and extensive. To illustrate its value for generating electricity in terms of coal consumed for that purpose, let me say that the Adaminaby Dam, which is only one of the catchment dams in the Eucumbene River, will supply water to generate electricity equivalent to that obtained from 4,000,000 tons of coal a year. The demand for electricity is rapidly growing throughout Australia. It has been estimated that in southern New South Wales and Victoria it is increasing at the rate of 8 per cent, a year. This underlines the need for large generating schemes.

But not only electricity is associated with this scheme, although that is the principal purpose for which it has been established and for which finance has been provided. There is also a by-product which will be costless to New South Wales and Victoria. I refer to the enormous volume of water which will be available for irrigation purposes in both States. Two years ago when a party of Labour members visited the scheme, the chairman of the Snowy Mountains Authority told us that the waters which will be turned into the Murrumbidgee - that is in New South Wales alone - on present-day figures, will increase the value of primary production in the areas it serves by more than £30,000,000. That is no mean sum. Surely that, in itself, from the primary producer’s point of view, must justify this scheme which is now under way.

There is one issue that I would bring into the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence. It is the possibility of the authority encouraging winter sports in the Snowy Mountains area. I had the good fortune, with some other members of my party, to visit that area in September a couple of years ago. Of course, I had an overcoat with me. I was caught in a blizzard. To a Queenslander, that was something out of this world. The blizzard lasted for two days and a night. Snow fell and covered the mountains, and the scene was something which I can describe only as being like a picture on a Christmas card from the other part of the world. I am sure that there are wonderful opportunities for the opening up of this area ultimately, so that Australians, particularly those who would love to see the snow in all its glory, could go there to indulge in winter sports.

It is to the eternal credit of the Australian Labour party that it launched this scheme. It is not to the credit of members of the Liberal party that they boycotted it. But I feel that the scheme is now divorced from party politics. Labour launched the scheme, got it under way and, to put the matter crudely, forced it down the necks of all other parties in the Commonwealth. There is now no party which is prepared to abandon this grand Australian scheme. I would say that it represents the first real attempt by a Commonwealth Government at nation-building. Whereas, in the past, undertakings have been constructed, because of legal restriction, by the State authorities, this big undertaking is being built by a Commonwealth authority, in agreement with the State governments. As I said earlier, the scheme was launched without the agreement of the State governments. Having gone so far, it must continue.

I am not as pessimistic as the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Anderson) who stated that the Blowering Dam might not be completed until the next century. I look forward to the day when I shall sit on the other side of the chamber, perhaps in the near future, and hear an announcement that the scheme has been completed and is in production. It will be a very proud day for Australia when that takes place. I believe that, should the Labour party be successful at the next federal elections - and there is every indication throughout the nation that it will be - the tempo of construction of the Snowy Mountains scheme will be considerably increased, to the advantage of the nation.

When one reads history, it is rather strange to read of the great orators in the Liberal party advocating what should be done to develop the nation. The great “ doers “ in the nation - those who really do the work and launch the schemes - are members of the Australian Labour party. The great Western Australian statesman, Lord Forrest, was the first Australian to be raised to the peerage for his grand work as an Australian. Writing of him, Sir George Pearce, then a member of the Australian Labour party, said that although Lord Forrest was an arch critic of Labour governments, he had found that Labour governments gave to Western Australia all the things that Lord Forrest had advocated; and that the governments of which Lord Forrest had been a distinguished member always refused his request to have developmental works granted to Western Australia when they were in office. We know that it was a Labour government that gave the State of Western Australia the Trans-Australian railway. We know that a Labour government, under Mr. Chifley, initiated the standard gauge railway to Leigh Creek - a railway which gave a great boost to South Australia by enabling the carriage of coal by rail to Port Augusta. All the States of the Commonwealth have received great assistance from Labour Commonwealth governments. They have received some financial aid from the present Commonwealth Government. It is a matter of grave concern to me, and a cause of bitter disappointment, that throughout the 670,000 square miles of my native State - the great fertile northern State - not one penny of federal money is being given for the construction of any scheme of public works.

I know that some years ago, when Mr. Chifley was Prime Minister and Treasurer, he informed the Premier of Queensland that he would be prepared to finance the construction of the Burdekin dam on the same basis as that on which the Snowy Mountains scheme is being constructed. The people of Queensland rejected the Chifley Government and, of course, by democratic means, they have rejected the Burdekin scheme. I hope that the time will come when they will realize that that wonderful hydro-electric and water conservation scheme can be implemented only if it is financed by the ‘Commonwealth Government at Canberra. We -all -know that the only worthwhile taxing authority in Australia is the Commonwealth Government. That is why the Snowy Mountains scheme can he financed, as it is being financed, by the Commonwealth Government.

I am glad to have been able to say a few words - not too many - on this really grand Australian scheme. I am proud to be a member of the Australian Labour party, which fathered the scheme. I hope to be in the .Parliament when a government comprising members of the Australian Labour party will see the scheme brought to complete fruition.

Mr LESLIE:
Moore

.- The honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Bowden) apparently is rather concerned because I have risen to enter the debate on the Snowy Mountains scheme. The honorable member for Gippsland and other honorable members will be reminded, in the course of my remarks, of what Western Australia is contributing towards the scheme, although it is gaining nothing from it. The course of this debate has rather intrigued me. Frequently, it has been my lot to rise in this place to press upon the Commonwealth Government and the Parliament the claims and needs of Western -Australia. I always hear the cry from both sides of the House, “Be national in your outlook. Do not be parochial.” In the course of this debate, dealing with the conditions under which the Snowy Mountains Authority must operate and the agreement between New South Wales, Victoria and the Commonwealth in connexion with *.he use of the water from that scheme, we have heard the most parochial speeches that I have ever had the misfortune to listen to in this Parliament. South Australia is attempting to avoid what it believes will be some loss of its rights. Victoria is insisting on a certain percentage of the water that is to be made available from the scheme, and New South Wales is adopting the same attitude.

The honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Coutts) put forward the Queensland point of view. I do not want to enter into an argument about the many contentious matters he raised. He introduced party politics, which have nothing to do with this scheme. He made a couple of very serious -mis-statements, one of which was that a large part of Western Australia is desert. 5 throw that statement back in the teeth of the honorable member. I remind him that large parts of Queensland-

Mr Brimblecombe:

– Be careful!

Mr LESLIE:

– For the benefit of my Australian Country party colleague from Queensland, the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Brimblecombe), I complete what I was about to say, that large parts of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia are uninhabitable. I know that honorable members adopt the same attitude that I adopt: They defend their States, but facts and an investigation of the geography and topography of Australia will confirm the soundness of my claim. I do not deny that portions of Western Australia are not capable of producing a yield as high as that achieved in other parts of the State, or in the eastern States, but to call them desert areas is absolutely wrong. It would be equally wrong to say that large portions of New South Wales, over which I have often flown, are uninhabitable wildernesses.

The honorable member for Griffith said that a generous Commonwealth Government had provided the trans-continental railway for Western Australia. That railway was not built with any altruistic motive to benefit Western Australia. It was built so that the eastern States, the industrialized areas of the Commonwealth, could communicate more rapidly with the west and more readily expand their very valuable trade with the most productive part, per capita, of the Commonwealth. That is all I wish to say in reply to the honorable member for Griffith.

The debate has intrigued me in that it has indicated that the spirit of interest in the welfare of one’s own State is not dead in this place. I only hope that in future when a member from Western Australia, be he a supporter of the Government or a member of the Opposition, rises to advance the claims of his State, he will not be twitted with having failed to adopt a national view. I hope that all honorable members will remember that at some time or other they have engaged in a battle on behalf of their States.

I and my colleagues from Western Australia do not begrudge the tremendous expenditure - more than £400,000,000 - involved in this scheme. We confess that the scheme makes our mouths water. We envy the good fortune of Victoria and New South Wales in having such a huge sum of money spent in order to provide them with power and water at a rate cheaper than it will be available anywhere else in the Commonwealth. We are not unmindful of the fact that neither of those States will be called upon to contribute one penny towards the cost of the scheme. The gesture is a magnificent and generous one, whatever its genesis, and honorable members from Western Australia envy the States that will benefit from it.

Mr Cope:

– Do not be jealous!

Mr LESLIE:

– I am jealous. I cannot help being jealous. I am sure that all honorable members will agree that Western Australia has been dealt with in an extremely niggardly fashion by the Commonwealth in relation to development projects. It is true, as has been mentioned, that some money has been provided to; assist in the improvement of water supplies, in Western Australia. But let me remind the House that New South Wales and Victoria will not be called upon to contribute one penny towards the Western Australian scheme. After about fifteen years of negotiations Western Australia obtained from the Commonwealth a subsidy towards water development and reticulation in the rural areas of my State on the condition that Western Australia contributed £1 for £1 of the cost. Is it any wonder that we envy New South Wales and Victoria their participation in the Snowy Mountains scheme free of cost to themselves? When Western Australia submitted a proposal for assistance in water development, the Commonwealth ultimately agreed to contribute but only on a £l-for-£l basis.

Mr Bruce:

– Chicken feed!

Mr LESLIE:

– I agree, but I remind the honorable member that the party of which he is a member was the first to throw chicken feed to the States.

– The honorable member should be especially careful to bear that in mind. I hope that, in the future, in matters such as this, members of this Parliament will refrain from merely paying lip service to the ideal of a national outlook, as has been done by previous speakers in this debate - and as will be done, no doubt, by those who are still to participate.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

.- We have heard recounted in this debate the whole history of the Snowy Mountains scheme, and it is not my intention to go over much of the ground that has already been traversed. The history of the scheme is interesting, but we have heard it so often, read so much of it - and recently seen in King’s Hall a display featuring the scheme - that speeches which merely record the history of the project are not of much value in this debate.

We have heard a great deal of bickering about who was really responsible for the scheme. All I shall say is that it is on record that a Labour government laid the foundation-stone and non-Labour governments have done the work. I do not see how any Opposition member can say otherwise. However, whoever is responsible for the scheme, we all agree that it is a great undertaking - one of the greatest in Australian history. But all these things are in the past. Up to the present time, the scheme has been scientific engineering, mathematical calculation, and hard work, which have resulted in its becoming, in part, already an established fact. In the short speech that I propose to make I shall deal, not with what has been happening, although I am concerned about that, but with my concern about the way in which water and power provided by the scheme will be used in the future.

Honorable members from South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales who have already spoken have dealt with the way in which the waters of the Murray River are to be apportioned between those States, but it must be remembered that the Snowy Mountains scheme is intended also to provide much hydro-electric power. The combination of the additional water and power should do much to increase primary production and could decentralize secondary industries. In this country, we are up against a very serious problem in the magnetic attraction that the great metropolitan areas of Sydney and Melbourne have for our people, and especially for new Australians, far more of whom are settling in those two cities than is good for the economy. It is, of course, very hard to decentralize population, factories and other’ things that are already centralized, but the additional water and electric power that the Snowy Mountains scheme will provide could be used to develop factories and secondary industries generally and to increase primary production in the only part of the country where primary products can be produced - in the rural areas. All honorable members agree that Melbourne and Sydney are too large, but it is a well-known fact that Sydney especially will get much of the power provided by the Snowy Mountains scheme after the needs of the Australian Capital Territory have been met. Melbourne, also, will benefit considerably from the power provided by the scheme, though perhaps largely indirectly.

Mr Bowden:

– It will receive very little benefit.

Mr TURNBULL:

– Perhaps it will receive very little direct benefit, but, indirectly, it will benefit to some degree because the present thermal generating plants in Victoria will be relieved of the necessity to provide a substantial quantity of power which will be provided by the scheme. [Quorum formed.]

One can well understand the attitude of the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr.

Ward). I was advocating - and still am - the decentralization of population and industry. Of course, the parliamentary life of the honorable member for East Sydney depends upon centralization. If a member of the Australian Country party advocates decentralization, he can see that, if it is implemented, his parliamentary life would slip away. Therefore, he immediately calls for a quorum.

I believe that we must ensure that the metropolitan areas are not extended further; the growth of the metropolitan areas must be retarded as much as possible. Through this scheme we have a God-given opportunity to provide what this country needs, it it is to become the great nation that many people have forecast it will be. How will this come about? After all, men like the honorable member for East Sydney, the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell), will not co-operate because they are residents of metropolitan areas. Therefore, the country people must be placed in a strong enough position not only to advocate but indeed to bring about the means of decentralization.

In the fertile Murray valley at present there is a very active organization named the Murray Valley Development League. Its members give their time and money with the object of increasing the population, the industries and the production of the Murray valley. I suggest that the Government co-operate as much as possible with such organizations. I am not parochial enough to say that the Murray Valley Development League could also deal with the Murrumbidgee valley in its entirety, but undoubtedly similar organizations could be formed in that area. The executive and the rank and file members of the Murray Valley Development League are men with considerable knowledge of primary production and of the flow of the river. They know that, if the fertile Murray valley can be given the water that it needs, it will grow the products that Australia requires so urgently to maintain its overseas balances so that the secondary industries can obtain the raw materials they need to function satisfactorily.

If I do nothing else to-day, I make the plea that the Government and the Opposition co-operate with rural bodies, and with men -of knowledge and of high principle to encourage the building of secondary industries in rural areas to use the power and water that will be made available by this great scheme, rather than to expand the metropolitan areas. I have heard honorable members on each side of the House say that, if war came, the whole of the metropolitan areas could be annihilated and the whole of Australia’s economy disrupted by one atomic bomb. I have not tried to put this matter on a parochial basis or to enter into paltry party politics, as a certain honorable member, now interjecting, whom I will not name is always doing. I will not name him for his own good, because I do not think there is any man so steeped in party politics that perhaps there is not some good in him. I believe that this honorable member may have some altruistic qualities, and I hope that what I have said will penetrate the chinks in his armour and that he will realize that my proposal is for the benefit of all the people of this great country.

Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · Riverina · CP

– in reply - I have no wish to wound the susceptibilities of the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Coutts) or any other honorable member opposite, but it is wrong to suppose that this great Snowy Mountains scheme is a new idea. Indeed, it is a very old idea. It was old when this century was young and it was young when the previous century was old. A scheme such as this is of the greatest importance to the people of our country, whether some of them know it or not. So far as I am personally concerned electorally, this scheme and schemes of this kind are of transcendental importance to the people of the Riverina, to the people of western New South Wales and to the people of Victoria, and, despite all that has been said to the contrary, to the people of South Australia; this scheme is of fundamental importance to the whole of the people of our country.

There was a time, of course, when we were preoccupied with irrigation schemes and with the conservation of water resources within the geographic limits of the States. That occupied our attention and the attention of the States until the first decade of the present century. Although the conception of the idea of the diversion of the snow-fed rivers of the Snowy Moun tains is lost in antiquity, it was at that time, when the irrigation schemes of the three principal States were being devised, that the idea of the diversion of the snow-fed rivers excited the minds of the pioneers. Because of our preoccupation with work that was being done in the three States, no useful purpose could be served in vigorously prosecuting such a proposal. However, when the .irrigation schemes demonstrated faults and frailties in all the States, it was recognized that something would have to be done to boost the waters in the Murray River and the Murrumbidgee River and to use the waters in the tributaries of those two rivers, which up to that point in our history had been flowing away to the sea.

Proposals were put by the Australian Country party to the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) when he was Treasurer. Proposals of the kind were put to the Prime Minister at that time - he who is now described as My Lord Bruce. Proposals were put to the Premier of New South Wales and to the Premiers of Victoria and South Australia. But the only argument that we had at that time was that water should be conserved. Because only a limited number of people in our country are interested in the conservation of water, very little public interest could be excited on this question at that time.

I have been associated with this proposal in a minor way for nearly 40 years. I vividly remember coming to this place in the early 1920’s and hearing my predecessor as member for the Riverina, the late W. W. Killen, advocating this proposal in this very place. Yet he had no support of any description from honorable members opposite. I have heard the right honorable member for Cowper advocating this proposal, and similar proposals, but getting no support from honorable members opposite. If those appeals for a practical demonstration of interest by honorable members opposite had been more successful at the time they were made, these proposals might be much more advanced than they are to-day. But by the time the economic blizzard of the early ‘30’s struck us, no one was seriously concerned with the extension of our irrigation schemes. At that time it looked economically hopeless to attempt to expand any of our primary industries and it did not seem wise to expand any of our irrigation schemes.

It was in that frame of mind, Mr. Speaker, that we went into World War II. But the disastrous years of 1944 and 1945 - disastrous so far as the vagaries of our climate and the results of those vagaries were concerned - had a serious impact and it became obvious to thinking people that something would have to be done to increase the water flowing in our two major rivers, the Murray and the Murrumbidgee. Deputation after deputation came to this place, as deputations went to the State parliaments in Victoria and New South Wales, with concrete proposals for the diversion of these snow-fed rivers. The deputations suffered from the disadvantage that all that they could talk about was water. It was not until the question of the generation of electricity was introduced and strengthened the proposals that they put up, that the public interest was excited and this scheme ultimately was examined. It was examined, first of all, by committees of experts, representative of the Commonwealth and the States of New South Wales and Victoria. Because they reported favorably on this scheme, the government was obliged to convene conferences at the ministerial level.

In New South Wales and Victoria, there were anti-Labour governments which were seized with the importance of this particular project. The Commonwealth Government at that time was, on the sheer merits of the decisions reached by these ministerial conferences, obliged to introduce the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act for the first time. That was in 1949. The proposal, in its physical sense, provided for the diversion of the snow-fed rivers, for the generation of electricity, for the feeding of the electricity into the grids of New South Wales and Victoria, after the Commonwealth requirements and the defence requirements had been met, and the handing over of the water, after the electricity had been generated, to the States of Victoria and New South Wales free of charge, the charges incidental to the operations of the Snowy Mountains Authority to be met from the sale of electricity to the two States.

It was at that stage that the bill was introduced. It was also at that stage, if there had been any flaws in the proposal at that time; if it were considered that South Australia would be disadvantaged to any degree; and if it were thought that Victoria and New South Wales were getting too much, that it was the manifest duty of the government in office - which is now in Opposition - to correct those faults and amend the provisions. As I have said, the bill was introduced in 1949 and passed both Houses of this Parliament. In 1951 it was amended, but there was no suggestion from the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt), who was present then, as he was prior to 1949, that it should be amended. The act was amended again in 1952, and also in 1955 and 1956. Now, it is being amended to the degree that, for the first time, an agreement has been reached by the three parties and has been signed. The necessary complementary State legislation has been passed in the two States, and now it is the responsibility of this Parliament to pass the bill that currently is before the House. It has been passed by the other place, where a similar attempt to amend it was made. That attempt met the fate that I hope this proposed amendment will meet in the course of the next few minutes.

It is an extraordinary attitude for the Labour party to take in saying, “We support this measure “, and at the same time introducing an amendment which, if it were carried, would delay the effective operations of the Snowy Mountains Authority in a more grievous way than any other that I can imagine. It seems to have been completely forgotten that, for seven long, weary years, the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), who is the responsible Minister so far as the Snowy Mountains Authority is concerned, has been trying, day in day out, week in week out, month in month out, to get the States to put their signatures to a document that would seal the position of the authority and all its works. The Minister, to my certain knowledge, has applied himself to the task with a sincerity that is most unique. I want to say that I have kept in close touch with him, right from the inception of the scheme, and have asked him from day to day about the prospects of getting the agreement signed by Victoria and New South Wales. At last he has succeeded. The agreement has been signed by those two States, without prejudice to South Australia or any other State or States; the necessary legislation has been introduced and passed in the State Parliaments, and now it is for us to perform the final act in the first phase in the completion of this magnificent project. There is some slight danger that our passing of the act may be impeded by the Opposition, it having failed, of course, to impede it in another place.

I listened to what the Leader of the Opposition had to say. His complaint, of course, was that South Australia might be prejudiced, that there could be an advantage to either New South Wales or Victoria, and probably to both, and that that advantage would prejudice South Australia. Because of that, he contended, the whole bill should be put in a state of suspense until the point was clarified in some litigious way. But the Leader of the Opposition is nearly ten years too late. He should have insisted in 1949, when the first act was passed, that South Australia should be more adequately protected, if he were in any doubt about the matter. The right honorable gentleman was a party to all the preliminary conferences that were convened by the government of which he was a member, and it was his manifest duty to say to the officers attending those conferences that their first charge was to protect the interests of South Australia, or of any other State. But he did not say that. He knew that the officers would do their duty and that they would mete out justice to all the States concerned.

The right honorable gentleman had another opportunity when an advisory conference was held and the scheme ultimately was adopted by that conference. He could have attended, as deputy leader of the government at that time, and suggested to the advisory conference that something more should be done to protect South Australia. Then, he had opportunity after opportunity during the sittings of the inter-departmental committees. He had a priceless opportunity at the Premiers conference in 1947, because that was the conference which adopted the Snowy Mountains scheme. Indeed, it was at that conference that the Premiers of this country appointed a committee to apportion both the electricity likely to be generated and the water that was to be available, between the Commonwealth and the States of New South Wales and Victoria. Strangely enough, Mr. Speaker, the present Premier of South Australia was one of those who attended that Premiers conference in 1947.

The Leader of the Opposition knew of the arrangement for the establishment of a committee to make a division of the waters likely to be available, but the right honorable gentleman took no action then nor did he do so at any of the ministerial conferences that followed after those interdepartmental meetings and conferences of experts.

The right honorable gentleman knows in his heart, of course, that the interests of South Australia have been protected and are being protected by the River Murray Agreement. If he was in any doubt about that, he could have taken appropriate action to strengthen the position of South Australia. But there is no doubt in the minds of those of us who have an intimate understanding of the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority in all its ramifications that the River Murray Agreement, signed in 1914, binds the three signatory States and the Commonwealth. It protects the interests of South Australia even in the case of diversion.

The River Murray Agreement concedes to the States the right to divert tributaries of the Murray above Albury, but it also provides that if and when the tributaries are diverted, the States concerned shall lose a compensating amount of water allocated below Albury. That is an arrangement that safeguards the position of South Australia without prejudice to Victoria or New South Wales. [Quorum formed.]

The House, the Parliament, and the people of Australia have to pay dearly for the unhappiness and misery that emanates from the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) who has just directed attention to the state of the House. He has the sort of mind that cannot bear to listen to logical argument and will not permit a debate such as this to be resolved on its merits for the everlasting good of Australia. Before the quorum was formed, I had reached a point when I had shown that the River Murray Agreement binds the three signatory States and the Commonwealth and protects the interests of South Australia even in the case of diversion. I had explained that although the States had power to divert tributaries of the Murray above Albury, they had to compensate for the loss of water from the flow below Albury. Similarly the Snowy Mountains Agreement is equally binding on the two signatory States and the Commonwealth. It also protects the River Murray Agreement and, moreover, the interests of South Australia.

It has been demonstrated in a practical way that South Australia is likely to receive great advantages from the activities of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. Apart altogether from making safe the quantity of water that South Australia is entitled to receive under the River Murray Agreement, the scheme boosts the flow of the Murray to provide another 60,000 acre feet in South Australia, in season and out of season, regardless of the vagaries of our climate or any dry periods we might have to endure. It is written into this bill that South Australia shall not be prejudiced. For the information of honorable gentlemen, I direct the attention to clause 5b of the bill which provides -

Nothing in this Act shall be taken to affect the rights of the State of South Australia under the agreements copies of which are set out in the Schedules to the River Murray Waters Act 1915-1954.

There, in simple terms, is a guarantee that the status quo has been maintained for South Australia. All that can happen to South Australia is an additional advantage, and we have had an assurance by the Prime Minister himself who said in this House during the second-reading debate in unequivocal terms -

If I thought that the position of South Australia was prejudiced, if I thought it was altered for the worse to the extent of a gallon of water by this legislation, I would not have allowed it to have entered this House.

That ought to be enough for all honorable men. It ought to be enough for those of us who are keenly anxious to have this bill passed to give the final approval to a project that has been suspended in mid-air, so far as legislation is concerned, for seven or eight years. During those years, the authority set up to do the physical tasks incidental to the diversion of the snowfed rivers and the generation of electricity, has performed its task magnificently. It has advanced its work in a way that was never dreamed possible when the scheme was devised, or when it was commenced by the Labour Government in 1949.

This bill is of vital importance to the people of Australia. It means that there will be an acceleration of land settlement. It means that there will be a general expansion of irrigation farming both in New South Wales and Victoria. It means that greater supplies of water will be available to three States of the Commonwealth for all sorts of agricultural, pastoral and other purposes. It means that no less than 3,000,000 kilowatts of electricity will be available to the Commonwealth and to States, while the water available to the two States will be increased by 1,800,000 acre feet. That is a fabulous quantity of water which will be put to the best advantage when dams for conservation and regulation of the water are built.

Unfortunately, the major responsibility for the Blowering dam rests with the New South Wales Government. When it will be constructed only the Lord and the New South Wales Government might hazard a guess! While, so far as is competent and possible, we shall use water flowing down the Murrumbidgee, water from the Murray will be used to the best advantage and to give, perhaps, the greatest impetus to the irrigation schemes of the two States that this country has had in the last two decades. I appeal to honorable members to pass the bill as a matter of urgency.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 -

This Act shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by Proclamation.

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

– I move -

At the end of the clause add the following subclause: - “ (2.) The Act shall not be proclaimed until after each House of the Parliament shall have resolved that in its opinion all rights of the State of South Australia to waters of the River Murray are not adversely affected by the operation of the Act.”.

– I am speaking of the Minister for Primary Industry, who interjected, not of the Minister who is in charge of the bill. It is quite obvious that the other legislation has to be amended. It is not enough to say in this bill that the rights under the other, unamended, legislation shall be preserved. The other legislation has to be amended and then we have to make sure that the rights of South Australia are preserved in the legislation as amended. That seems perfectly clear.

But that is not all. The Prime Minister said that other amendments of the River Murray Waters Act have to be made. He has referred to the commission the question of what those amendments will be. We do not know what they will be. A report has been made. Will New South Wales agree? If it does not agree, no amendment is possible. Will Victoria agree? If those two States and the Commonwealth agree, and South Australia also agrees, the rights will be secured.

Our proposal is simple, clear, and absolutely necessary. It is that the actual proclamation of the act should take place only after each House of the Parliament has resolved that in its opinion all rights of the State of South Australia to waters of the river Murray are not adversely affected by the operation of the act. How can each House of the Parliament, or every member, say at this moment that the rights of South Australia are protected, when the Prime Minister has said, in effect, that they are not yet protected? The position is completely contrary to what is required.

Let me add something else. The legislation of the New South Wales Parliament will not come into effect until it is proclaimed. It will not be proclaimed until amendments of the River Murray Waters Act are made. That was stated the other day by Mr. Renshaw, a Minister of the New South Wales Government. Therefore, the adoption by New South Wales of this agreement is subject to that condition. There will be a proclamation only when the River

Murray Waters Act has been further amended. The position is similar in the case of Victoria. Obviously, both South Australia and the Commonwealth will have to be parties to the amendment.

That brings me to the Minister’s final point. We support the project. How could the Australian Labour party do otherwise? It is the project of the Labour party, and the Minister was quite right in emphasizing that. We want to see the project effective. I have had put to me that it is quite possible for people to make errors on these agreements. I have consulted experts, and I am satisfied that the rights of South Australia are not yet protected under the River Murray Waters Act. Let us take the case of diversion under the River Murray Agreement. There is provision that if New South Wales and Victoria divert any of the streams, that will be taken into account in the distribution of the waters. But, as a matter of fact, New South Wales and Victoria have not diverted the streams. It has been done by the Commonwealth. There have to be provisions of that character. That is also referred to in the Prime Minister’s speech.

New South Wales, Victoria and the Commonwealth have to be satisfied as to the position. Why should the Commonwealth say, “ We are completely satisfied “, when everybody knows that the passage of this measure will not carry the agreement into effect and that some amendment of the other act is necessary? Why should the matter not be postponed and dealt with then? Why should we not insert in the bill the proposed amendment, which would have exactly the same effect?

The South Australian members have put their case. All they want is to ensure that the benefit intended to be given to them by such legislation as the River Murray Waters Act shall be given. We want that position safeguarded and we think this is the only way in which it can be done.

I turn to the rival amendment of the Government, made in another place, which simply provides that nothing in this act shall be taken to affect the rights of South Australia under the agreements under the River Murray Waters Act. That limits the protection of South Australia to what is already contained in the legislation. There will be amendments to the River Murray

Agreement. The Prime Minister has said that they will be necessary. He read a document of about 40 lines, which is embodied in “ Hansard “. There, it is expressly stated that amendments will be necessary. I wonder whether the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) has read that document. If he reads it he will see that he is making himself a party to the passing of this legislation, knowing perfectly well that it will not confer on South Australia the rights that it is intended should be given to that State.

It is obvious, therefore, that clause 5b of the bill, upon which the Minister relies and which was inserted in the Senate, is meaningless and is really a sham. I think, however, that the sham has been seen through owing to the able analysis of the legislation by those honorable gentlemen who have watched the interests of South Australia. They include many honorable members on this side of the chamber, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator McKenna) and his colleagues. They have analysed the legislation and worked hard on it. They are satisfied, as the Premier of South Australia is apparently satisfied, that the rights of that State are not yet protected. That is the case that we put.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Adermann:
FISHER, QUEENSLAND

Order! The right honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · Riverina · CP

– I have no alternative but to reject the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt), if for no other reason than that it is entirely redundant. There are, however, other reasons why it should be rejected. We have a government anxious to complete agreements with regard to a project that has been in operation for nearly ten years - ten years during which we have had dubious constitutional authority for carrying on the undertaking as far as it has gone. The Government is eager to complete agreements with the States involved, but we find the Opposition moving an amendment that can serve only to impede the progress of this vital undertaking, and basing its argument on an interpretation of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) is alleged to have said during his speech on the second reading of the bill. We hear the Leader of the Opposition, a jurist, advancing as one of the reasons that his amendment should be carried his interpretation of what the Prime Minister said. It is not for the Leader of the Opposition, for me or for any other man to interpret what the Prime Minister said, when it is within our power to quote word for word what he actually did say. That is the intelligent thing to do. It is the honest thing to do, and it is, I inform the right honorable gentleman, what I propose to do. This is what the Prime Minister said in the concluding paragraphs of his speech.

Dr Evatt:

– Will the Minister read the document that the Prime Minister produced?

Mr ROBERTON:

– I heard the whole of his speech and I have read the whole of his speech.

Dr Evatt:

– Read out the document now.

Mr ROBERTON:

– I have no time to do that. These are the concluding paragraphs of the Prime Minister’s speech -

Let me go back to that point where I began; The solution of all these great problems which are so tremendously significant for South Australia - problems which have been presented strongly by South Australia and by South Australian members in this Parliament - lies within the four corners of the River Murray Agreement.

Not this bill at all, but the River Murray Agreement.

They are problems unaffected by the Snowy Mountains Agreement. So that nobody might think them to be some strange legal freak - that an agreement between three people can bind a fourth person to another agreement who was not a party to the second one, which is a legal impossibility - and so that that might be put beyond all question and honorable members on all sides of the House relieved of some possible embarrassment or misunderstanding, we did introduce into the bill in another place a provision to this effect -

Then the Prime Minister quoted clause 5b, as I did, which says -

Nothing in this Act shall be taken to affect the rights of the State of South Australia under the agreements copies of which are set out in the Schedules to the River Murray Waters Act 1915-1954.

Then comes the Prime Minister’s concluding paragraph, which, I suggest, should be written across the heart of the Leader of the Opposition - if he has a heart -

There is a categorical statement. Nothing in this act - and it includes the schedule - is to be taken as affecting the rights of South Australia. If I thought that the position of South Australia was prejudiced, if I thought it was altered for the worse to the extent of a gallon of water by this legislation, I would not have allowed it to have entered this House.

That is what the Prime Minister said, and that is very different from the interpretation that the Leader of the Opposition has put upon his statements. I appeal to the House to read into the amendment that was inserted in the bill by the Minister responsible for it in another place, a complete and satisfying safeguard for South Australia, or for any other State that may be concerned as to the consequences of this very important measure.

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

– J do not propose to take up much of the time of the committee. The Minister has not read the crucial document, which is an admission by the Prime Minister that the River Murray Agreement will have to be amended. If it has to be amended, and if that is known by the various parties to it, then protection is not granted simply by the insertion in this legislation of the clause on which the Minister relies. The Prime Minister read the document in the course of his speech. The document stated what had to be done in connexion with diversions of the tributaries of the Murray, particularly the Tooma River, and it went on to say - and this appears at page 1728 of “ Hansard “ -

To give effect to this principle an amendment of Clause 45 of the River Murray Waters Agreement will be necessary.

Necessary for what purpose? Necessary to secure to South Australia its proportion of the amount of water taken away from the Murray! It is absurd to say, therefore, that until the River Murray Agreement is amended protection can be given to South Australian simply by the insertion of a clause which points merely to the existing position under the River Murray Waters Act. Why does the Minister not face up to the problem?

This is not all, however. The other part of the document produced by the Prime Minister, which was agreed to by New South Wales, Victoria and the Commonwealth, but not by South Australia, said this -

Certain other amendments to that Agreement

That is, the River Murray Agreement - will also be necessary, and in particular amendments to Clauses 46 and 51, in order to make the River Murray Waters Agreement more elastic in its operation, while preserving to the State of South Australia its entitlement to water. This effect can be achieved by permitting the States of New South Wales and Victoria to replace diverted water from any convenient source.

If the water is going to be replaced, well and good, but South Australia is a necessary party to that agreement. I think it should be perfectly clear to any person who listens to the arguments, that whether I am right or wrong as to the merits of the case - that is to say, whatever the position of our criticism may be - that basic River Murray Agreement must be amended. It is no use giving to South Australia the rights that it already has, and no State Premier could agree to legislation unless adequate protection exists.

The Prime Minister himself set out the position when he produced the document. It is not a question whether he thinks the matter will work out all right. Possibly he does think it will work out all right, and perhaps it will. His opinion and hopes about it are one thing; the real hard fact of what the agreement does is another.

The purpose of my intervention is not in any way to hold up the scheme, which we support and which is going on, but only to see that the basic rights of South Australia are protected. The bill in its present form does not protect those rights and the Opposition wants the proposed sub-clause inserted to provide that each House of this Parliament shall have the right to examine the legislation again at a time when the rights of South Australia are recognized.

New South Wales and Victoria will not proclaim their measures, and South Australia will certainly not do so, but this Government will proclaim this legislation knowing that it must be amended later. The bill, in its present form, is unbusinesslike and absurd and instead of assisting South Australia to come into the scheme, it will have the opposite effect.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

.-South Australia’s rights to water are covered by the River Murray Agreement. Nothing in this bill, which is designed to support an agreement between three contracting parties, can possibly affect South Australia’s rights under the River Murray Agreement. Because some doubts have been expressed on that proposition, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and the Government have agreed to resolve them by inserting clause 5b in the bill which expresses in most clear and definite terms that nothing in this bill in any way affects the rights of South Australia. Therefore, the rights of South Australia, after the passage and proclamation of this measure, will be exactly the same as they were before this bill was introduced. At that time, South Australia was entitled to a fixed quantity of water in a normal year, and to three-thirteenths of the water at Albury in what is known as a period of restriction. For those reasons I feel that every one can support this bill as it stands because it does not affect or prejudice the rights of South Australia in any way.

What is the proposal contained in the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt)? It is to hold up the whole of the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme until three States have come to an agreement on some matter which is not affected by this bill. If the amendment were carried it would mean the dismissal, immediately, or within a very short space of time, of 2,000 men from the Snowy Mountains project. Already the contract for the next leg of the undertaking has been signed, but that will be held up if this amendment is carried. If that happens, the Labour party will have to answer to the breadwinners of 2,000 families who will be thrown out of employment.

I am not prepared to support the amendment, for two reasons. The first is that it is quite unnecessary. I have said already that there is nothing in this bill which prejudices South Australia. I will not support the amendment because it proposes to hold up, indefinitely, if necessary, the whole scheme. The three States which are parties to the agreement may never agree and in the meantime the whole scheme will be held up and the employees thrown out of work.

At the second-reading stage I pointed out that this bill does not prejudice South Australia’s rights under the River Murray Agreement. Nor does it affect, in any way, the legal proceedings which have already been taken by South Australia. Therefore, the question of whether the River Murray Agreement is amended or not depends upon agreement being reached between the four contracting parties to the terms of that agreement. South Australia is quite able to protect is legal rights, and we can trust the

Premier of South Australia to see to that matter, whether he does so by legal action or by negotiation with the other contracting parties.

I suggest that this amendment proposed on behalf of the Labour party is sheer and utter humbug. All that it proposes to do is to reiterate the provision which has already been put in the bill. If adopted, it will hold up the work on the Snowy scheme while four contracting parties which are engaged in fighting elections and all sorts of other matters come to an agreement. The Labour party will not receive any thanks for this amendment from the 2,000 families whose breadwinners are employed on the Snowy but who, if this amendment were carried, would be thrown out of work.

What nonsense it is for honorable members opposite to pretend that they are friends of the workers! Every action they take both inside and outside this Parliament deprives the workers of proper employment.

Mr GALVIN:
Kingston

.- The honorable member for Sturt (Mr. Wilson) says that the Labour party will not receive any thanks for this amendment, but he himself will not receive any thanks from the people of South Australia who are depending on the protection which this amendment seeks to give them.

Mr Roberton:

– It gives no protection at all.

Mr GALVIN:

– There is a great protection. The honorable member for Sturt has shown great concern, for the first time in his life, for the workers on the Snowy Mountains project, but members of the Opposition are showing some concern for the people of South Australia, for whom the honorable member should also be concerned. To say that they are protected in this vital matter of rights to water, which is the lifeline of their State’s existence-

Mr Hulme:

– You are only playing politics.

Mr GALVIN:

– It is a matter not ot politics but of facing facts. Already the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) has pointed out that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has stated that in order to protect South Australia’s interests adequately, the River Murray Agreement must be amended. All that the Opposition seeks to do in this amendment is to see that this bill which we are attempting to pass to-day will not be proclaimed until the River Murray Agreement is amended. Is there anything wrong with that? Surely there will not be a long delay. I am satisfied that the Premiers of the States concerned, unlike the members of this Government, are alive to the interests of their States and will hastily get on the job and amend the River Murray Agreement because it affects the welfare of this nation.

It is obvious that members on the Government side want to bulldoze this measure through, as they do other measures. They are not really concerned about the interests of a smaller State like South Australia. The Premier of South Australia will owe his thanks to every member of this committee who supports this amendment if it is carried. I am sure that the people in the electorates of the honorable members for Sturt, Barker and Angas will be watching and waiting to see which way those members vote on this amendment. It asks only for a brief delay in the proclamation of this measure so that South Australia may be certain that its rights are protected.

There may be some hope on the part of the Government that, by pushing this bill through and proclaiming it immediately, it will provide a harvest for the lawyers and solicitors in the community. We are trying to protect the interests of the people in South Australia who depend on irrigation and the rights of those in the metropolitan areas who depend on water from the Murray for domestic uses in their homes. They have no protection at present.

The committee should feel indebted to the Leader of the Opposition for moving this amendment, which seeks to give to South Australians the protection that they seek. I remind the committee that there are good reasons for the people of South Australia having grave doubts about anything that this Government puts forward on the Snowy Mountains Agreement. When, twelve months ago, the Premier of South Australia asked to see the agreement, he was refused the right to do so. He was humbugged and pushed about by this Government. I believe that he, too, was playing the artful game of politics, but, whether he was doing that or not, it is the duty of every South Australian in this Parliament to support this amendment and ensure that the rights of the industries and the citizens of South Australia will be protected. Our amendment seeks only to allow time for the River Murray Agreement to be amended and for us to make sure, as the Prime Minister himself has suggested, in the only way in which that is possible, that protection is given to South Australians in this matter.

Mr FORBES:
Barker

.- I have risen principally to say that I regard the amendment that has been moved as one of the most extraordinary examples of political opportunism that I have seen for a long time. It was political opportunism that actuated the honorable member for Kingston (Mr. Galvin), who has just spoken. What have the South Australian Labour members done to protect the interests of South Australia? The honorable member for Kingston underestimates the intelligence of the people who put him here, as so many Labour members do, if he thinks that they will be taken in by the synthetic indignation and tub-thumping in which he indulged.

What the people of South Australia will ask themselves in relation to this matter is, “ When did South Australian Labour members begin to take an interest in it? “ They began to take an interest only three or four days ago. No representations were made to the appropriate people - the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) or the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) - on this question when it first arose, months ago. If Labour members were really interested in the rights of South Australia, they would have started working for them long before the bill came into this House.

Instead of taking the action most likely to be in the best interests of South Australia, at the last moment they have put up this amendment, completely ignoring the fact that the Prime Minister was able to announce to the Parliament, when he spoke on this subject, a number of points of agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales and Victoria - and, indeed, South Australia. If I may say so, modestly, this was partly a result of the hard work done by me and my colleagues from South Australia. The Prime Minister made it clear that the rights of South Australia were fully protected, or, if they were not, that the passing of this bill would not jeopardize

South Australia’s situation under the River Murray Waters Act.

– I was saying, before the honorable member for Kingston tried to drown me out, that there are three things on which we base our case that the interests of South Australia are protected, apart from the amendment which was passed in another place. The first is that the Premiers of Victoria and New South Wales have solemnly agreed to amend the River Murray Agreement. That has been concurred in by the Prime Minister. The second is that representatives of the four authorities, including South Australia, have met on the River Murray Commission, that all these points at issue have been put to them, and that they have been able to come to unanimous agreement.

I quite agree that that is not the same as saying that their recommendations have actually been accepted, because they have to go to their political masters. But are there grounds for believing that the recommendations will not be accepted when the representatives have been able to reach unanimous agreement? My third point - to reiterate what the honorable member for Sturt said - is that there is absolutely nothing in the Snowy Mountains Agreement which prejudices South Australia’s rights under the River Murray Agreement.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- Mr. Chairman-

Motion (by Mr. Roberton) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 53

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 32

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the amendment (Dr. Evatt’s) be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 22

NOES: 54

Majority . . . . 32

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

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

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 1892

NAVIGATION BILL 1958

In committee: Consideration resumed from 14th May (vide page 1842).

Clauses 1 to 6 - fay leave - considered together.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I ask for a number of explanations of these clauses. Clause 2 (1.) provides -

Sections one and two of this Act shall come into operation on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent and the other sections of this Act shall come into operation on such dates as are respectively fixed by Proclamation.

I am aware of the explanation of this provision given in another place by the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge), but I want to direct attention to a specific aspect of it. I take it that if the bill receives the Royal assent in its present form a number of sections in the principal act will be repealed, and that the repeal of those sections will become effective automatically. What provision is made to fill the gap until the proclamation of the provisions replacing those repealed? Will any long period be allowed to elapse before the gap is filled?

It is now admitted that certain sections of the principal act, which was passed some years ago, have not yet been proclaimed. What is the use of the Parliament debating provisions of an act if they are never to be proclaimed, and, therefore, never to become effective? I have been consulted on this matter by the maritime trade unions, which consider that this situation should not be allowed to continue. Accordingly, the unions seek an explanation of the operation of clause 2. The unions also want to know why it is proposed to repeal section Ia of the principal act, as provided for in clause 3.

While I am on my feet, 1 shall take the opportunity to mention also a number of matters concerning sub-section (1.) of proposed section 6 of the principal act. This sub-section contains a definition of “ British ship “, which was not defined in the principal act, and the unions want to know why this definition is now included. They also ask for an explanation of the change in the definition of “ Australian-made ship “. I should be pleased to hear an explanation of those definitions from the Minister for Air (Mr. Osborne).

The sub-section also contains a definition of “ foreign-going ship “ in the following terms: - “ foreign-going ship “ means a ship employed in trading or going between a place or places in Australia and a place or places outside Australia;

The unions want to know whether this definition embraces Australian ships.

In the same sub-section, the definition of “ Government ship “ provides - “ Government ship “ means a ship -

which is registered in Australia as a Government ship for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Act, .

The unions want a clearer definition of the vessels provided for in paragraph (d) of that definition. The same definition concludes with the words - but does not include a ship which belongs to the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission constituted under the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act 1956;

Why are vessels belonging to that commission excluded from the definition?

I hope that the Minister will be good enough to provide the explanations that I have sought.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– My second-reading speech covered the matter of the proclamation of the various sections of this measure, about which the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) has now asked for an explanation. I point out to him, also, that the repeal of the relevant provisions of the principal act will not take place until the relevant parts of this measure have been proclaimed. So that there will not be left a state of vacuum. The provisions of the principal act will remain in force, in those instances where the relevant provisions of this measure do not come into operation immediately, until the relevant part of this measure is proclaimed. In other words, the repeal of the old provisions will not occur until the new provisions are proclaimed.

I will look into the matter of the definitions to which the honorable member has referred, and will advise him at the earliest possible opportunity.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 7 -

Section six of the Principal Act is repealed and the following sections are inserted in its stead: - “ 6. - (1.) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears - officer’ means the master, a mate or an engineer of a ship; proper authority ‘ -

in relation to a port in a country other than a Commonwealth country - means a diplomatic or consular representative of Australia or a consul of any other Commonwealth country; wages ‘ includes emoluments. “ 6b. For the purposes of this Act, a seaman or apprentice has deserted from his ship -

if he is absent from his ship for a continuous period exceeding forty-eight hours without leave, lawful cause or reasonable excuse. “ 6d. For the purposes of this Act, a ship shall be deemed to have been taken or sent to sea, or to have gone or proceeded to sea, if the ship has been got under way for the purpose of -

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– I move -

In sub-section (1.) of proposed section 6, in the definition of “ officer “, omit “ or an engineer “, insert “ an engineer or a radio officer “. ,

Radio officers on various ships have been agitating for some time to be classified as officers. They are not asking that they be given any authority other than that which they at present exercise, but they consider that, as they are regarded as radio officers in the terms of their award and are always referred to as radio officers, they should be classified as officers. In the talks in 1955, no objection was taken to this request by anybody, including the departmental representatives. The Australian Labour party considers that it is quite reasonable. In most cases these men are employees of Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited, which hires the equipment to the various vessels. I am given to understand that the only exceptions to this rule are the vessels of the Union Steam Ship Company of New Zealand Limited and the vessels operated by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited. We consider that the request is reasonable, and I submit it to the committee.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– This may be a convenient time for me to make a few remarks, not only about this amendment, but also about amendments generally. As the committee knows, this bill was introduced in the Senate, where there was a very long and comprehensive debate. A number of amendments were moved in the Senate, and some ten of them were accepted. There is no facet of this bill that was not very thoroughly argued in the Senate. 1 mention that because I do not want honorable members opposite to feel that the Government is being obstinate, or is dismissing their views carelessly, when I say that the Government does not accept this amendment or any of the amendments submitted by the honorable member for East Sydney. Every arguable aspect of the bill was debated at great length in the Senate. As I say, the Government is not by any means obdurate about the measure, and has accepted no fewer than ten amendments from the Opposition in the Senate. The Government feels that the matter has been very fully and adequately debated. Notwithstanding that, I have myself been very carefully through the amendments proposed by the honorable member for East Sydney. For reasons that I will give as we progress, they are not acceptable to the Government.

The amendment now before the committee seeks to include a wireless operator within the definition of a ship’s officer. We believe this to be unnecessary. The honorable member for East Sydney said that all that the wireless operators in Australian ships desire is that they be given the status of officers. This does not affect their functions. In practice, they are almost universally given that status now. During the war, the practice grew up of referring to wireless operators as radio officers, and that practice is almost universally continued on the Australian coast to-day.

Those included in the definition of officer in the bill are those who actually have to exercise authority over members of the crew - that is to say, masters, mates and engineers. This is in accord with the practice under the Merchant Shipping Act and the practice in other maritime countries. In a world-wide industry of this sort, departures from established practices throughout the world should not be undertaken carelessly. For that reason the Government prefers to wait and see how this measure works, before making amendments of this sort which have no real necessity. I point out that ships’ surgeons and chief stewards, who have the status of officers, are not included in the definition of officer in the bill. The radio officer is in exactly the same position. We therefore do not accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- The attitude of the Government in respect of this legislation is remarkable. I was amazed to hear the Minister for Air say, without having heard the arguments of the Opposition, that none of these amendments would be considered by the Government. He argued that the matter had been fully debated in the Senate. Surely that is an amazing attitude for a Minister to take. In this country we have a bicameral system of government; we have the Senate and the House of Representatives. It would be a most remarkable position if, after a matter was fully discussed in this chamber, the argument was advanced in the Senate that there was no need for a discussion there because the legislation had already been debated here. Despite the Minister’s anxiety to speed up proceedings by indicating that the Government does not intend to accept any of the amendments of the Opposition, we still propose to put them forward. On the amendments that we regard as of extreme importance, we will divide the Committee, and we will certainly submit our views.

Before I come to my second amendment, T should like an explanation of the definition of “ port “. The definition says - port ‘ includes place and harbour;

What is meant by “ place “? I should like the Minister to explain that.

I move -

In sub-section (1.) of proposed section 6, in paragraph (c) of the definition of ‘ proper authority ‘, omit “ or a consul of any other Commonwealth country “.

The proper authority has enormous powers in certain respects. Members of the various organizations affected by this legislation have no objection to the provision generally, but do object to the inclusion of a consul of any other Commonwealth country in the definition. They argue that many of these officials in various parts of the world would not be competent to make the decisions that a proper authority is called upon to make from time to time. They believe, therefore, that those words should be deleted. For instance, Ghana has been admitted to the Commonwealth. Surely no sensible member of the Parliament would believe that a representative of Ghana in some part of the world would be qualified to act as a proper authority and to exercise certain powers under this legislation.

I therefore propose this amendment. Despite the Minister’s statement that the Government does not propose to accept it, we put it forward in the belief that our submissions made on behalf of the organizations concerned will receive some consideration when these provisions are further reviewed, as no doubt they will be from time to time.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– With all respect to my honorable friend, I do not think that there is very much substance in this amendment. Now that Australian ships can, and do, travel all over the world, it is necessary to provide an authority in’ any part of the world who can exercise powers given by the legislation. It is untenable that there should be some place without a person qualified to exercise these powers. In a Commonwealth country, we provide that the authority shall be a person holding an office equivalent to that of superintendent of a port in Australia. In countries other than Commonwealth countries, we provide that the authority shall be the Australian diplomatic or consular representative, if there is one.

There are many places in the world, at which Australian ships may call, where Australia has no diplomatic or consular representation of her own, and where there may very well be no properly constituted port authority, according to the laws of the country concerned. On the other hand, such authority as exists there may have different powers from those that we in Commonwealth countries know. Its status may also be different. The best person to nominate in such a case appears, to the Government, to be the diplomatic or consular representative of another Commonwealth country. That is the provision that it is proposed to insert, and it is a completely sensible one.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN:

– If the honorable member for East Sydney proposes to move the third amendment that he has circulated, I suggest that he ask for leave to do so, since he has exhausted his right to speak to the clause.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- by leave - I move -

In sub-section (1.) of proposed section 6, at the end of the definition of “ wages “, insert “ of any kind “.

Naturally, some suspicion arises as to why the definition of “ wages “ in the act should no longer include emoluments of any kind. The Government may believe that the inclusion of the words “ of any kind “ in the act is not necessary, but the unions have to be convinced that adequate reason exists for those words to be struck out.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– The legal advice that the Government has on this amendment is that the present definition is full and complete and does not require any amendment. The most that the addition of the words suggested by the honorable member for East Sydney could do would be to give added emphasis. For the reason that the Government considers the inclusion of the words to be unnecessary, it does not accept the amendment.

In discussing the previous amendment I forgot to mention that the definition of “ port “ is a very old one. It comes from the existing act and has been in the act for many years. It is in the equivalent British act and is very well understood judicially and in practice. In such a case, it is better not to disturb a definition which has an accepted meaning in the industry.

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This is the first opportunity that I have had to express a point of view which I think the Government should consider. Here, we have a definition of the term “ wages “. The bill provides that “ wages “ includes emoluments. The committee has before it for discussion an act of Parliament that deals with the payment of wages, emoluments, and so on. When the Minister for Air spoke previously, he referred to the origins of the act, and traced them back to 1904. Then he dealt with its development throughout the years. In view of the history of the Navigation Act, I can appreciate the need to make provision regarding the payment of wages and emoluments, and matters of that kind, but for the life of me I cannot understand how we can ever expect to have a satisfactory state of affairs in relation to a large body of workers, whether they be seamen or any other workers, while three different authorities meddle with the question of wages and emoluments.

To-day, we have a special section of the Arbitration Court dealing with nothing else but matters affecting seamen. There is an authority which looks at other phases of the work of seamen. Despite that, in this year of 1958, we find ourselves meddling with an act of Parliament in regard to this question of wages and emoluments. I believe that this position is a relic of the dark days. At some stage or other the unions, the shipowners and the other people who are concerned with this act and with the long series of amendments that I have seen since I have been in this chamber, should examine the possibility of putting matters which relate to wages into their proper perspective and leaving them for adjudication by the authority which deals with that matter in other phases of our industrial life. I believe that matters affecting the payment of wages and overtime, how payments are to be made, and so on, ought to be under the control of one authority - the industrial authority. It seems to me that to have provision made for them under both the Navigation Act and the conciliation and arbitration legislation is not in the best interests of seamen. I put it to the Minister that that matter should be considered on the next occasion that there is a conference of the parties for the purpose of dealing with amendments of this act.

Quite frankly, I believe that the best way to get industrial satisfaction, apart altogether from industrial peace, in an industry, is to have all the matters that relate to wages brought within an award covered by one authority. I mention the matter now with a view to having the code of payments to seamen put into its proper perspective.

Mr JOSKE:
Balaclava

.- The short point here is simply the definition of “ wages “. The provision is that “ wages “ include emoluments, and the honorable member for East Sydney has moved an amendment to provide that emoluments should be emoluments of any kind. He ha9 stated that he has done so because he is afraid that, by limiting the meaning to include emoluments, something less than emoluments of any kind results and that, therefore, something is being taken away from the wage-earner. Actually, Sir, I can understand the view he puts, because the words “ emoluments of any kind “ seem to be words of extension, but in fact, as a matter of law, those words of extension are quite unnecessary if we have the word “ emoluments “, which means “ emoluments of any kind “. I should like, so far as I am able, to give the honorable member for East Sydney that assurance.

Amendment negatived.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- by leave - I move -

Omit paragaph (b) of proposed section 6b.

The proposed section refers to desertion. It reads -

For the purposes of this Act, a seaman or apprentice has deserted from his ship -

if he is absent from his ship for a continuous period exceeding forty-eight hours without leave, lawful cause or reasonable excuse.

In effect, the Labour party does not regard a seaman who is absent without leave for 48 hours, or more, necessarily as being a deserter from his ship. In our opinion, a deserter from a ship is covered by paragraph (a), which states that a seaman or apprentice has deserted from his ship - if he is absent from his ship with the intention of not returning to the ship. . . .

That, in my opinion, is an adequate definition of “ deserter “, and that was the definition that was in the act until 1952, when this new provision was inserted. A seaman may overstay his leave for various reasons. He might eventually return to his ship after the expiry of 49 hours, but in the terms of this provision, he would still be a deserter although he voluntarily returned to the ship on which he was employed.

Mr Duthie:

– He might have been sick.

Mr WARD:

– There might be many reasons for a man not returning to the ship. It may be that such factors as that would be taken into account when the penalty to be imposed was under consideration, but that does not alter the fact that the man is automatically branded a deserter if he is away from his ship wihout leave and without a reasonable excuse for more than 48 hours. Sickness may be regarded as a reasonable excuse, and be accepted as such, but for the purposes of this legislation, the mere fact that a man is away is sufficient ground for the imposition of a penalty. A man might not know when he left the ship that he would become ill and be unable to return to duty, but it would not matter what was the cause.

A seaman is in employment just as much as a man who works in a factory. It is quite usual for factory workers or others to absent themselves from work from time to time. They lose their pay and they are penalized to that extent, but in this case, severe penalties are provided for desertion. Fines up to £40 can be imposed. I agree that a different attitude might be taken to absence from a ship without leave when the vessel was in a foreign port because there could be some difficulty in obtaining a replacement, but that difficulty would not exist in Australia. When a ship is in an Australian port or is operating around the Australian coast, it is easy to replace a man who is absent from his place of employment at the time the ship has to sail.

The Opposition regards this provision as most objectionable. That is the attitude of the maritime unions and not merely those who would be affected in most cases. When I refer to the maritime unions on this occasion, I am talking of representatives of the officers and representatives of other crew members down to what might be regarded as the lower deck. When representatives of those organizations interviewed me and what we term the Industrial Committee of the Australian Labour party, they were unanimously of the opinion that this provision was objectionable and should be struck out of the bill.

If the objective of the Government is the maintenance of peace in industry generally, but particularly in an important industry such as the maritime industry, it should meet the wishes of the organizations concerned who are unanimous on this point. The Minister said that the Government had decided these matters - I take it that he meant that the Cabinet had decided them - but I hope that there are some backbenchers on the Government side who will adopt a reasonable attitude to the request for an amendment of this provision.

What harm would my amendment do? It may be said that shipping is in a different position from other industries because if the complement of men is not available for duty when called upon to serve, a vessel may be tied up. That cannot happen in an Australian port. Who would suggest that so many men would be absent without leave from a vessel at any one time as to cause it to be tied up? In particular cases, probably only one or two members of the crew would be concerned. The provision is unreasonable and I hope that it will be rejected.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– This provision is not new. It has been in the Navigation Act since 1952. It was inserted in the principal act for a very good reason. The section to which the amendment applies sets out what constitutes desertion from a ship. The provision in the bill states -

For the purposes of this Act, a seaman or apprentice has deserted from his ship -

if he is absent from his ship with the intention of not returning to the ship;

It is very difficult sometimes to establish intention. The tactic that was adopted in the past sometimes by a seaman who intended to desert was to leave some part of his clothing behind as an indication that he intended to return. To meet that difficulty, provision was made in the act in 1952 that he should also be deemed to have deserted from his ship if he was absent from it for a continuous period exceeding 48 hours without leave, lawful cause or reasonable excuse. I emphasize the words “ without reasonable excuse”. If a seaman is absent from his ship through sickness or some unavoidable cause for more than 48 hours, and the master will not listen to a reasonable explanation and treats him as a deserter, the man has ample remedies in the terms of the act to have the record altered. The provision is not harsh and there is no evidence that it has operated harshly in any case during the six years that it has been in operation.

Mr O’CONNOR:
Dalley

.- I should like the Minister to tell me whether the penalties that are proposed will apply only to seamen and not to officers. The proposed section under discussion relating to desertion sets out the penalties that may be imposed on a seaman or apprentice who has deserted from his ship. The following definition of a seaman is given in proposed section 6 (1.): - seaman ‘ means a person employed or engaged in any capacity on board a ship on the business of the ship, other than -

the master of the ship;
a pilot;
an apprentice; or
a person temporarily employed on the ship in port;

The definition of “ officer “ is as follows: - officer ‘ means the master, a mate or an engineer of a ship;

As the bill proposes to inflict penalties upon seamen for desertion, and as there is no reference in that connexion to officers, it is obligatory on the Minister to give the committee some explanation.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- by leave - The Minister’s explanation was very unconvincing. He referred to proposed section 6a, which provides that a seaman or apprentice has deserted from his ship -

if he is absent from his ship with the intention of not returning to the ship;

The Minister said that sometimes it was difficult to prove intention and that, in the past, seamen have on occasion left clothing behind and used that as an indication that they intended to return to the ship. I have not heard of such a case. The Minister may have some evidence of that practice. He said that proposed section 6b (b) was essential to cover such cases. If paragraph (b) is necessary, it is quite obvious that paragraph (a) is not essential. Why does the Government persist with both of them? The cases to which the Minister referred would be covered by paragraph (b) which provides that a man is a deserter if he is absent from his ship for a continuous period exceeding 48 hours without leave, lawful cause or reasonable excuse. The Minister’s explanation may appear to be feasible at first glance, but I believe it is merely , an excuse which has been thought out in the department as an answer to the Opposition’s amendment.

The Minister said that this section of the act had worked effectively since 1952 and that there had not been any complaint. To whom would the men complain? The unions say that they have had any number of complaints regarding the operation of this section, but because this provision is in the legislation, the unions have not been able to do anything about the matter. That is the reason why the complaints have not gone beyond that stage. Now, at the first available opportunity, when the legislation is before the Parliament for consideration, the various maritime unions bring their complaints to the notice of the Parliament in the hope that this provision will be struck out.

If the Minister for Shipping and Transport wants to satisfy himself that there is ground for complaint in respect of this clause, and that the opposition to it in the maritime unions is widespread, the way to find out is to confer with the maritime unions.

Representatives of the unions wanted to come to Canberra. They had arranged to come here and see the Minister on a Monday. The Minister cancelled that arrangement at short notice and made the appointment for the Tuesday, on which day some representatives could not come because they had to appear in court. They arrived here on the Wednesday, but the Minister refused to see them. Is that the way to get industrial peace? Why did the representatives of the maritime unions want to interview him unless it was to make complaints in regard to the bill and request that certain changes be made?

I assure the Minister that the representatives of these various organizations, who interviewed me and other Labour members, were unanimous in their attitude. I shall give the Minister their names, so that they may go on record. They were Mr. Rogers, of the Merchant Service Guild of Australia; Mr. Barnwell, of the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers; Mr. McGowan, of the Professional Radio Employees Institute of Australasia; Mr. McDonald, of the Federated Marine Stewards and Pantrymen’s Association of Australia; Mr. Tudehope, of the Marine Cooks, Bakers and Butchers Association of Australia; and Mr. Elliott, of the Seamen’s Union of Australia.

All of the maritime industry was covered, and every organization from that of the masters down was represented. They all agreed that this provision should be struck out. Yet the Minister stupidly states that no objection has been taken to it in the years since 1952. There has been any number of objections. The Opposition sug gests that it has led to a great deal of disturbance in the industry.

The Government has refused even to consider the arguments advanced for the deletion of the provision. The Minister for Air has said, in effect, “ We have made our decision. It is of no use for the Opposition to propose amendments and debate the matter. We have made up our minds “. I should imagine that the maritime unions will take a most serious view of the Government’s attitude in relation to this matter. The Government would not even see their representatives and will not listen to the arguments submitted by the Opposition on their behalf. The Government rejected the amendment even before the arguments were devloped in this chamber.

That could lead to a very serious position in the maritime industry. I believe that if the organizations concerned take a serious view, they will be quite justified in their attitude. If industrial unrest leads to a stoppage in any part of the Australian mercantile marine, as a result of the Government’s attitude, in my opinion the men will be justified. I and, I believe, my colleagues, will support them in whatever attitude they adopt.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– The Opposition does less than justice to the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) in suggesting that he refused to confer. There have been long conferences over long periods with both sides of the industry. The honorable member referred to incidents in relation to a conference failing to take place on a particular Monday or Tuesday. He has not stated the whole facts.

Mr Ward:

– What are they?

Mr OSBORNE:

– If he wants to know them, he can look them up in the “ Hansard “ record of the debate in the Senate. I do not propose to take up the time of the committee in relating them, because the matter was dealt with at length in the Senate. The facts show that the circumstances were very much more creditable to the Minister for Shipping and Transport and less creditable to the people mentioned by the honorable member for East Sydney than he would have us believe.

The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. O’Connor) asked whether the provisions in relation to desertion apply to officers as well as to seamen. I understand that the penalties for desertion, with which I think the honorable member was concerned, are applicable to officers as well as to seamen. The honorable member for East Sydney questioned the necessity for proposed section 6b (a). Since 1952 there has been in the act a provision relating to absence for more than 48 hours. I should have thought the need for the new provision is clear to anybody who reads it. If a seaman leaves his ship, using words which indicate quite clearly that he has no intention of coming back, he can be treated as a deserter forthwith without waiting for 48 hours. As I explained before, it is necessary to have some means of putting a limit to the time which must run before a man can be deemed to be a deserter. Paragraph (b) is designed to cover circumstances in which there is no clear evidence of his intention.

The honorable member for East Sydney discussed this matter as if it were directed as a penalty against seamen. That is not so. There are provisions which make it impossible for a master to sign on in a crew a substitute for a man who has deserted, unless desertion can be established. If a man is legally absent, a substitute cannot be signed on. Until it is established within the law that a man is a deserter, a substitute for him cannot be signed on. It is quite incorrect to suggest that a ship cannot be held up in the absence of provisions such as this. The necessity for such provisions has been established. They are reasonable provisions. There is no evidence that the existing provision has operated harshly in the six years that it has been in operation.

Question put -

That the paragraph proposed to be omitted (Mr. Ward’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 55

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 35

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- by leave - I move -

In proposed section 6d, after “ way “ insert “by its own engines”.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that there will be no attempt to take a vessel to sea in the event of an industrial dispute arising involving any section of the ship’s personnel. The union representatives contend that unless these words are added a vessel could be towed into the stream and then be regarded as under way. This would mean that the remainder of the crew would be subject to direction. Because all the maritime unions are determined that there shall be no strike-breaking by any of their members when the members of one union are involved in a dispute, they consider that the addition of these words is absolutely essential. As honorable members are aware, proposed section 6d, which my amendment seeks to alter, reads -

For the purposes of this Act, a ship shall be deemed to have been taken or sent to sea, or to have gone or proceeded to sea, if the ship has been got under way for the purpose of . . .

A ship might be deemed to have “ got under way “ if it were towed into the stream, and then the remainder of the personnel would be subject to direction and order. The unions consider that if engine room personnel are involved in a dispute, a ship should not be moved from the wharf, except by its own engines. The union regards this as an important amendment, and so do the members of the Labour party. We consider that the request of the union is reasonable, and we therefore submit the amendment.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– I am greatly indebted to the honorable member for giving me an explanation of the purpose of his amendment, because I confess that until now it had completely puzzled me. I think the honorable member is mistaken in his idea of the effect of the proposed section. If the honorable member’s amendment were accepted it would have a most extraordinary effect. Let me give honorable members an example. There are provisions in this act which prevent a ship being taken to sea without the requisite complement. If the honorable member’s amendment were accepted, a ship could be towed to sea without any complement at all and without being subject to the provisions of the act. The authorities responsible for seeing that a ship does not go to sea without a proper complement and without being properly prepared for sea would be absolutely impotent to deal with the position until the vessel got to sea, when it would be too late. The effect of the amendment would be the very reverse of what the honorable member for East Sydney envisages. I shall give another example. Under section 197 of the act a ship is not allowed to proceed to sea without proper certificates of survey. If the honorable member’s amendment were accepted, it would be competent for a person who wished to take a ship abroad, to have it towed abroad, without any certificates of survey at all. I think the honorable member is completely mistaken as to the effect of the proposed section. Certainly it would be dangerous to accept his amendment - dangerous to the seamen themselves - and the Government cannot accept it.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- by leave - Despite what the Minister for Air has said in reply to the remarks I made in support of the amendment, I prefer to accept the opinion of the men engaged in the industry rather than that of the Minister. These men are the ones who are best able to judge whether the amendment is necessary. They are not inexperienced in the handling of these matters, as I think I indicated at an earlier stage of our committee deliberations. The men who submitted these matters for the consideration of the Labour party, which in turn has submitted them for the consideration of the Parliament, are all responsible members of their organizations. They know what is involved in the amendment that is proposed. I am prepared, as I say, to accept their word as to the necessity for this amendment. They regard it as necessary for their protection. The Minister seems to think that there is some protection in the manning provisions of the legislation against the kind of eventualities to which I have directed attention. I hope to be able to show when we come to a consideration of those manning sections that this protection does not exist, and that the men are quite justified in believing that the proposed legislation gives the shipowners or employers an advantage, in the event of a dispute occurring aboard a ship, in that they will be able to get the ship under way, and the seamen will then be under some restraint.

Mr Osborne:

– That might be the effect if the honorable member’s amendment were accepted.

Mr WARD:

– The amendment would not mean that at all. If it were necessary for the ship to move by its own engines, the engine-room personnel would have to shift the vessel from the wharfside.

Mr Osborne:

– It could be towed away, without being subject to the provisions of the act.

Mr WARD:

– It could be towed away without this amendment being accepted. However, the Minister says that it could not. If that is a fact, the Government should concede the amendment, because it would constitute an assurance to the men. The Minister contends that the vessel cannot now be towed away from the wharf with the proposed section worded in the way it appears in the bill. The men are of opinion that the vessel can be towed away. In my opinion the amendment is justifiable even if it merely has the effect of reassuring the men in the industry. Surely it is the aim of the Government - at least members of the Government say it is - to perserve peace in this important maritime industry, and in my opinion the Government should not lightly set aside the wishes of the employees’ organizations in these matters. The Minister contends that my amendment does not mean anything at all. It means something to the men engaged in the industry, and I ask the committee to accept it.

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

– The Minister spoke of other sections of the act which would be affected if this amendment were accepted. Will he give examples of those sections? The honorable member for . East Sydney, if I understood him correctly, suggested that a ship might be statutorily deemed to have been taken to sea if in fact it had merely been pushed along by a tug or some other propulsive force. It is difficult for honorable members to appreciate the relevance of this amendment unless the Minister gives examples of the other provisions that may be affected by it. The honorable member for East Sydney may well be shown to be right if we postpone a decision on this amendment until after we have discussed other subsequent provisions that may be affected by the proposed amendment.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– I have given one example. I will give another for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt). Under section 14 of the act it is an offence for the owner of a ship to suffer the ship to go to sea unless it carries the prescribed complement of officers. A ship is said to have gone to sea, according to the definition in question, even if she has been towed to sea or towed away from a wharf. If the amendment of the honorable member for East Sydney were accepted, the vessel could be towed away without any complement of officers at all. Again, section 197 of the act requires that a ship must have proper certificates of survey before she can be got under way. If the honorable mem ber’s amendment were accepted a vessel could be towed away, or towed to sea as vessels sold abroad often are, without any certificates of survey, without a complete complement and without a sufficient number of officers. This amendment, instead of working to the advantage of mariners, as the honorable member for East Sydney apparently fondly believes, could work greatly to their detriment. I think the amendment is completely misconceived.

Dr Evatt:

– To what section of the act is the Minister referring?

Mr OSBORNE:

– Section 14, which this clause amends. Under that section it is an offence for the owner of a ship to allow the ship to go to sea without a full complement. Under section 197 she must have a certificate of survey. For those reasons the Government rejects the amendment. I think that if the honorable member understood the purport of the amendment he would reject it also.

Question put -

That the amendment (Mr. Ward’s) be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 16

NOES: 50

Majority . . . . 34

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 11 - by leave - considered together.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- The Opposition would like an explanation of clause 9. Proposed section 9 (1.) reads -

The Minister may, by instrument in writing, delegate, either generally or otherwise as provided in the instrument of delegation . . .

To whom is the power to be delegated by the Minister? Why does not the provision specify the persons to whom authority can be delegated? Unless this is done the way could be left open for a Minister, if he wished, to delegate his authority to a junior or minor official. In view of the enormous powers over the men and their conditions of employment, we consider that the delegation ought to be limited and that the people to whom the power can be delegated should be described in the measure so as to put beyond all doubt who are the persons who can exercise these great powers.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– Powers will be delegated to proper and appropriate persons, as they are now by Ministers under dozens of Commonwealth acts. The existing act had a limitation of powers of delegation to particular places or ports in Australia but there is no necessity to continue that geographical limitation further. Apart from that, there has been no substantial alteration in the rewriting of this proposed section.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 12 -

Sections fourteen, fourteen a and fifteen of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead: - “ 14.- (1.) Subject to sub-section (90 of this section - “ (7.) Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, if-

a ship is at a port and the number of officers of a particular description required to be carried on the ship by virtue of sub-section (1.) of this section has not been obtained; and

a Deputy Director, or a proper authority at the port, is satisfied that the owner or master of the ship has made all reasonable efforts to obtain that number of officers of that description, including, if the port is in Australia, the seeking of the assistance of the organization of employees of which officers of that description are members, the Deputy Director or the proper authority, as the case may be, may, by writing under his hand, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, consent to the master taking the ship to sea from the port without the officer or officers of that description not obtained. “(8.) Where the number of duly certificated officers required to be carried on a ship by virtue of sub-section (1.) of this section has not been obtained, a Deputy Director or a proper authority at a port shall not give his consent under the last preceding sub-section to the taking of the ship to sea unless he is satisfied that the officers who will be carried on the ship are able to perform all the duties of the duly certificated officers who, but for the consent, would be required to be carried on the ship. “ (9.) If a Deputy Director or a proper authority at a port gives his consent under sub-section (7.) of this section to the master of a ship taking the ship to sea from a port without an officer or officers of a particular description and the master complies with the conditions, if any, subject to which the consent is given -

the owner of the ship may suffer the ship to go to sea from that port; and

the master may take the ship to sea, and may lawfully command the officers and crew of the ship to take the ship to sea, from that port, notwithstanding that the ship does not carry that officer or those officers of that description. “ 14a.- (1.) If-

the number of officers of a particular description ordinarily carried on a ship registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting trade is greater than the number of officers of that description required to be carried on the ship by virtue of sub-section (1.) of the last preceding section;

the number of officers of that description ordinarily carried on the ship has not been obtained; and

an officer or other member of the crew of the ship lodges with the master of the ship an objection in writing to the ship being taken to sea from a port specified in the objection with less than the number of officers of that description ordinarily carried on the ship, then, notwithstanding that the prescribed complement of officers for the ship is carried on the ship, the master shall not take the ship to sea from the port unless -

A Deputy Director or a proper authority at the port, by writing under his hand. consents to the master taking the ship or sea from the port without the officer or officers of that description not obtained; and

the master, as soon as practicable after receiving the consent, posts up the consent, or a copy of the consent, in a prominent place on the ship, being a place to which all officers and other members of the crew of the ship have access, and keeps it so posted up until the ship is taken to sea. “ (2.) A Deputy Director or proper authority shall not give his consent under the last preceding sub-section to the master of a ship taking the ship to sea from a port unless the Deputy Director or proper authority is satisfied that the owner or master of the ship has made all reasonable efforts to obtain the number of officers of the particular description ordinarily carried on the ship, including, if the port is in Australia, the seeking of the assistance of the organization of employees of which officers of that description are members.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I move -

Omit sub-section (7.) of proposed section 14.

I remind the committee that when the Minister for Air was discussing an earlier provision he referred to the fact that a ship could not be taken to sea unless it had its full complement of officers.

Mr Osborne:

– I said “ proper “ complement.

Mr WARD:

– The Minister said “ full “ complement. If he checks the “ Hansard “ report of his remarks he will find that it shows conclusively that he has not made a close study of this legislation. When I was speaking to an earlier amendment, the Minister argued that a ship could not sail unless it had a full complement of officers. We now ask that this sub-clause be deleted, and if the Minister were consistent he would accept our amendment because, under this sub-clause, it is possible for a ship to sail with a certain number of officers but not necessarily with the full complement.

The officers’ association strongly opposes sending a ship to sea undermanned. If the proper authority goes into the matter, as I understand it does, and decides that a proper complement of officers and a proper complement of other sections of the crew shall be so many, then we consider that the number decided upon by that authority should be the irreducible minimum. It is the opinion of the officers’ organization that a ship should not go to sea with fewer than that number, and apparently the Minis ter also held the belief that a ship must have its full complement before going to sea. It is not until we come to a consideration of this sub-clause that the Minister holds the view that a vessel can be taken to sea with fewer than the full complement of officers.

This is a matter concerning the proper running of a vessel and the safety and security of those who travel in it. The officers’ organization considers that in the interests of safety no ship should be allowed to go to sea without a full complement of officers. I hope that in this instance the Minister will be at least consistent and apply the principle which hitherto he believed did apply and accept our suggestion that a vessel must have its full complement of officers before going to sea.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– If, when dealing with an earlier provision, I said that a ship could not sail without its full complement, and if that misled the honorable member for East Sydney, I regret it. What I should have said was that it cannot sail with less than its authorized complement. I should have said “authorized”, not “full”.

Under this sub-clause, in all cases where the superintendent or proper authority considers it proper, permission may be given for a ship to sail with less than its full complement of officers. This is a necessary and sensible provision. The need for it can occur in these circumstances: Honorable members no doubt know that often engineer officers and uncertificated junior officers are carried. In some cases capable people may be fulfilling junior positions in a ship and if, in the opinion of the superintendent or the proper authority, those persons are capable of carrying out the duties of one of the essential members of the complement for a particular voyage, then, in those circumstances, he allows the ship to go to sea. The provision will have all the safeguards of being dependent upon the decision of the superintendent or proper authority. It is a perfectly sensible provision, and the Government rejects the amendment.

I should tell the committee that an amendment similar to this was submitted to the Senate, that it was fully debated there and that the Government’s position was explained fully.

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

– What sort of confused argument is this? First, something is put up in the Senate and it is rejected by the Senate partly because the matter will be coming to this House for consideration, and then, when it does come before us for consideration, the Minister, who represents the same interest as the Government party in the Senate, refuses to look at it at all because the Senate has dealt with it. Therefore, we are deprived of consideration in both Houses of the Parliament. That is an absurd proposition. Am I to take it from what the Minister has said - it seems that I am - that there is a definite lessening of the fixed safety factor so far as the complement of the crew is concerned? What authority is there for the lessening of that requirement? Who says that this should be the provision? Why is the law being amended? It must be because the Government wishes to reduce the requirement.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

.- I join with honorable members on this side in supporting the amendment, and I do not feel that the reasons given by the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) and the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) a few moments ago warrant the flippant answer from the Minister that the Senate has debated the point fully and rejected a similar amendment. Because it has been rejected by the Senate is no solid argument why it should be rejected here. We know that members of the same government deliberate and make decisions in that chamber.

Who is to be the proper authority to decide the proper complement to take a ship to sea? Will it be a member of the Australian Country party, or somebody just as incompetent, or will the authority be thoroughly competent? We on this side know that the present Government often appoints people who know nothing about the duties they are expected to carry out. Are we to have this matter decided by a collection of individuals who do not know what is required to take a ship to sea safely? Just as it is essential that a football team should go into a match with the full number allowed by the rules, so is it essential that a ship should go to sea with its full complement of officers. Again, in rowing it is essential that the full crew take part in a race even though it is possible that some “ proper authority “ would allow a crew of seven instead of eight to take part.

This provision is fraught with danger to the men who take ships to sea. Every ship must have its full complement of officers. The handling of a ship is a most responsible task. Every member of the crew must play his part if the ship is to reach its destination with safety to its crew and with its cargo intact. The maritime unions object to giving to any authority the right to say that a ship may sail without its full complement. It is a dangerous provision. Honorable members on the Government side should consider this matter very seriously indeed, because it is possible that cargoes owned by some of their very wealthy supporters may be seriously endangered if a ship goes to sea without its full complement. One can just imagine what would happen if a ship went on the rocks or sank because its crew was under strength. In those circumstances what may be the property of David Jones Limited might go to Davey Jones’s locker! All these matters must be considered very carefully.

I realize that cargoes and property may be fully insured, but we must not lose sight of the fact that every care must be taken to ensure the safety of the members of the crew. There could be serious accident, or people could lose their lives simply because a ship went to sea undermanned. For those reasons, the Opposition says that it is essential that a ship be fully manned. Although the Minister in charge of the bill is Minister for Air, I understand that he was once a seaman. I ask him whether a submarine, for instance, could be taken safely to sea without a full complement even though the captain were willing to allow it to put to sea. Would the Minister himself allow a submarine to be taken to sea with fewer than the number of men he knew was necessary to carry out the work with safety?

Why does not the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Howse) support this clause? He knows only too well that it cannot be supported with justification for he agrees that any one who knows anything about ships, the sea or sailing, knows that no ship can be taken to sea safely without its full complement of men. I repeat that the maritime unions object to the measure. We on this side of the chamber know that the measure has been introduced without any consultation with those who know anything about shipping. Honorable members opposite also know that to be a fact. I am confident that they also realize that this provision will revolutionize the operations of the act, if I may use that term, to the detriment of the members of the maritime unions.

The measure was introduced in a twelveminute speech, and to-night, the Minister, when endeavouring to explain why he rejects the Opposition’s proposed amendment, made the surprising statement that as a similar amendment was debated in the Senate the honorable member for East Sydney and the Leader of the Opposition are not entitled to any answer here. What is the true reason for the Government’s proposal? It cannot be argued that because of shortage of man-power it is necessary that ships be allowed to go to sea with fewer than a full complement, thus endangering the lives of those who go to sea in them. Nor can it be said that the provision is essential in order to save money. I join with members on this side of the chamber in strongly criticizing the provision under discussion, and I support the proposal for its deletion.

Honorable members opposite should explain, fully and clearly, why they are not prepared to insist that all ships shall be manned by competent personnel, in adequate numbers. I am not interested in what Country party members, who are interjecting, say about the sea. They are, so to speak, more at sea on that subject than on any other. It is significant that members of the Country party sit here, interjecting or yabbering, as the case may be, but rarely, on an issue such as this, in which the lives of men are involved, do they make a practical contribution to the debate.

As I have said, I support the amendment that has been proposed. I hope that the Minister will give a more adequate explanation of the Government’s attitude to this amendment than the explanation that he gave a few minutes ago of its attitude to another amendment. I hope that he will give at least an indication that the Government thought of the things that the Opposition has mentioned, and that he will not flippantly dismiss the amendment as having been discussed in another place.

Mr JOSKE:
Balaclava

.- This provision is somewhat, but not greatly, different from a provision which is already in. the act and which has been utilized for many years on the Australian coast. I refer the committee to sub-section (8.) of section 43 of the act. That sub-section specifically authorizes the taking of a ship to sea with not less than four-fifths of the engine-room staff, and four-fifths of the deck complement. That is not exactly the provision contained in sub-section (7.) of proposed section 14, but it is near enough to it. There is really nothing very new in what isbeing proposed. There is no reason why the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly) or other members should become excited about a practice that has been applied satisfactorily around the coast of Australia for many years.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– The Merchant Service Guild of Australasia, which is the organization of ships’ officers serving on the Australian coast, is as responsible a body, and a body as careful in its utterances, as any other of which I know in Australia. Notwithstanding the point made by the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Joske), this organization has indicated, as the member for East Sydney said, its opposition to this provision.

I think that there has been indifference on the part of the Government to the subject of safety at sea. I have had a long correspondence with the responsible Minister about the kind of rafts carried on ships, and about automatically inflatable rafts which can be used in circumstances when boats cannot be lowered, such as when a ship is capsizing. While that correspondence was going on, a ship was lost outside Sydney. Most of the crew were drowned because the boats could not be lowered.

Lloyd’s of London are still paying out each year on 200 ships of over 500 tons which are lost at sea. They are quite big ships. In spite of the technical advances in shipping, we have not reached the stage that shipwrecks or losses of ships at sea are not common. The Merchant Service Guild feels that it is important that a ship should have its full complement of officers to take the watches and to act in a crisis, and that there should be greater safeguards than there are in the measure. I am prepared to take notice of the members of that guild. They are men with great experience of operating ships on the Australian coast. I feel that we are entitled to a better explanation on this matter than we have been given.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

-I support the amendment moved by the honorable member for East Sydney. I think that we on this side are more concerned about this amendment than about any of the other amendments. This provision gives permission for a port authority to allow a ship to sail -from any of the harbours on our coastline, in any weather, at any time of the year, with a full cargo or otherwise, although not fully manned. Sub-section (7.) of proposed section 14 states, among other things - the Deputy Director or the proper authority, as the case may be, may, by writing under his hand, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, consent to the master taking the ship to sea from the port without the officer or officers of that description not obtained.

There is a reference to “ officers “ - in the plural. If there were just one officer less, the position might not be quite so serious, but the provision gives permission for the proper authority to allow a ship to go out with more than one officer short. We are getting into dangerous waters indeed.

The honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Joske) referred to a provision in the act making it permissible for a ship to sail with four-fifths of its crew. I wonder whether authority would be given for an aircraft to take off from any aerodrome in Australia with only four-fifths of its crew aboard.

Mr Daly:

– Or without a pilot.

Mr DUTHIE:

– They certainly would not let an aircraft take off without a captain or a first officer. Probably they would not even let it take off without an air hostess. Having travelled many thousands of miles in aircraft with air hostesses, I can understand why the authorities would not want an aircraft to take off without an air hostess.

The position is more serious for ships, which have rougher passages than aircraft. Modern aircraft can get above storms or fly around them. The men who man the ships which sail in the race from Sydney to Hobart every year would never think of leaving Sydney with one member of the crew short for the journey of 620 miles to Hobart. Why should the owners of ships be singled out for exemption from a requirement to have a full crew? Such an exemption would not be given in any other field of transportation.

I cannot understand why the Minister for Air is not prepared to accept this amendment, despite what happened in another chamber. We have to rectify many of the things that are done by members in another place. I believe that this is one of the things that we should rectify. I believe that we should put this provision back on a proper footing. The Minister has no argument other than that this provision has already gone through the other House. The members there said “ Yea “ or “ Nay “ to it, and he says that we must do the same. That makes him a perfect rubber stamp for the Minister in the other place. Why should we act as a rubber stamp and just carry out the wishes of a gentleman in the other House? We are wasting our time and the Parliament’s time. All of us would like to be home now, but we have been kept here, just to have the Minister for Air tell us what another Minister has said in another place.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member will deal with the clause before the committee. Never mind about the Minister.

Mr DUTHIE:

– Ships vary considerably in size. This provision will enable small or large ships to go to sea with one or more officers short. We have every right to protest against the Minister’s refusal to accept the Opposition amendment, on the basis of the safety of the crew, the safety of the cargo and the safety of the vessel, which may be worth anything up to £500,000.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– I always listen with respect to the views of the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley), and were he still in the chamber I should give him an answer which I believe would satisfy him. He suggested to the committee that if this clause were passed the safety of ships would be endangered because they would be able to sail without the requisite complement of officers. But complements of officers are not fixed with regard to safety alone; they are fixed, among other purposes, to provide an adequate number of officers to work the ship on long voyages with reasonable ease, so that no single officer may be called upon to work unduly hard or for long hours.

This clause does hot suggest that every ship will sail on every voyage with less than the required complement of officers. However, it is undesirable, in everybody’s interest, that a ship should be delayed on, say, a short journey. Take the case of a ship plying along the Australian coast and due to sail from Newcastle for its home port of Sydney - a voyage of only some hours. If the ship is one officer short, is it desirable that the vessel should be delayed at Newcastle while a junior officer is obtained to bring the complement up to the authorized figure? This clause enables the proper authority, the superintendent, when -satisfied about the circumstances, to -authorize the sailing of the ship with less than the required complement. The clause is perfectly reasonable.

The arguments of other honorable members opposite seem to be based on the assumption that this legislation is new. It is not. A similar power was included in the 1952 act. This is a complicated measure but, as I understand it, the only difference between the 1952 act and the -bill on this issue is that the 1952 act -required that, before the proper authority could exercise his discretion and allow the ship to sail with less than the authorized complement, he had to satisfy himself that the master had made every effort, through “the local branch of the union, to obtain a replacement. That provision still applies to ships plying along the Australian coast, but has been deleted in relation to Australian ships when in foreign ports for the obvious reason that in a foreign port the union cannot be consulted.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- The Minister himself furnishes the strongest argument for the Government’s acceptance -of the Opposition’s amendment. We are not arguing that the provisions of the proposed section are any different from those contained in the 1952 act; we object to the provisions in the 1952 act. The honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Joske) implies that if sub-section 7 is deleted we will restore the 1952 position, but that is not so, because clause 12 repeals existing section 14 entirely. We could see to it that the new section 14 was inserted without sub-section 7.

The Minister said that the fixing of a complement for a ship is not based purely on safety considerations. Let us accept the Minister’s argument. He said that one of the reasons for the fixing of a certain complement was to ensure that sufficient officers were aboard to avoid an officer being obliged to work unduly long hours. What could endanger a ship more than the undue fatigue of an officer? What could be worse than an officer being on duty when he ought to be resting. Under-manning could place the safety of a ship in jeopardy. That is the opinion of the organization to which the honorable member for Fremantle referred, the Merchant Service Guild of Australasia.

If some request comes forward from the seamen’s union, this Parliament usually adopts the attitude, “ That is a Communistdominated union, and therefore we must not consider what it puts forward “. But here is a request from the Merchant Service Guild, supported by every maritime organization.

The Minister said that adequate safeguards were provided. Let us examine the safeguards. If the proper authority was a man who was competent to judge the situation and whose ability was recognized, there might not be any great danger, but the bill refers to the deputy director or the proper authority. Who is the proper authority? In a port the proper authority could be a customs officer. What would a customs officer know about the proper manning of a ship? Would he know the position better than the man in charge of the ship, the officers employed on the ship, and the men who sail the ship? Of course not! They are the men to judge whether the proper safeguards are provided.

The Opposition, and the maritime organizations, regard this matter most seriously. The provisions we are now considering relate only to officers, but later we shall be discussing other provisions relating to crew members. Surely, when the complement of a ship is being determined, the matter is investigated very thoroughly. The complement having been fixed - a figure which I would regard as the minimum with which the ship could sail - why, under any consideration, should the ship sail with a smaller complement of officers?

The Minister implied that if a ship’s complement was short by one junior officer at some Australian port, the ship would be tied up and unable to make even a short journey to its home port. Nothing of the kind! The union is able always to supply replacements of that character and no difficulty would be experienced in obtaining a full complement.

Should an occasion arise on which a ship’s master was unable to obtain a replacement for a junior officer, surely the reasonable attitude would be for the officers to take the ship to sea if only a short journey along the Australian coast was involved; but the person to judge whether the ship should sail, surely, should not be perhaps a customs officer at a port who may be designated as a proper authority - a man who may never have been to sea and would not know what is involved in the handling of a ship. If there is to be a workable arrangement in operation along the Australian coast, there should not be any obligation under the act to take the ship to sea under certain conditions. The only occasion on which a ship carrying less than the full complement should be taken to sea is when there is agreement between the owners and the representatives of the maritime unions. If they agreed that it was reasonable to send a ship to sea under certain conditions, I would respect their decision. But I believe that the men best able to judge the position are those who have brought the case to this Parliament - the members of maritime unions. I prefer to accept their opinion rather than the opinion of the Government, the Minister or any of the alleged experts advising him. No man can be more efficient than the men who sail the ships along the coast and across the seas.

It is unreasonable to suggest that this provision should remain in the act. It is a contradiction of the principle that a ship must have a full complement. The maritime unions have been fighting for this principle for a number of years, and they will continue to fight until they succeed.

Mr HOWSE:
Calare

.- There is nothing new in the proposal now before us. From what has been said by honorable members opposite one could gain the impression that the proposal has been brought before the House untried and, therefore, should be rejected. What is the truth of the matter? Who is the proper port authority? Let us suppose the authority happens to be a customs official. He is a man with a reputation at stake. He is the senior representative of the Navigation Branch, a man with great personal knowledge of the sea and a man of great experience in these matters. How many times has the situation arisen in the past in which a ship has put to sea with less than a full complement of officers and crew? There may be half a dozen occasions in one year. Yet this matter has assumed gigantic proportions. There has never been an accident at sea that has been attributable to a ship sailing with short complement. That surely is the proof that there is no danger in this. A ship with a short complement would sail only on a short voyage. Instances would occur only in cases of emergency, such as the sickness of an officer, when the recognized port authority used his common sense to see that the ship went to sea and completed its voyage. Is it necessary to hold up shipping in this country because the crew is one man short?

Mr Howson:

– During war-time ships go to sea with much shorter than the normal complements.

Mr HOWSE:

– They do, and if the Opposition’s wishes on the matter were given effect to in war-time, very few ships would put to sea. This is just a matter of common, practical horse-sense, where the recognized port authority allows a ship to go to sea on a short voyage in order to complete its journey, there being no danger to any other ship or to the personnel of the particular ship that is short of its full complement.

Mr L R JOHNSON:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The longer the debate on this bill continues the clearer it becomes that the Government has no answer to the Opposition’s attitude to the bill. It is clear that the unions concerned have not been adequately consulted on these matters. In the opinion of the Government, nothing but its own view matters. Men of the same kind as those who constitute the Government opposed the introduction of the Plimsoll line. The Government places emphasis on profit rather than on working conditions and safety considerations for the crew. The Opposition places a premium on things other than profits. The.

– They last saw this act in

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– That is not so. If the honorable member wants chapter and verse I shall get them for him; my understanding is that a combined union group went through this bill clause by clause.

The clause now being debated is in substantially the same form as that examined by the unions. I have no doubt that the maritime unions involved in this matter have made their views known, not only to the Minister and his department - and they were given every opportunity to do so-

Mr Ward:

– He would not see them.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– The Minister invited written representations from the unions. They have been received and considered. I acknowledge quite freely that the honorable member has given a good deal of personal attention to this matter. I know that in addition to whatever examination has been made in the Senate, he personally has been through the bill clause by clause. That is perhaps the reason why additional amendments are being moved here.

Any charge that this bill has been treated lightly by the Government and has not received the most thorough departmental, ministerial and parliamentary examination on the Government’s part is entirely false. It is quite obvious, from the detailed disdiscussion that occurred in the Senate, and the even more detailed analysis of the clauses of the bill that has been made by the honorable member for East Sydney in this chamber, that this measure has had thorough examination in this chamber, both in the House and in the committee.

The Opposition is entitled, of course, to press its point of view, and, finally, a decision must be made by this committee and by the Parliament as a whole. But let nobody lay against Government supporters in this Parliament a charge that they are in some way violating vital industrial principles. If that were even suggested, Mr.

Chairman, I should find it difficult to believe that the fighting Labour Opposition could muster no more than sixteen votes in its resistance to this measure.

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

.- -It was not my intention to speak on this clause until the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt) made his contribution. The Minister was at great pains to indicate that this clause, and the hill generally, had been considered by the unions concerned. But he does not go beyond the point that the unions bad considered the bill. The maritime unions have turned to the Australian Labour party for protection against legislation of this kind, and that is the very reason for our opposition to the bill. The fight against proposed section 14 is so strenuous because the unions are dissatisfied with it. They know the intentions of the Government and the shipowners, and because they know those intentions they have asked the Labour party, as a unified body of men, to protest, first of all, against this policy of sending ships to sea without their full complement of men. It is because the unions have approached the authorities mentioned by the Minister for Labour and National Service, and have had no satisfaction from them, that the honorable member for East Sydney has been called upon to lead the united band of Opposition members in this chamber in the fight against this bill.

I join wholeheartedly in the fight against the reduction of the size of crews when it comes to transport of any kind. In these days of modern transport, it is the general tendency on the part of the employers in all fields of transport to reduce the complement of men in charge of conveyances of all kinds. As a result, the fight is on between the management, on the one hand, and the workers, on the other, who are fighting to protect, first, what they regard as their rights, and secondly, their safety. The men on the waterfront know full well that this sort of thing does not stop with forms of land transport such as dieselelectric locomotives or one-man buses. It is not confined to any one field of transport. The employers in all fields of transport are trying to reduce crew complements. The seamen and those associated with them know that, with the adoption of modern means of engine control, day by day, and week by week, the employers are out to reduce the normal complement of officers on both coastal vessels and ships undertaking long sea voyages.

The honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Joske) said that a provision in terms similar to those of proposed section 14 has been in the principal act for years, and that it has been good enough. Would he say to unions concerned with the safety of land transport that the things that have been done for years are good enough in these modern times? We know that modern trends of transport are imposing greater responsibilities on crews, because the size of crews is being reduced.

I want to make it clear to the Minister for Labour and National Service that the Opposition takes the stand that it has taken in this committee because the unions concerned - not Communist unions, hut unions that are held in high regard by everybody who understands trade unionism in this country - have begged Labour members to fight this provision, even at this late stage, because it will permit ships to be taken to sea without a full complement of officers. Even the hidebound members in the Government ranks will find, in the course of the next few years, that the principle for which we are fighting in these days of modern transport is sound. It is supported by the unions, which take a just view, and are trying to do the right thing.

What is happening in the United States of America to-day? Transport unions in that country that have not had to fight the management once in the last 50 years are to-day calling their members out on strike in opposition to this modern tendency to reduce crew complements. I repeat that this sort of thing does not stop with land transport. It extends into the maritime industry also. Safety measures that were good enough in 1948 and 1952 are not good enough in 1958, and there is an obligation on the Government to reject the idea that what was good enough in the past is good enough now. There is an obligation on the Government to recognize that, in these days of modern engineering developments, a full complement of crew must be at the controls of every kind of transport conveyance, whether on sea or on land, but particularly on the sea.

It is for these reasons that we are taking this stand, Mr. Chairman. We know full well that modern developments in sea transport will result in a demand by the employers for smaller and smaller complements of officers. Further reductions of already inadequate complements will seriously prejudice the safety of both travellers and crews on the seas. Opposition members are proud to participate in the fight being waged by the trade unions to ensure that no longer will ships be sent to sea unless they carry the full complement of officers prescribed for the particular kind of vessel.

Mr JOSKE:
Balaclava

.- I wish to make three short points in relation to proposed section 14. First, I wish to deal with the remarks made by the honorable member for East Sydney, who suggested that I had said that the old provision would be revived. I said nothing of the sort. In reply to the suggestion that this provision was something entirely new in the act, I said merely that it was not entirely new, and that there was already a very similar provision.

Secondly, I wish to deal with the suggestion of the honorable member for East Sydney that there is always a crew available. If there is always a crew available, this provision will never be availed of, because it is only when there is not a crew available and reasonable efforts have been made to obtain a full crew that this proposed section will have any force. So, if the honorable member’s argument that there is always a crew available is a good argument, he need have no worries about this provision.

Thirdly, I wish to deal with a point that has been made by certain honorable members, including the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison). Any one who listened to the honorable member would think that he was the only person in this world who had any virtue, and that everybody else, and particularly Government supporters in this chamber, had no thought for the safety of sailors. I throw any such suggestion back in the honorable member’s teeth. He rushed in without looking at the bill or the principal act, as did every other Opposition member who has spoken. There is, in the act, complete provision for the safety of ships under the circumstances involved here, and that provision has always been in the act. Sections 207 and 208 provide that any person who takes a ship to sea in an unseaworthy condition is guilty of an offence, and that taking a ship to sea without a complement sufficient for safety shall constitute the taking to sea of an unseaworthy ship. So that full protection is provided, and always has been provided.

The arguments of Opposition members have been merely a red herring drawn across the trail in an attempt to make political capital out of this matter, and they have been characterized by a complete failure to examine the provisions of the act. Opposition members have come into the chamber not knowing what the bill is about, and they have not hesitated to try to make political capital out of it. They have been guilty of a pretty poor show.

Mr GALVIN:
Kingston

.- The Opposition is not trying to seek political capital out of this amendment. What we are trying to do is to obtain from the Government some information about the proposed section. We have asked speaker after speaker on the other side of the chamber to tell us who is to be the authority that will decide whether a vessel may proceed to sea. The honorable member for Calare (Mr. Howse) tried to give us an explanation. He finished up by talking about who would not be left out of the crew, but he could not tell us who would be left behind. It is obvious that the Minister for Air, who is in charge of the bill, is unable to give us any information. He called on the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt), who usually knows the answers to such questions, but as the Minister did not know what had transpired earlier he was unable to furnish the information. The honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly) suggested that it would be a good idea to bring the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) to the bar of this chamber to explain the section, because it is obvious that Ministers in this chamber do not know what it is about.

The only thing that we seem to be sure about is that the bill is a pay-off to the shipowners for supplying funds at election time. The Government has sneaked in this section so that ships can be put to sea without a full complement. Honorable members opposite are forced to confuse the issue, because they are afraid to rise in their places and furnish the correct answers to the questions asked by Opposition members.

Mr HOWSON:
Fawkner

.- The Opposition is putting up a magnificent sham fight, which is being spearheaded by the honorable member for Hughes (Mr. L. R. Johnson), who has got no nearer to the sea than he has on the Manly ferry. The great body of honorable members opposite have not studied the act and have no knowledge of the conditions that attach to ships going to sea.

Let us have another look at proposed section 14 (7.). We are considering the number of officers that can take a ship to sea with safety. Every one knows that a greater number of officers is taken to sea than is really required for the purposes of safety at any one time. What happens if an officer becomes ill at sea? It is an ageold custom of the sea that a vessel does not stand still until an officer gets well. The complement is always large enough to ensure that a vessel is able to return to port safely. All that is involved in the proposed sub-section is that a properly qualified official is to examine all the facts of the case and allow the ship to proceed to sea only when he is perfectly satisfied that its safety will not be endangered. The ball seeks to provide for an efficient shipping service, and there is every provision, as the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Joske) said, to ensure the safety of vessels. Honorable members opposite, who have absolutely no knowledge of conditions at sea, are attempting to draw a red herring across the trail.

Question put -

That the sub-section proposed to be omitted (Mr. Ward’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 53

NOES: 17

Majority . . 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- by leave - I move -

Omit sub-sections (8.) and (9.) of proposed section 14.

The principles involved are the same as those that applied to the previous amendment. The Opposition merely moves the amendment and records its objection to the proposals contained in sub-sections (80 and (9.) of proposed section 14.

Amendment negatived.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- by leave- I move -

Omit proposed section 14a.

The Opposition formally records its protest against proposed section 14a for the same reasons as were advanced in relation to the last two amendments. We shall not press the amendment to a division.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13-

Section seventeen of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - “ 17. A person shall not be admitted to examination for a certificate unless -

he is a British subject or, for a period of at least one year immediately before the date of the examination, he has been continuously resident in the Commonwealth;

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I move -

In paragraph (a) of proposed section 17, omit “ or, for a period of at least one year immediately before the date of the examination, he has been continuously resident in the Commonwealth; “

I do not think that any honorable member on the Government side will be able to argue that this is not a new principle. Previously, any one employed in the Australian mercantile marine had to be either a British subject or a naturalized British subject, and it is most important that that requirement be retained.

Mr HULME:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Why?

Mr WARD:

– If there were an outbreak of war, a considerable number of aliens who owe allegiance to other countries could be in important positions in what would be regarded as one of our armed services. In the event of an armed conflict, the mercantile marine is just as important to the defence of Australia as are the armed forces. It is essential that those serving in the mercantile marine should be either British subjects or naturalized British subjects. Proposed section 17 provides that, after a period of twelve months’ continuous residence in the country, a person is eligible to obtain a certificate. That certificate would enable him to take command of vessels sailing around our coast or overseas. Obviously, a person with only twelve months’ continuous residence would not qualify for naturalization. The proposed section does not require such a person at any time during his stay in Australia to become naturalized. He could remain here for the rest of his life and never bother, or even intend, to become naturalized, but he could still be employed in an important position in, or hold a certificate to sail, ships in the Australian mercantile marine.

Previous debates on the Navigation Act show that it has always been regarded as an essential requirement that those engaged in the mercantile marine, either in command of vessels or serving in them, shall be British subjects or naturalized British subjects. This new principle should not be introduced. A person has only to remain in this country for the required, number of years to enable him to- take out a naturalization certificate. Having done that, he could then apply for a certificate under this legislation. Surely it would not be unduly harsh to require new settlers to live amongst us for a number of years and to prove their loyalty before they enjoy all the rights of Australian citizenship. In my opinion, that requirement would not inflict hardship on new arrivals. It is a necessary precaution, and is a principle that has been retained in this type of legislation. It should’ not be departed from now. I hope that the amendment that I have moved will be carried by the committee.

Mb. HOWSON (Fawkner) [9.23].- Apparently the honorable member for East Sydney has not realized that clause 13 should be read in conjunction with clause 15. Clause 13 begins with the words -

A person shall not be admitted to examination for a certificate . . .

Having taken the examination, that person still has to obtain his certificate, and. the conditions under which he obtains his certificate are set out in clause 15, which provides that the certificate is held at the discretion of the Minister. Therefore, the honorable member for East Sydney has no basis for his fear that in a period of war an undesirable alien could take a ship to sea. The certificate could be withdrawn by the Minister at a moment’s notice.

A person has not only to pass an examination; he must also satisfy other requirements to obtain a certificate. Although he may sit for the examination after a period of one year’s residence here, in nearly every case it takes a longer time to obtain the necessary certificate. The honorable member for East Sydney would, not be worried about this provision if he read it in conjunction with: subsequent provisions in the bill.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

.- I join with the honorable member for East Sydney in the criticism that he has levelled at this clause. The amendment that we propose would protect a long-standing tradition and principle in regard to the employment of British subjects. I see no reason why a person who desires to obtain a certificate under this provision should not be a naturalized British subject or a British subject by birth. When all is said and done, that is not a tremendous obligation to place on any citizen. As has been pointed out, those in the industry have always held the view that this principle should be maintained.

The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Howson) seemed to know a lot about this matter in advance. He said that this provision must be read in conjunction with clause 1 5, but that is only his view.

Mr Mackinnon:

– He has read the bill; you have not.

Mr DALY:

– I have read the bill and I have listened to a few of the Q.C.’s in this Parliament who are supposed to have read it, but I am still as mystified as ever. The honorable member for Fawkner said that clause 13 must be read in conjuction with clause 15. Who said that is so? Only the honorable member for Fawkner! There is nothing in the bill to say that that is so. Unfortunately the interpretation to be placed on the clause will not be the interpretation of the honorable member, but the interpretation of those who administer the legislation. He might just as well have said that this clause is to be read in conjunction with clause 165, or some other clause. Nothing in the bill says that clause 13 depends on clause 15 to function adequately. The honorable member gave no reason for his view, except to say that the clause said something about a British subject.

If it ls as simple as that, why cannot the Government accept the amendment moved by the honorable member for East Sydney? Why can it not delete the words that we suggest should be deleted? If that weredone, the clause would provide that a person shall not be admitted to examination for >. certificate unless he is a British subject. What is wrong with a simple clause such as that? The honorable member for Fawkner said, that that is the meaning of clause 15. If he is right, the words that we seek to have deleted are superfluous and the Government should remove them.

What is wrong with a British subject? Is this provision a continuation of the Government’s policy against the British people in this country? It has shown that policy in immigration and other spheres. Why does it discriminate against British people? There must be some ulterior motive. There must be something behind the Government’s desire to retain the words that we want deleted. Does it want a few von Luckners to join our merchant marine? Does it want people in the merchant marine who, as the honorable member for East Sydney said, will be subversive in war-time? Does it want people who will be security risks? The Government ensures that security risks are not taken in other directions, but it is prepared to allow people who are not British subjects and who, in many instances, are not prepared to become British subjects to control our ships and occupy high positions in the merchant marine. We should not forget that in the last great war many people who had lived in allied countries for generations were subversive. If this clause is not amended in the way we have suggested, we will face the problem of subversion in our merchant marine should war break out in the future.

I should like the Minister to explain the ulterior motives behind this clause. Why is the Government not prepared to accept our amendment? Having heard what the Minister had to say on a previous clause, I am not at all optimistic that he will have a satisfactory answer. I presume, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment has been debated in the Senate. I presume that the Minister will say that the Government examined the amendment in that place and decided not to accept it. But there are a number of matters which the Minister must necessarily deal with in answer to the criticisms that we have levelled at the Government in respect of the measure. It is not sufficient to say that one clause must be read in conjunction with another clause. It is not sufficient for the Minister just to give us a guarantee about something. What really matters are the provisions as written in the bill and as passed by this Parliament. The fact that the Government intends, in the face of opposition from the maritime unions, to allow the entry into the merchant marine of people who are not British subjects and, in fact, are not even naturalized, is something that the Government must attempt to defend if it intends to proceed with the proposal. ls the Government going to allow people who are neither nationals of this country nor naturalized British subjects to take ships to our northern waters to places where, during the last war, the Japanese had their domain? Is it prepared to allow the merchant marine of this country to be used by enemy forces, in an indirect way, to be turned over to our enemies, practically through sabotage, should the occasion arise?

What is wrong, in the eyes of the Government with British merchant marine men? Why should not British people occupy these maritime positions in a dominion such as this? What is wrong with British mariners? I suppose that there is no greater collection of flag-wavers than the members of the Liberal and Australian Country parties; yet, when we on this side of the Parliament put forward a proposal designed to protect British seamen, designed to make our merchant marine really a potential part of our defence services, this Government, which says, “ We stand behind the Throne and the Empire”, refuses to accept an amendment to this measure, which affects our merchant shipping so closely. Let the able seamen of the Australian Country party and the ancient mariners who comprise the Government stand up and say in a few words why they are not prepared to accept the amendment submitted in good faith by the Opposition with the support of the maritime unions - an amendment which is supported by every person who believes in having carried out the services we require both in peace and time of war, free from the risk of sabotage. The amendment is designed to build up the merchant marine and its acceptance by the Government and inclusion in the measure would undoubtedly be of benefit to this country.

So I support the submissions from this side of the Parliament, and I sincerely hope that the Government will see the wisdom of the amendment. When all is said and done, this is a matter above politics. Honorable members opposite may laugh if they like, but I say quite sincerely that this is a matter on which the lives of men depend. Honorable members opposite are the people who talk about loyalty. The things we have been dealing with are things in which we ought to believe irrespective of politics. We are discussing a great navigation bill to which we. as a Parliament, should have a broad national approach, not the narrow approach made by members of the Australian Country party and the ill-informed outlook of half of the Liberal members of the Parliament. We should have a broad national outlook on this matter such as is paramount on this side of the chamber.

The Labour party’s amendment, which has been submitted in good faith, should be adopted by the Government. I support the amendment, and I ask the Minister, who is sitting on one hand on the front bench to see whether he can give us something better than this provision under which British people are to be denied the right to serve in the merchant marine, a right which is to be given to those who have no allegiance to this country or to Great Britain. 1 believe the amendment ought to be adopted. I support it enthusiastically, and I look forward to its consideration by the Government, although I am not hopeful about the result.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Howson) was quite right when he said that this provision should be considered in relation to the proposed sections in clause 15. He could have added, for the benefit of the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly), that it ought to be considered in relation to clause 1 5 if anybody is to have an intelligent understanding of its meaning. The purpose of the provisions of this clause, and of clauses 14 and 15, is to enable immigrants in Australia who are qualified, able and suitable people and who are mariners, to progress in their profession. I find it strange that members of the Labour party adopt an attitude so restrictive of the progress of new citizens in Australia as is exhibited in their amendment.

It has been stated that the provision is unnecessary. I shall explain the purpose of it. As the law stands, no seaman may be admitted to examination leading to appointment as deck officer or engineer unless he is a British subject, natural-born or naturalized. That means that a new Australian seaman cannot progress in his profession until he becomes naturalized. The Opposition knows as well as I do that, in ordinary circumstances, a new Australian citizen must live in this country for five years before he may become naturalized. That means that a young nonBritish seaman who has come to Australia as an immigrant cannot take even the first steps that lead to appointment as an officer before he has waited for rive years, after which he may be naturalized. Is that in accord with what used to be the Opposition’s attitude to the immigration policy? ls it fair to new Australian seamen?

Mr Kearney:

– Why cannot they wait five years?

Mr OSBORNE:

– Why? Because that would mean that for that five years they could not even start up the ladder to appointment as officers. This proposed section, and the proposed sections in the next two clauses, provide that a new Australian may be admitted to examination without being a British subject. Subsequent provisions state that if he passes his examinations he cannot be granted a certificate, for some of the reasons that members of the Opposition have put forward; but he can be granted a permit which will allow him to be employed on an Australian ship as a junior officer. The honorable member for Grayndler asked whether such people were to be allowed to take our ships to northern waters. He obviously did not bother to read the bill thoroughly, or he would know that the holder of a permit may not captain an Australian ship. He may hold only a junior position as a deck officer or engineer.

Furthermore, something was said about what is to happen in the event of war and possible subversion. I point out that a permit issued under the terms of this measure can be withdrawn immediately at any time such action is considered proper. There are complete safeguards in the bill It simply provides an adequate arrangement under which a new citizen of this country can pass his examination and progress up the ladder of promotion without having to wait five years and become naturalized before he can even put his foot on the first rung.

T think it was the honorable member for East Sydney who asked why such people should not become naturalized. He said they might go on for twenty years without seeking naturalization. The inducement for them to become naturalized is that they cannot get the full foreign-going certificate in the merchant marine until they do become naturalized. Further, until they have become naturalized, they cannot be granted a certificate, but only a permit which will allow them to serve on a coastal run in junior positions. The inducement to become naturalized is also that they cannot take senior positions on ships, cannot be masters, mates, I think, or chief engineers, until they are naturalized and therefore eligible to get full certificate.

The Australian Labour party believes that people who come to this country should be made welcome. We agree that those who come here should receive certain amenities and assistance from the Australian authorities, but at the same time, the thing that is most desirable is that they should become good Australian citizens. If this provision is inserted in the act, there will be people of non-British origin who will have no inducement to become naturalized. I feel that it would be better to say to those people, “ You cannot obtain a permit unless and until you are naturalized “.

Mr CLEAVER:
Swan

.- The honorable member for Lang (Mr. Stewart) based his argument on an entirely wrong premise. When one analyses carefully what the honorable member said, it is quite apparent that the view that he expressed is antagonistic to the immigration policy. We on this side of the chamber will not stand for the coercion of new Australians to become naturalized. We are encouraging them - and I trust that the Opposition will adopt a similar attitude - to choose, of their own free will, to become fully naturalized citizens of Australia. Although we could not possibly agree to the amendment proposed by the Opposition, if it were adopted, the effect would be to hold back the qualified young fellow who came from overseas with experience of seamanship, for a period of five years before he would be permitted to take any part at all in his calling.

We are making provision so that, provided that he has been in the country for a period of twelve months, is qualified and can speak and write our language with reasonable fluency, he may sit for the examination, and if he passes it, obtain a permit. The only restriction then will be, as the Minister has said, that he will not be able to assume full responsibility while holding a certificate of competency. The point that we want to stress is that we are here providing a true incentive, for the man who has a permit, to move on towards full naturalization. This is the type of incentive that we think we should provide at every possible point when we are handling new Australians and encouraging them to seek naturalization, which we so readily offer.

This matter was clearly expressed in the second-reading speech of the Minister. It would appear to me that quite a number of honorable members on the other side of the chamber simply have not followed, by intelligent reading, the Minister’s speech, nor have they looked at the bill that is before us. In the course of the speech, the Minister said -

It is therefore essential that we shall not issue foreign-going certificates that cannot be used or recognized abroad. On the other hand, there is no reason why such men should not serve in local ships; and to enable them to do so, on their establishing their qualifications, it is proposed to issue them with permits which can be exchanged for foreign-going certificates when they become naturalized.

The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) spoke earlier about principles.

I think that I have emphasized a far more important principle, which is that incentive should be offered, as we are offering it by this provision, to seek naturalization. We are following a principle which, apparently, is quite contrary to the views of the honorable member for East Sydney, something which does not surprise me. He would coerce people into becoming naturalized Australians. We do not agree that people should be coerced. We propose to adhere to the bill as it stands and to reject the proposed amendment.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- The longer this debate proceeds, the more obvious it becomes that neither the Minister nor any supporter of the Government knows anything about it. Let us examine what Government supporters have said. It has been stated that, under this provision, after twelve months’ residence in this country new Australians may sit for the examination. Then they could not get a certificate, but only a permit, and the permit only permitted them to act in a minor capacity. They could not be in charge of a vessel. Honorable members will recollect the Minister emphasizing that, and now it has been repeated by the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Cleaver). According to the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Howson), we should consider clause 13 in relation to clause 15. Let us take clause 15 from which the honorable member quoted sub-section (2.) of proposed section 18a. I shall read that sub-section to the committee and then ask honorable members whether it does not mean what I say it means, and not what the Minister has said it means. First, I shall read sub-section (1.) of proposed section 18a, so that honorable members may better follow the matter; it reads -

A certificate as extra master, master of a foreign-going ship, first mate of a foreign-going ship, extra first class engineer, or first class engineer shall not be delivered to a person who is not a British subject.

Sub-section (2.) of proposed section 18a reads -

Where, but for the last preceding subsection

That is, if they are not British subjects - a person would be eligible for a certificate as extra master or master of a foreign-going ship, the Minister may grant to that person a permit to serve as master of a foreign-going ship regis tered in Australia and, for the purposes of this Act, the holder of such a permit shall, in relation to a ship so registered, be deemed to be the holder of a certificate as master of a foreigngoing ship.

What does that mean, if it does not mean what I have said it means? It could refer to a person who had been in this country for twelve months. It is not a question of placing him in a minor position in which he can follow his usual occupation. This provision enables the Minister to grant to that person a permit to be in charge of a foreign-going vessel. I suggest that honorable members opposite should study the bill. If they did they might know something about it.

The honorable member for Fawkner said that there is no danger from a security Viewpoint because these permits can be revoked by the Minister. I understood him to say that that could be done under subsection (3.); but just to put him on the right track, I point out that sub-section (5.) gives the Minister that power. What protection is that? Assume a ship is at sea in the charge of an alien, a man who has no allegiance to this country but owes allegiance to a foreign power. What do you do? Do you send him a radio-telegram to return, that war has been declared? Do you request, or direct, him to return to port? If he is an enemy alien and has no allegiance to this country, is he likely to obey such a direction? Is the honorable member for Fawkner so naive as to believe that that would happen? I am not trying to deprive anybody of an opportunity to earn a livelihood when he comes to this country to make it his land of adoption, but we must be realistic and sensible about these things. I think it is a most serious thing in this context to provide for only twelve months’ residence in this country. We have our security checks, I understand, of the people who arrive in this country. I have criticized the method by which security checks have been made, on the ground that they have been political checks. But there are checks made by security - and quite rightly so - when people arrive in this country. However, it is also true that the system is not perfect, and there have been many instances in which people who have held high positions in the Nazi organization m Germany have sneaked through the security screen. Under this provision, they must be in the country for twelve months, pass the examination, and when they are given a permit or a certificate they are allowed to command a ship.

The point I am making is that whether it is a certificate or a permit, the danger is the same. What do you do in the event of war occurring? As the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Stewart) has pointed out, there are many people in this country who have not applied for naturalization. It may be that many have merely neglected to apply for naturalization. But in this instance, if you are going to give a person an opportunity to command a ship in the Australian merchant marine, you do not even have to ask him if he intends to become naturalized. He could be here for the rest of his life and need never become a British subject. As long as he holds a certificate or a permit he may be the master of a foreign-going vessel in the Australian mercantile marine. There is nothing unreasonable about what the organizations are asking for, and what the Australian Labour part is asking for. We urge the Government to take a natural precaution, which would not place a tremendous hardship on new Australians, because they can go into some other occupation temporarily until they can qualify. Does the British Medical Association allow immediately every medical person who arrives in this country to become a member of the association and practice? Yet, honorable members plead that it is wrong to deny these people an opportunity to work at their profession. Unquestionably, many professional men from overseas have been obliged to take labouring jobs on the Snowy works and elsewhere throughout Australia because the various professional organizations would not admit them to membership. They say, “ Let them deserve their membership in this country. Let them prove they are qualified. Although they hold overseas certificates, let them show they are up to Australian standards “.

That is what the maritime unions are asking in this instance - that these people remain in the country until they have been here sufficiently long as Australian citizens to qualify for a certificate of naturalization. When they get that and can prove they have the qualifications to act as a master in the Australian mercantile marine, the way is open. This new principle that has been introduced is a dangerous one and I think that the Minister should examine it. The immigration policy has nothing whatever to do with keeping the mercantile marine service, which is a most important organization in the defence services of this country, in charge of people who have at least sworn allegiance to Australia and have British nationality. This is a most reasonable request by the Opposition, and I join with the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly) and other honorable members who have supported it. I say that this is an amendment which the Opposition supports enthusiastically.

Mr HOWSE:
Calare

.- I do not want to detain the committee, but I think the Opposition’s argument is based completely on false premises. I do not agree with this clause entirely, but I approach it in quite a different way. I, personally, do not think it goes far enough, for this reason: I do not think it gives sufficient encouragement to highly qualified new Australians to enter the merchant service which is, as . 1 am reminded, a magnificent service. Provided these new Australians can pass their examinations, provided they can qualify, and provided they comply with all the requirements of this bill, as qualified officers and men in the merchant service, they should be given every encouragement to join that service. Do not let us forget that Australia does not recognize any foreign qualifications of seamen; they have to do all their examinations again. They are admitted - as the Minister has reminded us - to the merchant service on the basis of second mate and they have to go through their entire examinations and gain all the qualifications again, although in their own country they might have the highest qualifications. So, there is no danger of diluting the merchant service with inefficient or ineffectual people.

How can we encourage new Australians to accept Australian citizenship? The Minister for Immigration (Mr. Downer) has discretion to shorten the period in respect of residence provided a new Australian shows good cause. If a new Australian has an opportunity of getting employment provided he is an Australian citizen, and if he can show good reason, at the Minister’s discretion, his period of residence can be shortened. This surely is a case where the Minister’s discretion can be exercised. Also, in cases where new Australians served with the British forces during the war, their period of residence may be shortened. They have to have only two years’ residence in this country to enable them to become Australian citizens. This seems to be an excellent opportunity for new Australians to go into the merchant service provided they do our examinations. Provided they do that and they have sufficient qualifications, I think the Minister should shorten the period of residence so that they can become Australian citizens. That should remove entirely the objections of the Opposition.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr. Ward’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 51

NOES: 18

Majority . . 33

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 -

Section nineteen of the Principal Act is repealed and the following sections are inserted in its stead: - “ (2.) Where, but for thelast preceding subsection, a person would be eligible for a certificate as extra master or master of a foreign-going ship, the Minister may grant to that person a permit to serve as master of a foreign-going ship registered in Australia and, for the purposes of this Act, the holder of such a permit shall, in relation to a ship so registered, be deemed to be the holder of a certificate as master of a foreign-going ship. “ (3.) Where, but for sub-section (1 . ) of this section, a person would be eligible for a certificate as first mate of a foreign-going ship, the Minister may grant to that person a permit to serve as first mate of a foreign-going ship registered in Australia and, for the purposes of this Act, the holder of such a permit shall, in relation to a ship so registered, be deemed to be the holder of a certificate as first mate of a foreign-going ship. “ (4.) Where, but for sub-section (1.) of this section, a person would be eligible for a certificate as extra first class engineer or first class engineer, the Minister may grant to that person a permit to serve as first class engineer of a ship registered in Australia and, for the purposes of this Act, the holder of such a permit shall, in relation to a ship registered in Australia, be deemed to be the holder of a certificate as first class engineer. “ (5.) A permit granted under this section may be revoked by the Minister at any time. “ 18b. -1.) Upon application by a person who has attained the rank of lieutenant, as a seaman specialist, in the Commonwealth Naval Forces and has such other qualifications as are prescribed, the Minister may grant to that person, without examination, a certificate of service as master of a foreign-going ship.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I move -

Omit sub-sections (2.) to (5.) (both inclusive) of proposed section 18a.

The Opposition recognizes that the same principle is involved in these proposed subsections as in those that we have already debated. We do not propose to delay the committee by going into a lengthy discussion and developing the argument that we have already advanced, but I direct the attention of honorable members to the fact that the Minister himself has admitted to me that his interpretation of proposed section 18a (2.) was incorrect. The interpretation that I gave concerning this provision was the correct one. Therefore. I believe that the Minister should indicate to the committee that he was in error. By the argument that he developed in contradiction to that advanced by me, the Minister led the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Howson) and the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Howse) to take a similar line to his in the debate. That goes to prove that many of the Government’s supporters recorded their votes against the Opposition amendment without understanding what was involved in the provisions of the bill.

The amendment involves the same principle asthe previous amendment. The Opposition will not force this amendment to a division, but we reaffirm our opposition to the principle that is involved. Finally, I repeat that I believe that the Minister misled the committee and so influenced the vote on the last division. I do not think that he did so deliberately. I think he made an honest mistake, but he did wrongly interpret the provisions of the bill.

Amendment negatived.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I move - in sub-section (1.) of proposed section1 8b, omit “ without examination “, insert “ following success at an examination as to competency “.

This proposed section 18b (1.) provides -

Upon application by a person who has attained the rank of lieutenant, as a seaman specialist, in the Commonwealth Naval Forces and has such other qualifications as are prescribed, the Minister may grant to that person, without examination, a certificate of service as master of a foreigngoing ship.

The Opposition has no great objection to this provision except in respect of the amendment that I have moved. The attitude of the maritime unions is that they welcome into their ranks and their industry men who have qualifications which they have obtained as a result of their naval training, but it was pointed out, particularly by the engineers, that there are no big diesel engines in ships of the Royal Australian Navy. If the proposed section is allowed to stand, a man could be admitted to and obtain a certificate to serve in themercantile marine as master of a foreign-going ship or as an engineer when in fact he had not satisfied the authorities that he bad obtained the necessary experience or had the necessary qualifications. Any applicants who are ex-naval personnel will be welcomedby the maritime unions into their organization if they can prove that they have the necessary qualifications. The maritime unions will raise no objection, but they do request that this provision be made in the measure so that the applicants must first of all prove their qualifications.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– I can assure the honorable member for East Sydney that this proposal will not cause any alteration in practice, lt has been the practice for years for naval officers to be granted merchant service certificates on application to the United Kingdom authorities through the Ministry for Transport. They have been given certificates under the Merchant Shipping Act.

Mr HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Without examination?

Mr OSBORNE:

– Yes, entirely without examination. They have been granted certificates under the Merchant Shipping Act. We think it more appropriate that we should grant the certificates ourselves and the power to do so is given in the bill.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 -

Sections twenty-one and twenty-two of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead: - “ 22. A certificate issued or recognized under a law in force in the United Kingdom which corresponds with a certificate of competency or a certificate of service under this Division shall be recognized for the purposes of this Act as if it were a certificate of competency or a certificate of service granted under this -Division.”.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I move -

In proposed section 22, after “ Kingdom “, insert “ in respect of foreign-going ships “.

The officers’ organization, the Merchant Service Guild, is very much concerned about this provision. Tt asks that the words “ in respect of foreign-going ships “ be added because it believes that only a person from the United Kingdom who holds a foreign-going certificate should be recognized under this section. The organization states that the bill, in its present form, would enable a person holding what is known as a United Kingdom home trade certificate - the equivalent of an Australian coastal trade certificate - to operate on the Australian coast. It is claimed .that both a knowledge of our coast and an acquaintance with local safety provisions are needed and that the acceptance of a United Kingdom home trade certificate in those circumstances might easily have disastrous results. Members of the guild ask that the existing conditions be liberalized only in respect of persons holding foreigngoing qualifications. They believe that holders of United Kingdom home trade certificates should have to satisfy Australian authorities that they have the necessary knowledge of our coastal conditions. This amendment, which is reasonable and proper, is prompted by a desire to maintain the safety of our coastal shipping. It should be adopted by the committee.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– Again I assure the honorable member that his amendment is unnecessary. The argument .of the Merchant Service Guild overlooks the words, “ which corresponds with a certificate of competency or a certificate of service under .this Division “, in proposed new section 22. Those words make it plain that a United Kingdom certificate will be acceptable only if it corresponds with the local certificate. The application of the home trade certificate of the United Kingdom is restricted in a geographical sense. It covers operations i.n the North Sea and the English Channel only. In the circumstances, it cannot correspond with a certificate under the division referred to and the fear that it will be accepted locally is groundless.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed .to.

Clauses 18 to 20 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 21 -

Division 4 of Part II. of the Principal Act is repealed and the following Division inserted in its stead: -

DIVISION 4. - SUPPLYING SEAMEN.

“29. - (1.) A person shall not supply a seaman to :be entered on board a ship at a port in Australia unless that person is -

an officer of an organization of employees of which seamen of the description .of that seaman are members. “ 30. The superintendent for a port shall -

supply seamen to be entered on board ships at the port.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I move -

Omit paragraph (c) of sub-section (1.) of proposed section 29.

The seamen’s union, in particular, contends that it should not have to bear the obligation which is apparently being placed upon it to provide seamen, and it objects strongly to the provision. It is claimed that this is a new provision; that an attempt was made to introduce the principle in 1952 but that it was not proceeded with because all the unions were opposed to it. 1 understand that when the matter was mentioned in court recently Mr. Justice Foster upheld the union’s views. Sub-section (1.) appears to give the unions a certain right, but it is a right that they do not seek. They say that with the right goes an obligation. They consider that no officer of their organization should be under an obligation to provide seamen for the manning of ships.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– I am indebted to the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) for his explanation of the reason for the amendment, which I had found somewhat puzzling. The sub-section to which he objects merely legalizes the existing practice. Section 29 is an old section which had its origin in the need to protect seamen against crimps and boarding house keepers who might have them shanghaied off to sea. The section provided that seamen should be supplied by certain persons only. In these days seamen are almost invariably supplied by an officer of the seamen’s organization. The Government believes that, in the absence of proposed sub-section (1.) the existing practice is illegal. Substance is given to my argument by the 1955 award of Mr. Justice Foster, which makes the union responsible for supplying seamen. His Honour added that such old sections of the act as might have reference to the union supplying seamen were quite unworkable. Undoubtedly, the sub-section to which objection is taken does no more than legalize the existing practice. I do not agree with the honorable member for East Sydney that it imposes an obligation. I repeat, it merely gives the union a right.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I do not wish to delay the committee, but would suggest that the Minister read section 63 of the 1955 award. It relates to the engagement of crews of vessels. The proposal before us is not strictly in accordance with that award provision. Argument on the matter has been put to Mr. Justice Foster and he has declared himself in favour of the union viewpoint. That would seem to contradict what the Minister has said. He should read the view of Mr. Justice Foster when this matter was put to him by the organization. If His Honour is found to confirm what I have said the proposal before us will be clearly in conflict with the award and the award ought to be maintained. It is wrong in principle for a government to attempt, by way of legislation, to over-ride the provisions of an award. If seamen are expected to negotiate an award, which is really a contract between employer and employee, and to observe it, surely it should be equally observed by the Government and the shipowners as well. According to my advice, the court has already decided in favour of the union’s viewpoint. The Government should accept that viewpoint.

Question put -

That the paragraph proposed to be omitted (Mr. Ward’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 51

NOES: 17

Majority 34

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I move -

Omit paragraph (b) of proposed section 30.

The same principle is involved in respect of this proposed amendment as was involved in the last proposed amendment. The Opposition records its opposition to what is proposed, but does not intend to force the matter to a division.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 22 to 28 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 29-

Sections forty-three and forty-four of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead: - “43.- (1.) Subject to sub-section (9.) of this section, the owner of a ship registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting trade shall not suffer the ship to go to sea, and the master of the ship shall not take the ship to sea, unless the ship carries the prescribed crew for that ship. “ (7.) Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, if-

a ship is at a port and the number of seamen of a particular description required to be carried on the ship by virtue of sub-section (1.) of this section has not been obtained; and

a Deputy Director, or a proper authority at the port, is satisfied that the owner or master of the ship has made all reasonable efforts to obtain that number of seamen of that description, including, if the port is in Australia, the seeking of the assistance of the organization of employees of which seamen of that description are members, the Deputy Director or the proper authority, as the case may be, may, by writing under his hand, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, consent to the master taking the ship to sea from the port without the seaman or seamen of that description not obtained. “ (8.) A Deputy Director or proper authority shall not give his consent under the last preceding sub-section to the master of a ship taking the ship to sea if the effect of so doing would be to authorize the master to take the ship to sea with less than four-fifths of the engine-room staff, or less than four-fifths of the deck complement, of the ship. “ (9.) If a Deputy Director or a proper authority at a port gives his consent under sub-section (7.) of this section to the master of a ship taking the ship to sea from a port without a seaman or seamen of a particular description not obtained and the master complies with the conditions, if any, subject to which the consent is given -

the owner of the ship may suffer the ship to go to sea from that port; and

the master may take the ship to sea, and may lawfully command the officers and crew of the ship to take the ship to sea, from that port, notwithstanding that the ship does not carry that seaman or those seamen of that description. “ (10.) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against sub-section (1.) of this section if the defendant satisfies the Court -

that the ship went to sea with not less than four-fifths of the engine room staff, and with not less than four-fifths of the deck complement, of the ship;

that the failure to obtain the prescribed crew for the ship was not due to any default or neglect on his part; and

that an officer or other member of the crew of the ship did not lodge with the master of the ship an objection in writing to the ship being taken to sea. “(11.) For the purposes of sub-section (8.) of this section and of paragraph (a) of the last preceding sub-section, a boy or apprentice with less than six months’ service at sea who is carried on a ship shall not be counted as a member of the crew of the ship. “ (12.) In this section - deck complement ‘, in relation to a ship, means the number of persons which, by virtue of sub-section (1.) of this section, the ship is required to carry as able seamen, ordinary seamen, boys and apprentices;

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I move -

In sub-section (1.) of proposed section 43, omit “ Subject to sub-section (9.) of this section “.

The reason we move for the omission of those words is that at a later stage we intend to oppose sub-section (9.). Obviously, if that sub-section is deleted, we must make this consequential amendment. We formally move this amendment, but we propose to record our vote by divisiononly on the amendment proposing the deletion of other sub-sections.

Amendment negatived.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I move -

Omit sub-sections (7.) to (11.) (both inclusive) of proposed section 43.

The same principle is involved in this clause as that which related to the undermanning of ships by officers, and which we discussed and voted against. This proposed section deals with the other groups of crew members. The same arguments apply, but I direct the attention of the committee to what may be regarded as an additional argument why undermanning should not be permitted. It is provided that, with the approval of a deputy director or the proper authority, a ship may be taken to sea if it has at least four-fifths of the engine room staff or four-fifths of the deck complement. The engine room staff does not consist merely of engineers. It includes greasers and a number of other types of employees. If , a master of a ship can satisfy a deputy director or the proper authority that he has on board, hot the full complement, but four-fifths of the engine room staff, he can take the ship to sea, although the one-fifth who are absent may be all engineers.

That situation could arise. The ship could go to sea fully manned with greasers, seamen and other types of employees, but lacking the proper complement of engineers. In the opinion of the organizations concerned, this would place an undue strain and responsibility upon the restricted number of engineers sailing with the ship. This would mean that they would have to work unnecessarily long hours and would suffer from fatigue. As a result, the organizations regard this as a completely objectionable provision. The engineers join with the officers in their objection to the earlier provision. The representatives of the organization covering the men affected by this provision strongly object to the provision, as they have objected over a period of years. It is of no use for Government supporters to say that this provision has been in the legislation and that no protest has been made. What do they want to happen? Do they want the seamen to hold the ships up by refusing to take them to sea unless they have a fullcomplement? Is that the way Government supporters want the men to record their protests?

These organizations have been pressing for the elimination of this provision from the act ever since I can remember. They have always objected to going to sea without a full complement. If the Government adopts the attitude that, because it has received recently no direct protests from the organizations, there is no complaint against these provisions, and if the Government wants objections registered in a more practical and understandable form it would not be very difficult to organize a stoppage amongst the seamen and other members of the crews of these vessels to impress the Government. That may be the only way to impress the Government with the fact that the organizations regard these matters very seriously. They have long desired these changes to be effected in the legislation. If the Government is going to be obdurate and refuse to meet the wishes of the men working the ships, whatever troubles arise in the future will be the responsibility of the Government itself.

Question put -

That the sub-sections proposed to be omitted (Mr. Ward’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 50

NOES: 17

Majority . . . . 33

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- by leave - I move -

In sub-section (12.) of proposed section 43, in the definition of ‘ deck complement ‘, omit “ boys and apprentices “.

I realize that the principle in this amendment was involved in the earlier debate with respect to under-manning. Whilst the Opposition believes that this is a necessary amendment, it accepts the fact that the decision of the committee is to reject the proposal of the Opposition with respect to under-manning. I formally move the amendment, express my viewpoint that it should be carried, and leave the matter to the decision of the committee.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 30 to 32 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 33 -

Sections forty-six, forty-six a, forty-seven, forty-seven a, forty-eight and forty-nine of the Principal. Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead: -

” 46.-

” (2.) An agreement under this section between the master of a ship and a seaman -

shall be prepared, in duplicate, by or under the supervision of a superintendent; “ (3.) A superintendent may refuse to attest an agreement under this section between a seaman and the master of a ship which is not exempt from Division 5 of Part IV. unless - “ (5.) A superintendent who attests an agreement entered into under this section shall retain one part of the agreement and deliver the other part to the master of the ship.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I move-

In paragraph (b) of sub-section (2’) of proposed section 46, omit “duplicate”, insert “triplicate”.

This sub-section deals with the agreement between the master of a ship and a seaman. The sub-section, in my opinion, should provide that a copy of the agreement be supplied to the seaman himself. I do not think it is sufficient that the agreement should be supplied to the officers who are engaging and employing him and that he himself should not be provided with a copy. This is a necessary and reasonable provision and I accordingly submit the amendment I have moved.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) has overlooked two facts. The first is that under the present law the articles are all in the same form and a copy of the articles is posted on the ship’s notice board. The second is that the agreement is not an individual agreement between the shipowner and each seaman, but is a single agreement to which all of the seamen subscribe their names. The amendment is not necessary.

Amendment negatived.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I move -

In sub-section (3.) of proposed section 46, omit “ may “, insert “ shall “.

I understand that the present act imposes an obligation on the superintendent, and does not leave it to his discretion, to attest an agreement. The organization can see no reason whatever for a change and requests that the word “ shall “ be retained. I should like the Minister to explain the reason for the change.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– The explanation is that the ship’s load line certificate is produced when the major crew is engaged. When a single man is engaged, in a port which is not his home port, as a replacement for a member of the crew the position is that the articles have already been produced in the superintendent’s office. Those articles record the fact that the load line certificate was produced at the time the articles were entered into. It would therefore be an unnecessary waste of time if this provision were inserted.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreedto.

Clauses 34 to 47 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 48- (1.) Section seventy of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: -

” 70.-

” (3.) A stipulation under this section is of no force unless -

an allotment note in the prescribed form is prepared and signed by the master and the seaman; and

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I move -

In paragraph (a), of sub-section (3.) of proposed section 70, after “ master “ insert “ or the superintendent “.

The unions consider this a necessary amendment. Sub-clause (3.) of clause 48 of the bill says -

A stipulation under this section is of no force unless -

an allotment note in the prescribed form is prepared and signed by the master, and the seaman

This provision deals with the allotment of a seaman’s pay to dependants and relatives. The unions consider that the allotment note in the prescribed form should be prepared and signed not only by the master but also by the superintendent. I have moved accordingly.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– There are two objections to this proposed amendment. The first is that the allotment of wages is made by agreement between the person who pays the wages and the person who receives them. The person who pays is the master, as the agent of the shipowner, and the seaman is the person who receives the wages. The allotment note is an agreement between them and should be signed by them.

The second objection is that if the amendment were accepted it would be possible for a seaman to go ashore and sign an allotment note with the superintendent. It is quite possible that a seaman would, by design or, more probably, through error, allot more than his wages or more than a reasonable proportion of them. The superintendent would not have information available as to the seaman’s existing allotments.

Mr Ward:

– Would it not be a matter for decision by the seaman?

Mr OSBORNE:

– It could not reasonably be said that the seaman should make the decision if a case arose in which the seaman allotted 200 per cent, of his wages.

Mr Ward:

– He could not do that.

Mr OSBORNE:

– Of course he could. He could do it by error, unless the allotment note were signed by the master, who would know his existing allotments and his wage rates. In any case this whole discussion is unnecessary, because I have a copy of the prescribed form of allotment before me at the moment, and I can show it to the honorable member if he wishes to see it. It provides that the allotment note must be witnessed by the superintendent.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 49 to 51 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 52 -

Sections seventy-seven and seventy-eight of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead: -

” 77.-

” (6.) In this section - wages ‘, in relation to a seaman, does not include a payment or allowance for the working of overtime or any other payment or allowance not included in the ordinary wages of the seaman.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I move -

In sub-section (6.) of proposed section 77, omit the definition of “ ‘wages ‘ “.

The union view is that the definition already contained in the act is a more satisfactory one, and it is requested that it be retained. The proposed definition is as follows: -

Wages ‘, in relation to a seaman, does not include a payment or allowance for the working of overtime or any other payment or allowance not included in the ordinary wages of a seaman.

The seamen contend that their wages should include all their earnings whether from overtime or any other source. I understand that the existing provision in the act is to this effect, and they regard it as a much more satisfactory definition. They ask that it be retained and the suggested definition rejected.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– This section of the act is the one that provides how a seaman’s wages are to be paid. It provides, in effect, that his wages - meaning his wages without the addition of any overtime or any other extra payment - shall be paid fortnightly, on the 1st and 15th days of each month, and that the extra payments shall be made a fortnight later. If the Opposition’s amendment were accepted, the effect would be that, in addition to a seaman’s fixed wages, overtime and other extra payments would have to be paid fortnightly at the same time as the wages. It is not practicable for the ships’ staff and the staff in the office of the owner or agent to work out every fortnight the amount of a seaman’s overtime. I am informed that the accounting already involved in working out the overtime for a ship’s crew is considerable, and that to impose an obligation to complete the extra accounting within the fortnight would place an undue strain on the ship’s staff or the agent’s officers. The seaman is not being denied anything. His basic rate of wages is settled and these wages can satisfactorily be paid each fortnight, or when the ship comes into harbour, in accordance with the present practice. Under existing procedure, the seaman then has to wait another fortnight while his overtime is worked out. The Government’s view is that to accept this amendment would be to place an undue strain on the accounting staff involved, and that the amendment, therefore, should not be accepted.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 53 and 54 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 55 -

Section eighty-two of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - “ 82. - (I.) Subject to this Act. a seaman’s right to wages begins -

at the time at which he commences work; or whichever is the earlier.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– I move -

In paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) of proposed section 82, omit “ at which he commences work “, insert “of engagement”.

This is a most important matter, which the union has been trying to adjust for some considerable time. There has been a great deal of disputation as to what actually constitutes a seaman’s home port. This has an important bearing on claims for compensation, because under the provisions of the various awards and of the act, if a seaman is injured or falls ill away from what is regarded as his home port, his medical costs - and surgical costs if an operation is required - are paid, and he is maintained and his wages paid until he is declared cured and returned to his home port.

Mr Osborne:

– This clause does not deal with that matter. This is your amendment No. 23, is it not?

Mr WARD:

– Yes, but the unions are concerned about this aspect of the matter. I agree that the difficulty arises also in respect of other clauses, but the unions believe that this clause also is involved. The union viewpoint is that the words of engagement would be preferable to the proposed “ at which he commences work”. The unions say that a man may be engaged in one port and may commence work in another. It wants to establish beyond doubt that it is the time of engagement that counts and not the time at which the seaman commences work. I believe there is some merit in the submission of the trade union representatives.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– The Opposition proposes an amendment of clause 25, which deals with section 82 of the principal act. That section is the one which determines when a seaman’s right to wages commences. The Government proposes to provide that the seaman’s right to wages will commence at either the time at which he commences work, or at the time specified in his agreement for his commencement of work or presence on board, whichever is the earlier. The Opposition’s amendment would provide that his right to wages would begin at the time of engagement. That represents a considerable alteration of the existing practice. If a seaman is not required immediately upon engagement, it is quite usual for him to say that he will be ready the next day, after which he goes away and joins the ship on the following day. It is a very common practice. In fact, I understand that it is the usual thing for a seaman, after signing on, to wish to go home to collect his belongings. The Government sees no reason to disturb the existing practice and therefore rejects the amendment.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I agree with the Minister when he says that I confused this amendment with a later one. The Minister is correct in saying that it involves the question of the point of time at which the pay of a seaman commences. The unions are of the opinion that the pay should commence from the time of engagement and not from the time that the seaman commences work. They argue that once a man is engaged for work he is obviously ineligible for employment elsewhere. He is actually in the employ of the company and from that point, if he is given a .direction to report on board ship for duty at some later period, he is then prevented from accepting other employment. He should be regarded as the company’s employee and his pay should commence from the time of engagement.

That is a common practice in industry. If a person seeks engagement in a factory and -is successful his period of employment starts immediately and he is paid from that point of time. There is no suggestion that this amendment introduces a new principle in the employment of seamen which is not followed in ordinary industry. The request is a reasonable one and I press for the acceptance of the amendment.

Mr L R JOHNSON:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I agree with the remarks of the honorable member for East Sydney. I wish to direct an inquiry to the Minister in respect of section 82 of the principal act which is amended by <clause 22. Section 82 refers to the seaman’s right .of wages and provisions but I notice -that the word “ provisions “ ‘has been -omitted from this clause. I ask the Minister whether it is intended to interpret the word “ provisions “ -literally or whether it ‘relates -to superannuation or working conditions :or something else. It does seem significant that it has been omitted from the proposed section.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– I do not want to mislead the honorable member but I assume that the word refers to provisions in the sense of victuals, that is, food and water. It is a relic of the past. The living conditions of seamen are now governed by the award which provides fully for their food and other victualling arrangements.

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I notice that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt) has just returned to the chamber and for his benefit I wish to repeat what I said earlier. The provision under consideration deals with an industrial matter which should be handled by an arbitral authority that has the specific functions of laying down wages and conditions of employees. This sort of provision might have been all right in 1912 when this act first commenced and before there was any arbitration machinery such as now exists. It seems entirely wrong that when arbitration authorities have been set up to make awards which lay down the wages and conditions of employees, this Parliament should cut across the functions of those authorities by providing these matters in legislative enactments. Surely the time has come when provisions of this sort should be completely removed from the act and the judges of the arbitration tribunals allowed to exercise their function fully!

Mr Anderson:

– Mr. Justice Foster recently made an award in Sydney.

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Conciliation and Arbitration Act, as amended by this Government, made provision for this industry to be dealt with in a particular way. It is on record that a judge of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is doing an excellent job for the seamen. But in .more than one case in this bill Parliament is taking action which runs counter to the functions of the arbitration authorities.

I strongly suggest to the Minister for Labour and National Service that as soon as possible the officers of the department should -.go through this -measure and remove from it all those provisions relating to the making of awards and transfer them to the arbitration legislation so that the tribunals may be able to exercise their function -fully. That would give great satisfaction to the maritime unions. I know that this will be a big task but in the long run it will pay .dividends to the Minister and to the industry and also , maKe the task of

Mr. Justice Foster much easier in assessing the proper value of the work performed by seamen.

What would happen if the wages and conditions of railway workers or those engaged in other industries were .made the subject of legislation? These matters are now determined by the arbitration authorities. It would be even worse than it is for the committee to be discussing at this late hour a provision in legislation to lay down what shall .be .the commencing point from which a seaman shall receive his pay. No one can tell me that any common rule can be laid down for .every port or for every seaman as to when his pay .period shall commence. This is a matter which should be determined by the courts.

Mr Osborne:

– It leaves scope for individual cases.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

.- The argument put forward by the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. J. “Harrison) is worthy of favorable consideration because the amendment has an important bearing on a seaman’s right to pay from a certain period. The bill proposes that he should be paid from the time that he commences work, but the Opposition is asking that the pay period commence from the ‘time of his .engagement. The honorable member for Blaxland >who is a trade unionist of wide experience, has pointed out that this lis a matter which .might well come within the scope of an award.

The Government should have cleared up this matter before the hill was drafted and brought to ‘Parliament. What is wrong with paying a man from the time of engagement? From the moment he is engaged, he is stopped from taking any other form of employment and if he has to stand or sit around for two or three days before the .actually commences -work, he should .be paid for that time. I (understand ‘that that is the accepted practice in any industry, so why make a difference in regard to seamen? A .provision of this kind clearly shows that the Government did .not consult the people who know most about seamen’s wages and working conditions, that is the maritime unions.

The Government has seen fit to be mandatory on this -point and as the ‘-honorable member for Blaxland has pointed out, Jit may find itself in .difficulties .because the court might not :be so mandatory. Members -of the .Opposition support the >view of >the maritime unions that a seaman’s wages should commence from the time of his engagement. This is an important matter. 1 have here a letter from a seaman which I received only a few days ago. It comprises several pages and on each page the writer gives examples of penalties that can be imposed on him as a .result of his being paid from the time he commences duty instead of from the time of his engagement. I shall not read the letter but ask permission of the committee to have it incorporated in “ Hansard “. He is working on a ship. I have the name of the ship, and I am prepared to have this letter incorporated in “ Hansard “. If leave is not granted, I do not .mind taking up the time of the committee in quoting it .word for word, either now or later. This letter is a practical example of what .can happen. It sets out his wages, .and the figures can be verified from the company. It also sets out what he will lose if the provision under consideration becomes law in its .present form. It sets out what he .would lose between the time of his engagement .and the time he commences work.

I know that honorable members look favorably upon the presentation of objective views -on these matters. I know that the Minister for Labour and National Service is in favour of hearing objective views, and the letter which I seek to incorporate in “ Hansard “ certainly gives such a view.. I ask leave .to have .it incorporated in “ Hansard “ .as an indication to the Government .of .a practical man’s view of the need to reconsider this clause.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour .and National .Service · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– Might I recommend that the committee do not .agree ito the honorable member’s request? J am .not questioning the motive of :the honorable member, but it has never ‘been the practice of the Parliament, .either in the House or in committee, to incorporate, in extenso, statements which are -in effect an extension of arguments advanced within a certain time ‘limit by <an -honorable member. It has sometimes been agreed that statistics of a character which -could be dealt with more conveniently -in .that way should be incorporated. It may be the practice of some (parliaments to .incorporate .documents such as the one submitted -by the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly), :C’Ut, so far as I am aware, it has never been the practice of this Parliament, and it should not be encouraged.

Leave not granted.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

.- I am sorry that the Minister has taken that attitude, because I was prepared to give the name of the person concerned and all the facts relating to his position. It may not be the general practice to incorporate such documents in “ Hansard “, but I suggest that there always comes a time when we should break away from what has been the custom. After all, the Government is doing that by this clause in that it is altering the commencing time of a man’s payment from the time of engagement to the time when he commences work. The fact that the Minister is not prepared to accept this man’s statement illustrates that the Government is afraid of the submissions we are making and therefore refuses to accept proof of what we say. Honorable members know that I have not the time at my disposal to read the letter. It requires emphasis, and that cannot be done in a few minutes.

This is the general policy of the Government. By legislation such as this, it is causing dissatisfaction in industry. As the honorable member for East Sydney said earlier, there may be a number of hold-ups eventually because of the Government’s failure to give consideration to the views of persons such as the seaman who wrote the letter to which I have referred and others who know all about a particular industry because they work in it. In any case, it is not of much use according members of the Australian Country party an opportunity to read the letter because not many of them can read. They would need to have it explained to them word by word. Actually, the members of the Country party are the severest critics of this clause. Not one of them has endeavoured to read the bill, yet they are endeavouring to prevent my having incorporated in “ Hansard “ a letter which deals fully with this particular matter. Let it be recorded, however, that I offered to give to the committee a statement by a seaman of the amount of money he would lose under the provision proposed by the Government and that the Minister for Labour and National Service has refused to accept this proof of the validity of our proposed amendment.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member cannot canvass the decision of the committee.

Mr DALY:

– I shall not comment further on it. The amendment moved on behalf of the Opposition by the honorable member for East Sydney should be accepted. It is evident at this stage that the submissions made by the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison) will not be considered. He has suggested that the Government should review the matter and ascertain what is judicial - what should go to the court and what should be decided by the court. We are seeking to ensure that the seamen shall get from the operation of this bill the benefits to which they are entitled and which have become an established practice in the industry. These men sign a contract to work on a certain date. They may have to wait for a week, a fortnight, or perhaps only a day to take up that engagement, but the Government would keep them idle during that time. I should not be surprised if it disqualified them from participation in unemployment benefit on the ground that they can be deemed to be in work.

It is all very well for capitalists and squatters like the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Bowden) to say that it does not matter. I emphasize that every penny matters to the workers in industry to-day. It matters to seamen just as much as it does to other employees, and it is a disgrace to any section of this Parliament that an attempt such as this should be made to take a few pence from the men’s wages to bolster up the rising capital investment and huge profits of the employers in this industry.

I hope that the Minister will give consideration to our proposal and that he will not reject out of hand the submissions made by the honorable member for East Sydney and other honorable members on this side of the Parliament who believe that the wages of the seamen should commence on the date on which they are engaged.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 56 to 69 - by leave - considered together.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I wish to direct attention to the drastic penalties that may be imposed arbitrarily upon ^workers in the maritime industries. In actual fact, the seamen are asked to enter into an agreement under which they agree to accept certain penalties should they be found guilty of certain offences. In the -cases envisaged by this group of clauses, the master becomes the person who charges, tries, convicts and imposes the penalty.

I direct attention to the severity of the penalties suggested. When discussing an earlier provision, I pointed out that those who could be charged with desertion include not merely the person who deliberately intends not to return to his ship but also the person who, for some reason, overstays his leave by 48 hours, but still intends to return to his ship.

Mr Osborne:

– To which penalties do you refer?

Mr WARD:

– To those mentioned on page 36 of the bill.

Mr Osborne:

– They are imposed by the court, not by the master.

Mr WARD:

– But the master is the person who takes action against the seaman in the first place. The master has power, under certain conditions, to impose penalties, and we say that those penalties are too severe. I have already indicated that a person who overstays his leave by 48 hours or more can be declared a deserter. This dreadful name can be applied to him although, in effect, he is no different from the employee in any other type of industry who fails to report to work for two or three days and then simply returns to his work. There is no suggestion that a person who absents himself from work in another industry for two or three days should be charged with desertion or fined up to £40. The man who stays away from work in other industries for two or three days or more, suffers only the loss of his wages; he is taken back into employment.

The penalties proposed by the bill may be imposed even in circumstances in which the working of the ship is not affected. They may be imposed even at a time when a ship is in port and a seaman is absent without leave for over 48 hours. Even in that case, he suffers forfeiture of accrued wages up to an amount not exceeding £40, or he can be fined £40. I submit that these penalties should be reviewed and put in their proper perspective. I do not think that the worker who absents himself from employment on a ship under those conditions should be penalized as he is. In addition to losing his pay, he may be fined. That is unjust. As it would seem that the Government proposes to persist with the provision of penalties, I suggest that at least the amounts should be reviewed and put on a more reasonable scale.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

.- What worries me about these clauses is that they are so completely and utterly lopsided as far as penalties for breaches of various regulations are concerned. They refer, indirectly or directly, to the penalties that can be imposed on a seaman. Clause 62 makes references to the penalties for desertion: failure or refusal without reasonable cause to join his ship or to proceed to sea in his ship; absence from his ship without leave; insubordination or wilful disobedience to a lawful command; continued wilful disobedience to lawful commands; assaulting the master or another officer of his ship; conspiring with another seaman or apprentice to disobey lawful commands at sea; wilfully damaging his ship or stealing or wilfully damaging the equipment of his ship; stealing or wilfully damaging the cargo of his ship or the ship’s stores; or secreting a stowaway on hi9 ship. All these misdemeanours refer to seamen; officers are not mentioned in clause 62 or in any other of these clauses, although there is a mention of the master in clause 70, which proposes the insertion of a new section 115, subsection (12.) of which states -

The master of a ship who contravenes or fails to comply with a provision of this section is guilty of an offence punishable upon conviction by a fine not exceeding Fifty pounds.

The interesting point about that provision is that the master is to be fined if he does not punish a seaman. That is the only way in which the master is penalized. He has to carry out the provisions of the legislation or he is “ for it “.

This is- completely one-sided. Why is there not a set of clauses in the bill covering misdemeanours by officers of a ship, such as provocation? There is not one provision in this bill under which a master or an officer can be disciplined for committing acts that are not in accordance with the ethics and traditions of the sea and with moral principles. I am surprised that this measure is so one-sided and so loaded against the seamen. An agreement is signed when a seaman is taken on by a master. This is only a one-way agreement. I have always thought that when an agreement is signed, both parties are equally committed. In this case, it is a completely lopsided affair in which the poor old seamen are “ up for it “ in many ways and are liable to very heavy penalties, but the officers and masters of ships go scot free. How often is trouble on a ship due, not entirely to indiscipline by seamen, but to the arrogant, bullying character of the master?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– The honorable member has made his point. There is no need to repeat it for half an hour.

Mr DUTHIE:

– I am glad that the Minister for Labour and National Service admits that I have made the point. I should like the Minister for Air to indicate whether a misdemeanour by an officer or the master of a ship is punishable at all. Where in this bill is that covered?

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– I think that the view of the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) is a very distorted one. These clauses deal with a series of fines and bring the amounts up to date, in accordance with modern values. The principal act contains many provisions which make masters and officers of ships liable to penalties. In some cases, it makes certain offences indictable offences. There is no need to amend a provision that a master or an officer who does certain things shall be guilty of an indictable offence. That does not need amendment to bring it up to date. Some provisions of the act dealing with penalties to be imposed on other than seamen have been amended. They have already been referred to. The penalties for taking a ship to sea with the load-line submerged have been multiplied, not by two, but in some cases by ten.

Mr Duthie:

– Is the master liable ot is the owner liable?

Mr OSBORNE:

– I think the master is liable, but I cannot answer questions off the cuff running over the whole gamut of this bill. The honorable member for Wilmot asked whether it was possible for masters and officers, as well as seamen, to be punished under the act. I draw his attention to section 102 of the principal act, which provides -

The master or an officer of a ship who, without lawful justification, assaults any person belonging to the ship, shall be guilty of an offence. Penalty: Twenty pounds or imprisonment for three months.

This shows that they are liable to very considerable penaltites

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

.- The Minister for Air admitted, in answer to the honorable member for Wilmot, that he was not in a position to give him information that he required on a number of matters. That is, in itself, a serious matter, particularly when we are dealing with the question of penalties. There are a number of very heavy penalties for various misdemeanours by seamen. A penalty of £40 is mentioned in one case. The list includes a number of offences for which penalties of fines or terms of imprisonment can be imposed on seamen.

The Minister mentioned that, for assault, a captain could be fined £20 or sentenced to three months gaol. If a captain were to assault a seaman, I think that he should get twelve months or eighteen months gaol. That would be a light penalty in such a case. There is a difference of opinion as to whether the penaltites are heavy enough or too heavy.

There is another aspect of this matter that should not be forgotten. These penalties would be serious at any time, but they are very serious when the legislation is being administered by a Liberal Government, supported by the Australian Country party. We know the antagonism of Government supporters to trade unionists and the trade union movement generally. These penalties can be imposed by people appointed by this Government. That is a very serious position. No wonder the unions are worried about it.

This matter resolves itself into one of the administration of the legislation by the Government. The penalties are very severe and the legislation could be administered harshly under a government that is unsympathetic towards trade unionism. That is undoubtedly the case with the present Government. Therefore, we should examine these clauses carefully. If the act were being administered by the Labour party, it would be tolerantly administered. There would be proper supervision and sympathetic consideration )f all cases. But the Minister has glossed over these penalties and has said that he is not in a position to say why this or that has been done. Behind it all, there is a government which is unsympathetic towards the trade union movement. That indicates the danger to those people who go down to the sea in ships in regard to the penalties that could be imposed under these provisions.

I agree with the argument that has been put forward. I feel that the Government should take note of what has been said on this side of the chamber in respect of the penalties. Throughout the trade union movement there is, naturally, a desire to remove from legislation, provisions for penalties which could react against workers generally. I am seriously worried by the fact that, under an arrogant master of a ship, for instance, intolerance could be shown and injustice meted out to seamen. In addition to that, at the top level, there is a government which is opposed to trade unionism. A government which is the enemy of the trade union movement in this country is introducing legislation under which, undoubtedly, it could impose penalties - legislation which, if administered harshly, would result in injustice to trade unionists who are obliged to take ships to sea. I sincerely trust that some effort will be made by the Government to review these matters, and that safeguards will be provided for the people who come within the scope of the legislation.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 70- (1.) Section one hundred and fifteen of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: -

” 115. -

” (3.) Where the master of a ship to which this section applies imposes a fine on a seaman in respect of a breach of discipline, the master -

shall, if the seaman is still in the ship or the master can readily communicate with him, furnish a copy of the entry made by virtue of sub-paragraph (i) of the last preceding paragraph to the seaman within twenty-four hours after the fine is imposed or as soon thereafter as is practicable; and

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I move -

In paragraph (b) of sub-section (3.) of proposed section 115, omit “ or as soon thereafter as is practicable “.

There is no doubt that the clause now under consideration is most important. We discussed previously the section giving to the master of a ship power to impose the penalties which are set down and which have just been criticized by members on this side of the chamber.

It is true that the master charges and fines the seamen, but in addition, he is asked to record in the official log book the fact that a member of the crew has been found guilty and fined. That is regarded as a bad report. A seaman who receives a satisfactory discharge at the end of a voyage expects the discharge to be his certificate of service. But that is not so. If three bad reports are recorded against a seaman, he may be put out of the industry for six months. That penalty is rather severe. Three bad reports could arise out of the fining of a seaman by the master of a vessel and the seaman could be discharged as a result of those reports. If he is discharged at a port other than his home port, he has no right of repatriation and has to find his own way back to his home port. Could any more drastic penalty be imposed upon a member of the Australian mercantile marine?

We regard the Government’s proposal as objectionable and we propose a further amendment to the effect that a seaman shall be advised of any bad report recorded against him. It is important that he should know of any such report. Proposed new section 115(3.) reads -

Where the master of a ship to which this section applies imposes a fine on a seaman in respect of a breach of discipline, the master -

shall, if the seaman is still in the ship or the master can readily communicate with him, furnish a copy of the entry made by virtue of sub-paragraph (i) of the last preceding paragraph to the seaman within twenty-four hours after the fine is imposed or as soon thereafter as is practicable.

Why does the Government not restrict paragraph (b) to providing for notification of the seaman within twenty-four hours? What is to prevent the master informing the seaman of a bad report within that time if the seaman is aboard the ship or within easy communication of the master? Yet the Government adds the words “or as soon thereafter as is practicable “! The master may consider that the seaman should not be advised for some time, and he may leave the ship, quite unaware that a bad report had been made against him. The master might then seek to communicate with the seaman. If three bad reports have been made against a seaman, any facts disclosed by his discharge at the end of the voyage are of no importance; he is out of the industry for six months. That is a terrific penalty.

To-night we heard honorable members opposite asking that people be allowed to follow their usual occupation. Surely, after a seaman has been fined, he has paid the penalty for whatever offence he committed. But he also gets a bad report, and if he gets three bad reports he is out of work for a period of six months.

Most remarkable is the agreement into which the seaman is asked to enter. The maritime organizations make some very serious comments in relation to this provision. The seaman, when he enters into the agreement, may not be aware of its exact terms. The Minister has already indicated that the seamen do not enter into individual agreements, but into a collective agreement with the master. The seamen merely attach their signature. How can it be reasoned that any seaman, signing on in that way, will read in detail the contents of the agreement?

I shall read to the House the unions’ comments about the agreement -

Until the amendments of 1952, except by a regulation of the maritime industry commission, penalties were not contained in an agreement without the consent of the seaman, in fact, seamen generally did not realize the penalties were only by agreement, and the unions know of no case where seamen rejected the agreement because of such inclusion.

So, while the unions expressed the viewpoint that the seaman would be within his right in objecting to the inclusion of penalties in the agreement, it is quite evident that the great majority of the seamen are not aware of this fact. The unions further state -

It is contrary to common industrial justice that a worker must sign an agreement to enter into employment and simultaneously agree to heavy penalties for any possible future offencewith which he may be charged, in a system where the master charges the seaman with the offence, tries the seaman and convicts the seaman. Evidently there must be some doubt asto the rights of the master to impose these penalties unless in advance the seaman has entered into this agreement. lt is most remarkable that such a provision is included in any agreement - that a person must agree in advance that themaster who is to employ him shall have these rights. The unions also direct attention to the matter which I raised previously in relation to desertion. They comment in these terms -

A seaman may be absent at the time fixed for a vessel’s departure - this does not mean the timeat which the vessel does depart-

Honorable members no doubt are awarethat ships quite frequently for various reasons do not depart at the fixed time of departure. If the absence of the seaman has no bearing upon the late departure of the vessel, why should these savage penalties be imposed upon an unfortunate employee who is absent at the fixed departuretime of the ship, probably for some reasonthat is in his view quite substantial,, although it is not accepted as satisfactory by the master.

The comments of the unions continue - - this does not mean at the time at which the vessel does depart - due to circumstances beyond his control,

That means that the seaman has not reported to the ship due to circumstances beyond his control. The seaman concerned may be fined and instantly dismissed, thus forfeiting any right of repatriation to the port at which he joined the ship. He is then automatically regarded as having a bad report, three of which, as I have already said, exclude him from employment in the industry.

The penalties are savage and should be reviewed. Probably the Government will say that nobody has complained about them. My information is that the unions have continually complained about them and they now demand some improvement. I am amazed that the employees in this industry have been so patient and are still prepared to await the decision of the Government as to whether a change will be made in the conditions of their employment. I should not care to offer for employment under the same conditions as a seaman offers for employment, and I dare say that if every honorable member in this chamber were to answer frankly, he would agree that he would not like to sign on under those conditions.

Having regard to the arguments that we have advanced, it is not unreasonable to say that the master must advise the seamen, especially if he is still aboard the ship or may be readily communicated with by the master, within 24 hours that a bad report has been recorded against him in the official log book of the ship. Honorable members must appreciate the serious consequences that can flow from the recording of three bad reports and the effect of those reports on the seaman’s continued employment in the industry. While we find the general provisions objectionable, I think the Government should agree to improve the measure to the extent we suggest.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

.- I agree entirely with the submissions of the honorable member for East Sydney. The significant portion of proposed new section 1 1 5 is sub-section (2.), which reads -

The master of a ship to which this section applies shall not impose a fine on a seaman in respect of a breach of discipline except after proper inquiry.

Surely if the master has conducted a proper inquiry into a breach of discipline, 24 hours is ample time for him to furnish a copy of the entry in the log book to the seaman concerned. I do not think there is any need for the master of the ship to have to provide this information to the seaman within 24 hours or “ as soon thereafter as is practicable “. If the master has held the inquiry he can inform the seaman there and then that he has been fined, or after due consideration that he has been fined, and within 24 hours he could give the seaman a copy of the entry. If the words “ or as soon thereafter as is practicable “ remain in the bill, on occasions masters will deliberately allow a man to go away from the ship to some place where he cannot be readily contacted, so that the master cannot give him a copy of the entry. Or perhaps the master will let the seaman go away from the ship and not notify him for reasons best known to himself. In my opinion the master has plenty of time under the existing act - 24 hours after holding the inquiry- - to notify the seaman of the fine that has been imposed. The Minister would be well advised to accept the amendment that has been moved by the honorable member for East Sydney.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– I shall not attempt to cover the whole range of section 115 of the act as the honorable member for East Sydney has done. This section of the act gives a master very limited authority to impose fines on members of the crew for breaches of discipline. I shall restrict my remarks to the terms of the Opposition’s amendment. The clause provides that having fined a man, the master must enter the fact of the fine in the log. He then must notify the seaman of the log entry. The provision, as drafted, requires the master to notify the seaman of the log entry within 24 hours or as soon thereafter as is practicable. Whether the seaman is aboard ship or not, there is good reason for the provision. If the honorable member for East Sydney had a Tittle more knowledge and understanding of life and work at sea he would probably realize that on occasions in bad weather or in dangerous waters the master cannot leave the bridge for much longer than 24 hours at a time. He must first of all hold the inquiry. Having held the inquiry, he inflicts a fine. He makes an entry in the log. By the time it is written up the master may not be able to leave the bridge. That could be the case if the ship is at sea. On the other hand, and this is perhaps more pertinent, suppose the ship is in harbour. The inquiry is held; the log is written up; the master sends for the man to notify him of the log entry, and he discovers that the man has gone ashore. If the Opposition’s amendment were carried the offending seaman would only need to keep out of the master’s way for 24 hours and the fine would become illegal. That is the reason for the inclusion of the words “ as soon thereafter as is practicable “. Otherwise the provision would be ridiculous. Suggestions have been made by honorable members opposite that the master could deliberately fail to notify the seaman of the entry in the log.

Mr Ward:

– Where does the bill say that in the circumstances outlined by the Minister the fine would be illegal?

Mr OSBORNE:

– The whole tenor of the provision is to give this practice legality.

The master must comply with the terms of the section and if the amendment is carried and it imposes an obligation on the master to notify the seaman within 24 hours, in the circumstances I have outlined the fine would be illegally imposed. The amendment cannot be accepted.

Amendment negatived’.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 71 and 72 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 73 -

Section one hundred and eighteen of the Principal’ Act is amended -

Section proposed to be amended - (1.) On every ship registered in Australia or engaged’ in the coasting trade in either of the following cases, namely: -

if during a voyage the allowance of any of the provisions required by the prescribed scale is reduced; or
if it is shown that any of the provisions are or have during the voyage been of bad quality, the seaman shall receive, as compensation for that reduction or bad quality, according to the lime of its continuance, the following sums, to be paid to him in addition to, and to be recoverable as, wages: -
1. In respect of bad quality, a sum not exceeding Two shillings a day.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I move -

At the end of the clause add the following paragraph: - “and (d) by adding to paragraph (iii) of subsection (1.) the words ‘or such greater sums as may be provided in appropriate industrial awards made under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1956’.”.

The unions state that to their knowledge section 118 has never been applied. However, the Government proposes to increase the allowances, but the union contends that any compensation paid for the supply of bad provisions should be strictly in accordance with the award. Apparently the union is afraid that this clause could lead to a violation of a provision contained in the award, or in future awards. It believes that these matters should more properly be included in the award rather than in an act of Parliament. The union believes that it offers greater protection to the men if the provisions are included in an award and not in an act of Parliament, which could be amended at any time to suit the whim of any anti-Labour government that might be in power. The union also asks that a new paragraph be added to the sub-section in order to make it clear that; if the; award provisions are greater than- the provisions- in the act, the award provisions should prevail.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to

Clauses 74 to 79 - by leave - taken together and agreed to.

Clause 80-

Section one hundred and twenty-seven of the Principal Act is repealed and. the following section inserted in its stead: - “ 127. - (1.) If a seaman belonging to a. ship registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting trade -

receives a hurt or injury, or contracts a disease, in the service of the ship; or

suffers from an illness, not being an illness due to his wilful act or default or to his misbehaviour, and the seaman is not at his proper return port the expense of -

providing the necessary surgical and medical advice and attendance and medicine, until the seaman is cured, dies or arrives at his proper return port;

the maintenance of the seaman until he is cured, dies or arrives at his proper return port; shall, subject to sub-section (4.) of this section, be defrayed by the owner of the ship without deduction from the wages of the seaman.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– I move -

In sub-section (1.) of proposed section 127, omit “ not at his proper return “, insert “ at a “.

This provision deals with compensation payable to sick or injured seamen or members of a crew.

Mr Osborne:

– It relates to medical attendance, not compensation.

Mr WARD:

– Well, the Opposition regards it as compensation. If a seaman becomes ill or suffers from an accident in the course of his employment, the point at which he becomes entitled to surgical, medical and hospital expenses is of the greatest importance to him Although the Minister does not admit that payments of this kind can be regarded as compensation, the fact is that if, in such circumstances, a seaman is at his own or proper return port, he is entitled only to his wages, and then only for a prescribed period. He is not entitled to medical, surgical or hospital expenses. Under the existing act, when the seaman is returned to his own port his wages continue for one month. The Government proposes to extend the period to three months. This is a worth-while improvement.

If a seaman falls ill or is injured in the course of his employment, why should there be any differentiation according to whether he is at his home port or away from his home port? The principle is the same in either case. If, having been injured or fallen ill in the course of his employment, he is entitled to these services while away from his home port, he should likewise be entitled to them after his return there or if he was injured or fell ill at his home port.

The present practice is that the medical advisers must report that the seaman has recovered from the injury or illness before return to his home port. But, under these new provisions, he will be returned to his home port as soon as he is deemed fit to travel. What a great advantage that is for the shipowner! One can readily understand that some of these shipowners might consider that a man was fit to travel although he was in fact very ill - and probably, in the opinion of any reasonable person, unfit to travel - and they would hurry him back to his home port so that they can lessen their financial responsibility for maintaining him and for medical treatment or hospital accommodation.

As I have said, I think that the Government has made some improvement by providing that the seaman is to be kept on wages for three months after return to his home port. Under the existing provision, he is to be kept on full wages for only one month. The union is very serious about this matter. It considers that, for the proper protection of the seamen, the act should not require that medical expenses shall be met only while the seaman who has fallen ill or been injured is not .at his proper return port. It considers that these expenses should be met wherever the seaman is if the injury or illness was suffered in the course of his employment.

The Opposition regards the amendment as a most important one, and it intends to divide the committee upon it.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– The honorable member for

East Sydney (Mr. Ward) has dealt not only with amendment No. 26 in the circulated list, but also, I think, with matters related to the next four amendments, and I suggest that, on the consideration of amendment No. 26, we debate the whole issue involving the next four amendments, which deal with the same subject-matter.

I want to make it perfectly clear that the provisions that we are now considering do not deal with workers’ compensation. Seamen, like any other workers in Australia, are entitled to workers’ compensation for injuries received in or arising out of their employment. These provisions deal, not with that sort of compensation, but with the payment of the medical expenses of a seaman who becomes ill, is injured, or contracts a disease quite apart from workers’ compensation.

Mr Ward:

– These provisions affect his wages, too.

Mr OSBORNE:

– They affect his wages. The general scheme of the act is that if a seaman, while away from his home port, becomes ill or is injured - apart from the kind of injury that leads to workers’ compensation, which is a separate issue - he is entitled to the payment of medical expenses, and to his wages until he is brought back to his proper return port.

Let us deal, first, with medical attention. If the amendment were carried, it would provide that a seaman who became ill or was injured when his ship was away from his home port, and whose ship had returned subsequently to his home port, should receive medical attention at the expense of his employer until he had recovered. That would give him a right that no other member of the community enjoys. The honorable member for East Sydney, this evening, has frequently related the conditions of seamen to those of workers in other industries ashore. No worker in any other industry ashore is entitled to medical treatment at the expense of his employer if he becomes ill at home at night with some sickness having no connexion with his employment. Why should such a right be conferred on seamen? I wonder whether Opposition members realize that that would be the effect of the amendment. We agree that it is fair enough that, when a seaman is in a ship away from his home port, he should be looked after at the expense of his employer - and the existing law so provides. But what reason is there to give him, after he has been brought home again, a right that no other worker in Australia enjoys?

Mr Makin:

– Does an independent medical authority certify in these situations?

Mr OSBORNE:

– That is a separate issue altogether. We are considering what follows from the fact that a seaman is ill. If he is away from his home port, he is entitled, under the law, to medical treatment at the expense of his employer, and >our argument is that that right should cease when the man has been returned to his home port.

So much for medical expenses. Turning now to wages, I point out that the act provides that if a seaman becomes ill or unable to work while his ship is away from his home port he receives his wages until he is returned to his home port, and for a specified time thereafter. But the amendment that the Opposition intends to move with respect to this matter would provide that he shall receive his wages until he is recovered.

The amendment that has been proposed, and the next four amendments that the Opposition intends to move, are not acceptable to the Government.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– There is some difference between the position of seamen and that of employees in industry generally, but I do not think that, on the ground of justice, any great objection could be taken to extending to other industries the provision that we now seek to have made in the maritime industry. However, we happen to be dealing with seamen at the moment. If a seaman is serving on a ship, and contracts an illness, it is most likely that it will be contracted aboard ship, and not in his home. The ship is his home while he is away from his home port, and his illness may be due to the ship being in a filthy condition. We have heard of the recent case of “ Pattiwilya “, in respect of which Mr. Justice Foster made a finding at variance with an order made by the Commonwealth Industrial Court. Judge Foster would not allow that ship to be sent to -sea in a filthy condition. He ordered it to be cleaned up, and that was the proper thing to do. But had he taken a different view, and had the ship gone to sea in a filthy condition, Australian seamen would have been required to serve on board under filthy conditions. Does the Minister consider that if, as a result, a seaman had contracted an illness, the shipowner should be able to wash his hands completely of responsibility for the man’s medical expenses and for the continuance of his wages the moment the seaman was returned to his home port, even if he were still ill and required medical treatment?

I cannot see why a man’s wage should be reduced merely because he has the misfortune to suffer illness or injury in the course of his employment. What is wrong with the principle of making the employer responsible in these respects? How else can the seaman and his family be maintained? Seamen do not receive such high wages that they can put aside large sums for the maintenance of themselves and their families during periods of illness or incapacity due to injury, and a short period of idleness without wages can mean a great deal of suffering for a seaman and those dependent upon him. Why should his family be penalized merely because he has been injured or has fallen ill in the service of a shipowner?

The Minister’s attitude is most unreasonable. It is not sufficient to say that the principle that the Opposition seeks to have written into the act does not apply in other industries. I daresay that the granting of this benefit while seamen are away from their proper return port was not readily conceded to the maritime unions in the first place. I imagine they had to fight for it. If they are entitled to it while away from their home port, they are equally entitled to it when they return. 1 agree with the Minister’s statement that the circumstance in question does not involve ordinary claims for workers’ compensation. If seamen suffer injury, they have their civil rights under the compensation law. But surely we are only splitting straws when we query whether the payment is wages or compensation, because from the worker’s viewpoint the main thing is the quantum of the income he receives and whether he is receiving sufficient to maintain his family. It does not matter much whether the income is called compensation or wages. If a man is not working, I suppose it is more appropriate to speak of his income as being compensation, because the term “ wages “ is usually used to describe money that one receives in return for services. If one is not working but he continues to receive the same income, in my opinion the appropriate term to use is “ compensation “, and that is the sense in which I used the term in the first instance.

Mr Osborne:

– If an elderly seaman had a stroke and lingered for twenty years, should the employer support him?

Mr WARD:

– The Minister puts forward a ridiculous supposition. The occupation of a seaman is such that he cannot continue in it when he is very old.

Mr Anderson:

– Who said that?

Mr WARD:

– I say it. It is most laborious work. It is not the kind of employment that honorable members opposite believe it to be. In individual cases men may have to hang on much longer than normally would be the case, but there would not be a great number of men in the category to which the Minister referred. Because seamen have to be certified as fit for the employment in which they engage, it is most unlikely that there would be a case such as the one mentioned by the Minister. He put forward that hypothetical case in the hope that he would be able to destroy the Opposition’s argument, but I do not think he has been successful. 1 repeat that the provision under consideration concerns mainly men who contract contagious diseases, sometimes as a result of filthy conditions aboard ship, and men who suffer injury.

Mr Osborne:

– They are covered by workers’ compensation.

Mr WARD:

– But what happens during the period when they are establishing their case before the various tribunals and are awaiting judgment? What is to happen to them and their dependants during that period? Apparently the Minister believes they would be adequately provided for by getting the Commonwealth sickness benefit which, having regard to the present cost of living, is such a miserable sum that no person in this country ought to be asked to subsist on it alone.

In my opinion, the seamen’s union and the maritime unions generally are justified in fighting for the establishment of this principle, in which the Labour party concurs and in relation to which we intend to press for a division.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

.- I agree entirely with what the honorable member for East Sydney has said. I should like to be perfectly fair and add that the amendments contained in the bill in regard to illness and associated expense provide for a vast improvement of the existing state of affairs. That fact has been admitted by the honorable member for East Sydney. I think we should pay due tribute to all those who have been responsible for effecting the improvement. The unions concerned have been fighting for that improvement for a long time.

I should like the Minister for Air to explain to me the seeming ridiculous contradiction in proposed section 127. Subsection (1.) provides -

If a seaman belonging to a ship registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting trade -

receives a hurt or injury, or contracts a disease, in the service of the ship; or

suffers from an illness, not being an illness due to his wilful act or default or to his misbehaviour, and the seaman is not at his proper return port, the expense of -

providing the necessary surgical and medical advice and attendance, and medicine, until the seaman is cured, dies or arrives at his proper return port;

the maintenance of the seaman until he is cured, dies or arrives at his proper return port;

the conveyance of the seaman to his proper return port; and

if the seaman dies before he arrives at his proper return port - his burial . . . shall, subject to sub-section (4.) of this section, be defrayed by the owner of the ship without deduction from the wages of the seaman.

That provision seems to be excellent, if we forget about the little sting contained in the words “ subject to sub-section (4.) of this section “. Sub-section (4.) provides -

If it is practicable for the seaman to be treated and maintained in a public hospital but he elects to be treated and maintained elsewhere, the liability of the owner in respect of surgical and medical advice and attendance, medicine and maintenance is not greater than it would have been if the seaman had been treated and maintained as an in-patient in the public hospital.

I agree with the provision up to that point.

Then sub-section (5.) provides -

The expense of all surgical and medical advice and attendance, and medicine, given to a seaman belonging to a ship registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting trade while the seaman is on board the ship shall be defrayed by the owner of the ship without deduction from the wages of the seaman.

That is not too bad, either; but sub-section (6.) goes on to provide -

Any reasonable expenses incurred by the owner of a ship registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting trade in respect of -

an illness of a seaman belonging to the ship; or
the burial of such a seaman who dies while on service, not being expenses which are required to be defrayed by the owner of the ship under the preceding provisions of this section, may, with the approval of a proper authority at a port, be deducted from the wages of the seaman.

I know how difficult it is to obtain common sense and logic when a question of law arises, but I should like to know the purpose of sub-section (6.). It is a beautiful escape clause. Will the Minister explain why it has been inserted, how it will operate and when it will start to operate?

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– The honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) has entirely overlooked the existence in paragraph (b) of sub-section (6.) of the words - not being expenses which are required to be defrayed by the owner of the ship under the preceding provisions of this section . . .

The section sets out all the expenses that the owner is obliged to defray.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr. Ward’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 47

NOES: 16

Majority . . 31

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Friday, 16 May 1958

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.by leave - I move -

In paragraph (c) of sub-section (1.) of proposed section 127, omit “ or arrives at his proper return port “.

The same principle is involved in this amendment as was involved in the amendment that has just been determined by the division. I formally move the amendment to record the opposition of the Australian Labour party to this provision.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (by Mr. Ward) - by leave - negatived -

In paragraph (d) of sub-section (1.) of proposed section 127, omit “ or arrives at his proper return port “.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 81 - (1.) Sections one hundred and twenty-nine, one hundred and thirty, one hundred and thirty-one and one hundred and thirty-two of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead: -

” 132. -

” (3.) If, after the recovery of a seaman entitled to receive wages under the last preceding subsection and before he arrives at his proper return port-

he refuses or fails, without the approval of a proper authority at a port, to accept an offer of employment on a ship which is proceeding to his proper return port, being employment under the terms of which-

he would have been paid wages at a rate hot less than the rate fixed by the agreement under which he served on the ship from which he was left on shore; and

he would have had the rightto be discharged on arrival at his proper return port; or

he refuses or fails, without reasonable excuse, to rejoin the ship from which he was left on shore or to accept conveyance back to his proper return port by or at the cost of the owner of that ship, he is not entitled to receive wages in respect of any period after that refusal or failure. “ (4.) A seaman who, before his recovery, is fit to travel is not entitled to wages under subsection (2.) of this section in respect of a day on which his conveyance to his proper return port by or at the cost of the owner of the ship from which he was left on shore is delayed by his own act, default or neglect. “ (6.) A seaman is entitled to wages under this section by reason of an illness, hurt or injury only if the illness, hurt or injury-

is, or appears to be, of such nature as to require, or to be likely to require, medical treatment for a period exceeding seven days; and

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.I move -

Omit sub-sections (3.) and (4.) of proposed section 132.

These proposed sub-sections would substantially alter the present practice, and the union regards this alteration as being most serious. According to the arguments advanced to me by representatives of the union, these provisions conflict with the method of engagement provided in the award, which I submitted to the Minister when dealing with an earlier clause Because of that conflict, the union wants the provisions deleted from the bill. In addition, the provisions conflict with the present act, which forbids a seaman being returned to his home port until he is certified as having recovered. The union fears that, where a seaman is declared fit to travel - which is entirely different from being certified as fully recovered - he may be directed to or offered other employment before he is actually returned to his home port. The union feels that this is a weakening of the provision in the award.

Amendment negatived.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.I move -

In paragraph (c) of sub-section (6.) of proposed section 132, omit “for a period exceeding seven days”.

The adoption of this amendment would mean that the liability of the employer for payment in respect of illness, hurt or injury would commence from the first day of the occurrence of the disability instead of beginning, as proposed in the bill, after seven days. Sub-section (6.) reads, in part -

A seaman is entitled to wages under this section by reason of an illness, hurt or injury only if the illness, hurt or injury -

is, or appears to be, of such a nature as to require, or to be likely to require, medical treatment for a period exceeding seven days

That appears to mean that if treatment for a shorter period than seven days is required there is no liability on the employer. The union considers that the liability should commence from the first day of illness. I think that is a reasonable request. I can never understand why in this type of legislation, or in award conditions, a waiting period before liability commences is stipulated. Where an illness is contracted in the course of employment, as would be the case with a seaman, why does not the liability commence from the first moment of illness? Why should it not begin before seven days have passed? It appears to be an unreasonable provision which the Government is now proposing to enforce on the employees of the Australian mercantile marine. The Opposition regards the amendment as important and will call for a division if the Government does not accept it.

Mr HOWSON:
Fawkner

.I am surprised that the Opposition objects to this proposed sub-section, because, in effect, it is an improvement on the existing provision, under which the waiting period for the commencement of liability of the employer is fourteen days. That period is to be reduced to seven days. I should have thought there would be general satisfaction after the kind of negotiation which has taken place on this provision, and with the considerable improvement that is being made for the benefit of seamen.

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Howson) asks us to be grateful for the crumb from the employer’s table. Not one act of any State, whether it be a workers’ compensation act or a government employees’ compensation act, has a provision such as this. The New South Wales Government Railways Act, covering railwaymen, deals with this very subject in section 100b. The New South Wales Workers Compensation Act provides for the whole, period of disability of a worker to be paid for. Every other workers’ compensation act in Australia has a similar provision. None of them contains a provision for a waiting period of seven days before the commencement of liability of the employer.

The honorable member for Fawkner said that the period before commencement of eligibility has been fourteen days and that we ought to be glad to have it reduced to seven. Instead of holding such a view, the least the honorable member and the Government he supports should do is to take some notice of what other governments, and the courts throughout Australia, have done in relation to this very subject. The Government proposes to act in a manner which is contrary to the approach adopted by State governments. Surely the Minister for Air does not seriously claim that a sick seaman is entitled to less consideration than is a sick railwayman. Does he claim that the wife and family of a seaman are not entitled to the same protection as the wives and families of rail-

Way workers in the various States enjoy? I defy the Minister to produce here a copy of any workers’ compensation act, or any other such act of any State legislature which provides for a waiting period of seven days before eligibility for payment for sickness hurt or injury commences.

Obviously the Government examined the provision we are now discussing, since it made a decision to reduce the waiting period from fourteen to seven days. The least that it should have done was to go as far as the workers’ compensation acts of the State legislatures go in this matter.

The adoption of the amendment moved by the honorable member for East Sydney would merely bring this provision into line with the similar provision in the New South Wales Goverment Railways Act. Section 100b of that act provides for sickness payments to commence from the beginning of the sickness, and that is what we propose here. It is a common principle, which is present in every act of this nature passed by the New South Wales Parliament for many years. The provision for a waiting period’ of seven days, which was in the New South Wales Government Railway Act, was repealed not less than fifteen years ago. So this Government is fifteen years behind the times in relation to the benefits that should be payable to workers who fall by the wayside in the course of their employment.

Surely the very fact that the provision has been looked at, and the waiting period reduced from fourteen to seven days, means that the Government could well look at it again and make the provision accord with similar provisions in State legislation.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– The argument advanced by the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison) is based on a comparison of provisions relating to railway workers in New South Wales and the provision in this proposed sub-section relating to seamen. The honorable member entirely overlooks the fact that a seaman who becomes ill away from his home port is entitled to wages till he returns to that port, or for a week after bc has recovered, or for three months after he gets back if he has not recovered. That does, not apply to railwaymen. He is also entitled to medical expenses. The honorable gentleman also overlooks the enormous cost of maintaining a sick seaman away from his home port, moving him home as a passenger, and paying his medical expenses.

That brings me to another point. The honorable member for Blaxland talked about a crumb from the employer’s table when referring to the fact that after considerable negotiation beween the parties the Government had reduced the waiting period before a seaman qualified for sick pay from fourteen to- seven days. Those words of the honorable member moved me to) remind the committee, that ultimately the expenses involved in these cases are borne not by the shipowners, but by the people, of Australia, in the added costs, of coastal transport. SO, there is a very important national interest involved in seeing that the expenses of. maintaining our coastal shipping are kept in reasonable bounds. It is not merely a matter of crumbs from the employer’s table.

M*. E, JAMES, HARRISON, (Blaxland) fcl?. 17 a.m.],.. - As j, expected^ the. Minister has. not examined the acts of other legislatures on such matters, and I do not- know how many of his. colleagues, are in the same position. The Minister, talks about the C.onsiderable expense, involved in looking after, returning to his home port, and providing medical expenses for, a seaman who is. sick, or injured.. Will the Minister say that a. seaman whose home port is Sydney and who is hurt in Brisbane is a different case from a railwayman from Sydney who is hurt during the course of his employment at Taree? There is no difference between the two cases. The hospital expenses of the railwayman injured at Taree are met by the railway service. He will be brought home and receive sick pay- from the time of the commencement of his. disability. And in New South Wales the period of that payment is not. limited to three months.. Under section 100b of the Government Railways A,ct it is unlimited. The payment could continue for twelve months if the disability lasted that long,, and.- the man would be paid for every day pf the period. His medical, expenses would also he met.

The Minister- talked, about loading the coastal shipping industry with costs. Compare, with that possibility the hardship imposed on the family of an injured worker! Talk about crumbs from the employer’s table! To Opposition members, the family of a man injured at work is much more important to the community than are the profits of the people who run. ships around our coasts.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

.The arguments of- the Minister and the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Howson) certainly did not stand up to the examination to which they were subjected by the honorable member for Blaxland.

The honorable member mentioned section 100b of the New South Wales Govern-, ment Railways. Act. Section 108 of the New South Wales Transport Act makes exactly the same provision. I cannot see that there is any sense in having a waiting period of seven days before an injured or ill seaman becomes eligible for sick pay, because it is quite simplest has been done on numerous occasions;- =for people to get a certificate from a medical practitioner to cover them for seven days. There are doctors who will gives such certificates whether the patient is sick or not. If an applicant for sick pay cares, to overcome a legal provision by subterfuge he can readily do so. No purpose is served by stipulating this period in the bill. The position could quite easily be overcome by a seaman, but to overcome it. he possibly may have to be a little careless with the truth, and he may perhaps need to ask a medical practitioner also to be careless with the truth. There is no reason at all why a man who is sick should npt immediately become entitled to sick pay. If the Government wishes to provide a safeguard, why does it not provide that unless a seaman, has been in the industry for a, certain period of time he shall not be entitled to sick pay if the duration of his sickness, does not exceed seven days?

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This provision covers injuries as well-.

Mr STEWART:

-As the honorable member for Blaxland says, the provision covers injuries also. In most compensation acts it will be found that the. provisions regarding sick pay are separate from those relating to compensation. Since the clause Covers, both compensation and payment for sickness, there certainly should not be a limit, as. to, the. date from which pay should commence. I ask the Minister to bring this matter into line with, other compensation legislation throughout the. Commonwealth,, particularly that which applies in government departments, and to accept the amendment moved by the honorable member for East Sydney.’

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

.Although the amendment proposed by the Opposition contains only a few words I think that, as the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison) stated earlier, they are most important. Undoubtedly, this provision of the bill puts back the clock many years. Under the proposal of the Government, a seaman who is sick or injured, in order to be entitled to wages, must require medical treatment for more than seven days. That is most unfair and is in conflict with practically every other worthwhile piece of legislation covering injury or illness under the various awards. I cannot see why the Government should propose to stipulate the period of seven days. Undoubtedly, this is just another attempt by the Government to bolster the position of the shipowners and to give them further benefits at the expense of the people who will come within the scope of the act.

I cannot understand why the Government will not accept the amendment and in that way give justice to those who will be covered by the act. The Minister for Air, throughout the course of this debate, has displayed a great inexperience of industrial affairs and lack of knowledge of the matters covered by this legislation, of which he is in charge. Whether it is that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt), who is constantly telling us to sit down, does not want to speak, or does not know what to say, I do not know, but if he were to speak he could not be any worse than the Minister for Air, having regard to the Minister’s answers to the points raised by honorable members on this side of the chamber. No satisfactory explanation has been given regarding this period of seven days.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– Why did Labour continue this provision while it was in government?

Mr DALY:

– It is of no use the Minister asking what we did. A LiberalAustralian Country party Government is in office at the moment. Why does it not do the job properly? The fact that we might have overlooked just one item during our term of office is no excuse for failure to eliminate this period of seven days now.

I say to the Minister for Air and the Minister for Labour and National Service that no clear reason has been given for the imposition of the seven-day stipulation. The Minister for Air said that it was not possible to compare seamen with railway workers, or with other workers in industry. The honorable member for Blaxland, who is a man of wide industrial experience, showed quite clearly that that could be done and that there was no difference between the position of a man injured on board a ship and a railway worker injured at a country town away from his home town. To stipulate a period of seven days is grossly unjust, and undoubtedly the union is justified in objecting to it.

I should like to know why it is that the Minister for Air is virtually the only member on the Government side who is answering the points raised by the Opposition. If there are sound and sane answers to the matters that we raise, why are not some of the other members of the Government in a position to speak? The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Howson) stated that the old provision prescribed a period of fourteen days, and that it is now proposed to reduce the period to seven days. What a tremendous advance it is in this atomic age to give seven days away! Would it not be better to eliminate the limitation altogether? Honorable members on this side of the chamber point out that tremendous hardship is involved in this matter.

Why should a man who is sick or injured be subject to any limitation regarding the period of medical treatment? That is the question that the Minister must answer. Why is this act to be out of conformity with practically every other piece of industrial legislation in this respect? I do not know of any court in this country, no matter how biased it might be against the interests of the workers, which would adopt the proposal that is incorporated in this legislation. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the statements that have been made by honorable members with wide industrial knowledge on this side of the chamber and decide to accept the Opposition amendment.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr. Ward’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 44

NOES: 16

Majority . . . . 28

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 82 to 90 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 91-

After section one hundred and forty-eight of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted in Division 16 of Part II.: - “ 148c. - (1.) If a seaman (other than a seaman discharged in accordance with this Act) or an apprentice is left on shore at any port, including a port outside Australia, from a ship registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting trade, the master of the ship shall -

deliver the account prepared under paragraph (a) of this sub-section and any effects of the seaman or apprentice which the master has taken into his charge under the last preceding paragraph -

to the seaman or apprentice, either directly or through a proper authority at a port; or

if it is not practicable so to deliver the account and effects to the seaman or apprentice - to a proper authority at a port; and

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– I move -

In sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (c) of subsection (1.) of proposed section 148c, omit “ a port “, insert “ the port where the seaman or apprentice is left on shore “.

This provision relates to the wages and effects of seamen who are left behind, but it excludes the goods of seamen or apprentices who have been discharged but who are left behind at some place - it may be overseas - for some other reason. The clause provides that the wages and effects of the person concerned shall be paid to, or delivered to the proper authority at a port. The port may be anywhere. It may not be a port that is convenient to the person who is left ashore. The unions concerned consider that “ the port where the seaman or apprentice is left on shore “ should be the place where the wages are paid, although the wages are due to him elsewhere, and his effects should be delivered. The unions consider that this is not unreasonable.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– There is a short and simple answer to what the honorable member for East Sydney has submitted. The bill requires a master to hand over to a proper authority at a port the account of wages and the effects of a seaman who has been left behind. If a master puts a seaman ashore, he will naturally leave the account and the effects at the port where he is, but it will occur sometimes that a seaman will miss his ship; it could even be that his absence is not discovered until after the ship has sailed. The account of wages and the effects must then be delivered up at some other port. This is usually the vessel’s next port of call, although it will not always be so convenient to the seaman himself. It would be impracticable in all cases to comply with the section if amended as proposed, without unreasonably delaying ships. I think this explanation is obvious enough to honorable members, and for that reason the Government cannot accept the amendment. I might say that the next amendment raises the same point, and for the same reasons it cannot be accepted.

Amendment negatived.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– 1 move -

In sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (c) of subsection (1.) of proposed section 148c, omit “ a port “, insert “ the port of engagement, unless by agreement between the master and the seaman or apprentice concerned, it is arranged that delivery is to be made at another port”.

This amendment is not quite identical with the preceding amendment, although it appears to be in similar terms. Sub-section (1.) (c) (ii) of proposed section 148c provides -

if it is not practicable so to deliver the account and effects to the seaman or apprentice - to a proper authority at a port;

Although the proper procedure is to do these things by agreement, what is to prevent it? If a seaman or an apprentice is left ashore for some reason or other he will not be unreasonable. It is recognized that if it is impracticable to comply with some request, there should be a conference about the matter in order to reach agreement. I think that is the way this matter should be determined. As the clause is now worded, we have the same objection to it as we had to the earlier provision, namely, that “ a port” can mean a port anywhere.

The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt) said that it may be impracticable to pay the wages and to deliver the effects of the seaman or apprentice concerned at the port where he is left ashore, and that usually the wages and effects are then delivered at the vessel’s next port of call. In my opinion, if there were no other way of adjusting this matter, there would be no difficulty in the master and apprentice or seaman concerned reaching an agreement. Therefore, I think that the request of the union is reasonable. I might mention that one of the reasons for this request by the unions is that the provision appearing in the clause conflicts with a provision of the 1955 award. Consequently, the unions object to it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 92 to 94 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 95 -

Section one hundred and fifty-three of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - “ 153. If-

a person dies at a place outside Australia; months before, his death, he was a seaman or apprentice belonging to a ship; and

he left money or effects at the place at which he died elsewhere than on board the ship, a proper authority at the port at or nearest to that place may take into his charge that money and those effects.”.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– I move -

At the end of proposed section 153, add “ for delivery to the deceased’s next of kin who, for the purposes of this section, includes a de facto wife “.

This clause deals with the delivery of the effects of a deceased seaman, and it is designed to meet the convenience of the next of kin. In most cases, these men die without making a will, and the usual practice is for their effects to be held until the estate is settled, for delivery to the next of kin. The union contends that this is an unnecessary inconvenience in most cases to the next of kin, because the effects of a seaman on board a ship are usually of minor value and therefore they have only sentimental value to the person concerned, or the person who will eventually obtain delivery. It is the opinion of the unions that instead of holding up the delivery of these minor personal effects which, in some cases, have been held for a long period of time, it is not unreasonable to ask that these effects be delivered to the next of kin including for this purpose - because it is a provision contained in other parts of legislation where recognition is given to the status of a de facto wife - a dependant or next of kin who may be a de facto wife.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– With all respect to the honorable member for East Sydney, I think the amendment is impracticable. Section 153 of the principal act does not deal with the disposal of a seaman’s effects; it merely gives some one authority to handle them. Section 156 is the section dealing with disposal. Proposed new section 153 gives authority to some one to take possession of the seaman’s effects before they are handed over to a person authorized by law to receive them. Section 156 empowers the Minister to deal with the effects. If they are of considerable value, they must be handed to the person who is the legal representative of the deceased seaman, usually the administrator or executor of his estate. If the effects are of small value as in the case mentioned by the honorable member for East Sydney specifically, where it is unreasonable to put somebody to the expense of proving the estate and setting up an administrator or executor, section 156 empowers the Minister to dispose of them.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 96 to 134 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 135 -

Sections two hundred and fifty-seven and two hundred and fifty-seven a of the Principal Act are repealed and the following section is inserted in their stead: -

” 257.-

” (2.) The regulations may make provision for or in relation to the stowing or carriage in ships of bulk cargo.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– I move -

In sub-section (2.) of proposed section 257, omit “may”, insert “shall”.

The principal act states that provision must be made in respect of the stowage of bulk cargo. The union considers that this is a most important matter, which should not be left in any form other than that now provided in the act. There is an obligation on the master of the ship or the owners of the vessel to see that there is proper stowage of bulk cargoes. I understand that the explanation that was given in another place by the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) was that it was deemed that these provisions did not include the stowage of bunker coal. That was the reason for the change to be made in the present act by the proposed section 257. The union considers that the word “shall” is necessary.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– The Government does not consider that this amendment is necessary. As the proposed section is drawn, regulations may be made to deal with bulk cargo. It is a common practice of draftsmanship to empower the Minister to make regulations by providing that he may do so. There is no purpose in altering the legislation to include the word “ shall “ instead of “ may “.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 136 to 152 - by leave - considered together.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

. -Clauses 149, 150, 151 and 152 are designed to amend sections 286 to 289 of the principal act. These are among those historical sections of the Navigation Act under which the Australian Government purports to exclude from the interstate coastal trade ships which do not comply with certain conditions. Other ships can enter into that trade only if they hold a licence. I believe the opinion is widely held that since the decision of the High Court on road transport cases, these sections could not be sustained. I am not asserting that myself, of course. I cannot readily distinguish a system of discretionary licensing as between ships passing from one State to another, from a system of discretionary licensing in regard to road vehicles travelling from one State to another. If one has been held invalid, it would seem to follow that the other would be invalid. Since we are being asked to concur in the amendments to these sections, I should like to ask the honorable and learned Minister whether he can explain why those sections are being persevered with. In particular, can the Minister distinguish the discretionary licensing provisions in the Navigation Act from the discretionary licensing provisions in the various road transport cases which the High Court and the Privy Council have held to be invalid as infringing section 92 of the Constitution?

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.While the Minister is explaining the matters that have been raised by the honorable member for Werriwa, will he explain paragraph (d) of clause 149? This provides that section 286 (6.) shall be amended by omitting the word “ Governor-General “ wherever occurring and inserting in its stead the word “ Minister “.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– The honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Whitlam) has invited me to enter into a discussion of an extremely technical nature on recent constitutional cases, and to distinguish between the licensing of ships which ply between the States and the licensing of road transport vehicles which ply between the States by road. I decline his invitation.

Mr Whitlam:

– One runs on land and the other in the water.

Mr OSBORNE:

– Thank you. While the law remains as it is, the fact is that non-Australian overseas ships can be licensed to take passengers or freight when Australian registered ships are not available. While those provisions are still on the statute-book, it is desirable that they should be reasonable and practical.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 153 (Responsibility of master, owner and agent for compliance with Act).

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– Under clause 153, a provision which the Australian Labour party considers to be of some importance is to be removed. I have read the explanation that was given by the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) in another place, and I am not at all satisfied that it answers adequately the objection made by the Labour party to this alteration.

The principal act provides that, in the case of certain offences, a ship in respect of which the offences were committed may be disqualified by the Governor-General from engaging in the coasting trade. The argument advanced by the Minister was that by the time an offence could be proved, the ownership of the vessel might have changed and the penalty would be imposed in other directions, and, therefore, it was unnecessary to make this provision.

The act states that the matter shall rest solely on the decision of the GovernorGeneral, but obviously that means the government, and we could not expect this Government to act against the shipowners by disqualifying the ship as well as penalizing the owners or those who owned it when the offence was committed. Therefore, the Opposition will not press this matter to a division although we raise strong objection to it. I believe that some such provision is necessary even if it has not been applied frequently, or at all. This provision should remain in the act so that the discretion will rest with the Minister, if he believes that the offence is so grave as to warrant sterner action than the imposition of a fine on an individual, to take action to disqualify the ship itself.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 154 to 199 - by leave - considered together.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

. I ask for an explanation concerning one or two matters. Clause 162 provides -

Section three hundred and fifty-six of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (2.) the words “ shall be Courts of Record and “.

The reference here is to marine courts. I understand that, under section 364 of the principal act, certain powers are given to a marine court which are exercisable only by a Court of Record. This is regarded as being of some importance and we ask the Minister for an explanation of the provision.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– This is one of several amendments being made for purely legal reasons. They remove possible doubts that these administrative courts - for that is what they are - are exercising the judicial powers of the Commonwealth. As the honorable member will recall, the Constitution imposes a limitation upon the Commonwealth’s judicial powers, and the amendments seek to place beyond doubt the validity of administrative acts performed under this measure.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 200 -

Section four hundred and twenty of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - “420. - (1.) The Minister may cancel or suspend a certificate of competency granted under this Act if the holder of the certificate has been convicted of an offence in a Commonwealth country.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– I move -

In sub-section (1.) of proposed section 420, after “ an “ insert “ indictable “.

Under the bill the Minister may cancel or suspend a certificate of competency if the holder has been convicted of an offence in a Commonwealth country. The kind of offence is not specified. It could be of the most minor character. It might be only an industrial offence - which members of the Australian Labour party would not regard as an offence at all - but it could result in the loss of a certificate. The power given here is too great to place in the hands of a Minister. Under the principal act the words “ indictable offence “ are used. The power of the Minister to act where serious offences have been committed is quite sufficient. The proposed power is too vast to place in the hands of any individual. I believe that the word “ indictable “ should be retained. It puts beyond doubt the question whether a minor offence is referred to. Under the bill a conviction for drunkenness might result in the cancellation of a certificate of competency. Surely no one would suggest that any one who had been convicted of drunkenness on one occasion should be liable to such treatment at the hands of a Minister who wanted to exercise his full powers. I suggest that the existing wording is preferable and should be retained.

Question put -

That the amendment (Mr. Ward’s) be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 16

NOES: 45

Majority . . 29

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 201 -

Section four hundred and twenty-one of the Principal Act is repealed.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– The Opposition objects to the proposal to repeal section 421. The reason given by the Minister is that the section has never been availed of. That is not a good argument for the deletion of a sound provision.

Section 421 reads - (1.) The owner of every ship registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting trade (not being a fishing boat) shall in each year make a return to the Minister at the prescribed time showing the aggregate gross earnings during the preceding year of all ships so registered or engaged in the coasting trade of which he is owner, in the prescribed form:

Provided that the returns required to be furnished in regard to ships not registered in Australia shall relate only to the earnings of those ships whilst engaged in the coasting trade. (2.) The Minister shall not publish or disclose in any way any return made under this section, or any summary of such returns other than figures only showing the percentage variations from year to year in the aggregate gross earnings returned, distinguishing, if he shall think fit, the coasting trade:

Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent the Minister from using the returns to assist him in preparing periodical estimates of the extent to which the relation between imports and exports of Australia as a whole is affected by the freight earnings of shipping which reaches this country.

The section goes on to provide one or two other limitations upon the power. I am not suggesting that that provision is completely satisfactory, but it could be of great use to a government in getting the type of information which to-day is largely withheld from governments and unavailable to them. Why should the shipping companies not furnish this information, which is most important to a government in determining its attitude to the continual requests which are made for increased freight rates? Why should this information not be available and on record, as provided in this section? Why should it not be readily available to the Minister? As a matter of fact, I should imagine that this information would be essential to a government in determining whether any request for increased freight rates was justified or otherwise.

Freight rates are most important to the economy of this country. I should have imagined that this was one power which the Country party would ask to have retained, so that the information could be obtained. There would be an obligation on the shipowners to supply it. It is of no use to depend on them to supply it voluntarily. Governments have had experience of investigations of shipping companies’ activities based upon information supplied in that way. The companies will not reveal their profits or the earnings of their ships unless they are obliged by statute to do so.

I think the section should be retained. It is not a sufficient answer to say merely that it has never !been used in the past. I should imagine that an incoming Labour government - which is not very far away, I hope - will make considerable use of this power. Therefore, the Opposition proposes to divide the committee once again, because we think this is an essential provision, which should be retained in the act.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– This provision has been in the law since 1912, but it has never been used.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– Did the Austraiian Labour party make use of it?

Mr OSBORNE:

– Even Labour governments could not use it. It is of no possible use because it requires shipowners to make annual returns of the aggregate gross ‘earnings of ships. If anybody can derive any useful information from the aggregate gross earnings .of a ship, which do not take into account any of its costs or give any information at all about the profits it is earning, he must be a remarkable person

Mr Whitlam:

– The solution >is to amend, not delete the clause.

Mr OSBORNE:

– The solution .is to delete the clause for this .reason: It is not just a harmless clause. It imposes on people a legal obligation to do certain things which would put them to considerable trouble and expense, but would be quite useless. It is undesirable, as I am sure the honorable member for Werriwa would agree, to have people under useless legal obligations.

Honorable members may be interested in some comments from the past about this provision. It is recorded that Sir Littleton Groom said, when the provision was being introduced in 1912, that the clause would be of little practical use. When the matter went to the Senate in 1912, Senator St. Ledger is .reported as inquiring whether the clause was suggested by a philosopher, a navigator, an economist or a humorist.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.Despite the opinion expressed by Sir Littleton Groom when the clause was inserted, I believe that he was AttorneyGeneral in March, 1923, when the section was proclaimed to come into operation. That was very near to the time, of course, when Sir John Latham, as he now is, came into the Parliament and succeeded Sir Littleton Groom as Attorney-General. I am relying for this information on an answer which the Minister supplied to me within the last week in answer to a question regarding the information that had been derived under the section. The answer was that the section was proclaimed to come into operation on 1st March, 1923. It remains a dead letter, not because of the ineffectuality of the section, but .because further steps are necessary under the section. You will notice, Sir, that the section requires the owner of a ship to make a return to the Minister at the prescribed time and in the prescribed form. No regulations have ever been made prescribing the time or prescribing the form.

Mr Joske:

– What about the Scullin, Curtin and Chifley Governments? They regarded it as a dead letter.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The point is well taken. I readily concede that the Scullin Government could have done tit. It did not need a majority in both Houses of the Parliament to make a regulation. I concede that the Curtin Government, in the heat of war, could have done it, and that the Chifley Government, in the four post-war years that it was in office, could have done it. But so also could the Bruce-Page Government have done it in the six years it was in office after the section was proclaimed. So could the stagnating Lyons Government have done it in the eight years it was in office, or the first Menzies Government, or the only Fadden Government, or the Menzies Governments since 1949. It is true that Labour could have done it. It is also true that anti-Labour could have done it in the four times as long period that it has been in office.

This section has never been given a fair trial. For twelve years the section was not proclaimed. For 35 years the necessary regulations have not been made. The way to get relevant information on shipping costs is not to delete the section, but either to make regulations under the section, or to amend the section and then make regulations under it.

Question put -

That the clause be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 42

NOES: 16

Majority . . . . 26

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 202 to 208 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 178a -

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.I move -

After clause 178, insert the following new clause: - “ 1 78a. Section three hundred and eighty-four is amended -

by omitting from sub-section (2.) the words ‘ three months ‘ and inserting in their stead the words ‘ two years ‘; and

by omitting sub-section (3.) and inserting in its stead the following subsection: - (3.) Costs in any such action shall be in the discretion of the Court.’.”.

This clause deals with actions against officials. The present provision in the act provides that an action must be commenced within three months from the date of the act forming the subject of such action. Sub-section (3.) of section 384 provides that where the plantiff discontinues the action, or judgment is given for the defendant, costs are determined on the basis of treble costs. The new clause would provide that action should be taken within a period of two years and that the costs in any such action should be at the discretion of the court. We think this is an improvement on the present act, and I submit the matter to the committee for its consideration.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– I am prepared to concede that there is something in the argument put forward by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward). However, the matter can hardly be claimed to be urgent, as the relevant section has not been availed of since 1921 when it was first included in the act. The committee, I am sure, does not want to wait here while the bill is sent back to the Senate. I assure the honorable member that the Government will examine his amendment sympathetically on the next occasion when this matter comes before the Parliament.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 1954

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following bills were returned from the Senate: -

Without amendment -

Appropriation (Works and Services) Bill (No. 2) 1957-58.

Supply (Works and Services) Bill 1958-59.

Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1958.

Without requests -

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1957-58.

Supply Bill 1958-59.

page 1954

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSTY

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) - by leave - agreed to -

That, in accordance with the provisions of section 11 of the Australian National University Act 1946-1947, the House of Representatives elects Mr. Joske and Mr. Beazley to be members of the Council of the Australian National University for a period of two years, from 1st July, 1958.

page 1954

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Mr DEAN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– As chairman, I present the second report of the Printing Committee.

Report read by the Clerk, and - by leave - adopted.

page 1954

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL MEMBERS

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) agreed to -

That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.

page 1954

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I move -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until a date and hour to be fixed by Mr. Speaker, which time of meeting shall be notified by Mr. Speaker to each member by telegram or letter.

In putting this motion to the House I would like to have been in a position to indicate to honorable members the precise date of resumption so that they could plan their arrangements accordingly. I think I can at least indicate to them that probably the Parliament will be called together earlier than is normally the case for a Budget session. Normally, in recent years, the

Budget has been presented towards the end of August. This year the Government is hoping to introduce the Budget earlier than usual, either towards the end of July or very early in August. No doubt my colleague the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) will indicate the precise date as soon as he is able to do so.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.I intended to ask the Leader of the House (Mr. Harold Holt) a question on this matter this morning, but I could not get the call. I shall address the question to him now. Obviously it will be some time before the Parliament will meet again. This Parliament is going into recess at a time when the world is in a pretty unsettled state, and I ask the Leader of the House whether, if the international situation deteriorates to any extent, the Government will consider summoning the Parliament so that the electorate will not be left in a position in which it will not know what is going on and will have to rely on the press for its information.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– in reply - I can assure the honorable gentleman that if, as we most certainly hope will not prove to be the case, international events should deteriorate to a point at which some action is required either by the Government or the people of this country, the Parliament will, of course, be called together, as has been the practice - although a rare practice - in the past, so that the views of the representatives of the people can be made known.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1954

ADJOURNMENT

Pensions - Sales Tax on Cars for Paraplegics.

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

I would not speak at such a late hour except for the fact that this is the last occasion in this sessional period on which I will have an opportunity to put certain matters before the House. I have two important matters to mention, and I believe that they should receive the consideration of the Government, even though the Parliament is about to go into recess. I have been requested by a Mrs. Fitzell, who is the secretary of the Bondi Junction Old Age and Invalid Pensioners Association, to present a petition to this Parliament. Perhaps I should say the first portion of a petition, because the organization has just commenced to collect signatures to the petition, and it is believed that when it is finally ready for presentation it will carry at least 1,000,000 names of Australian citizens. They will not all be names of pensioners, but of Australian citizens generally. The petition is for an improvement in the financial position of pensioners. The petitioners request that the pension rate be increased so that it will be 50 per cent- of the basic wage. They particularly ask that the harsh restriction on the provision of life-saving drugs to pensioners be removed. As honorable members are aware, persons in receipt of an income of £2 a week or more who are granted a pension are denied the benefit of the pensioner free medical scheme, even if they are receiving the maximum pension. I believe this to be a most serious matter. These old people, with their meagre incomes, should at least receive social service benefits on the same basis as other persons, and they should receive the benefits of free medical services.

Although the petition was quite respectfully worded, it was not in accordance with the forms of the House, and I was, therefore, denied the opportunity of presenting it in the normal way. I shall endeavour to have the pensioner organization correct this defect when the final petition is presented. I understand that the Australian people are signing this petition in their thousands. Whatever differences of opinion may exist among the people on other matters, there appears to be a great degree of unanimity on the proposition that some assistance should be given to these unfortunate persons.

I turn now to another important matter, which concerns the Treasury. An organization known as the Poliomyelitis and Physically Handicapped Society has been purchasing motor cars for its members who suffer from this dread disease. For some considerable time these cars have been free of sales tax. Many of the sufferers would not have been able to have cars otherwise, because most of them are in such a financial position that they have to borrow the money or make whatever other financial arrangements they can in order to purchase these cars. It is only the fact that the cars have been free of sales tax that has enabled many of these persons to purchase them.

To many of these unfortunate people motor cars are not a luxury; they are essential as a normal means of transport. About 80 members of this society have obtained cars free of sales tax through the organization. Evidently the motor car distributors and the society were assured by some one that the cars would be available free of sales tax. However, after a considerable period of time, the Treasury has been in touch with the Poliomyelitis and Physically Handicapped Society and has intimated that sales tax should have been paid on this” cars. The department has now submitted an account to the society. The society obviously is not very flush with funds. It cannot pay the sales tax, and it has had to pass the account on to the individual purchasers, advising them of their liability and informing them that the amount must be paid within a specified time.

If there is any section of the community that should be freed of the liability to pay sales tax on motor cars, it is this section. In any case, the motor cars involved were purchased in the belief that they were free of sales tax. According to the society, officers of the department gave an assurance that they were free of sales tax and evidently the motor car distributors were of the same opinion. If, therefore, an error has been made and the Treasury is entitled to collect sales tax on these vehicles, I suggest that it should be prepared to let the matter drop and write off the debt, if it can be regarded as a debt. Many of these unfortunate persons cannot pay the sales tax, and they will lose their equity in the vehicles.

This is a most serious and important matter, and I hope that very soon after the adjournment of the Parliament the Treasurer will give attention to this matter and have it satisfactorily adjusted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 1.28 a.m. (Friday) to a date and hour to be fixed by Mr. Speaker.

page 1956

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Commonwealth Motor Vehicles

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

In how many cases in each of the last five years has the Commonwealth made payments as an act of grace to persons who have been awarded damages against the driver of a Commonwealth motor vehicle but are unable to recover the damages from the driver?
In these cases, what was the total amount of (a) damages awarded against Commonwealth drivers, (b) damages recovered from Commonwealth drivers, and (c) payments made by the Commonwealth?
In how many cases in each of the last five years has the Commonwealth refused to make payments in these circumstances?
In these cases, what was the total amount of (a) damages awarded against Commonwealth drivers and (b) damages recovered from Commonwealth drivers?

Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

There have been no applications to the Commonwealth for ex gratia payments in these circumstances. 2 to 4. Not applicable.

Trading Banks and Housing Finance

Mr Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA

s asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

What has been the form of the encouragement which, in answer to a question on the 29th April, he stated the Central Bank had given to the trading banks to increase their advances to such important objects as housing?
Has the Central Bank taken any steps to discover any facts which would show if the trading banks had responded to the encouragement?
If so, what are the facts obtained?
Has he stated frequently that it is entirely the business of the trading banks to determine the purpose for which they lend?
If so, can the objective sought by the Central Banks’ encouragement of the trading banks be achieved?

Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

The encouragement has taken two forms. One, the Central Bank has indicated to the trading banks that it would be appropriate for total bank advances to be increased above the 1957 level, and is administering special accounts so as to leave the banks with sufficient liquidity to enable them to do this. Two, the Central Bank has asked the trading banks, in connexion with the increasing of bank advances above the 1957 level, to give attention to such important objects as housing and the needs of the rural industries. For a fuller explanation of the measures used by the Central Bank to regulate the volume of bank lending and to influence the general direction of that lending, I invite the honorable member’s attention to the statement I made to the House on 12th March last. 2 and 3. I can assure the honorable member that the actual movements in bank advances in relation to the needs of the economy are kept under continuous review by the Central Bank. Figures available suggest that there will, in fact, be a significant increase in bank advances during 1957-58. However, the actual amount of the movement in bank advances to individual industries cannot be assessed at this stage.
I fully explained the position in the statement I made to the House on 12th March.
See answer to 4. I see no reason to believe that the Central Bank’s objectives are not being and will not be achieved.

Private Savings Banks

Mr Makin:

n asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

Under the licence granted to the privately owned trading banks to engage in savings bank business, does the Government guarantee the depositor in the event of the inability of the private banking business to honour its obligations?

Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

The statutory provisions relating to the protection of the depositors of banks are contained in Part II., Division 2, of the Banking Act 1945-1953. The provisions apply equally to both private trading banks and private savings banks. While they do not provide that the repayment of deposits with the several banks is guaranteed by the Commonwealth Government, the provisions are designed to ensure that depositors are fully protected. It is also relevant to mention that, under the terms of their authorities to carry on banking business, the private savings banks are permitted to invest depositors’ funds only in Commonwealth and State government securities (including securities issued or guaranteed by semi-governmental authorities), loans to guaranteed building societies, loans for housing or other purposes on the security of land, and deposits with the Commonwealth Bank and other banks. In addition, the authorities contain other provisions requiring the private savings banks to maintain certain minimum levels of liquid assets.

Commonwealth Loans

Mr Ward:

d asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

Is it a fact that many small investors in Commonwealth Loans who found need of their money before a loan matured were forced to dispose of their bonds or stock on the open market and that, in a great number of instances, they suffered considerable financial losses because, at the time, their securities were selling at less than face value?
If so, will he recommend to the Government that, as a contribution towards meeting this situation, provision be made for the acceptance of Commonwealth bonds and stock at their full face value in payment of taxation and death duties?
If this course is not followed, is it expected that small investors will continue to have confidence in Commonwealth securities when there is doubt whether these investments will maintain their value?

Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

Yes. 2 and 3. At one time, Commonwealth securities were accepted at face value in payment of federal estate duty but, in October, 1934, the Australian Loan Council, which determines the terms of conditions of Commonwealth loans, decided to withdraw the concession. Although it has been requested on several occasions since then to reconsider its decision, the Loan Council has adhered to the determination made in 1934. The proceeds of income tax and estate duty are required for government works and services. The Government could not make these payments by means of Commonwealth securities and, if such securities were accepted in payment of taxes, the funds forgone would have to be obtained from other sources such as extra taxation or treasurybills finance.

Treasury Bonds

Mr Makin:

n asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

What is the total value of treasury bonds which will have to be redeemed during the years 1958-59 and 1959-60?
What amount of interest is being paid on these securities?
What is the total amount held at this date in the Debt Redemption Fund?

Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

As at 30th April 1958, the total value of Inscribed Stock and Bonds maturing in Australia in 1958-59 was £341,600,000 and in 1959-60 was £288,900,000.
The annual interest commitment in respect of the securities maturing in 1958-59 is £11,900,000 and in respect of the securities maturing in 1959-60 is £9,500,000.
The Debt Redemption Reserve was closed in November, 1955, and its balance was transferred to the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve. The amount held in the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve at 30th April, 1958, was E235,400,000.

Government Loans and Finance

Mr Ward:

d asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

Why does the Commonwealth charge the States with interest on loans comprising money obtained by the Commonwealth from the levying of taxation upon the proceeds from which the Commonwealth pays no interest?

Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

Because the loan market has not yielded sufficient funds .to fill the borrowing programmes of the States, the Commonwealth has subscribed from its own resources to special loans issued on terms approved by the Loan Council.

Mr Makin:

n asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

What was the total amount of loan moneys raised by the Government in each of the years 1949-50 to 1956-57, inclusive, and what amount has been raised to date in 1957-58 (a) within Australia and (b) externally, showing the amount for each country separately?
What was the (a) rate and (b) amount of interest in each case?

Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows: - 1 and 2. Details of each loan raised in Australia and externally, including the amount of interest involved, arc readily available from the Budget Papers 1953-54 for the years 1949-50 to 1952-53 (pages 156-9) and from the Budget Papers 1957-58 for the years 1953-54 to 1956-57 (pages 120-126). The tables are, necessarily, lengthy and for that reason I have not reproduced them in this reply.

The amounts raised to date in 1957-58 are as follows: -

Overseas Scholarships

Mr Daly:

y asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

What countries have offered scholarships to Australian university students?
How many scholarships are offered by each country in each year?
How many students have taken advantage of these scholarships to date?
What amounts have been spent by each country on these scholarships to date?
Is there any reciprocal agreement between Australia and the countries concerned; if so, what are the countries?

Mr Casey:
LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

The following governments have offered scholarships to Australian university students: Federal Republic of Germany, India (under the Colombo Plan), Japan, Netherlands, Philippines, Thailand. It should be noted that while both the United States and the United Kingdom governments make available awards for which Australian university students are eligible, these awards do not appear to come within the scope of this question. The only United States government awards applicable to university students are those under the Fulbright scheme and these are not scholarships in the strict sense but cover travel grants only. Two United Kingdom government awards - for Oriental, Slavonic, East European and African studies and the fishery research training grants - may possibly come under the terms of the inquiry but these are offered to nationals from a number of countries and no details are known concerning any awards of these scholarships to Australians.
The following governments have offered annually the following number of scholarships to Australian university students: Federal Republic of Germany (first offered 1953), 7; India (first offered 1954), number not specified; Japan (first offered 1957), 1; Netherlands (first offered 1954), 3; Philippines (first offered 1958), 1; Thailand (first offered 1953, university fees only), number not specified.
The following is the number of Australian university students who have taken up these scholarships: The Federal Republic of Germany (first taken up in 1954), 32; India (first taken up 1957), 1; Japan (taken up 1958), 1; Netherlands (first taken up 1954), 8; Philippines (nil as yet); Thailand, 1 candidate 1958.
Federal Republic of Germany £12,500, plus university fees, India approximately £700, Japan (only award so far made is to value of £300 plus university fees), Netherlands £2,150 plus university fees, Philippines nil, Thailand nil.
No, except in the case of India under the Colombo plan.

Colombo Plan

Mr Clark:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

k asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

What has been the total expenditure by the Government on assistance under the Colombo Plan?
What amount has been paid to each benefiting country in each year, including the current year since the inception of the plan?

Mr Casey:
LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

£25,800,000.
As set out in the attached table.

Cathode Ray Tubes

Mr Griffiths:

s asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice -

How many complete cathode ray picture tubes were imported by manufacturers of television sets during the past four licensing periods?
What were the countries of origin of the tubes?
Are picture tubes being manufactured in Australia? If so, in what quantities?
When is local manufacture expected to eliminate the need for importation of tubes?

Mr McEwen:
CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s question are as follows: - 1 and 2.-

There are five Australian manufacturers of cathode ray tubes. During 1957 their production was as follows: -

Local production of standard types of tubes is now considered to be adequate to meet requirements, and no import licences have been issued for such tubes since 1st December, 1957. Imports of standard types of tubes since that date have been made against licences issued in earlier periods. A limited number of television receivers in use in Australia are fitted with off-standard types of tubes not manufactured here, and small quantities of these types of tubes will need to be imported for replacement purposes.

Import Licensing

Mr Cairns:

s asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice -

How many applications for import licences have been refused, and how many have been partially refused, in the years 1957, 1956, 1955, 1954, 1953 and 1952 respectively?
What is the approximate value of unsatisfied applications for import quotas in the current year?
How many import quotas have been granted to manufacturers or other processors who were not importers in 1951-52 but of whom it was held they would have developed an import business had there been no import restrictions? 4. What is the value of these import quotas?

Mr McEwen:
CP

– The information which the honorable member has asked me to supply is not readily accessible. A physical examination of every import licensing file created since March, 1952, would be necessary before the details could be supplied, and, as the number of files involved would be approximately 750,000, I feel sure the honorable member will appreciate that I could not ask my department to undertake such a task. Records of this type have not been maintained because they serve no useful purpose in the administration of the import licensing system.

Australian Coastal Shipping Commission

Mr Pollard:
LALOR, VICTORIA

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

Has the Chairman of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission any managerial or financial interest in any of the following companies: - Fleet-Forge Proprietary Limited, 9-18 Lorimerstreet, South Melbourne, and United Salvage Proprietary Limited, Cambrian Salvage Proprietary Limited, Fleetways Transport and Agency Proprietary Limited and United Stevedoring Proprietary Limited, all of 88 Normanby-road, South Melbourne?
Do these companies undertake work for the commission?
If so, (a) are quotations sought prior to work commencing, (b) are quotations sought from any other companies or individuals, and (c) what was the total payment to each of the companies in the year 1956-57 and in the subsequent ninemonths period?

Mr Osborne:
LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has supplied the following answers: -

Yes. The chairman of the commission has managerial and financial interests in United Salvage Proprietary Limited, Cambrian Salvage Proprietary Limited, and Fleetways Transport and Agency Proprietary Limited. He holds the nominal position of managing director of Fleet Forge Proprietary Limited, but has no direct financial interest. He has no financial or managerial interests in United Stevedoring Proprietary Limited, axcept as a consultant.
Fleet Forge Proprietary Limited, Fleetways Transport and Agency Proprietary Limited, and United Stevedoring Pproprietary Limited, have carried out work for the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission. 3. (a) Yes, where practicable. It is not always possible to call tenders for ship repairs, maintenance or survey work because the extent and nature of the work is not known until the ship is opened up and the requirements of Lloyds surveyors are known.
1. Yes.
2. –

In dealing with contracts with the above firms the commission has complied strictly with the terms of sub-sections 13 (2.) and 13 (3.) of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act 1956.

Delegation of Powers under Navigation Act

Mr Whitlam:

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

In relation to what matters or classes of matters, and in relation to what ports and to what persons has the Minister delegated all or any of his powers or functions under the Navigation Act?

Mr Osborne:
LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has replied as follows: -

The Minister for Shipping and Transport has delegated certain of his powers and functions to the persons for the time being holding or acting in the following offices in the Marine Branch of the Department of Shipping and Transport: -

Assistant Secretary (Marine).

Director of Navigation.

Deputy Director of Lighthouses and Naviga tion in each State.

Nautical and Ship Surveyor, Newcastle, New South Wales.

Delegations have been issued to occupants of the offices as follows: -

Assistant Secretary (Marine), and Director of Navigation - to perform the powers and functions of the Minister under the Sections of the Navigation Act and Regulations made under that act in relation to the matters respectively specified hereunder: -

Section 20: action against the holder of a certificate of competency who appears to be unfit to perform his duties;

Section 21: the delivery of a certified copy of a certificate of competency;

Section 106a.: the withholding of a seaman’s certificate of discharge;

Section 110: the delivery to his ship before expiration of sentence of a seaman imprisoned on summary conviction;

Section 120: the inspection of provisions and water;

Section 123: the appointment of a Medical Inspector of Seamen;

Section 126: the nomination of a duly qualified person to inspect medicines, medical and surgical stores and anti-scorbutics;

Division 17 of Part 11 (sections 149 to 160), in relation to the property of a deceased seaman or apprentice;

Section 180: ordering an imprisoned foreign seaman to be put on board his ship;

Section 191 (3.): the exemption from or modification of requirements respecting construction, machinery, equipment, sub-division load lines and surveys;

Section 191a (2.): the acceptance of a fitting, appliance, apparatus or type thereof in lieu of a fitting, appliance, apparatus or type thereof required by the Safety Convention or the Load Line Convention;

Section 197a (4.): the acceptance of a Safety Convention Certificate issued by another country;

Section 199 (2.): the requirement as to docking or otherwise dealing with a ship;.

Section. 201: the extension of the currency of a Certificate of Survey or of Equipment;

Section 203: the amendment of a Certificate of Survey;

Section 204: dispensing with the survey of a steamship not registered in Australia; the giving of a certificate to such a ship; the cancellation of the exemption from survey of such a ship; or the suspension of the operation of a certificate issued or given in respect of such a ship;

Section 206f: the re-survey of a ship, and the cancellation of a certificate;

Section 206h: the issue of a general safety certificate, a short voyage safety certificate or a wireless telegraphy certificate to a ship of another country;

Section 210: the provisional and final detention of a ship and the release of a ship which has been detained;

Section 215(2.): the acceptance of lifesaving appliances on a passenger steamship constructed before 1st July, 1931;

Section 216: the exemption of a steamship constructed before 1st July, 1931, from a provision of the regulations; the modification of a provision of the regulations and the exemption of a ship other than a Safety Convention ship from a regulation;

Section 218: the exemption of a vessel from Division 5 of Part IV. of the Act;

Section 220a: the cancellation of a load-line certificate, the extension of the period of a load-line certificate, and the demand of delivery of a certificate;

Section 222a: the issue of a Load Line Convention Certificate;

Section 223: the release of a ship which has been detained as unseaworthy;

Section 226: the cancellation of the loadline certificate of a ship not registered in Australia;

Section 231a: the issue of a wireless telegraphy certificate and an exemption certificate;

Section 254: the carriage of cargo or goods endangering the safety of a vessel or interfering with the comfort of her passengers or crew;

Section 365: the requesting of a Court of Marine Inquiry to make an inquiry;

Section 374: the delivery of a cancelled or suspended certificate of competency;

Section 377: the appointment of a person to attend an inspection or survey of a vessel made by a Court of Marine Inquiry or under its direction;

Section 424: (a) the reference to the Marine Council of any proposed regulation with respect to the scales of officers, crews or provisions, or any proposal to specify the crew to be carried by a particular ship, or any question as to the making or altering of the regulations; and (b) the appointment of committees to advise upon a proposed regulation with respect to the scales of officers or crews, or any proposal to specify the crew to be carried by a particular ship;

Regulation 5 of the Navigation (Courts of Marine Inquiry) Regulations; deciding the officers of a ship who are likely to be affected by an inquiry; amending, adding to or omitting questions specified in a notice of inquiry;

Regulation 6 of the Navigation (Dangerous Goods) Regulations: exemption from the provisions of the regulation with respect to the carriage of explosives in a passenger ship;

Regulation 35 of the Navigation (Fire Appliances) Regulations: allowing alternative fitting, appliance, apparatus or type thereof;

Regulation 36 of the Navigation (Fire Appliances) Regulations: exemption of a ship built before 1st July, 1931;

Regulation 3 of the Navigation (Health) Regulations: remission of the fee for the medical examination of a seaman;

Regulation 45 of the Navigation (Life Saving Appliances) Regulation: determination of the extent of increase in the volume of buoyancy appliances;

Regulation 61 of the Navigation (Life Saving Appliances) Regulations: the stowage and handling of boats:

Regulation 80 of the Navigation (Life Saving Appliances) Regulations: allowing alternative fitting, appliance, apparatus or type thereof;

Regulation 81 of the Navigation (Life Saving Appliances) Regulations: dispensing with one or more sets of davits;

Regulation 85 of the Navigation (Life Saving Appliances) Regulations: exemption of a small ship from carrying more than one boat;

Regulation 86 of the Navigation (Life Saving Appliances) Regulations: allowing to be carried a boat having a smaller capacity than the minimum capacity prescribed;

Regulation 87 of the Navigation (Life Saving Appliances) Regulations: exemption of a ship built before 1st July, 1931;

Regulation 39 of the Navigation (Survey and Equipment) Regulations: exemption from the requirements of the regulations in a special case;

Regulation 18 of the Navigation (Wireless Telegraphy) Regulations: the cancellation of a wireless telegraphy certificate and an exemption certificate.

Deputy Director of Lighthouses and Navigation in each State - to perform the powers and functions of the Minister in relation to the matters respectively specified hereunder: -

Section 110: the delivery to his ship before expiration of sentence of a seaman imprisoned on summary conviction;

Division 17 of Part II. (sections 149 to 160), in relation to the property of a deceased seaman or apprentice;

Section 180: ordering an imprisoned foreign seaman to be put on board his ship;

Section 201: the extension of the currency of a Certificate of Survey or of Equipment;

Section 203: the amendment of a Certificate of Survey;

Section 204: the cancellation of an exemption from survey of a steamship not registered in Australia or the suspension of the operation of a certificate issued or given in respect of such a ship;

Section 210: the provisional and final detention of a ship and the release of a ship which has been detained;

Section 231a: the issue of a wireles telegraphy certificate and an exemption certificate;

Section 254: the carriage of cargo or goods endangering the safety of a vessel or interfering with the comfort of her passengers or crew;

Section 286: the issue of a single voyage permit;

Section 288: the grant of a licence to engage in the coasting trade and the renewal thereof;

Regulation 31 of the Navigation (Manning and Coasting Trade) Regulations: the grant and renewal of a licence to engage in the coasting trade;

Regulation 18 of the Navigation (Wireless Telegraphy) Regulations: the issue of a Wireless Telegraphy Certificate, and demanding the delivery of a certificate.

Nautical and Ship Surveyor, Newcastle - to perform the powers and functions of the Minister in relation to the matters respectively specified hereunder -

Section 110: the delivery to his ship before expiration of sentence of a seaman imprisoned on summary conviction;

Division 17 of Part II. (sections 149 to 160) in relation to the property of a deceased seaman or apprentice;

Section 180: ordering an imprisoned foreign seaman to be put on board his ship;

Section 201: the extension of the currency of a Certificate of Survey or of Equipment;

Section 203: the amendment of a Certificate of Survey;

Section 210: the provisional and final detention of a ship and the release of a ship which has been detained;

Section 231a: the issue of a wireless telegraphy certificate and an exemption certificate;

Section 286: the issue of a single voyage permit.

The powers and functions delegated by the Minister to the Assistant Secretary (Marine) and the Director of Navigation may be exercised throughout the Commonwealth while those delegated to a Deputy Director of Lighthouses and Navigation may be exercised only in his particular State. The powers and functions delegated to the Nautical and Ship Surveyor, Newcastle, are exercised only at Newcastle.

Royal Australian Navy

Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

Is the hard-living allowance paid to Royal Australian Naval personnel a form of compensation for cramped living quarters aboard ship?
Is it a fact that, although naval officers are provided with much greater living space than other crew members, they are paid the hardliving allowance at a rate considerably higher than that received by men of the lower deck?
Has the Government frequently claimed that it stands for national unity as opposed to class hatred?
If so, will he take immediate steps to end this discrimination among naval personnel by paying all ranks at the higher rate?

Mr Davidson:
CP

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows: -

Hard-living money paid to Royal Australian Naval personnel is a form of compensation for cramped living quarters aboard ship. When eligible for the allowance, officers and ratings receive the same rate. All ratings serving in sea-going ships qualify, whereas very few officers are eligible.

Telephone Services

Mr Daly:

y asked the Postmaster-General. upon notice -

How many telephone applications are outstanding in the districts of Newtown, Marrickville, Erskineville, Lewisham, Petersham, Dulwich Hill, Summer Hill and Stanmore, respectively?
What is the (a) average time, and (b) longest period for which these applications have been outstanding?
What works are in progress to ensure that all applications will be satisfied with a minimum of delay?

Mr Davidson:
CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

The districts mentioned by the honorable member are served by the Newtown, Petersham and Undercliffe telephone exchanges to which 350 applicants for service are awaiting connexion. 2. (a) It is not practicable to furnish the average waiting period but the majority of the applications were lodged within the past two years.
1. Three years.
It is expected that service will be provided for 160 of the waiting applicants in the exchange areas mentioned before the end of 1958. Relief projects designed to satisfy the remaining applications will be expedited as much as possible.

Housing of Migrants

Mr Kearney:

y asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice -

Is it a fact that some migrant families at present resident in hostels have applied for homes under the control of various State housing commissions and have been informed that they are not acceptable as tenants?
How many families are involved?
What steps are being taken to render it possible for these migrant families to secure housing accommodation as an alternative to their being confined to hostels on what appears to be a basis of some permanency?

Mr Downer:
Minister for Immigration · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: - 1 and 2. It is a fact that in one case at least which has come to the notice of my department, a migrant resident in a Commonwealth hostel in New South Wales was informed by the Metropolitan Tenancy Applications Advisory Committee that his present housing circumstances were such as not to warrant his inclusion in the ballots for Housing Commission dwellings.

The situation is that in New South Wales, all migrants may register for participation in Housing Commission ballots after a period of twelve months’ residence in that State. However, in the allocation of Housing Commission homes in New South Wales, 40 per cent. are reserved for applicants living in emergency housing settlements conducted by the Housing Commission,in which category Commonwealth hostels are apparently not included. I would like to assure the honorable member that we have always been concerned that migrant families should, as far as possible, be placed on equal footing with older Australian residents in regard to eligibility for Housing Commission homes. This aspect was stressed during the negotiations in 1956 between the Commonwealth and State authorities for the renewal of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. Following these representations. New South Wales (in which State migrants had been at the greatest disadvantage) revised its policy and agreed to all migrants, whether British or non-British, having the right to register for Housing Commission dwellings after twelve months’ residence. The present position in other States is that in South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, migrants are immediately eligible to register. In Victoria, there is a six months’ residental requirement for British migrants and a twelve months’ residential requirement for nonBritish migrants in metropolitan areas, and no residential requirement in country areas. In Queensland, there is a residential period of six months. I would like to assure the honorable member also that we would be most unwilling to support any policy which implied a sense of permanency to residence in hostels and, whilst the eligibility for registration for Housing Commission homes is a matter on which the States have the right to decision, it is also a matter on which my department has been anxious to ensure that migrants receive treatment similar to that available to all Australians. In this respect, one reason for the inclusion in the 1956 Housing Agreement, at the representations of the Commonwealth, of special provisions for the making of loans to building societies is that these societies offer the means by which migrants through cooperation and self-help may obtain homes of their own.

Tariff Board Report on Timber.

Mr Webb:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

b asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice -

Is it a fact that, owing to importation of North American Oregon, the Western Australian timber industry is at its lowest point for six years and, as a result, is seeking a rise in Customs duties?
If so, when will the recommendation of the Tariff Board into this industry be available?

Mr McEwen:
CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

The Australian timber industry as a whole (including Western Australian interests) sought increased duties on imported timbers and timber products. The requests were made in evidence before the Tariff Board, and were made because, it was claimed, the industry was in a state of crisis.
The board’s report, dated 22nd April, was tabled in the Parliament on 14th May, 1958.

Maribyrnong Munitions Establishment

Mr Ward:

d asked the acting Minister for Supply, upon notice -

What was the number of employees at the Maribyrnong munitions establishment in December, 1956, and December, 1957, and what is it at the present time?

Mr Osborne:
LP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

There is a number of munitions establishments in the Maribyrnong area. The following is the total employment as at the dates indicated at those establishments under the control of the former Department of Defence Production: - December, 1956, 2,222; December, 1957, 2,028; at present, 1,949.

St. Mary’s Filling Factory Control Authority

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the acting Minister for Supply, upon notice -

What was the name of the control authority for Project 590, St. Mary’s, who resigned as at the 31st May, 1956?
Has this person (a) received, (b) claimed, or (c) been offered payment for his services, and in what amount?
Did this control authority at any time give an estimate of the total cost of the project or of the increased cost of any aspect of the project?

Mr Osborne:
LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

-A. C. Hvistendahl and Associates.
The control agency was employed by the architects.
The control agency periodically reported through the architects on various aspects of the job and on trends which involved costs.

Royal Australian Air Force Torpedoes

Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister for Air, upon notice -

Does the Royal Australian Air Force purchase anti-submarine guided torpedoes from the United States of America?
Is the Royal Australian Naval torpedo establishment in Sydney making guided torpedoes for anti-submarine operations which are considered to be equal or superior to the American article?
Is the missile which is being used by the Royal Australian Air Force of the same type as that being produced in Australia?
Were retrenchments of staff carried out last year at the naval torpedo establishment?
If so, what is the reason for the present arrangement which reduces Australian employment and costs this country the expenditure of much-needed dollars?

Mr Osborne:
LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

The Royal Australian Air Force ordered a quantity of these weapons in 1953, which were delivered in 1954.
The Royal Australian Navy torpedo establishment now makes a torpedo with a similar function, which the R.A.A.F. considers to be equal in performance to those procured from the United States of America by the R.A.A.F. in 1954. However, it is possible that there have been further developments in American torpedoes since. The R.A.A.F. has procured no torpedoes since 1957 when Australian production became available.
While the functions of the American torpedo and the one produced in Australia are similar, the weight and dimensions of the two weapons differ.
No. I am advised by the Minister for the Navy that there has been only very slight fluctuation over the last year in the number of wages and salaried staff employed at the R.A.N, torpedo establishment.
The R.A.A.F. has ordered no anti-submarine guided torpedoes since the production of this type of weapon began in Australia.

Lucas Heights Atomic Reactor

Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

What firm of architects designed the Commonwealth atomic reactor at Lucas Heights?
What payment did this firm of architects receive for its services?
Were tenders invited for the construction of this project?
Who were the successful contractors?
If the work was not undertaken by contract, was it performed under the cost-plus system or at cost plus a fixed fee?
What was the amount actually paid te the contractor?
What was the (a) estimated and (b) actual cost of the project?

Mr Osborne:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has replied as follows: -

The atomic reactor at Lucas Heights was built to designs supplied by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the United Kingdom Ministry of Works. The laboratories associated with the reactor and the other laboratories and installations at the research establishment within which the reactor has been erected were designed in Australia by Messrs. Stephenson and Turner.
Messrs. Stephenson and Turner are to receive a total fee of £200,000 for their design and supervision services.
Tenders were invited for managing the construction of the establishment.
Hutcherson Brothers Proprietary Limited.
The construction of the establishment has been carried out under a cost plus fixed fee arrangement, large sections of the programme involving types of construction entirely novel in this country.
The contractor’s management fee will amount to £92,000.
The research establishment, including the reactor was planned so as to cost in total about £5,800,000, and final costs are expected to approximate closely to this figure. Some of the ancillary equipment for the reactor is still under construction in England, and exact costs will not be ascertainable until its construction has been completed.

Adaminaby Dam

Mr Makin:

n asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

Was the Adaminaby Dam section of the Snowy Mountains project completed on the 11th May, 1958, and was this announced by the Minister on the 12th May?
What was the period of time that was provided in the contract for the completion of this work by the American firm of KaiserWalsh.PeriniRaymond?
Does this early completion prove some serious error in estimating the time for the work?
What is the total amount received by these contractors?
Does this include any amount in consideration of the earlier date of completion?

Mr Osborne:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has furnished the following answer: -

The last cubic yard of fill was placed in the Adaminaby Dam on Sunday, 11th May. This was announced by the Minister for National Development on the 12th May.
The period provided in the contract. for the completion of this work was approximately four years.
The early completion of this work is due to almost world record-breaking progress and not some serious error in estimating the time of the work as suggested by the questioner. Judged even by world standards, phenomenal progress has been made and the inference in the member’s question is quite unjustified.
The total amount received to date by the contractors is approximately £5,000,000.
No.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 15 May 1958, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1958/19580515_reps_22_hor19/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives15 May 1958

PENSIONS

Petition

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

QUESTION

ALGERIA

Dr EVATT:BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CASEY:Minister for External Affairs · LP

Mr Calwell:

Mr CASEY:

QUESTION

COWRA MILITARY CAMP

Mr HOWSE:CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FAIRHALL:Minister for the Interior · PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN

QUESTION

COAL-FIELDS

Mr LUCHETTI:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:Minister for Trade · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

QUESTION

AERODROMES

Mr McCOLM:BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

Mr OSBORNE:Minister for Air · EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE BAND

Mr RUSSELL:GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr RUSSELL:

Mr McEWEN:CP

QUESTION

TRADE WITH SOUTH-EAST ASIA

Mr LUCOCK:LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:CP

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr BRYANT:WILLS, VICTORIA

Mr McEWEN:CP

Mr Bryant:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr McEWEN:

QUESTION

POSTAL DELIVERIES

Mr TURNER:BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr DAVIDSON:Postmaster-General · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Mr MAKIN:BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

EXPLOSION IN SYDNEY HARBOUR

Mr HOWSON:FAWKNER, VICTORIA

Mr CASEY:LP

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Mr BARNARD:BASS, TASMANIA

Mr ROBERTON:Minister for Social Services · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

QUESTION

TRADE WITH SOUTH-EAST ASIA

Mr IAN ALLAN:GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:CP

Dr Evatt:

Mr McEWEN:

QUESTION

RESIGNATION OF MEMBERS

Mr DALY:GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

Mr J R FRASER:ALP

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

KOREA

Mr BOSTOCK:INDI, VICTORIA

Mr CASEY:LP

QUESTION

ASSOCIATED DOMINIONS ASSURANCE SOCIETY PROPRIETARY LIMITED

Mr GRIFFITHS:SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:CP

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Mr FREETH:FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

House of Representatives
15 May 1958

Dr EVATT:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CASEY:
Minister for External Affairs · LP

Mr HOWSE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for the Interior · PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

Mr McCOLM:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr RUSSELL:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr LUCOCK:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DAVIDSON:
Postmaster-General · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

Mr MAKIN:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HOWSON:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

Mr CASEY:
LP

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr IAN ALLAN:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr DALY:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

Mr BOSTOCK:
INDI, VICTORIA

Mr CASEY:
LP

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

Mr FREETH:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr OSBORNE:
LP

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ROBERTON:
CP

Mr DRUMMOND:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lawrence:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr BLAND:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works · Paterson · LP

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

Mr CHAMBERS:
Adelaide