House of Representatives
11 April 1961

23rd Parliament · 3rd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 23rd Parliament
  3. 1961

Mi-. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 615

GOVERNOR-GENERAL

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– Mr. Speaker, I inform the House that Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve the appointment of the Viscount De L’Isle, V.C., as GovernorGeneral of Australia. Viscount De L’Isle will come to Australia to take up his appointment as soon as possible.

page 615

CANBERRA RENTALS

Petitions

Mr. J. R. FRASER presented petitions

  1. From certain residents of Northbourne Flats in the Australian Capital Territory praying that, instead of applying the recently announced increase in rents for these flats, the Government will allow rents to remain at the previous figure.
  2. From certain electors of the Australian Capital Territory praying that the Government will review recent rent increases in the Australian Capital Territory and relieve the hardship being imposed.

Petitions received and read.

page 615

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr CAIRNS:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– I ask the Treasurer: Is he aware that surveys recently conducted by the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures have revealed an extensive drop of production over a wide- range of industry, a decline in total factory wages of 9 per cent., and a large build-up of stocks and a complete lack of orders? I am quoting from the finding made by that organization.

Mr Harold Holt:

– Is there a complete lack of orders?

Mr CAIRNS:

– Yes-a complete lack of forward orders.

Mr Harold Holt:

– Is that their statement or yours?

Mr CAIRNS:

– It is their statement. Is it not beyond doubt that this general depres sion is the result of measures adopted by the Government to reduce only sections of the economy such as imports and commercial building? In view of this, has the Government considered the. use of economic measures which will restrict only those sections that the Government wants to restrict and not the economy as a whole?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– The honorable gentleman has. used the term “ depression “ as descriptive of the current economic situation. I know that the word “ depression “ has a very sensitive significance for honorable gentlemen opposite, but how anybody whose party was in office in a period during which unemployment rose to 30 per cent. can describe less than 2 per cent of registered unemployment as a “ depression “ I cannot understand. Such a description would, I believe, offend the understanding of most realistic observers. The situation inside. Australia, while representing a decline from. the. peak activity towards the. end of last year, would still be regarded, by most countries of the world as one of continuing, steady prosperity.

It is true that some adjustments, which have been uncomfortable and painful in certain sections of the economy, have been a necessary consequence of the measures adopted by the Government. But I believe that most observers, looking around Australia at this time, will have come to the conclusion that, in view of measures taken to prevent a boom from developing into a bust, the situation is remarkable, not for how much hardship has occurred, but for how little dislocation has been experienced. There is undoubtedly a very much healthier basis to the whole economy at the present time. The Government is not merely watching the position closely, but is taking whatever measures seem to be appropriate to ensure that our progress is steady and well sustained.

page 615

QUESTION

HOUSING FINANCE

Mr STOKES:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer. As it has been recently announced that the State Savings Bank of Victoria will be making additional funds available for housing purposes, can the Treasurer say whether there is any likelihood that the Commonwealth Savings Bank will also provide additional funds for home building, not only in Victoria, but throughout the Commonwealth?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– The housing situation has been thoroughly studied by representatives of the Reserve Bank of Australia in consultation with the Treasury. There have also been appropriate consultations between Commonwealth departments. In addition, there have been contacts between the Commonwealth Government and representatives of the State governments concerning the over-all housing situation in each State. As a result of these discussions there is to be, as I understand it, in Victoria and in other States, an increase in the level of lending for housing purposes by the savings banks, including State savings institutions and the Commonwealth Savings Bank. In addition, the Governor of the Reserve Bank has communicated some views to the trading banks on the question of housing. The trading banks have I believe, honoured very faithfully the terms of the directive conveyed to them towards the end of last year. The result of their observance of this directive has been revealed in their advances figures, but they have been reminded that included in the general directive was an intimation that lending for a social purpose such as housing should not be curtailed, and that, within the limits of their resources, lending for housing should now be increased.

page 616

QUESTION

BANKING

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I wish to ask the Treasurer a question. Is it a fact that the company responsible for the construction of the Chevron Hilton Hotel in Sydney was in grave financial difficulties recently and that it owed £600.000 to various contractors and sub-contractors? If this was so, is it a fact that special action was taken by the Reserve Bank of Australia or the Government, or by somebody in authority in the Commonwealth Trading Bank or in some other bank, to make credit available to this organization so that it could pay its debts? If this is a fact, what qualifications did the claimant company have that are not possessed by lots of little people throughout Australia who need financial assistance to help them out of their financial difficulties in these days of the credit squeeze?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– The Leader of the Opposition has gone on a fishing excursion and cast out a lot of hooks, but I cannot send him off with a very good catch. In respect of the particular matter to which he refers, the Commonwealth Government has neither given direction nor made any intervention. So far as I am concerned, the relationship of banker and client between the organization in question and whatever bank or banks it may be dealing with is a matter of the company’s own private concern and I have not sought to interest myself in it.

page 616

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Treasurer, relates to the campaign to increase the demand for, and the price of, wool and to promote its sale. Is it a fact that certain graziers are voluntarily proposing to make some contribution towards this campaign pending the adoption of a more comprehensivescheme? Can the right honorable gentleman give an assurance that the amounts subscribed in making such a contribution will be deductible for income tax purposes? Finally, does the Government takethe view that this promotional campaign is vitally important to the increasing of Australia’s export returns?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– It is a fact that some activity of the kind referred to by the honorable gentleman is occurring in the ranks of the graziers. I do not know how extensive or representative it is. Last week, in Melbourne, I received a group of representatives of grazing interests who told me of this campaign and intimated’ to me that there would be very good support for it and that quite substantial funds would’ be forthcoming for use by the appropriate instrumentality for the promotion of the sale of wool. I was asked specifically whether I would examine the question of whether voluntary payments of this kind, provided that they were directed towards promotional or research purposes, would be deductible in the assessment of the income tax payable by the donors. I havesince discussed this matter with the Commissioner of Taxation and have conveyed to those who saw me a ruling to the effect that payments of this kind would be deductible. I hope that this will prove some practicable encouragement to greater promotional efforts of the kind that these people have in mind.

page 617

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr BIRD:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Treasurer. Did the right honorable gentleman recently announce that the intake of migrants into Australia would be increased . from 115,000 to 125,000 a year? Does this mean that Victoria will be expected to absorb more migrants than previously? If this is so, will the Minister take the necessary action to ensure that the serious unemployment situation which exists in Victoria at present will not be further aggravated by any increase of the intake of migrants into that State?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– I made no recent announcement to that effect. The announcement was made at the time of the presentation of the Budget in 1959.

Mr Ward:

– You repeated it in this House recently.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– I have just said that the announcement was made in 1959. I was correcting a misunderstanding on the part of some honorable gentlemen opposite by reminding them that the announcement of the Government’s decision had been made at that time. I have every reason to believe that my colleague, the Minister for Immigration, has been successfully maintaining since that date the level of immigration that was then announced. As to the situation in Victoria, 1 did not follow clearly the detail of the honorable member’s question. I know it is a matter for some satisfaction on the part of the Premier of that State and his colleagues that Victoria, apparently, is attracting a rather larger proportion of migrant settlers than other States. This has produced some growing pains for Victoria, but the Victorian Government gladly accepts them as an inevitable consequence of the developmental process that is going on there. I remind honorable members that the formula for reimbursements to the States which was arrived at in 1959 or early in I960 provides for full effect to be given to population increase, and also for a betterment factor which will have the effect of increasing reimbursements to certain States as time goes on. These provisions should assist Victoria to provide the necessary facilities for its growing population.

page 617

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the Australian Wheat Board asked the Government to consider approving sales of wheat on terms to mainland China? Can the Minister give the House up-to-date information on this important subject?

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · CP

– All sales of wheat to mainland China made by the Australian Wheat Board, which is the selling organization, have been made on the basis of cash against documents. That is the information up to date.

page 617

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr WARD:

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question, ls it a fact that interest upon money raised by companies by the issue of bills, debentures, &c, prior to 15th November, I960, will continue to be an allowable deduction for taxation purposes? Also, is it a fact that David Jones Limited, due to what the Prime Minister described at the time as business acumen and foresight, was able to anticipate the introduction of import licensing a few years ago and arrange, before the restrictions became effective, for the importation of goods valued at an amount running into seven figures? Is it a fact that David Jones Limited has again anticipated a change in Government policy by announcing, just prior to 15th November, 1960, its decision to increase its capital by a sevenfigure amount by the issue of bills, debentures, &c, thus qualifying for taxation deductions of the amount of annua! interest payments involved in this new capital?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the honorable member should ask his question.

Mr WARD:

– Can the Prime Minister, as a declared old friend of the David Jones family, say whether this is just another illustration of the business acumen and foresight invariably displayed by this firm when a change in Government policy occurs?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– It is extremely interesting for me to discover that the honorable member for East Sydney has not cleaned up in my absence. He knows perfectly well that I have nothing to do with the business of David Jones Limited. I cannot possibly inform him about the matters that he has inquired into. The whole question of deductibility has been engaging the attention of my colleagues during my absence, and I have no doubt that when something definitive can be said about it, it will be said by my colleague, the Treasurer.

page 618

QUESTION

INOCULATION OF STOCK

Mr FORBES:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware that although stock inoculated in South Australia are earmarked, those inoculated in Victoria are not? Is he also aware that this lack of identification of Victorian inoculated stock is causing difficulties to South Australian buyers of such stock, particularly in border areas, because buyers would naturally wish to ensure that the stock they buy have been inoculated? Will the Minister arrange for this matter to be discussed at the next meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council with a view to achieving uniformity in those two States, if not in Australia as a whole?

Mr ADERMANN:
CP

– I am not aware of the inoculation problem to which the honorable member has referred. However, as this is obviously a matter of great interest to the stock owners and, at the governmental level, to the State governments concerned, I shall certainly see that it is listed for discussion at the next meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council.

page 618

QUESTION

NAVAL SHIPBUILDING

Mr O’CONNOR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Is the Minister aware that, with the end of the current naval shipbuilding programme in sight, loss of work is being suffered by employees and concern is being occasioned to employers in the industry? Will the Minister inform the House whether the Government has any plans for a further naval shipbuilding programme? If he is not in a position to give such information, will he consider making a statement on this subject in the very near future, thereby allaying the present fears and anxieties of employees, restoring the confidence of employers and providing continuity of work in this very important industry?

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Defence · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

– I assume that the honorable member has in mind more particularly the Cockatoo Island dockyard. This dockyard has work that will occupy it for quite some time to come. The future shipbuilding requirements of the Navy have not yet been determined, but I will consider the proposition that the honorable member has put to me about making a statement at some later date.

page 618

QUESTION

FINANCE

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– 1 direct my question to the Treasurer. Since there has been a great deal of speculation that the advance policy will be altered after 30th June, and since this has given rise to uncertainty, will the Treasurer tell the House what Government policy is at the present time?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– The advance policy announced by the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia in November last still applies. This policy calls for continuing restraint in trading bank lending, especially in relation to the financing of imports and the more speculative forms of business activity, while catering for the essential requirements of primary and other export producers, and for housing. In the present quarter of the financial year, there is normally an increase in outstanding advances because of seasonal factors. It was with this in mind that the banks were asked in November last to achieve a substantial reduction in outstanding advances by the end of the March quarter - that is, during the period when seasonal factors normally operate to cause some decline in outstanding advances.

Mr Daly:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I point out that this is the time for questions without notice. The honorable member for Wannon has asked a question and now we are having a prepared reply read by the Treasurer. 1 ask, first, whether it is in order for the Treasurer to do this and, secondly, if it is, will you ask him to make statements on these matters later instead of making propaganda speeches during question time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! It is for the Minister to decide how he shall reply to a question.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had nearly concluded my reply to this interesting question and I am sure that many people desire to be informed of the Government’s intentions. I add that, with due regard to seasonal factors, the statutory reserve deposit policy of the Reserve Bank will continue to be administered in accordance with the requirement for restraint in bank lending policies.

page 619

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr THOMPSON:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I should like to ask the Minister for Social Services whether any alteration has been made in the period during which a pensioner can earn at the rate of fi 82 per annum without affecting his pension. Does the Minister know that pensioners are being notified that if in any two weeks the income of a married couple exceeds £7 a week, they must immediately notify the department? In the past pensioners have been allowed to earn at the rate of £182 or £364 for a married couple during any period, provided that the maximum permissible income was not exceeded for the full period of twelve months. Has any alteration to this policy been made?

Mr Ward:

– Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. When the House last met the Minister for Social Services was suspended from the service of the House because he had reflected on your veracity. The motion that was then moved and which was carried by the House was -

That the honorable member for Riverina be suspended from the service of the House.

Standing Order No. 302 states that if any member be suspended on the foregoing order his suspension on the first occasion shall be for 24 hours. If an honorable member is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours, how can time when the House is not in session be counted in the period covered by the standing order? My interpretation is that the Minister is not entitled to be in this chamber until after the hour, to-night, at which he was suspended on the previous occasion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order. It is quite clear that the period of suspension has expired.

The Minister for Social Services is quite entitled to be in the House.

Mr Calwell:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker, now that this matter has been raised. I am not unfriendly towards the honorable the Minister for Social Services, but a series of rulings on matters of this kind was given by Mr. Speaker Cameron; and the honorable member for East Sydney was a victim of them. When did the time expire which permitted the honorable member for Riverina to return to the chamber?

Mr SPEAKER:

– From memory, at 12.5 a.m. on the day following that on which the suspension was imposed. The Minister for Social Services may reply to the question asked by the honorable member for Port Adelaide.

Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

- Mr. Speaker, if I may reply to that part of the honorable member’s question which I remember, there has been no alteration in the application of the means test with respect to income except insofar as it is affected by the merged means test. Honorable members will appreciate that there was a time when the means test was exclusive to income, on the one hand, and to property on the other. With the introduction of the merged means test, as from 9th March last, it is possible that the property means test can be affected by the income means test and vice versa. To that degree it is possible that in an application for a social service benefit the rate of pension can be affected, and any change in circumstances should be notified without delay, but apart from that there has been no alteration.

page 619

QUESTION

TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General and is supplementary to a question asked by the honorable member for Wimmera. Is he aware of the considerable unpopularity of the new country telephone books? Does he realize that a constituent of mine living in southern New South Wales can look up the number of a subscriber in Bairnsdale, but has to buy another book to look up the number of his next-door neighbour who lives 300 yards away? As most businessmen in country areas either have to use about three of the new books or one old book - and many of them have decided to use the latter - will he revert to the old system when directories are next printed?

Mr DAVIDSON:
Postmaster-General · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– The honorable member refers to the country directories which have been issued since the inauguration of the new telephone system. It is correct that certain representations have been made from many quarters showing that there is need for some further investigation of the best way of producing a directory which will give the fullest information, embracing the new telephone zones and districts which have been established. I can assure the honorable member that the department is watching this development very carefully in order to ensure that any anomalies and difficulties which the operation of the new system indicates will be rectified when new directories are issued.

page 620

QUESTION

CANBERRA RENTALS

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– I ask the Treasurer: On what head of power does the Commonwealth rely for its action in deducting from the salaries of its officers rents payable for Government-owned dwellings they occupy in Canberra, and for refusing to accept instructions from these officers that such deductions are to be discontinued? Does the Treasurer recognize that section 89 of the Public Service Act, which provides for deductions for rent for quarters provided, should not apply to dwellings in Canberra which are not provided as a condition of employment? If the Government is relying on a Treasury order, will the Treasurer state what legislative backing this order has? If the Treasurer is not able to provide the information immediately, will he make a statement on the subject at the earliest opportunity?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– I do not have immediately available in my head the reply to the question. If the honorable member will put it on the notice-paper I will give him a considered reply.

page 620

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr ANDERSON:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. In view of the fact that all Labour speakers during the recent by-election campaign for the Liverpool Plains seat in the New South Wales Parliament made very strong play on the effect of the Government’s economic measures, do the results of this by-election not indicate general public approval of the need for those measures, and also deliver a severe blow to Labour propagandists?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– I am unable to say, from my own experience, how far the issues that have been mentioned by my usually very reliable informant entered into the campaign, but, judging from my correspondence and, indeed, from my personal experiences in going around various parts of the Commonwealth, I can say that I confidently believe that there is a wider appreciation of the necessity for the Government’s measures and a recognition that they are having the desired effects.

page 620

QUESTION

SOUTH AFRICA

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask my question of the Minister for External Affairs. As Australia has now voted in the United Nations for the resolution requesting all states to consider taking such separate and collective action as is open to them to bring about the abandonment of South Africa’s apartheid policies, what does the Government propose to do to carry out this request?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I suggest to the honorable member that he defer this question until after he has heard my statement this evening.

page 620

QUESTION

TOBACCO

Mr MURRAY:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for Primary Industry indicate when he will announce a change in the percentage of Australian-produced tobacco that must be used in the manufacture of cigarettes before a rebate of duty may be made? What steps is the Commonwealth taking, in cooperation with the States, to investigate the problem of over-production in the tobacco industry?

Mr ADERMANN:
CP

– The responsibility for deciding the percentage of Australian tobacco in cigarettes rests not with me but with the Minister for Customs and Excise. I can assure the honorable member that I have arranged to discuss this matter with my colleague this week. Overproduction is primarily a matter for the growers. I know that the growers in northern Queensland are concerned about this, and in fact have initiated a move in relation to it. That move has my blessing.

However, I think that the problem of overproduction should be recognized by growers in other States as well. I hope that they will face up to their responsibilities.

page 621

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr POLLARD:
LALOR, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. What is the name of the firm of business consultants which recently carried out a sales or promotion survey for the Australian Wool Bureau? What was the cost of that survey? What special qualifications and experience did this firm of consultants have? Why was not this work carried out by the Division of Agricultural Economics?

Mr ADERMANN:
CP

– The firm engaged by the Australian Wool Bureau was entitled Personnel Administration. Its selection was a matter for decision by the Australian Wool Bureau which is a responsible body appointed by this Parliament by legislation to operate on behalf of the wool industry. It is not my function to dictate to the bureau, nor has there been any necessity to do so.

Mr Pollard:

– I did not ask you to dictate. I asked the name of the company and the cost.

Mr ADERMANN:

– As to the cost, I shall have to get that information and supply it to the honorable member. I am not aware of the cost of the investigation. There was a need for the services of an experienced firm that had a knowledge of the needs of promotion and that was professionally fitted to undertake the task. Certainly that is not the function of the Division of Agricultural Economics, which is not a professional body experienced in promotion.

page 621

QUESTION

FROZEN FOODS

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Health. As frozen meat, ham and poultry are being imported into Australia, is it technically possible for our herds and flocks to be contaminated by these imports particularly if they come from countries where foot and mouth disease, swine fever and Newcastle disease of poultry are common?

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The only country from which meat, other than canned meat, can be imported into Australia is New

Zealand, which is free from those diseases. Canned meat is subject to the most stringent quarantine regulations to prevent the introduction of any disease into Australia by that means. The Department of Health is satisfied that these regulations are effective.

page 621

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– [ direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the right honorable gentleman know that exservicemen are entitled to sit for an examination for permanent appointment to the Commonwealth Public Service up to the age of 55 years? Does he know also that English immigrants to Australia who served with the British Army and in some cases fought alongside members of the Australian Imperial Forces, the Royal Australian Air Force and other branches of the Australian armed services are refused the same opportunity to enter the Commonwealth Public Service on a permanent basis? As these ex-servicemen fought for the same country and the same cause, will the Prime Minister, as ministerial head of the Commonwealth Public Service, consider allowing British ex-servicemen the same benefits that apply to Australian exservicemen in this connexion?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I am not familiar with the problem that has been raised in the latter portion of the honorable member’s question; but I shall certainly be very happy to have a look at it and to inform the honorable member at the earliest opportunity of the result of my examination.

page 621

QUESTION

POLIOMYELITIS

Mr SWARTZ:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for Health inform the House on the present position regarding supplies of Salk vaccine? Is there any likelihood that the antipoliomyelitis campaign which is being conducted in all States will be interrupted?

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– There has been a temporary delay in the issue of Salk vaccine. This is due to the very stringent precautions that are always taken by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to ensure both the potency and the safety of the vaccines. No doubt the honorable member will be aware that this is not the first time it has been judged necessary to hold up deliveries of vaccine until the full tests are properly satisfied. It is my hope and expectation that the delay on this occasion will not be a long one.

page 622

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr MAKIN:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask the Treasurer a question without notice. In connexion with the economic and financial squeeze instituted by the Government recently, will the Minister now acknowledge as a rather remarkable coincidence the fact that proceedings were actually pending regarding a claim for basic wage adjustments when the Government took its action? Will he agree that the attitude of the Government appears to be not as neutral as counsel represented to the court? Furthermore, will the Minister admit that it is principally thousands of good Australian workers, dismissed from their employment, who have suffered the greatest loss as a result of the Government’s credit squeeze policy?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– In the first place, Sir, the Government’s measures to maintain a balanced economic situation did not originate in November. The honorable member will recall the measures of February last year, the measures contained in the Budget, the steps taken at the earlier meeting of the Australian Loan Council and, finally, the November measures themselves. I do not think it would be proper in this place to canvass the issues which the honorable gentleman has raised, issues which are now being discussed before the Commonwealth Arbitration Commission. Certainly, Sir, the action taken by the Government was not directed against wageearners and trade unionists. To the contrary, it is proudly claimed by this Government that the standard of living and conditions of employment of wage-earners and trade unionists in this country were never better sustained than they have been during our period of office.

page 622

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT BANK

Mr TURNBULL:

– I ask the Treasurer: Have investigations by the right honorable gentleman revealed that adequate funds are available to the Commonwealth Development Bank to allow it to engage fully in all its functions? If not, will the Treasurer give the subject further close attention?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– Naturally, the Government wishes to see the Commonwealth Development Bank equipped with capital adequate to the functions that it was intended it should discharge. From time to time, with that objective in view, we examine the capital situation of the bank and those periodical reviews will continue to be made. I can assure the honorable gentleman that we are conscious of the important and growing part that this bank is playing in the affairs of the Commonwealth.

page 622

QUESTION

LAOS

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for External Affairs. Is it a fact that the Government of the United Kingdom has maintained recognition of the Laotian government, led by Prince Souvanna Phouma, while the Government of the United States of America has recognized the government of Prince Bour Oum? Whom does the Australian Government recognize?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– In the course of a statement which I hope to have leave to make to-night I propose to say something about Laos. I do not think that this is an occasion for exaggerating some differences that may exist, because out of the South-East Asia Treaty Organization conference there came, I think, a remarkable degree of unity, and the proposals that have been made recently by the Government of the United Kingdom have, as the honorable gentleman knows, been fully concurred in by the United States of America. I hope to say something - comparatively brief - about the Laotian position this evening.

page 622

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr CLEAVER:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In asking the Minister for Immigration a question I refer the honorable gentleman to a recent announcement that a Dutch television film unit would spend a month in Australia in order to help to present a true and up-to-date picture of Australia to the people of Europe. Is it a fact that the team’s activities will be concentrated in the four States in the east of Australia? Does the Minister agree that Western Australia is still seeking immigrants, and that no true picture can be presented to the people of Europe if

Western Australia is omitted from the team’s itinerary? If he so agrees, will the Minister take steps to arrange for the team to include Western Australia in its itinerary, at least for a few days?

Mr DOWNER:
Minister for Immigration · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Our Dutch visitors are, as the honorable gentleman realizes, to be here for only a limited time, but I shall certainly make inquiries to see whether their itinerary may be broadened. So far as concerns Western Australia, of which State my honorable friend is such an adornment - as well as being such an enthusiast for immigration into Western Australia - I think that the honorable gentleman will realize that in the last few months the Commonwealth, in conjunction with the Government of Western Australia, has vigorously resumed immigration there with, I think it can be claimed, a real measure of success. All those who are coming into Western Australia at the present time are being almost instantly absorbed into the expanding economic life of that community. I shall see whether the Dutch investigators can go to Western Australia, but in any case I can assure my honorable friend that Western Australia will never be overlooked by this Government so far as the peopling of its vast spaces is concerned.

page 623

EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL 1961

Motion (by Mr. Davidson) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act 1956-1959.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

page 623

JUDGES’ PENSIONS BILL 1961

Motion (by Sir Garfield Barwick) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Judges’ Pensions Act 1948-1958.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to bring the judges of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory under the ludges’ Pensions Act 1948-58. I recently introduced into the Parliament a bill to establish the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory on a statutory basis. That bill is designed to replace the existing Supreme Court Ordinance 1911-61, under which the present Supreme Court of the Northern Territory functions. The ordinance provides for a pension for the judge of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, with the same benefits as those provided under the Judges’ Pensions Act. When a court is created by the Parliament the pensions payable to the judge or judges of the court is ordinarily provided for in the Judges’ Pensions Act. This bill seeks to continue that practice and to add to the list of judges who are covered by the Judges’ Pensions Act judges of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The bill also seeks to insert a new provision to be numbered 4a (2.), the purpose of which is to make clear that when a judge serves in more than one court the act will provide only for one pension on his retirement. Clause 4 of the bill enables previous service as a judge appointed under the Supreme Court ordinance to be counted as service under the Judges’ Pensions Act. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Whitlam) adjourned.

page 623

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) BILL 1961

In committee: Consideration resumed from 23rd March (vide page 603).

Bill - by leave - taken as a whole.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

.- I refer to clause 2 which reads -

This Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on the twenty-second day of February, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one. and move -

Omit “ twenty-second day of February, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one “, insert “ sixteenth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and sixty “.

As the Opposition indicated during the second-reading debate, the purpose of this amendment is to make this amending legislation effective as from 16th November, 1960, the date on which the sales tax on motor cars was raised from 30 to 40 per cent. That was the date on which the Government introduced these emergency measures, as it called them.

In introducing this bill, the Government, in effect, is admitting that it made a colossal mistake by increasing the sales tax. We believe that, as a matter of morality and justice, now that the mistake is being corrected, those unfortunate people who bought motor cars between the 17th November, 1960, and the 22nd February, 1961, should be reimbursed the amount of the additional sales tax. 1 think that there were between 50,000 and 60,000 people who paid the increased tax. The bill of course, reduces the tax from 40 per cent to 30 per cent., but the purpose of the Opposition’s motion is that the bill shall not operate merely from 22nd February, but will date back to the time in November, 1960, when the Government increased the tax.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Lucock).Order! I point out that this bill does not deal with the sales tax on motor cars. This is the measure which deals with the sales tax on motor cycles and motor scooters.

Mr CREAN:

– There are two amendments which the Opposition wishes to move. The first amendment is on this bill - the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill.

Mr Harold Holt:

– The Opposition’s purpose is to require the Government to refund the extra sales tax collected?

Mr CREAN:

– Yes. Between 16th November. 1960. and 22nd February, 1961, some 50,000 or 60,000 people bought motor cars and paid 40 per cent sales tax on them. They paid anything from £80 to £100 more for a motor car than they would pay for the corresponding model after 22nd February, 1961. We suggest that the increase in sales tax was a mistake on the part of the Government and we believe that, as a matter of justice the people who have been penalized by that mistake should receive a refund of the excess sales tax paid. Legally, the additional amount paid was not “ excess “ because the law provided that 40 per cent sales tax should be paid from 16th November 1960, to 22nd February, 1961. The Opposition asks that this legislation be made retrospective to 16th November, 1960, so that those people who paid the additional sales tax will be legally entitled to have it refunded to them.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · Higgins · LP

– I hope that I have not misinterpreted what the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean) was putting. He used the argument that the imposition of the 40 per cent rate was a mistake and that the introduction of this legislation acknowledged that it was a mistake. The Government strenuously rejects any interpretation of that kind being put upon its actions. The truth is that the additional tax, operating in conjunction with other measures, has achieved its intended purpose which was to reduce the level of activity in the motor industry - a level which had reached boom proportions.

It is unnecessary to re-state why this action had to be taken. Lifting of the tax increase on and from 22nd February. 1961, was, in effect, no more than a compliance with the undertaking given by this Government at the time of the imposition of the additional 10 per cent that the situation would be kept under review and that relief would be granted as soon as such action was shown to be justified. The Government became convinced, after a close review of the matter in February, that its policy could be adequately implemented from then on by other means, and it therefore took action promptly to lift the additional tax, which, I repeat, had clearly served its purpose.

The granting of refunds of the 10 per cent of additional tax paid would be contrary to all precedent. It is all very well for honorable gentlemen opposite to try to score some popularity with those who have been affected by the additional tax, but Labour did not display that attitude when it was in office. There has been no exception to this practice since the sales tax was first introduced in 1930. Since that time there have been many occasions on which the rates have been reduced and the invariable policy of successive governments, as expressed in the law. has been that on such occasions there shall be no refunds of tax paid or payable on transactions occurring before the date of reduction.It is obvious of course, that any attempt to make refunds and to ensure that they went to the persons who actually bore the impact of the tax would involve much practical difficulty in the verification of claims. Moreover, it is axiomatic that the revenue must be protected on occasions such as these from inroads into past collections.

It is not without relevance to mention that, as a result of the imposition of the additional 10 per cent, of the sales tax, through its effect in reducing the sales of motor cars, collections diminished by an estimated £1,500,000. Refunds of the additional 10 per cent, of tax to all who purchased cars during the relevant period would cost about £3,800,000. Therefore, the total revenue loss if refunds were granted would be of the order of £5,300,000. in this instance, it is not readily apparent to me how the denial of similar requests could be justified on future occasions when rates of tax are reduced or increased in respect of other classes of goods if refunds were granted in this instance. Invariably, when rates of tax are varied, some people get an advantage and others are put at a disadvantage. This, I fear, must be regarded as inevitable.

After close consideration of the question, the Government finds itself unable to depart from the long-established practice in these matters.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Before I call the honorable member for Port Adelaide, I should like to point out that this bill is not concerned with the reduction of the rate on private motor cars from 40 per cent, to 30 per cent- That will be covered in the resolution before the Committee of Ways and Means. Previously, the House debated the bill and the resolution together. This bill is concerned mainly with motor vehicles of a kind used for commercial purposes; motor cycles, auto-cycles, motor scooters, and side cars and side boxes for attachment to those goods; and parts and accessories and the like. The reduction of the rate on private motor cars from 40 per cent, to 30 per cent, will be dealt with in the resolution which will be before the committee at a later stage.

Mr Crean:

– The question with which we are concerned is the date of operation.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is so. The date of operation of the reduction of the rate on private motor cars from 40 per cent, to 30 per cent, will be dean with in the resolution.

Mr. THOMPSON (Port Adelaide; [3.34]. - Mr. Chairman, I shall bear in mind what you have said and I hope that 1 shall not be out of order. When 1 was speaking to a big motor dealer in my district recently, he said that these continual changes involving the imposition of additional tax at one time and the removal of the additional tax a short time afterwards had put the dealers in a position in which they did not know where they stood. 1 told him that the increase of about £75 or £80 on a Holden motor car as a result of the additional 10 per cent, of the sales tax would not stop a person from buying a new car so much as the effect of the credit restrictions would stop him,. The dealer said: “ But he does not have to pay that. We will increase our trade-in allowance on the good second-hand car that he turns in as part payment. We will give him perhaps an extra £50. So he will have to pay only about £30 more. When we sell the car which he has traded in, we shall get back the extra payment that we have made in respect of it. But we are now in a position in which we cannot get back the extra £50 on a car which we took in before the rate of sales tax was reduced, and we shall lose approximately £50 on each such car. As a result, we have had to write off several thousand pounds. This situation is brought about by continual changes almost from day to day.”

Another person told me of his experience as a private seller of a car. He had intended to sell it for a certain amount, and when the rate of sales tax was increased, he raised his price accordingly. The car that he was selling was almost a new one. He told me recently that the sales tax rate had been reduced just too late to help the person who bought the car from him and that the purchaser had paid him the additional amount above the original price for which the owner had intended to sell the car. The seller of the car said to me, “ Had the rate of sales tax been reduced two or three days previously, I would not have made anything more out of the sale, and the man who bought my first-class second-hand car would have saved about £75 “.

I am not arguing at the moment about the alteration of the rate from 40 per cent, to 30 per cent., but only about the date from which the reduction shall operate. For the sake of that argument, this bill and the other one which you, Mr. Chairman, have mentioned are similar. If we pass this bill as it stands and set the date of operation at 22nd February, 1961, we could not consistently oppose the fixing of the same date of operation for the other bill at a later stage. It is all very well to say that we shall deal later with the alteration of the rate on private cars from 40 per cent, to 30 per cent. In the circumstances, I ask that the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean) on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) be agreed to. The Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) stated that this amendment, if agreed to, would require refunds to be made, and apparently he has made up his mind that the Government cannot make refunds. I make no bones about it: That is what I think is behind this. The intention is to give back to those who paid it the additional tax that was paid. That can be done only if the date of operation of this bill is taken back to the date in November last on which the rate of tax was increased, as is proposed in the amendment. I trust that the Treasurer will consider the matter further.

The right honorable gentleman said that the action sought by the Opposition would create a precedent. I say to him that precedents have been established before. I recall an occasion when Australian National Airways Limited owed quite a large amount of money and we passed a measure to relieve it of the obligation to pay nearly £500,000. That was done to benefit one company. When the Government and its supporters talk about retrospective legislation, they ought to realize that retrospective legislation has been enacted in the past to benefit certain people that the Government considered should be benefited. I think similar action on this occasion would be only fair and just.

I do not know whether the Treasurer has kept in mind that a lot of people who paid the additional tax only to see the rate reduced soon after will wait in future before purchasing anything, if they consider that there is any likelihood of a reduction in tax rates. If, as the Minister stated, the Government felt that it had achieved what it wanted by reducing the sales of motor vehicles and the amount of labour employed in the motor industry, why does it want to keep the money that it collected in respect of the additional sales tax? It could say: “ We have done what we wanted to do. We do not want to make a profit out of it and we shall give back to those who paid the additional tax the money to which they are justly entitled.” I realize that when money is collected to enable a government to run the country’s affairs, that money cannot be disposed of willy-nilly, but the Government ought to acknowledge the fact that justice not only should be done, but also should appear to be done.

A man came to show me his new car, and while he was showing it to me, saying that he had obtained it that afternoon, a neighbour came out and said, “ I have just heard on the wireless that the sales tax is to be reduced from to-morrow morning “. Do you call it justice, after a responsible Minister has said that the increased sales tax is to be continued, for people to be mulcted in that fashion? If the Minister had said, “ The Government is going to consider the matter “, this man, and others in like circumstances, could have waited another week or so. The Minister gave less than justice to people who, on the basis of statements made on behalf of the Government, and by the Treasurer himself, that there was no likelihood of the tax rate being altered, went ahead and bought vehicles. I do ask the Minister to consider again what he has told us is the decision of the Government with regard to the refund of the extra tax paid.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Before I call upon the next speaker, let me explain again that this bill has nothing to do with the reduction of the rate of sales tax on motor cars from 40 per cent, to 30 per cent- While the bill and the resolution to which I referred previously may be complementary, they are completely separate. The matter of the increase of the rate of sales tax on motor cars to 40 per cent, in November, followed by the reduction to 30 per cent, in February, is completely separate from the matters with which we are concerned in the bill now before us. The committee will be able to discuss those other matters later.

Mr Duthie:

– What can we say on this bill?

Mr Harold Holt:

– The best thing to do is to dispose of this bill and then get on to the resolution.

The CHAIRMAN:

– In reply to the honorable member for Wilmot, I simply say that he can talk about what is contained in this bill.

Mr Bird:

– But the Treasurer spoke on the resolution.

Mr Cairns:

– What about the Treasurer’s speech, a copy of which I have before me?

The CHAIRMAN:

– That was a speech on a matter completely separate from what is now before the committee. 1 suggest that the committee consider this bill, and that honorable members say what they want to say about it. Honorable members can debate the resolution when it comes before the committee.

Mr Cairns:

-I cannot dispute your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but in introducing this bill the Minister made a speech in which he referred at the very beginning to passenger motor vehicles and the reduction of sales tax on them from 40 per cent. to 30 per cent. He also referred to the rate of tax on motor cycles and scooters, and he went on to mention that registrations of new motor vehicles were at the rate of 330,000 a year. Then, replying to the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean), he endeavoured to justify the whole action of the Government in relation to this matter. He did not deal specifically with the technicalities of this bill; he tried to justify the whole policy of the Government in increasing the sales tax on motor cars and later reducing it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Let me say again to the honorable member for Yarra that what the Treasurer said in his second-reading speech was on a matter completely outside the present jurisdiction of this committee. That matter was referred to because of convenience. As to what the Treasurer said in this committee, I allowed him a certain amount of latitude, because he was replying to what had been said by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports. I allowed both the honorable member for Melbourne Ports and the Treasurer to go a little wider than they normally would have been allowed to go on this bill. When the resolution is before the committee, as I have said, honorable members will have an opportunity to discuss the other matters that have been referred to. The committee at the moment is confined to what is contained in this bill. That is how the Chair rules.

Mr Browne:

– The matter of dates is important, but the rate of tax is even more important.

The CHAIRMAN:

– So far as dates upon which various rates of tax were imposed are concerned, this bill deals only with motor cycles, auto cycles, motor scooters, side cars and accessories. The matter of the reduction of sales tax on motor cars from 40 per cent. to 30 per cent. is covered by the resolution.

Question put -

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

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.)

AYES: 65

NOES: 33

Majority . . . . 32

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

SALES TAX BILLS (Nos. 1 to 9) 1961.

In Committee of Ways and Means: Consideration resumed from 21st March (vide page 390), on motion by Mr. Harold Holt -

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

.- I move -

Omit “ twenty-second day of February, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one “, insert “ sixteenth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and sixty”.

The Opposition again points out that the matter before the committee arises from certain measures which the Government adopted on 16th November last. The rate of sales tax on passenger motor vehicles and one or two other items was increased from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. This was stated by the Government to be necessary because of the economic emergencies existing in the community at that time and it was part of a scheme of remedies propounded by the Government. The Opposition opposed the legislation when it was introduced and argued that, as the Government had taken repressive credit measures which would achieve its objective, this was an unnecessary second barrel, as it were, used when the victim had already been shot down.

The events of the ensuing three months showed that the views expressed by the Opposition in November last were correct. The Government belatedly recognized the harshness of its action and admitted in effect that it had made a mistake on 16th November. Like the many other mistakes that the Government has made, there were victims of this mistake. The victims in this instance numbered, according to the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt), between 50,000 and 60,000. They were the people who bought motor cars between 16th November, 1960, and 22nd February, 1961, when the rate of sales tax was 40 per cent. instead of the previous 30 per cent. Each of those persons paid, according to the type of vehicle purchased, between £80 and £100 more than he should have paid. The magnitude of the mistake was some £5,000,000 collected from 50,000 or 60,000 individuals.

The Opposition suggests that as a matter of justice, the Government, apart from admitting its mistake, should refund to those who bought motor vehicles in this period the difference between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. We have moved this amendment so that the reduction in the rate will run not from 22nd February, 1961, the date of recognition of the mistake, but from 16th November, 1960, the date the mistake was made. In that three months or so, we had 50,000 to 60,000 victims of the Government’s mistaken policy. The Treasurer argues that there is no precedent for this action. Of course there is no precedent for it, because there has never been an occasion in the whole history of the Commonwealth when any government has been so stupid as to bring down a measure of this kind as an emergency and then have to eat its words three months later, admitting that the imposition of the increased tax was a mistake. Of course there is no precedent for what we are asking, but there is no precedent either for the mistaken and stupid policy pursued by this Government.

Therefore, we say that, having admitted the mistake, the Government should do justice to those upon whom the mistake inflicted a financial burden. It is not impossible to find out, through car dealers and others, the people who bought motor cars in this period. We suggest that justice should prevail over administrative convenience in this matter and that the refund should be made.

Mr CAIRNS:
Yarra

.- This is an important piece of machinery which gives effect to the Government’s change of policy on the increased sales tax between 16th November and the date when this resolution brings the increase to an end. The sole reason given by the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Ho it), who is no longer in the House to continue with the debate, for the change in this procedure and the refusal to consider a refund of the tax to those who paid it, was that there is no precedent for such a refund. The Opposition wants to say quite clearly that there is no precedent for this tax, either. There is no precedent for a refund, but there is no precedent for a 98-day sales tax in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia. This places 50,000 or 60,000 persons in the special position of being affected by a 98-days sales tax; and a good many of those people found it necessary, because it happened to be the beginning of the year, to replace vehicles which normally required replacement at about the beginning of the year. They were especially affected by this tax. They were not people who could have chosen to buy a car then or delay the purchase, but people who were especially obliged, as this was the beginning of the year, to take the action they did.

If this had been a normal change in the sales tax, one that would have lasted for half a year or a year, there would be no case for a refund. But it is quite wrong for the Treasurer to rely upon the noprecedent argument. There is no precedent for a refund of sales tax paid, but there is no precedent for a sales tax increase and then an elimination of this kind, lt is not a matter of being wise after the event. When this measure was proposed on 15th November last year the Opposition gave consideration to the proposal to increase sales tax on motor vehicles by 10 per cent. The Opposition was quite clear in its attitude to that matter and said that it would not be necessary to increase sales tax to achieve the effect the Government wanted to achieve; and I think events have proved the Opposition’s claim. The increase in sales tax by 10 per cent, was not for revenue purposes. At the tune of proposing this increase the Treasurer made it quite clear that it was not being imposed for the purposes of revenue but was being imposed to divert resources from the motor car industry where the Government had suddenly found there were excess resources.

Had this tax been imposed for revenue purposes there would be a case to retain that revenue, but as it was imposed for a purpose other than revenue it seems to me that there is very little justification to retain the revenue. Assuming that this tax has had the effect which the Government says it has had - that is to remove resources out of the motor car industry - then the effect has been achieved. If the Government did not impose this increase for revenue purposes why does it not agree to the amendment now proposed by the Opposition? But of course this removing of resources - this afternoon the Treasurer used the expression “ removing of resources from the industry “ in the economic jargon he is in the habit of using - meant that men lost their employment and for some weeks had little or no income. Perhaps they had to move from a place like Geelong to a place like Broadmeadows, and when they arrived, their jobs were gone.

Mr Osborne:

– What has that to do with the refund of the tax?

Mr CAIRNS:

– I am dealing with a matter that was raised by the Treasurer when the Minister was absent. This economic jargon that Ministers have the habit of using is something they ought to have second thoughts about. My remarks at the moment have precisely this to do with giving the tax back: If the tax was not imposed for revenue purposes but for these other purposes the Government should refund the tax. One final point that I want to make is that the Government adopted two measures to deal with the motor car industry, an industry that it had waffled expand for ten years, which it had encouraged to expand and had taken pride in expanding, and then, all of a sudden, found that it had expanded too much. Tt then adopted two measures to deal with the situation. One of those measures was the credit squeeze and the other was the sales tax increase. If it was necessary to have both to achieve this effect we have now not got both but only one. If it was necessary to have the sales tax increase -to take resources out of the motor car industry, what is to prevent them going back into the motor car industry now? If the credit squeeze was not enough, why will not those resources go back and create the very condition .that the Government wanted to prevent by .this legislation If the sales tax, on the other hand, was necessary, why is the Government removing it by this resolution?

The Government’s position on this question is quite contradictory. The Government cannot have it both ways. If the sales tax increase was necessary it should still toe necessary, and if it was not necessary it should never have been imposed. The probability is that the credit squeeze was the real factor which affected the motor car industry; and if that is so that is all the more reason why the tax collected from those persons who were affected under this legislation- some £4,000,000 to £5,000,000 - should be refunded to those who paid it. I there/ore support the amendment moved by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. .Crean) which would have the effect of refunding the amounts paid in tax by those persons who were unfortunate enough to be affected by the stop and go policy of the Government.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Repatriation · Evans · LP

– I want to say at this stage that the amendment is not acceptable to the Government. The Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) covered this amendment earlier in his speech on the earlier bill and there is no point in covering the ground again now. I repeat that the amendment is not acceptable to the Government.

Mr BIRD:
Batman

.- I support the amendment. I am surprised that the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Osborne) has given such a short reply. It is true that earlier this afternoon we had some sort of an apology from the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) as to why he did not contemplate the action now proposed by the Opposition. During the eleven years I have been a member of the Parliament I have never listened to a weaker explanation than that given by the Government on this occasion. It is quite apparent that the Treasurer was feeling thoroughly discomforted, because he realized that he was the architect of the Government’s present position. After three months and three or four days it was realized that a gross injustice had been perpetrated on a section of the Australian public and on a section of Australian industry. There is not the slightest doubt that the Government realized it had committed a cardinal mistake and decided to rectify it as early as possible. The Labour Party has no objection to the rectification of the mistake, but there is no reason why the people who were the victims of the mistake should be deprived of about £85 per person as the result of the Government backing the wrong horse on this occasion.

The Treasurer, in his apology, stated that there had been sales tax increases before, and that when the rate had been reduced no refund was made to the people who paid the increase. That is perfectly true, but honorable members should not forget that in the ordinary course of events sales tax alterations are made only as Budget proposals. I have no recollection since I have been a member of the Parliament of a government coming in half way through a financial year and reducing a sales tax implemented under the preceding Budget. That has never been done before, and therefore it is useless for the Treasurer to say that a refund of sales tax has never been given. Never before, after only three months, has a sales tax been reduced; and that, in itself, is a condemnation of this legislation in the eyes of everybody, including members of the Government.

The Government’s attitude to-day is one of sheer obstinacy. It refuses to acknowledge that it made a mistake. Apparently it thinks that it has never been guilty of making a mistake, but it did make a mistake and it has not the courage to admit this publicly. The Government made a grave public mistake because after only three months it decided to rectify the position and introduced amending legislation.

We have been told that it would be against the precedents of the past to accept our suggestion. Are we always to be bound by the precedents of the past? Have we to accept every decision of the Government because it is following a procedure that was adopted 50 years ago and has never been departed from? Must we allow the dead practices of the past to dictate our actions in the year 1961? A decision made by the Parliament in 1907, 1927 or 1937 is not necessarily good enough for this Parliament in 1961. After all, conditions change and the point of view of the public and of the Commonwealth change. I am never impressed when any one in this chamber tells me that you cannot do this or you cannot do that because it has never been done before. Good gracious me, this is supposed to be a progressive Parliament! We are here to legislate for the current generation. That being so, we must always be ready to cut across the precedents and practices of the past and we must always be prepared to implement something that has not been implemented before. It is idle for any one to say that because something was not done in the past it cannot be done now. Any one who speaks like that must be stamped as a dyed-in-the-wool reactionary.

The diminution in sales of motor vehicles was not brought about by the increase in the sales tax. If a person wants to buy a motor car an additional £80 will not make much difference because he is determined to get the car and 80 or 90 per cent, of sales are made on a credit time-payment basis. There is not the slightest doubt that the decrease in the sales of motor cars was brought about by the credit squeeze. The Government knows this and the Treasurer had to admit it this afternoon when he said that the legislation now before us was introduced because the Government had decided to use other methods in the future. One of the other methods, of course, is the continuation of the credit squeeze because the Government realizes that by the credit squeeze it is achieving the objectives that it set out to achieve in November last year when it increased the sales tax. I am satisfied that the increased sales tax had very little effect upon the sale of motor cars.

In his weak-kneed apology to-day the Treasurer told us that it would not be practicable to refund the additional sales tax. Good gracious me, does he not know that he is dealing with business firms which are efficient and which keep complete records of sales of motor cars? When a firm sells a motor car it obtains the name and address of the purchaser and many other details. Any person buying a motor car is asked 101 questions - at least I always am when I buy a car - and this information is filed away and used later. Two or three years after purchasing a car a salesman calls upon you to try to sell you a new one. He tells you that the latest model has many improvements on the car that you bought two or three years previously. It would be merely a matter of office administration, and in two or three months 99.9 per cent, of the people who paid the additional sales tax could have it refunded to them. To claim that it would not be a practical act of administration to refund the money is merely begging the issue.

The Government knows that it made a mistake. It is in a very deep hole because it has been reprimanded by friend and foe alike, and the least that it says about the matter the better. The Minister for Repatriation merely stated that the Opposition’s suggestion was not acceptable to the Government and resumed his seat. He is bound by Government policy, but he should have shown a little consideration to the committee and explained in detail why the Government is not prepared to accept the very fair suggestion that has been made by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports.

Mr ANDERSON:
Hume

.- I am very pleased to welcome the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Bird) back into the House. I am glad that he has returned because he will give a little stiffening to a very supine Opposition. At the same time I should like to chide him for the arguments that he has advanced. He said that we are a progressive Parliament and that we should not look to the past, but time and time again the Opposition throws up at us the wonderful measures that were passed by the Chifley Government when it was in office. The honorable member referred to reactionaries. If any people in this chamber are reactionaries they are the Opposition members.

I was rather amused to hear the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Cairns) say that the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) talks economic jargon. That is the one thing that the Treasurer does not do and the one thing that the honorable member himself does do. No one talks more economic jargon than does the honorable member for Yarra. The honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Cairns) stated that there was no precedent for sales tax being imposed for 98 days. There is a precedent for putting on sales tax and there is a precedent for taking it off. No precedent is broken whether a sales tax is imposed for 98 days or for one year. What an extraordinary argument! Unfortunately, unlike the Opposition, this Government does not have the advantage of a crystal ball. The tax was imposed for a specific purpose. If any one in Australia did not realize the menace to the general economy of the tremendous growth of the motor car industry, he was not following the economic trend.

This Government has to create conditions in which 150,000 or more new jobs are available each year. This can be done only by a broad fiscal policy and not merely by creating jobs. If one section of industry is expanding at boom proportions at the expense of the other sections, the Government must take remedial action. The Opposition has accused us of being reactionary and has proposed that we should adopt a laisser-faire policy and allow the motor car industry to go on and destroy the economy.

The Opposition’s argument is that the increased sales tax should be refunded because it was not imposed for revenue purposes. Does the Opposition suggest that customs duties, which are not imposed for revenue purposes, should be refunded to importers? When one examines the Opposition’s arguments, one finds that they have no basis. The Opposition is merely trying to obtain popular acclaim from a number of people who paid extra for a car, but those who bought cars at a time when the Government was trying to dampen down the industry surely were not assisting Government policy. They bought a car simply because they wanted one. However, I am sympathetic towards those people who found it necessary to buy one.

The Government could have adopted the laisser-faire kind of policy that has been suggested by the Opposition or it could have taken steps to remedy the position.

We were buying an average of 700 cars a day and that figure suddenly increased to 1,000. Can any one claim that this country could afford that rate of progress. If any one does, he has very queer ideas about the absorptive capabilities of the national economy. The industry was reaching boom proportions, yet the Opposition claims that we should not have taken any action.

Mr Cairns:

– We do not say that at all.

Mr ANDERSON:

– Of course you do not say it but you are trying to imply it in your argument. All Opposition members are not on side. The honorable member for Yarra wants the Government to refund the additional 10 per cent, sales tax to the people who bought a car during the period in question, but the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean) stated to-day that the man who bought a car during this period obtained an additional £50 for his trade-in, so actually he lost only £30. However, the Opposition wants the Government to return him the full £80. Opposition members cannot have it both ways. They are batting on a very sticky wicket. The whole trouble is that they have not prepared their case. The man who bought a car during this period was prepared to pay the additional sales tax because, according to the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, he received for his trade-in £50 more than he would have received otherwise. However, I feel sympathy for the dealers. On a Holden car, the buyer would lose £30. These statements are supported by the evidence of the Opposition. Honorable members opposite want a refund of the full amount of £70. What about the man who received £50 more for his trade-in? The Opposition’s case is not very strong, and I am glad that the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Bird) ha« returned to the chamber to stiffen the Opposition a little.

Mr Pollard:

– What about the man who did not trade in his old car?

Mr ANDERSON:

– He was not mentioned before. I have been replying to the Opposition’s case. Sales tax was increased by 10 per cent, not only to dampen down consumption of local motor cars but also to cut down the number of motor vehicles imported into Australia. The Opposition will find that in the next three or four months, because of the Government’s economic measures, the national economy will be stable again. Employment is increasing. Each year this Government has, in effect, provided an additional 150,000 jobs or more. That has been going on for twelve years. So the Opposition will find that gradually the Government’s economic measures will take effect.

This irresponsible Opposition has not been prepared to assist the Government. Every time the Government has introduced economic measures, the Opposition has attacked it. In each case, the attack has gradually weakened. The people have seen the correctness of the Government’s decisions and have recognized its courage and given it their support again. That will happen in this instance. That is why 1 asked a question on this matter earlier to-day. I did not do so to gain any party political satisfaction. I asked the question simply to provide an opportunity to show that the people have begun to recognize the need for the Government’s economic measures. If that was not the case, would not the parties we support have lost the Liverpool Plains by-election? Every Labour supporter who spoke in that campaign attacked the Government’s economic measures and the wheat plan because Liverpool Plains is a big wheat-growing area; but to their horror, the supporters of the Labour candidate have found that the people believed there was a need for these economic measures.

I have considerable sympathy for the traders who were caught by the increase in the sales tax and had to pay the extra amount involved; but most traders had an opportunity to use a floor plan. If they adopted such a plan, they did not have to pay the tax. If the additional sales tax was refunded, a serious precedent would be established. It could be applied to such consumer goods as refrigerators, washing machines and television sets. When a tax goes down or up, it generally happens on the day the Budget is presented. A tremendous amount of merchandise is involved, and the dealer or the public can gain or lose by changes in taxes announced at Budget time. If the additional sales tax under discussion was refunded to a man who bought a car, a precedent would be established and there would be a clamour to have it applied every time rates of sales tax were reduced.

Mr UREN:
Reid

.- I support the Opposition’s amendment for the refund of sales tax to persons who bought motor vehicles during the period when the higher rate of sales tax applied. This Government has been an on-and-off-again, stopandstart government. It has displayed complete arrogance. The Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) should be present while the committee is discussing this measure, but he is not at the table. He has a messenger boy there who does not understand these things.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Hon W C Haworth:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– Order! The honorable member must not refer to a Minister in those terms.

Mr UREN:

– I withdraw the statement. The position is that this Government has raised a certain amount of money by increasing the sales tax on motor cars temporarily, and now it should return the additional money to those who bought motor vehicles during the relevant period, following its decision to remove the additional 10 per cent, tax which it imposed only in November. All honorable members have received complaints from electors who were caught by the rise in the sales tax. I have had many representations made to me. The arrogant statement that was made by the Minister at the table should not be accepted by the people. Supporters of the Government claim that it has achieved what it set out to achieve. What did it set out to achieve? First, it said that too much money was being spent on motor cars and that too much steel was being consumed by the motor vehicle industry. It adopted two measures. First, it increased the sales tax on motor vehicles from 30 to 40 per cent.; and secondly, it introduced a credit squeeze. Now the Government has reduced the sales tax to 30 per cent. The reason for the reduction is that the big motor vehicle combines - General Motors-Holden’s Limited and the Ford company - put pressure on the Government. Actually, the Treasurer did not make a statement when the sales tax was reduced; it was the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) who bowed to the wishes of the big motor car monopolies.

As to the credit squeeze, those two combines will not be affected because they can make their own finance available and so maintain the sales of Holden and Falcon motor cars. Thus, there, will continue to be an upward surge in the sales of motor vehicles; so the Government has not achieved what it set out to achieve. Once again, the motor vehicle industry will be a drain on the steel industry of Australia and once again, it will impose a greater burden on our export earnings. Huge increased quantities of petroleum products will have to be imported. The Government did not set out on a pattern of education. The Opposition’s policy has not been one of laisser-faire. We have advanced a progressive and positive policy. We have said previously on many occasions that the sales tax on motor cars should be applied on a sliding scale according to petrol consumption. The sales tax should be lower on cars which consume less petrol. If a luxury motor car travels only 15 to 18 miles on a gallon of petrol, the sales tax on such a car should be increased. Thus, the people would be educated to buy a worker’s motor car that the Australian people can afford. That is an indication of what we would do. That is a positive policy.

Let us look at the record of this Government in relation to sales tax. When the Chifley Government went out of office in 1949, the rate of sales tax on a motor car was 8 per cent. By November last year, the rate had risen to 30 per cent. Then this Government increased it to 40 per cent, until, under pressure from the monopolistic motor vehicle interests, the Government relented and reduced the sales tax to 30 per cent. Those monopolies will not be affected because they can make finance available for the purchase of Falcon and Holden motor vehicles. Many of the small dealers outside the Holden or Falcon networks cannot sell motor cars. Consequently, they will be affected; but, in whole, the position of the country will not be any better. Our export balances will be affected by the increased imports of petroleum products. The steel industry will be affected. Steel which should be going into more essential industries will be absorbed by the motor vehicle industry. This is one of the issues that this Government has not faced and will not face - the issue of priority, of where money should flow within the community in the best interests of our development. The Government is a laisser-faire government. When we on this side are elected to office we will be a progressive government, because we have some vision, we have some feeling for this country, and we are aware of its capabilities for development. We will face up to that position.

Lastly, I should like to say that surely the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Osborne), who is now at the table, will take back to the Treasurer and his Cabinet colleagues the message from this debate that the Government should relent in regard to its stupid decision to retain the £5,000,000 which it has been able to steal from the unfortunate purchasers of motor cars in that tragic period between November and March. Surely the Government will not be so foolish as to retain this £5,000,000, and surely honorable members opposite will support the Opposition’s amendment.

Mr BROWNE:
Kalgoorlie

.- It is quite obvious that the Labour Party seeks not to effect a refund of sales tax but to gain, by this amendment, some cheap political publicity. I can support that statement by saying that never before has anybody on the Labour Party side advocated a refund of sales tax or any other tax. No Labour Government, or, for that matter, any other government, has ever refunded money. So, the only reason that presents itself for this sudden outburst from honorable members opposite is that the Opposition actually believes that the Government made a mistake in imposing the increase of sales tax originally. Whether that is right or wrong - and I believe it to be wrong - the fact is that the only foundation upon which the Opposition’s so-called logic is based is that the Government made a mistake. Upon that rock honorable members opposite have built their case for the amendment.

I say that the Government did not make a mistake by imposing the increase of sales tax in November. This is borne out by the fact that the purpose of the tax was to deter people from the unnecessary purchase of motor cars. That that effect was achieved is evidenced by the reduction of demand for motor cars during the period in which the increased tax operated. The honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Cairns) asks if this effect has been achieved as desired, and if the increased tax was not imposed for revenue purposes, why we should not refund the increased tax collected during the period. Well, Sir, the very purpose of the tax would be defeated if the precedent were created of refunding a tax imposed as a deterrent. If people knew that the Government would later refund taxes imposed as deterrents to the purchase of certain commodities there would be no deterrent effect to be gained. I think that that is the whole crux of this matter. The crux of the matter is not, as the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Bird) has said, that it would be practicable to refund the amounts collected. That is entirely beside the point. The point is that a tax imposed as a deterrent would ceases to be a deterrent as soon as people realized that the amount collected would be refunded later.

Mr L R JOHNSON:
Hughes

.- I support the Opposition’s proposal that the Government refund the increased sales tax collected on motor cars between 16th November, 1960, and 22nd February, 1961. The money involved could, of course, be refunded. There is no doubt that it appeared most unlikely to people who bought motor vehicles during that period that any government would contemplate imposing an increase of tax of that sort for such a short period. Nothing in our history provides any precedent for that brief imposition of such an increase of tax. In fact, many people came to members of the Parliament - I am sure that many came to members on the Government side as well as to members on the Opposition side - and asked them whether they thought that the increase of sales tax on cars to 40 per cent, was to be only a very brief, temporary measure. I am sure that no honorable member thought that any government would be so flybynight, so inconsistent and so irrational as to impose such an increase of tax for such a short period - on in November, off in February. In reaching their opinions in this matter honorable members also took account of the fact that the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) had stated that the purpose of the increase was not the raising of revenue.

Like other honorable members, I have been inundated with letters of protest regarding this tax. I have sent many of these letters on to the Treasurer. They show that many ordinary people in the community have been the victims of the increased tax, and that large amounts of money are involved. They show that among those who have suffered are people who saved for a deposit on a motor car and bought their cars during the time when the increase of tax operated. In many cases the people involved are the kind of people who need very sympathetic consideration from any government.

One would gain the impression from the Government’s attitude that cars are not one of the ordinary necessaries of life in Australia - that a car is a luxury which should be taxed excessively whenever the Government has the inclination to do so. But the fact is that in this country, probably more than in most countries, cars are very necessary.

I cannot help but feel that the Government’s original action in increasing the tax was itself inflationary. This, of course, was one of the reasons why the Opposition opposed the increase when it was first mooted. There are so many people in the community who are able to pass on to the consumers any increase in sales tax or other charges, and thus add to the cost of living of the ordinary person. The butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, and all people in business in fact do this. Yet the Government claimed that the purpose of the increase was anti-inflationary.

Sales tax is a transferable tax, as has been proved throughout this country’s history. It can always be passed on, and so. by increasing sales tax, the Government would not be going towards the objective of reducing inflation. And inflation is very fundamental to this problem, because it is inflation which has contributed to our inability to export sufficient to enable us to pay our way. Our cost structure has been affected by the inflationary conditions, and although we are now unable to export sufficient to pay our way we are still importing too much. So the Government’s answer was to curb the motor car industry. In the process it has aggravated the inflationary trend, because people have had to pay more for cars. To-day, as a result of our very complex taxation system, there are many people who are able simply to transfer increased taxes to the consumer while they themselves are able to gain tax concessions from the Government. So I seriously contend that the Government is not making much progress towards the solution of inflation. It went into this thing in a foolhardy and indifferent way. When all is said and done, when we are dealing with the motor car industry we are dealing with an industry which employs 330,000 workers, or about one-seventh of the Australian work force. There can be no doubt that the Government had the objective of bringing about a substantial retrenchment of employment in this industry. When you play so dangerously with an industry involving one-seventh of the Australian work-force you are doing something that brings about a decline in our economic position. The Government has caused a loss of confidence throughout the community.

I was interested to listen to the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Anderson) explain that the purpose of the increased tax was to dampen down the buoyant conditions in the car industry. The honorable member said that the Opposition had no alternative propositions to make. Of course, we have plenty of propositions. The honorable member for Reid (Mr. Uren), the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Cairns) and the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean) have all indicated the Labour Party’s great interest in the fundamental necessity to increase Australia’s exports and minimize imports. We have proposes to stimulate the steel industry. We have heard nothing from the other side of the chamber in that regard. Honorable members opposite have spoken about the two import contents of car manufacture - steel and petroleum. If they are both considerations, it is necessary to look at each of them when thinking about the national development programme.

The Opposition has proposed that a. people’s steel industry should be developed, and we think that a great deal could bedone to bring down the price of petrol by establishing a Commonwealth oil refinery. We have made other proposals which would materially affect our balance-of-payments problem and make increased sales tax unnecessary. We have talked about the need to stimulate the coal industry. At present, the Government is allowing that industry todecline seriously. It is not examining the possibility of developing by-products from coal which would increase our exports and obviate the necessity to hit the car industry in such a savage way.

In effect, the Treasurer said that Australia was devoting too much of its resources to the motor car industry. That was another reason given for the increased sales tax. He said that resources in excess of what the country could afford, having regard to its other requirements, were being swallowed by the car industry. The Opposition has suggested that if that is the case the position could be remedied by the reimposition of import controls. Why did the Government lift those controls in February of last year when it was so easy to anticipate the state of affairs that led the Government to impose additional sales tax on motor cars?

The motor car industry has become an aunt sally for the Government. What the honorable member for Reid said was true. In the lifetime of this Government sales tax on motor cars has been increased from 8i per cent, to 40 per cent. The Chifley Government’s tax was 81- per cent. In October, 1950, under this Government, the tax rose to 10 per cent. Tn September. 1953, it was doubled to 20 per cent. However, it was soon reduced to 16) per cent, just after a general election. On 15th March, 1956, the present Government increased this tax to 30 per cent., as a “ temporary “ measure. But this so-called temporary impost remained until November, 1960, when the Government tossed it up to 40 per cent. What is the reaction of the motor car industry? Recently a report of the Chamber of Automotive Industries of New South Wales said this about the Menzies Government -

For the record, when the “ Little Budget “ was introduced in 1956, the Prime Minister, Mr. R. G. Menzies, said unequivocally that the 30 per cent sales tax then imposed on motor vehicles was “ a temporary restraint on the motor industry.”

We accepted ,ne Prime Minister’s word, just as we accepted his dictum that the temporary 30 per cent, impost, unfair as it seemed, was for the good of the nation.

Neither did we protest too much when we were told later that some Government members, both inside and outside the Cabinet, had been in favour of a 25 per cent, sales tax on motor vehicles.

In fact this great industry, with its vast staffs and wide ramifications, has continued to support the Government through the ups and downs of its economic policy, which we believed honestly intended for the good of Australia, although we protested and warned responsible people against high discriminative taxation.

But now our belief in the Government’s sincerity has been strained too far, and our feeling has become one of disgust.

The members of this organization are not traditionally Labour people. The statistics provided show th: t the Government has been hitting the motor car industry terribly hard. The total tax imposed on it has been £144,000,000. Sales tax alone has totalled £77,000.000 and even before the 10 per cent, increase 47 per cent, of sales tax from all sources came from motor cars. We find it very difficult to see how the Government can justify its attitude. By way of customs and excise on petrol, for example, the Government has been taking £241,000,000 from the car industry and has been returning only £174,000,000.’

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

BARNES (McPherson) [4.45].- Obviously, the Opposition is having great difficulty in finding arguments to support its proposal. First of all, the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Bird) said that we could forget the past. I think that that is a very wise argument for the Opposition to advance because if we remember the past we recall that when Labour was in office we could not even buy a car on which to pay sales tax. If we could find a car somewhere, we could not buy petrol to run it.

The honorable member for Reid (Mr. Uren) suggested that the large motor firms had not suffered and that in some way they had influenced the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) to remedy the sales tax position. To suggest that large motor firms such as General Motors-Holden’s Limited and the Ford company have not suffered is completely ridiculous. We know that they have had to reduce employment because new cars which were piling up had no market. By December, 1960, the sales of cars had dropped by over 40 per cent. There was an improvement last month, but sales were still down 30 per cent, or 35 per cent.

Members of the Opposition have suggested that a mistake was made by the Government. That is their version of a mistake. They got this idea from the press. The increased sales tax on motor cars was imposed by the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) to bring about a certain level of car sales. When the tax was increased he promised that as soon as that level of sales had been achieved the tax would be removed. Of course, no one knew when that time would come. I think that members of the Opposition and our metropolitan press have panicked the public into making the effect of these measures far more severe than ever was expected. Responsible newspapers such as the “ Financial Review “ which we look to for guidance and to see trends in the financial world, have joined in putting the argument that we have heard from the Opposition, But facts are running against the press and the Opposition. The very effect which the Government set out to achieve is being accomplished. Our balance of payments has swung in our favour. Our import position is improving and, despite the claims of the Opposition, our unemployment position is improving.

Mr Reynolds:

– Oh, yes!

Mr BARNES:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND

– It is undoubtedly so. Members of the Opposition are disappointed, I feel, to find these measures being successful. After all, the Government has a responsibility to preserve the prosperity of Australia and keep employment at the high level which has existed. We have never had a run of such prosperous years as we have had since this Government has been in power and had we not done something to preserve that prosperity we should have been condemned by the people. The Government had the courage to act instead of waiting, as one member of the Opposition stated that it could have waited, until the next Budget to increase the tax. That would have been too late. The boom would have burst. Tens of thousands of people would have been unemployed. After all, the tremendous sales of cars were affecting other sections of the community. They were affecting primary industry. A report by one of the larger retail firms recently blamed the tremendous sales of cars and the financing of those sales in the last part of last year for the drop in retail sales.

After all, these measures are achieving the results which the Government intended to achieve. We do not like to see taxes rise, of course. This Government has endeavoured all along to reduce taxes within the limits allowed by the requirements of the economy. The Opposition makes this plea for a refund of the additional sales tax which has been paid, but, unfortunately, it does not mention some things such as the case mentioned by the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Anderson), who told us of the country dealer who financed his own floor plan and who is now in a very unhappy position as a result. Honorable members opposite do not mention cases like that. They have no concern for people in that position.

In conclusion, I say that the arguments that we have heard to-day from the Opposition in support of the amendment are very poor indeed.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

.- Mr. Chairman, the honorable member for Mcpherson (Mr. Barnes) has accused the Opposition of putting very indequate arguments in support of its case. Apparently, he was sound asleep in his seat in the chamber when the honorable member for Hughes (Mr. L. R. Johnson) addressed the committee a little while ago and outlined the constructive methods by which Labour would have tackled the problem. The Government, however, has not even remotely looked like adopting one of our suggestions.

I am quite certain that the Government has lost its way. It is just like a man fumbling about in the dark for a light switch. But the light switch will not be turned on until this Government has been removed from the treasury bench and a government with vision and understanding of the country’s problems is put into office. The Ministers in this Government live in ivory towers, even if they do not live in ivory palaces. The Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) is not even present now to hear what is being said. We noticed at question time to-day even the Prime Minister’s lack of a grip on the country’s problems. He could not even answer the questions that were put to him. That is most unlike the Prime Minister, who found himself unable even to fob off a question with some sarcastic remark. Obviously, the Government has lost its way and, in respect of this issue, has taken the wrong turning.

The sales tax on motor cars affords a glorious example of its blind stumbling. It went down the wrong road a considerable distance and then suddenly realized that it had gone the wrong way. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), in a dramatic announcement made just before he went overseas, left the Treasurer and every other Minister stranded when he said, “ We are going to remove the additional 10 per cent, of the sales tax on motor cars “. That announcement was one of the greatest shocks that this country has ever received. Only the day before, in Melbourne, the Treasurer had been stating all the reasons for which the Government had increased the sales tax, like the true advocate of Government policy that he is. Then, within 24 hours, the Prime Minister reversed the whole thing and the Treasurer’s argument fell like a pack of cards about his ears.

Where is this Government going? The increase of the sales tax was a horrible mistake. Indeed, I suggest that £3,800,000 has been taken out of the pockets of purchasers of motor cars in Australia under false pretences. That is why we ask the Government to refund the additional tax that was collected. The increase was not decent, in the first place. It constituted an unjust tax. I recall vividly the fanfare of trumpets that sounded throughout this country when the measure authorizing the increase was being considered by the Parliament. When the bill reached another place, it seemed in danger of defeat, Mr. Chairman. What happened? A track was worn from the Prime Minister’s office to the offices of Senator Wood and Senator Wright. They seemed likely to dig their toes in, as we say, and reject the bill in defiance of the Government. I visited the gallery of the Senate to hear Senator Wood speak at the secondreading stage of the bill in that chamber. 1 have never heard a more sincere speech than that in my life. He said the very things that we on this side said in this chamber when we had the bill before us and voted against it. Indeed, Senator Wood said, “ 1 do not care what happens to me; I shall vote against this measure because it is unjust “. He stuck to his guns, and he won the admiration of very many people throughout Australia.

One would have thought that that bill would have transformed the Australian scene from darkness to light - from night to day - there was so much fuss about it. Yet, only 98 days after its date of operation, the Government suddenly decided to wipe it off the statute-book. The whole thing was a horrible mistake, and the people who were caught up by it ought to be refunded the money they paid under false pretences in respect of the additional sales tax. All that this Government shows to the country to-day in its administration is indecision, uncertainty and insecurity. The business world is completely uncertain about the future. Business people cannot make longterm plans while the Menzies Government is in office because its changes of policy are so frequent.

During the 98 days for which the tax increase operated, 54,000 cars were bought, Mr. Chairman. Did not the Government want the purchasers to buy those cars? Was that the reason for the increase of the sales tax? Had the buyers refused to purchase these cars, the motor industry would have had to close down almost entirely and not only 6,000 workers but a great many more would have been put off. If the people who in fact bought the 54,000 motor cars were not supposed to buy them, who was to buy them? The Government gave no direction at all. It just introduced a blanket measure which hit everybody. It hit the needy and those who urgently required cars just as much as it hit those who were not so urgently in need of them. All were lumped together. The purchasers of the 54,000 cars must have required them urgently to buy them at such expense in the circumstances. The Government claims that’ a great deal of the spending on motor cars is unnecessary, spendthrift and wasteful. But I remind the Government at this stage that it was its own administration that a few years ago encouraged the motor car industry to expand. We well recall the various measures that were introduced in this Parliament to boost the motor industry - an industry which I have heard the Treasurer and the Prime Minister describe as magnificent.

Mr Anderson:

– What measures?

Mr DUTHIE:

– I shall tell the honorable member. First, the Government encouraged the motor industry to expand when it made the double taxation agreement which was worth £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 to overseas investors in Australia. Most of this money was spent in the motor industry as a result of a deliberate act of this Government. That was its first measure designed to encourage this great industry to expand. Secondly, the Government increased depreciation allowances from 3.8 per cent, to 7 per cent, of the gross national product. In terms of money, this meant an increase from £100,000,000 to £475,000,000 in depreciation allowances. Thirdly, the Government, by reducing company tax by ls. in the £1 in 1958, further encouraged the motor industry to expand. All these measures were designed, in effect, to give a blood transfusion to this great industry. But, just when it was getting on its feet, one might say, the Government imposed the vicious increase of the sales tax in order to hamper the industry again. As a result, about 6,000 workers were added to the ranks of the unemployed.

From every stand-point, the increase was scandalous. I hope that the people will not forget it in December of this year. What is the use of criticizing the Prime Minister now? I appeal to those people who are greatly concerned about this matter to carry their protest right through to the ballot-box, as was done in 1949. If they do that, they will show that they mean what they now say. And let us not be fooled by these newspaper editorials that we read. I tell my constituents and the various Labour supporters to whom I talk that the newspaper proprietors will vote for the Government parties on 9th December next just as they have done so many times before. They will not take their protest right through to the ballot-box, despite their editorials.

The Treasurer says that there is no precedent for such a refund as the Opposition suggests. What about the scandalous Ansett-A.N.A. deal which was discussed in this Parliament a couple of years ago? That involved the refund of hundreds of thousands of pounds by a deliberate act of this Parliament. Yet the Treasurer says that there is no precedent for refunding £3,800,000 to those unfortunate persons who were forced to pay it.

The words used by the Treasurer in speaking of this sales tax measure are like all his words. They do not seem to have any sting in them. The Treasurer has lost his punch. He is on the defensive all the time. At question time in this Parliament day after day he is on the defensive, and now it seems that he speaks in defensive tones all the time. The speech he made to-day was of the same defensive kind. However, we will keep him, and his Government, on the defensive until, after the next election, we have a new government in Canberra, which we sorely need for the sake of the economy.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

.- The longer 1 remain in this Parliament the more I am fascinated by the speeches - I will not say the thinking - of the Labour Party, and by the way in which the propositions put forward by that party are opposed to logic. It is extraordinary how honorable members opposite can change their stand on any matter at any given time and for any particular purpose. At the present time they are complaining about the fact that this Government reduced the sales tax on motor cars after only 90 days.

Mr Duthie:

– After 98 days.

Mr TURNBULL:

– All right, 98 daysbut how often have we heard Opposition members suggesting that when a measure is placed on the statute-book it is never taken off? As honorable members opposite are complaining at the fact that this increased sales tax was in operation for only a short time, 9S days, are we to take it that they wanted it retained for a long time? Did they want it to be imposed permanently? As the Opposition says that this rate of tax was in operation for only a short time, so short that it was not worth imposing the increased rate, we can take it, perhaps, that they would have been happy if it had been in operation for a long time. The honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie), being an uncompromising optimist, has suggested that Labour will again come to office in this Parliament. If, by some chance, it did so, then perhaps it would retain an increased rate of sales tax for an indefinite period, perhaps for another 30 years.

I was interested also in some remarks made by the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Uren), lt is noteworthy that most of the Opposition back-benchers have taken part in this debate, so that the Labour Party is evidently not pushing its amendment very strongly from the front bench. The honorable member for Reid suggested that when the Labour Government went out of office in 1949 the rates of sales tax were very low compared with their present levels. Of course, everybody knows that that is correct, but let us consider the state of the Australian economy at that time. The country was in the doldrums. There was no progress, and Australia was going down to decay and degradation. The population was very much smaller than it is to-day. We are now paying out so many more millions of pounds for social services and in every other department that a good deal more revenue is necessary at this time. Everybody knows that this is so, and if the Labour Party did happen to gain office in this Parliament it could not cut sales tax and other taxes to the extent that it says it would, while still maintaining the economy at its present level. No government could substantially reduce taxes in this way without depressing our standards of living to a significant extent.

What is the real position with regard to this sales tax on motor cars? In November of last year 31,865 new vehicles were registered. In December, after the new rate of sales tax had been introduced, the number fell to 22,368, and in January to 16,254. It is no use beating about the bush when discussing this matter. The Government imposed the additional sales tax so as to reduce sales of cars. It achieved exactly this purpose. The measure had an immediate effect. The Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) said very clearly that as soon as the Government was satisfied that sales of cars were falling at a satisfactory rate, the rate of tax would be reduced to its normal figure of 30 per cent. When the relevant information came forward - and, no doubt, the Treasurer had the figures at his disposal before they were available to us - the tax was again reduced to 30 per cent., 98 days after it had been increased. That is the whole story.

The honorable member for Wilmot talks about needy people buying cars. Did anybody ever hear such a suggestion as that?

Normally, any man who buys a motor car is either fairly well off or is in a business which requires the use of a motor car. Apart from these if a man buys a motor car, on a small deposit, while he is in a needy position, there is something wrong with his outlook.

One honorable member asked: Why did the Government remove import controls? That question is very easily answered, lt did so to give the main providers of our national wealth, the primary producers, a chance to exist. We are selling most of our primary products on world markets, and import controls were lifted in order to give the primary producer a chance of buying a few things at world market values, instead of in our own high-cost, highstandardofliving economy. Often in this Parliament I have said - and a perusal of “ Hansard “ will verify my statement - that we must foster and build up our secondary industries, but that we must never do so al the expense of primary production, because this country’s progress is based soundly on the primary industries. As secondary indus.trie cannot export, owing to our high costs of production, we must continue to depend on primary industries for our future stability. That is the complete answer to. the question why import controls were removed.

Certain honorable members have said that this tax was not imposed as a revenue producer. That is quite true, and I understand the Government said at the time of increasing the tax that it was not intended as a revenue producer. When the rate of tax rose from 30 per cent, to 40 per cent, the number of cars sold fell considerably. Sales fell to such an extent that the amount of revenue received from the tax, even at the higher rate, was probably less than it had been when the lower rate was in operation. All these factors need to be taken into consideration, and honorable members opposite will see the position quite differently if they look, at it from a logical stand-point.

What is the position of people who bought cars at the higher rate of tax? I have some of them in my own electorate, of course, and they would, naturally, like to have their money refunded. I, personally, and, I am sure, every member of this Parliament, would be happy to see it refunded.

Mr Uren:

– Then support the amendment!

Mr TURNBULL:

– Such refunds are not made by governments, as history shows.

Mr Bird:

– The people do not get justice!

Mr TURNBULL:

– They get justice. Sales tax and other taxes have never been refunded in the past. I want to put this very clearly: If I were the one man in this Parliament who could decide that the money should be refunded, by voting against the Government, I would vote with the Government, because if I did not I would be voting against the Government on a money bill, and I would probably put the Government out of office. I owe it to the constituents in the primary producing area I represent to keep this Government in office and to keep out the socialists. However, my vote will not decide whether this money shall be refunded, and do honorable members think for one moment that I will vote for the refunding of this money simply to attract some kudos to myself? As I have said, I would not vote against the Government if my vote were the one to decide the issue, so in the position in which my vote will have no significant effect on the result I will not cast it against the Government just to have people say, “Turnbull is a good fellow “. I have some national responsibility in representing the primaryproducing electorate of Mallee, and I believe that this Government, by reducing the sales of cars and bringing into force certain credit restrictions, is doing the very things that are needed in this country to foster primary industries. I am very happy to see the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Bird) in the chamber again. He is a great fighter, but he represents a metropolitan area, as do many of his colleagues. They either represent metropolitan areas or are dependent for a majority on a vote from part of their electorate which is in the city area. They are fighting a battle that is different from the battle I am fighting. I would not have a dog’s chance of winning an election in the electorates of Yarra or Batman, but the honorable members for Yarra (Mr. Cairns) and Batman would not have a chance of winning in my electorate.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Lucock).Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr CAIRNS:
Yarra

.- Some very interesting points have emerged from this discussion and I think the most interesting of all was that raised by the honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull). He let the cat out of the bag in saying that import controls were removed in February, 1960, to suit the interests of primary producers. We have been wondering what it was that brought about this fantastic position, and now we know. It is quite significant, I think, that all those who have participated in this debate in defending the Government’s position have been Australian Country Party members. We have heard from the honorable members for Hume (Mr. Anderson), McPherson (Mr. Barnes) and Mallee. Liberal Party members are completely silent on this matter. The Country Party is ganging up to defend this situation, led by the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen), who is the strongest character in the Government. He has dominated the Government and, at an enormous cost, has imposed upon it a policy to suit a few people in the country. Where are the defenders of the Government in the Liberal Party? The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Forbes), who is interjecting, has had plenty of opportunity to speak but has not taken it. Other Liberal Party members also have failed to deal with the consequences of the Government’s action.

We know what happened when import controls were removed last year. There was a flood of imports. This had two results. It had an adverse effect on secondary industry in the cities, where 90 per cent. of the people live. We know how adversely affected they were. We know that the Chamber of Manufactures has just completed a survey of those industries and we know that, according to the survey, £272,000,000 worth of capacity in Australian industry is unused. We know that the survey shows - I mentioned this in a question to the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) to-day - that there has been a great decline in industry. We know that factory wages have declined by 9 per cent.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The matters mentioned by the honorable member for

Yarra are not really covered by the matter now before the committee. I allowed the honorable member for Yarra a certain amount of latitude.

Mr Uren:

– What about the honorable member for Mallee?

The CHAIRMAN:

– If the honorable member for Reid will remain quiet-

Mr Uren:

– The honorable member-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for Reid will remain silent. The honorable member for Hughes, who is also interjecting, will remain quiet as well. I allowed the honorable member for Yarra a certain amount of latitude in replying to matters brought forward by the honorable member for Mallee, because evidently that subject was raised earlier. However, I ask the honorable member notto devote his speech to this subject.

Mr CAIRNS:

– Speaking to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to this debate over the last hour and a quarter and have heard Country Party members defending the position taken by the Government. They have defended the Government’s policy in all its aspects. I have listened carefully and I have taken notes. I submit that as Country Party members rose and deliberately defended the position of the Government on every aspect and as you permitted this to occur, I should be allowed to answer them.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I mentioned that I have allowed the honorable member for Yarra a certain amount of latitude to reply to the remarks of the honorable member for Mallee, but the matters raised by the honorable member for Mallee and now raised by the honorable member for Yarra are not covered by the resolution now before the committee. The honorable member for Yarra can speak only on the matter before the committee.

Mr CAIRNS:

– I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that from now on honorable members opposite will keep their remarks within the scope of your ruling.

Several points come within the scope of the ruling. They were raised by Government supporters and require an answer.

We heard from the honorable member for Hume the suggestion that people who bought motor cars whilst the increased sales tax was being levied deserved what happened to them; they knew they should not have bought a motor car because this was contrary to the Government’s intention. I first heard this argument raised in the corridors by supporters of the Government. They thought they would justify the refusal to return this money by saying that those who purchased motor cars during this period were offending against the Government’s intention. The argument is now brought before the committee and apparently has the official imprimatur at least of some Government supporters.

Let us examine the suggestion that people should not have bought motor cars during this period. Apparently 54,000 people bought motor cars whilst the increased sales tax was imposed for 98 days. If the honorable member for Hume is correct, these people should not have bought motor cars. Which of them should not have bought motor cars? The whole 54,000? If they had not bought cars, the motor vehicle industry would have closed down because it would not have been able to sell any motor cars. Should some of these people have refrained from buying motor cars? Presumably that would be the honorable member’s argument. If so, which of them should have refrained?

Mr Turnbull:

– The needy ones.

Mr CAIRNS:

– I will deal with your needy ones in a moment. How many of the 54.000 should have declined to buy a motor car? Half of them? If so, which half? What a ridiculous proposition to make! What an impossible position is created for the purchasers of motor cars when they are told that some of them should have desisted from buying motor cars! The honorable member does not say who should have refrained from purchasing vehicles. The proposition need only be stated for every one to realize how completely impossible it is. It is the kind of proposition that one would expect to come from Country Party members who have given very little thought to matters they have raised in this debate. The honorable member for Mallee spoke of needy people.

Mr Turnbull:

– No, I did not. The honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) spoke of them.

Mr CAIRNS:

– When the honorable member for Wilmot had spoken about needy people buying motor cars, the representative of the country squatters, the honorable member for Mallee, said that no needy people buy motor cars. The only inference to be drawn from his remarks is that needy people should not buy motor cars. It must be very interesting for people who work in the cities to know that a Country Party member holds the view that needy people should not have motor cars. I shall describe some of the needy people who have motor cars. Some people cannot do their jobs without a vehicle. If they had not bought motor cars, they would have lost their jobs. I know of people - not one or half a dozen but a dozen - who in the early part of 1961 faced the problem of not being able to obtain an appointment to a job unless they were able to buy a motor car. They had to buy a motor car and they had to pay the extra 10 per cent, sales tax.

Mr Anderson:

– What kind of motor cars?

Mr CAIRNS:

– They were new cars that they bought on a deposit, and the people who bought them were entitled to have cars.

Mr Anderson:

– Commercial cars?

Mr CAIRNS:

– Yes.

Mr Anderson:

– Then they did not pay tax.

Mr CAIRNS:

– Is it that only people who live in the country are entitled to have motor cars? That is the implication in the remarks of the honorable member for Mallee. What about other needy people? There are people who have been working and saving all their lives to get enough money for the purchase of a motor car. Surely they are entitled to have a motor car so that they can take their families out for a drive! They are needy people. These Country Party members who have the Government in a stranglehold through the strength of the Minister for Trade and who are imposing this reactionary policy on the voiceless Liberal Party members, do not believe that needy people in the cities are entitled to motor cars.

Much has been said in this debate about the success of the Government’s measures and at various times we have been asked what the Australian Labour Party would do. Other Opposition members who have spoken in this debate have shown pretty clearly what we would do. The alternative to the Government’s action is not, as the honorable member for Hume said, that Labour would do nothing. We have shown very clearly that the Government was aware of this excessive and undue expansion in the motor vehicle industry. The Government was aware of it, and encouraged it. It encouraged General Motors-Holden’s Limited. Ford and all the rest of them by the kind of thing which the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) mentioned - by a fantastic increase in depreciation allowances and a fantastic change in the double taxation agreement, which put hundreds of millions of pounds, directly or indirectly, into the hands of overseas investors. The Government encouraged them by leaving company taxation where it was and then finally reducing it in 1958. All these things were done to expand the motor car industry.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr UREN:
Reid

.- There are a few things I wish to take up with reference to what the honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull) said. I support the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Cairns) in saying that the cat was let out of the bag in respect of increasing the flow of imports into this country. The honorable member for Mallee said that was done to help the country interests. What about the manufacturing industries, the big industries which employ the great mass of the workers in the country? In my electorate one firm which employed 2,600 persons last June now employs only 1,200. In the textile industry, the employees of the firm of Davies Coop, in the electorate of Parramatta, which is represented by a responsible member of the Cabinet, were working a five-day week but those employees and members of every textile industry union have now been cut down to a four-day week. That is the responsibility of the Govern ment. In addition to increasing the sales tax on motor cars from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent., the Government opened the country to a flood of imports and introduced a credit squeeze. Those measures are bound up together.

Members of the Country Party are the only supporters of the Government who have spoken in this debate. No city representative in the Liberal Party has spoken in this debate. The honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. Browne) although a member of the Liberal Party really represents Country Party interests. Indeed, at the next election the Country Party will probably nominate its own candidate for the Kalgoorlie seat, which is the biggest electorate in Australia. The honorable member for McPherson (Mr. Barnes) said that in the days of the Chifley Administration people could not afford to buy motor cars or petrol. That was a transitional period following the war, and the Chifley Administration adhered to a level and balanced economic policy. It maintained full employment and balanced the flow of imports and exports. The truth is that this Government since it took office in 1949 has had an adverse balance of trade amounting to £1,800,000,000. That is the record of this Government. It has gone into a deficit of £1,800,000,000, a great deal of it brought about by the importation of motor cars and petroleum, which increased year after year. We have a problem in this increased use of imported petroleum products and we have tried time and time again to explain how it can be dealt with. The honorable member for Hughes (Mr. L. R. Johnson) pointed out that the Government increased the sales tax on motor cars from81/2 per cent. in 1949 to 30 per cent. by 15th December last, and then by another 10 per cent. The Government has increased aggregate collections of sales tax from only £39,000,000 in the financial year 1949-50 to £1 80.000,000- the estimate under its last Budget. A few months ago the Government brought in this sales tax increase from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. on motor vehicles, which gained it another £5,000,000.

The Opposition’s amendment says that the Government was wrong in increasing the sales tax on motor cars; that action did not solve the problem. We voted against the proposal and said why we did so. Now that the Government has decided to take our advice and reduce the sales tax to 30 per cent., all we ask it to do is to refund the £5,000,000 which it has collected to persons who bought motor cars during the period of the increased tax. We say that the 54,000 people who bought motor cars in that period did so because they had to. The statement of the honorable member for Mallee that they should not have bought them is a lot of rot.

Mr Turnbull:

– I did not say that.

Mr UREN:

– They had to buy motor vehicles. Otherwise they would not have bought them. I ask the honorable member to get up on his feet if he wants to answer me, instead of interjecting like a Mallee duck. The money collected under the increased sales tax should be given back to the people from whom it was taken. All this amendment asks the Government to do is to refund the money to the 54,000 people who purchased motor cars and had to pay the increased tax. I am very pleased that the Government has accepted the Labour Party’s advice and has reduced the sales tax from 40 per cent, to 30 per cent.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Repatriation · Evans · LP

– Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago you ruled, undoubtedly with reason, that the removal of import licensing had nothing to do with this debate. I do not wish to go over that. I only wish to refer to some arguments which the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Cairns) developed in following that digression, when he suggested that there was some situation in the Government in which the Country Party members had over-borne the Liberal Party members in achieving certain purposes for the interests they represent.

Mr Cairns:

– On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: When I was dealing with this matter you said I was out of order and that the debate should be confined strictly to the bill. I accepted your ruling and dropped the discussion and went on with other matters. Now the Minister for Repatriation wants to answer what I was saying when 1 was ruled out of order, and I submit that he will be out of order, too.

Mr OSBORNE:

– On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to do anything of the sort. The honorable member for Yarra was developing an argument about import licensing and you ruled it out of order. I do not want to cover that at all. The situation the honorable member referred to is a complete figment of his imagination - some situation which, he said, existed in the Government.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member for Reid also, to illustrate a point, mentioned this matter which had been mentioned before. I asked the honorable member for Yarra not to make his speech upon this particular subject-matter and said that he had been given the latitude to reply to what had been said by the honorable member for Mallee and other members. I point out to the honorable member for Yarra that I was not in the chair when the matters to which he has referred were raised. When I feel that the Minister for Repatriation has spent too much time on the subject with which he is now dealing I shall rule accordingly.

Mr OSBORNE:

– All I ask for, Mr. Chairman, is the same latitude as was extended to the honorable member for Yarra. I say that his statement is a figment of the imagination. The two parties of this Government are as much at one with each other in relation to these measures as they have been during eleven years of very successful coalition. For myself, as a Liberal member representing a metropolitan constituency in the City of Sydney, I would not have the slightest difficulty, if this became necessary, to explain to my constituents why some regard is necessary for the primary producers of this country, having in mind particularly Australia’s dependence upon its export income and upon the fact that its export income is earned predominantly by its rural industries.

Mr Cairns:

– I want to raise another point of order. The Minister is referring to Australia’s dependence upon our export income. I submit that this has nothing to do with sales tax. If I was out of order previously, clearly the Minister is out of order now.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I uphold the point of order that has been raised by the honorable member for Yarra, and I ask the Minister to discontinue his remarks along the line that he has been following.

Mr OSBORNE:

– I shall return to the resolution which the committee is now debating. The Opposition, by its amendment, is seeking to have refunded the additional 10 per cent, sales tax that was imposed on motor vehicles on 16th November, 1960, and subsequently removed. The Government cannot accept the amendment for reasons which were stated by the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) this afternoon, and to which I shall refer again now.

The Opposition’s arguments depend upon three assertions, first, that the additional tax was of short duration; secondly, that in the opinion of the Opposition the additional sales tax was a mistake; and thirdly, that the fact that a refund of the tax would be contrary to precedent is, in the Opposition’s opinion, unimportant. None of these arguments is acceptable. The first assertion that the tax was of short duration and so should be refunded contains neither logic nor common sense. The honorable member for Yarra, if I understood him correctly, stated that he would not have objected if the tax had gone on for six months or for twelve months, and that he would not have claimed that it should be refunded. In principle, what possible difference is there between a tax which has operated for three months and a tax which has operated for six months? There is none! The same reasons for not refunding a tax which was reduced after six months apply with equal force to one which was reduced after three months.

To the Opposition’s second assertion that the increased tax was a mistake we give a firm denial. The truth is that the increased tax, together with other financial measures, achieved its purpose which was to dampen down the rate of increase in the activity of the motor industry. The purpose, I emphasize, was not to dampen normal activity or even a normal level of increase in the industry’s activity, but to dampen the rate of increase which, in November of last year, had reached about 30 per cent, per annum. Even the honorable member for Yarra would not argue seriously that that rate of increase could be sustained in the general interest. It had to be dampened and restrained, and it was. When the tax was increased in November the Government undertook to review it and to remove it as soon as practicable. We have done so after three months. But the Opposition complains that the tax was imposed for only three months. Presumably it would have complained less if the tax had gone on for longer. Indeed, the honorable member for Yarra conceded that. The Government has discharged its undertaking.

As to the Opposition’s third argument that the matter of precedent is of no importance, presumably because the increase was small and was levied for only a short period, I point out to the Opposition that since 1930, when sales tax was first introduced in this country, rates have been reduced many times. Invariably the policy of all governments has been that reduced rates shall apply only from the time of reduction, just as increased rates apply only from the time of increase. It is an essential element of sales tax, just as it is of customs and excise duties, that changes must come without notice and must apply immediately. If a precedent were established in this case, presumably on the ageold argument that it is only a little one, how could a similar claim possibly be rejected logically in other cases?

There are also other objections to refunding the tax. There is the practical one of making the refund. Several Opposition speakers have argued that there would be no practical difficulty in finding the persons who paid the tax and refunding it to them, but that overlooks the fact that some of the motor cars have been re-sold in the three months. To whom would we make the refund, the original owner or the man who has bought the car from him? Perhaps a more serious objection, as the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Anderson) pointed out, is that an increase in the level of sales tax on new cars affects the price of all cars, new, nearly new, old and very old. The whole car market is affected. How could any one follow the ramifications of an increase of this kind and try to refund it? What justice would there be in selecting one group of people and rejecting the other?

It is correct that this tax was not imposed for revenue-producing purposes, but another practical difficulty in adopting the Opposition’s suggestion is that although the tax was not imposed for revenue purposes it has had an effect on revenue, and if the tax were refunded the effect on revenue could not possibly be ignored. The additional tax caused a drop in motor car sales and, as a result, a reduction in revenue of about £1,500,000.

Mr Duthie:

– For how long did that reduction last?

Mr OSBORNE:

– During the period of the operation of the tax there was an estimated reduction in revenue of about £1,500,000.

Mr Thompson:

– But the Government did not impose the tax for revenueproducing purposes.

Mr OSBORNE:

– I have already pointed out that although we did not impose it for revenue-producing purposes it has had inevitable effects on revenue which cannot be ignored. The refunds would cost about £3,800,000, so the total loss to revenue would be over £5,000,000, an amount which certainly cannot be ignored.

On every ground of administrative practice and common sense this amendment cannot be accepted.

Question put -

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

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.)

AYES: 63

NOES: 35

Majority ..28

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Osborne and Mr. McEwen do prepare and bring in bills to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Motion (by Mr. Osborne) agreed to -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions in regard to the first and second readings, committee’s report stage, and third readings, being put in one motion covering several or all of the Sales Tax Bills Nos. 1 to 9, and the consideration of several or all of such bills together in a committee of the whole.

Bills (Nos. 1 to 9) presented by Mr. Osborne, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

Sitting suspended from 5.50 to 8 p.m.

page 648

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– by leave - What I am about to say will cover some of the more important matters with which I was concerned during my recent overseas journey. On my way to London I had the advantage of meeting both President Kennedy and the new Secretary of State, Mr. Dean Rusk, in Washington. Our conversations were quite extensive, but of course private. But it is, I think, proper to say that the new President has a most alert interest in Australia and its problems. In particular, we discussed the problems of Seato and Laos, and relations between the democratic world and the Communist powers. I told him about our policies and activities in Papua and New Guinea and about the position of West New Guinea. I naturally seized the opportunity thus presented of making a comprehensive series of remarks along lines which are familiar to members of this House.

I hope it will not be thought an impertinence, Sir, if I say that nobody can fail to be impressed by the liveliness of mind, vigour of approach, energy and desire for results, and forceful personality of the new President. The atmosphere of our meeting was warm, friendly, and helpful. My clear belief is that Mr. Kennedy will not rush to conclusions, that he will be at pains to ascertain the facts, and that when he decides the decision will be his. I subsequently saw a good deal of Mr. Rusk in Bangkok, where, with our other colleagues, we worked in close consultation with most fruitful results. In my opinion, Australia can regard the new Secretary of State as a very able thinker and negotiator, and as a good friend to us.

I then proceeded to the Prime Ministers’ Conference in London. All of the Prime Ministers who attended that conference have now returned to their home lands, and most, if not all of them, have given their account of what went on. The Prime Minister of New Zealand and I are later, for we both attended the Seato meeting in Bangkok. It is now my right, and, more importantly, my duty, to make my report in the Australian Parliament, at the earliest opportunity after my return.

What I have to say will fall into three parts. I will first say something about the disarmament sections of our London communiqué, a document which I propose formally to table for the information of honorable members. I will then speak of the events concerning the imminent departure of South Africa from the Commonwealth; an event of great historic importance, on which I will speak quite frankly but, I believe, with moderation. Finally, I will briefly discuss the meeting of the Seato Council of Ministers, a meeting largely concerned with the current situation in Laos, and the attempts now being made to secure a fair and peaceful settlement.

Turning to disarmament, there are several comments which I would like to make upon the statement of principles to which we agreed and which appear in the annex to the communique. But before I do so, let me say that this overshadowing problem of disarmament is of crucial and urgent importance. It touches the hearts and minds of all men and women. We therefore devoted great attention to it. Against this background, these are my comments:

First, disarmament resolutions can give rise to false hopes unless they are immediately accompanied by action, with concurrent effective inspection and control.

Second, nuclear, and what we are pleased to call conventional armaments must be dealt with simultaneously so that at no stage will any country or group of countries obtain a significant military advantage.

Third, expert consultations must take place during the currency of political negotiations for a treaty - and I emphasize, concurrently - and should be, in their main aspects, concluded before any general treaty. To make general declarations about disarmament at a time when the techniques of inspection and check had not been worked out or agreed upon would be very dangerous. The Communist powers would retain full control of their own forces, while in democratic countries recruiting would tend to disappear, and the public support for defence expenditure would, on the general promise of disarmament, tend to weaken. There would, I imagine, be great practical difficulties in securing, by inspection, the abolition of small arms and other conventional weapons in a vast country with authoritarian control over the movements of people and the reporting of news. Such difficulties must be provided for as part of a treaty, and not left to subsequent negotiation.

Fourth, we must consider with care the implications of the clause in the communique - All national armed forces and armaments must be reduced to the levels agreed to be necessary for internal security. Some nations may claim that, having regard to their population, territory, and social circumstances, comparatively large “ forces and armaments “ are needed for internal security. Others may need very little. Yet armed strength is relative, not absolute. The threat of war may well continue on a reduced level of armaments, unless those armaments, at that reduced level, provide a reasonable balance which will discourage aggression.

Fifth, assuming as 1 do that the processes of negotiation, in the full sense that I have described, will be lengthy and obviously difficult, I would wish to see a start made with one matter which, if it could be solved, would do much to create a new and hopeful atmosphere. I refer to the proposed ban upon further nuclear tests. The nuclear powers have already made some progress in this field. There is no reason why, with goodwill and good human sense, success should not be achieved. With nuclear weapons confined, as they are today, to the control of a few powers, the danger of nuclear war is reduced. Should more and more nations come into the field, the dangers of irresponsible use would be materially increased.

There are many other aspects of this vast problem which deserve the consideration of this Parliament. All I have tried to do at this stage, and in a brief compass, is to indicate a few matters of what I believe to be of singular importance.

On the question of South Africa and the Commonwealth I am indeed sorry that I cannot be as brief as I would wish. During the proceedings in London there appeared every day, in some newspapers, so-called reports of our deliberations which were so false as to be absurd; some of them no doubt found their way to Australia and may have affected many minds. It is therefore necessary, while not attributing particular views to particular Prime Ministers, to put the record straight.

South Africa, having decided to become a republic, formally applied for permission to remain a member of the Commonwealth - not to be admitted to the Commonwealth, but to remain a member of the Commonwealth. On the precedents already established in the cases of India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Ghana, there could be no technical ground for refusal. But some, not all, of the Prime Ministers indicated that, as Dr. Verwoerd had already indicated his willingness on this occasion to engage, under a later item, in a full discussion of South Africa’s racial policies, they would prefer the question of continued membership and the question of racial policy to be discussed together. This - though Dr. Verwoerd clearly desired that the question of continued membership should be first determined - was accordingly done. The debate was full, it was frank, it was courteous.

However wrong we thought his policies, nobody at the London conference could or did challenge Dr. Verwoerd’s own sincerity.

I pause here to say that this debate having occurred, and there being now no secret about the opinions expressed by others, I feel relieved of my previous inhibitions about public statements, and will therefore, before I conclude, state my own condemnation of apartheid, and my reasons categorically.

At the end of this discussion in the conference, a communique was drafted, after considerable debate about its terms, and after various suggestions and amendments. I took an active part in the drafting. The broad nature of the draft was that we first set out that we saw no technical constitutional ground for refusing the application, but that we had debated, with Dr. Verwoerd’s consent on this occasion, the matter of racial policy. We then went on to summarize the criticisms that had been made, and the nature of the replies made by Dr. Verwoerd. We then concluded that, notwithstanding those replies, we adhered to our criticisms.

There were things about the draft which Dr. Verwoerd did not like. He availed himself of an adjournment to consider whether he could accept it, the whole idea in the Prime Ministers’ Conference being that the communique is a unanimous document.

I can say for myself that I believed that if Dr. Verwoerd could accept the draft which we had thrashed out, the issue of membership would be decided in his favour. Indeed, I thought this was the reason for the adjournment. After studying the draft, Dr. Verwoerd saw Mr. Macmillan, and said that, with some possible verbal and minor amendments, he would accept the draft, thus making it a unanimous record. On our resumption. Mr. Macmillan announced this with, I thought, some natural satisfaction. I say quite confidently that both he andI thought everything was clear; that the effect of agreement upon the communique’ would be that South Africa stayed in.

It was at this closing stage that several of the Prime Ministers disclosed a final line of attack. Two wanted the communique to conclude with a declaration that South Africa’s policies were incompatible with membership of the Commonwealth. That seemed plain enough.

Another agreed, and added that he reserved the right to move for expulsion, or to withdraw his own country. Another stated quite frankly that he would attack South Africa’s policies and membership at every possible opportunity. I need not elaborate. There could be no mistake about the intensity and sincerity of the views stated. As the discussions proceeded, it became clear to me that, unless South Africa changed its policies, a considerable section of the Prime Ministers wanted South Africa out. Speaking for myself, I wanted it in, for the reasons whichI will state a little later.

Once more Dr. Verwoerd withdrew to consider his position. On his return he said he felt he had no option but to withdraw his application. He made a few pointed comments on policies in some other countries, but he accepted the inevitable. Technically, Dr. Verwoerd withdrew. But in substance he had to withdraw unless he was prepared to depart from policies which however criticized are the settled doctrine of his own Government.

In a section of the Australian press a great effort is being made to show that on these matters I am at loggerheads with Mr. Macmillan, and that it follows that I must be wrong. This is indeed a curious attitude for Australians, but I will devote a few minutes to dealing with it. I have now studied very carefully the “ Hansard “ record of Mr. Macmillan’s speech in the House of Commons on March 22nd, in order to ascertain what differences of views there may be. I have said that South Africa was, in substance, put out. Mr. Macmillan said -

There was no question of the expulsion of South Africa, for it became apparent to Dr. Verwoerd himself that he could not serve the Commonwealth or help it’s unity and coherence in any other way except by withdrawing his application.

I have, myself, stated the facts in their sequence, and what I regard as the inevitability of Dr. Verwoerd’s withdrawal. The House will make up its own mind as to whether there is here a difference worth prolonged debate. Indeed, I note that in a speech by Lord Home, recently circulated by the United Kingdom Information Service, he said, “ This week a foundation member of the Commonwealth had to leave the Commonwealth “.

Again, Mr. Macmillan said -

There are some who think that the Commonwealth will be gravely and even fatally injured by this blow. I do not altogether share this view. 1 do not share it at all.

This is not a difference about the facts; it is a difference of personal opinion as to the consequences of the facts. I deeply respect Mr. Macmillan’s opinion, and I most sincerely hope that it turns out to be right. But, discarding the word “ fatally “, which is not mine, I retain my right to offer my own opinion that the Commonwealth has been injured and not strengthened by the departure of South Africa. If I had not thought so, I should not have been wasting time in efforts to keep South Africa in. Nor, I imagine, would anybody else! I would like to elaborate my reasons for my own attitude. They depend, I believe, upon a basic concept of the Commonwealth which I was not able, and am not able, honestly to abandon. For I believe in the Commonwealth.

Despite what has happened, it has much to do for us and for mankind.

But, Sir, before I deal further with the Commonwealth aspect, I must somewhat abruptly turn, because it is necessary to illustrate what I will thereafter say, to recent events in the United Nations.

Having regard to the events of the last few days in the United Nations General Assembly and its committees, and having further regard to what some regard as a switch of policy by Australia, I crave leave merely to state the facts, which I hope will be allowed to speak for themselves. Having stated them, I will return to the Commonwealth issue, which was the sole matter to which the apartheid debate related in London.

In the Special Political Committee of the United Nations, on 4th April - a week ago - there was a general discussion on apartheid. The particular resolutions to which I will refer later were cabled to us and received by us on the morning of Wednesday, 5th April, with an indication that the vote might take place some time that night. Our representative, Mr. Hood, made a speech which accurately expressed our ideas. He did not - and, in view of some newspaper observations, I repeat “ not “ - say how Australia would vote on any specific resolution. He said nothing to indicate how we intended to vote on the more moderate - the three-power - resolution.

For the benefit of honorable members and, indeed, for the records of this House - because this is an historic matter - I will quote in full what Mr. Hood said. He said this -

Although the description of this item has not changed since the last time the Committee debated the policies of apartheid in South Africa, certain events since 1959-

That matter had been last debated in 1959- have understandably injected an increased degree of urgency to which all of us are certainly bound to pay attention. For one thing, the procedures of the Security Council were for the first time invoiced on this matter a year ago. More recently the outcome of a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London three weeks ago is fresh in the minds of everyone and the prospect that the Union of South Africa will shortly cease to be a member of the Commonwealth has been copiously referred to during this debate.

However, it is the General Assembly consideration that is relevant to this at the moment. The Commonwealth aspect is a quite separate thing. It. has to be remembered also that the Security Council still has before it the question in the form in which it was submitted following the Sharpeville incident in March, 1960. What then is the right way for the General Assembly to treat the item?

We have at issue here the clear disregard by the Union of South Africa of many previous strong expressions of the views of the General Assembly that the policy of apartheid is repugnant to Charter principles almost universally accepted. The provisions concerning human rights are one of the most notable objectives set out in the Charter, and any failure in their observance wherever it may occur is indeed legitimately a matter for the concern of all. The Australian Government has stated that it feels a most serious disquiet at the racial policies which have been practised in South Africa, and that it deplores the results of the application of these policies, one tragic example being the events at Sharpeville last year.

With the vast majority of world opinion, we neither support nor condone policies - that is deliberate policies - of racial discrimination - and we can understand the strong feelings which have led so many delegations once again to express their condemnation of the practice of apartheid in the Union. Furthermore, in addition to the questions of principle involved, the policy of apartheid is, as the Prime Minister of Australia has said, unworkable. We can at the very least hope that through what one speaker yesterday described as enlightened self-interest, South Africa will come to a realisation of this.

The question arises whether the General Assembly this time and in the circumstances that have arisen since 1959 should go further in stressing its repeated requests that the Union Government should revise its racial policies to remove some of the flagrant contradictions that these have brought about with some of its obligations under the Charter. It must be pointed out in this connection that the Charter does expressly set a limit to intervention by the United Nations in a field of essentially domestic jurisdiction. In addition to those limits, there are further limits set by the Charter to the powers of the General Assembly. While there may be marginal ground here, many times fought over and contested, we should still pause before embarking on any course which would in effect throw away the whole intent and purpose of the limitations specifically put into the Charter. The Australian delegation, as in the past, will keep this consideration very closely in mind in examining proposals which are or may be put before the Committee.

He was there referring to these things that subsequently came about. Mr. Hood continued -

Furthermore the important objective is surely to look beyond simple condemnation and to open the way for eventual improvement in racial relations in the Union.

The Security Council itself in its resolution last year clearly had such a prospect in mind. We certainly ought not now to foreclose by drastic recommendations to Member States the possibility that by patience and sustained contact, such as that already opened up by the Secretary-General, the total volume of effort and opinion both outside and within South Africa may at last be concentrated to good effect.

I do not think that I need read the rest, except for the final portion, which is in these terms - . . punitive measures are likely to serve no purpose, and on the contrary make it more difficult for those, especially in the Union, who believe there is still time to reverse a collision course.

On the day on which we received a report of this speech, we were informed that two resolutions were to be moved. One, put forward by, I think, 25 member states, recommended to member states a series of positive sanctions against South Africa, including -

  1. the breaking off of diplomatic relations with South Africa; (ji) the closing of ports to all vessels flying the South African flag;

    1. the prohibiting of ships from entering South African ports;
    2. the boycott of all South African goods, and a refusal to export goods to South Africa;
    3. the refusal of landing and passage facilities to all South African aircraft.

We felt, and feel, no difficulty in opposing such a resolution, for the reasons so concisely stated by Mr. Hood.

The other resolution, put forward by Ceylon, India and Malaya, was much more moderate in tone. It deplored the racial policies of South Africa and some consequences of their enforcement; it deprecated policies based on racial discrimination; it requested, in paragraph 3, action by member states, within the Charter, to bring about the abandonment of these policies; it affirmed that such policies violate the Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights; it noted, in paragraph 5, that “ these policies have led to international friction and that their continuance endangers international peace and security “; it called upon South Africa to bring its policies and conduct into conformity.

The time for decision was, as is not uncommon under United Nations procedures, very short. I consulted my senior colleagues. The resolution had been up before - in the previous Assembly in November, 1959, when Australia had abstained. The United Kingdom on that occasion opposed the resolution. In the events that had happened and were happening, we instructed the Australian Ambassador to the United Nations to vote for this resolution, having first reserved our position on paragraph 3 - the one about taking steps - as it then stood, without a reference to action being “ within the Charter “, and on paragraph 5.

Mr. Plimsoll, with our complete authorization, repeated salient passages of Mr. Hood’s speech and then said -

But, having made this clear, the Australian delegation will record its vote in favour of the Resolution. This it does so as not to have its position misinterpreted. It does not support the policy of apartheid and it joins with other countries in calling upon the Government of the Union to bring its policy and conduct into conformity with its obligations under the Charter. To achieve this result, it is, we think, necessary to vote for the resolution as a whole.

Indeed, that was the plain common sense of it.

I may say, Sir, that the resolutions have now been voted on. The one which we voted against - the one calling for very stringent sanctions - had a simple majority in favour, but not the necessary majority. It was supported by five Commonwealth countries as well as by 42 others. Those who voted against it included the United Kingdom, Canada, ourselves, New Zealand and the United States of America. The other resolution was adopted by 93 votes in favour to one against, Portugal being the country to vote against it.

It has been said, and we are all well aware of it, that this action contradicts my attitude towards South Africa’s membership of the Commonwealth. Clearly, therefore, the difference between a Commonwealth matter and a United Nations matter must be cleared up.

The General Assembly of the United Nations is a deliberative, not an executive body. It offers opinions, which are, of course, entitled to great weight. If it chooses to offer views upon the conduct or policy of any country, those views will be offered, with every member nation free to speak. Resolutions are proposed, and votes are taken.

The Commonwealth is a different matter. It is, in a loose but real sense, a special organization under the head of the Commonwealth, the Queen. Its membership grows out of a special history, and is not conditioned by rules or procedures of the United Nations. Members stand in a very special relationship one to another - a relationship quite different from that of members of the United Nations.

The Commonwealth has hitherto existed without resolutions or votes, except in such a case as that which arose in 1949, when India became a republic and when a new constitutional structure or practice was adopted unanimously. The Prime Ministers meet in private for a frank exchange of ideas and information. They have discussions of an intimacy which is quite impossible in the United Nations. They frequently exercise more influence over one another than they perhaps realize at the time. Their strength is in their very variety. In a paradoxical sense, part of their strength is in their differences - of history, of background, of traditions, of personality. They advocate their own views, but they do not sit in judgment. This year there were suggestions made by some Prime Ministers that the Commonwealth should “ show what it stands for “ by propounding a code of principles, or a new Bill of Rights, observance of which would presumably become a condition of new or continuing membership. I want to state quite dearly that I most strongly opposed any such notion. I said that it would give rise to problems of interpretation under a host of changing circumstances; that it would encourage legalisms in a body previously happily free of them; that it could well lead to charges and countercharges of breach; and that the old happy and profitable search amid differences for unities and understanding would be replaced by an emphasis upon disagreements. The British Commonwealth, I said, could not long survive such a development.

I went on to say, as I say now, that a written code of principles could not stop short at racial problems, which are in any event not peculiar to one Commonwealth country. It would presumably set out some of those great elements which are part of our heritage; the rule of law, the sovereignty of Parliament, no imprisonment without trial, an uncontrolled press.

The famous Balfour formula of 1926, which set out for the first time to define the Commonwealth, used various expressions which are to-day either inaccurate or not generally accepted, expressions like - “ within the British Empire “, “ a common allegiance to the Crown “, and “ British Commonwealth of Nations “. But the other elements in the formula remain unabated in either strength or significance. They are those which describe the member nations of the Commonwealth as - autonomous communities equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs.

Here we have the recognition of sovereignty, of complete self-government; a right which we properly insist upon for ourselves in all matters within our jurisdiction, and therefore one which we must recognize and defend for other Commonwealth countries. They can, and do, choose or permit their own forms of government, authoritarian or democratic, and their own legal and social institutions and policies. This basic truth is occasionally forgotten. Yet it is vital to the Commonwealth structure and spirit. I make no apology for having maintained and expressed it at the certain risk of misrepresentation. And let me say quite plainly that in defending this truth I felt that I was defending my own country, its sovereign rights and its future. To do this was no academic exercise; it seemed to me to involve the self-government of Australia.

When in this House last year, after the tragic incidents at Sharpeville and Langa, after world-wide expressions of horror, and before the Prime Ministers conference of May, 1960, the matter came up for debate, I stated the position of the Australian Government. In substance I said that the South African policy of apartheid, or separate development of two races living in the same country - a policy the opposite of integration - was a matter of domestic jurisdiction and that I would not publicly comment upon it. It would, of course, have been easy to have joined in public comment, and personally acceptable, since, like all honorable members, I was horrified by the dreadful events to which I have referred.

But the view which I took, though severely criticized at the time, was, I venture to say, correct. The policy of non-interference in the domestic affairs of another country is at the very root of Commonwealth relations.

So far as the Commonwealth is concerned, the principle stated by me in Canberra was acted upon at the 1960 conference. Notwithstanding world-wide protests about apartheid, arising out of the Sharpeville matter, that conference, when the matter was raised urgently at the very outset, issued a statement, unanimously, affirming the practice that conference would not discuss domestic matters. In the final communique - a unanimous document - we said - and I quote only two passages, both short -

The Commonwealth is an association of independence sovereign States, each responsible for its own policies.

Whilst reaffirming the traditional practice that Commonwealth conferences do not discuss the internal affairs of member countries Ministers availed themselves of Mr. Louw’s presence in London - ‘Mr. Louw was representing the Prime Minister of South Africa - to have informal discussions with him about the racial situation in South Africa. During these informal discussions Mr. Louw gave information and answered questions on the Union’s policies and the other Ministers conveyed to him their views on the South African problem. The Ministers emphasized that the Commonwealth itself is a multi-racial association and expressed the need to ensure good relations between all member states and peoples of the Commonwealth.

I know of nothing which has happened since May. 1960 - since that unanimous declaration - to convert the internal affairs of South Africa into a matter warranting intervention by the Commonwealth, except that it has been widely debated, and the policy roundly condemned.

I hope that nobody will suggest that Dr. Verwoerd admitted that apartheid was no longer a domestic matter. What he did - let us be fair - was to face the fact that on this occasion, with his continuation of membership application before the chair, debate about apartheid was inevitable.

However, the departure of South Africa has happened, and I have no heart to enter into needless arguments about it. But let us, who are within the covenant of the Commonwealth, make no mistake. The issue concerns more than South Africa; it concerns the whole character and future of the greatest international partnership the world has yet seen.

One should, perhaps, hesitate to speak of J. C. Smuts, the great Commonwealth man, who, be it remembered, first expressed the policy of separate development in South Africa, but whose contribution to freedom cannot be reckoned inferior to that of any man now engaged in public affairs. But in 1960, after the Prime Ministers conference and on invitation by the University of Cambridge, I delivered the first Smuts Memorial Lecture. I had intended to quote a passage from it, but I will confine myself to a couple of paragraphs which are appropriate. I was talking about the Prime Ministers’ Conferences, and I said -

We do not deal with the domestic political policies of any one of us, for we know that political policies come or go with Governments and that we are not concerned with Governments and their policies so much as we are with nations and their peoples. If we ever thought of expelling a member nation of the Commonwealth it would, I hope, be because we believed that in the general interests of the Commonwealth that nation as a nation was not fit to be our associate.

These words come back to me to-day. Under inexorable pressure, South Africa is out of the Commonwealth. It is not the Verwoerd Government that is out. It is the Union of South Africa; the nation evolved by the great liberal statesmanship of 1909; the nation of Botha and Smuts; the nation from which, in two wars, soldiers fought side by side with our own, the 1st South African Division being alongside our 9th Division at El Alamein; the nation which provided lines of supply to the Middle East at a time when the Mediterranean was an acutely dangerous sea; the nation, over 45 per cent. of the voters of which recently voted to remain within the direct allegiance to the Throne; the people, three-quarters of whom, as men of colour, to whom we have a great and brotherly responsibility, might reasonably be presumed to find some of their future hopes of emancipation in the membership of the great Commonwealth. I hope I may look to my fellow members of this Parliament to share in my sorrow at these unhappy circumstances.

I therefore now turn, as I said I would, to a statement on apartheid, a statement now rendered both permissible and necessary. I preface it by emphasizing that I was not, in London or here, concerned to defend apartheid, which, indeed, I condemn. My great object was to defend the interests, as I saw them, of my own country.

I deeply resent the attempt that has been made in some quarters to suggest that, as I wanted to keep South Africa in the Commonwealth, I should be taken to favour or condone the shooting of natives at Sharpeville. That incident shocked the world, as it shocked me. I am against apartheid; against some of the modern manifestations and practices because they offend the conscience; against it as a basic policy because it seems to me to be doomed to a most terrible disaster. But we are a fairminded people, I hope, and we should try to understand how the basic policy came to be adopted, and what it was originally designed to achieve. What I will say will be by way of explanation and certainly not by way of defence.

In 1917, while in London as a distinguished member of the War Cabinet, Smuts made a notable speech on South African problems. It is well to look back on it to see why this basic policy was ever adopted. In the course of his speech, he said -

Instead of mixing up black and white in the old haphazard way, which instead of lifting up the black degraded the white, we are now trying to lay down a policy of keeping them apart as much as possible in our institutions. In land ownership, settlement and forms of government we are trying to keep them apart, and in that way laying down in outline a general policy which it may take a hundred years to work out, but which in the end may be the solution of our native problem.

That was how Smuts stated it in the early days of this deliberately adopted policy. In our thinking this idea is now outmoded; it is much too severely applied; humane modern political ideas are against it; it will fail disastrously.

But in every country in which there are large numbers of people of different races, millions of European stock, millions of coloured stock, the problem must arise as to whether there should be separate development, or integration, with equality of political and social rights within the same geographical area. This, to me - and I still refer to the original policy, not to these later developments - is essentially a problem of statesmanship. It has moral aspects if, in the pursuit of one policy or the other inhumanity is practised, injustices occur, or the dignity of man is debased. But the initial judgment is one of statesmanship. The problem exists in many countries, but it is most acute in South Africa. I am profundly grateful that we do not have it in Australia.

It is against this background, Sir, that I criticize what South Africa does about a problem which is its problem, not ours.

I think that the policy will, if it continues to be applied as it is now, end in the most frightful disaster. Dr. Verwoerd told us in London what his Government is doing, in the fields of health and education in particular, for the Bantu, both in the Bantu territories or “homelands”, and in the ordinary provinces. He demonstrated that South Africa was spending very much more on these purposes than any other African country. He saw the Bantu, in the territories, coming up by stages to self-government, as we see the people of Papua and New Guinea. But he saw no prospect of equal political rights for the Bantu living and working in the ordinary provinces. Nor did he seem to me to envisage - if, indeed, such a thing be practicable, and I would think it is not - a complete territorial as well as a racial division of South Africa, so that all members of each race might be completely selfgoverning in their own place. As he knows from what I have said to him more than once, both in conference and out of it, I think there is a fatal flaw in this policy. The more zealously the Union builds up the minds and bodies of the Bantu, the more certain will it be that the day will come when, conscious of their own human dignity, their capacity and their strength, they will no longer tolerate the status of second-class citizens. And, when that day comes, they will demand their due, not in an atmosphere of evolving friendship, but with hostility and, for all we know, violence. The ultimate conflict, as I said in London, may be bloody and devastating.

There are, to us, certain astonishing things in the application of the policy which have, I think, done much to alienate world opinion. One of them I, and others, earnestly discussed with Dr. Verwoerd in London. The Union does not accredit or receive diplomatic missions to or from Commonwealth countries in Asia and Africa. This discrimination is, to me, offensive to the great countries concerned. I pointed out that there is great value in such exchanges, and that to deny them is to suggest some notion of racial superiority, intolerable in form, and utterly unjustified in fact. I did my best to point out to him that even this one diplomatic step would do something to lessen the tension which we all wanted to see relaxed. But Dr. Verwoerd was adamant on this point, as on others. He felt that there would be a grave risk of “ incidents “ arising from public opinion and private action. I said, in vain, that it was better to accept these risks than to incur the certainty of mounting hostility.

A phrase has been coined to the effect that I have “ equated “ apartheid and Australia’s immigration policy. This is quite untrue. Indeed, it is arrant nonsense. One policy, the policy of apartheid, relates to a discriminatory policy in respect of people already permanently resident; the other, our own, to a discrimination in the admission of persons for permanent residence. I hope I do not need to be told that the two things are quite different. I have always been grateful to my friend the Tunku Abdul Rahman, the Prime Minister of Malay, for his warm and helpful recognition of the validity of our policy and of our right to adopt it.

But the whole point that I make is that, while I believe that our immigration policy is both wise and just, is based not upon any foolish notion of racial superiority, but upon a proper desire to preserve a homo- geneous population and so avert the troubles that have bedevilled some other countries, it is a domestic policy. And the right to determine our domestic policy is part of our sovereignty as a member of the Commonwealth. In short, what I have been saying is that the rule of non-interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign communities in the Commonwealth, once broken, may be broken again in the future. Such a development would concern us all very deeply.

Before leaving the London conference, I would like to say that in the course of a general review of the world situation, several of the Prime Ministers mentioned the matter of Continental China. No conclusion was either sought or arrived at, reports to the contrary in a section of the press being quite untrue. But I think it my duty to the House to put it in possession of the views presented by me. I said that I thought there was much loose talk about recognizing Continental China as if the problem admitted of a simple answer. I pointed out that we have here a complete nest of questions. Diplomatic recognition, for example, was a bi-lateral matter. Some nation might be unwilling to recognize in this sense, while being willing to admit Continental China to the United Nations. But then there were further considerations. Was Continental China to include Formosa? Were the inhabitants of that country to be handed over to the control of the Communists? And then, supposing that Continental China accepted, as a condition of admission to the United Nations, the exclusion of Formosa - the “ two Chinas “ idea - was Formosa, as an independent nation, to be cast into outer darkness, or was she to become herself a member of the United Nations? Who was, in any such events, to have the permanent seat on the Security Council, with its right of veto? And, sup- posing that, as many nations feel, the Security Council should be broadened by the addition of further permanent and tem- porary members - I have heard countries like India, Pakistan and Brazil mentioned - should the new permanent members be permanent in the sense of not needing to be re-elected, or should they also have the veto? I have re-stated these points to the House as a warning against over simplification, and not as containing any suggestion that Australia’s policy on the matter is in process of change. Our policy was stated fully in this House by Mr. Casey, as he then was, and that statement stands.

After the conference. I attended a meeting with Mr. Heath, the Lord Privy Seal, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, the Chancellor of ‘ the Exchequer, and Mr. Soames, the Minister for Agriculture, on the problem of the European Common Market, and its relation to the Free Trade area, that is the problem of “ the seven “ and “ the six “. As honorable members know, our position is that, so far from complaining about the six-power treaty we have seen in it great political as well as economic value. But we believe that some wider association which would include Great Britain is desirable if Western European unity is to be achieved and maintained. But we have our special interests to protect, particularly our exports of primary products both to Great Britain and Europe. I made it clear to the United Kingdom Ministers that before any negotiation calculated to lead to an offer or “ agreement in principle “ - that familiar phrase - took place, Australia expected the fullest consultation. In that sense, I said, consultation was essential when ideas were in process of formulation, and not after they had become either fixed or presented. I received an explicit assurance that this rule should be observed. There was also agreement to my suggestion that our officials should meet to examine whatever specific proposals might be put forward within a month or two.

Subsequently, I was able to have a talk with Mr. Lloyd about the possibilities of Australian entry to the London loan market during 1961. As honorable members know, Treasury approval is needed in such matters. Mr. Lloyd was most helpful and favorable, subject of course to amounts and details which always have to be worked out near the chosen time for an issue. Incidentally, I found that our London stocks were strong in the market; and our credit good.

Finally, I speak of the Seato meeting at Bangkok. Among those present were the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, the United States of America Secretary of State, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, and the foreign ministers of France, Pakistan, Thailand and the Philippines. The principal subject was Laos. That country’s future, in or out of the Communist orbit, is very important. It is one of the countries covered by the South-East Asian Treaty. It has a long common frontier with Thailand, a member of Seato. It is vulnerable to aggression from North Vietnam and Communist China. The civil conflict is conducted by relatively small forces, and, in its own way, life goes on. In such circumstances, communism has a happy hunting ground. But for Seato, Laos is important in terms of defence. It provides a test of the significance and effectiveness of a treaty organization created to resist Communist aggression. For, if Laos passes into Communist hands, where does the process end? There are grim thoughts in this for Australia.

The conference proved to be both understanding and invigorating. All representatives went away feeling and saying that Seato had been given new significance and force. We finally evolved a resolution which was, in spite of some anticipations of differences and difficulties, unanimously approved. I had the satisfaction of playing an active part in its drafting and acceptance. It has been published, but I table it formall for the information of honorable members.

At this stage, I will content myself with a few observations -

We all agreed with the proposals made by the United Kingdom to the Soviet Union, that there should be a cease-fire, a revival of the International Control Commission to supervise the cease-fire and the stabilization of the local scene, and an international conference of the kind which gave rise t<* the Geneva Accords in 1954.

We all felt that there should be created in Laos a more broadly based government which could, by commanding wide support in Laos, eliminate avoidable causes of international strife.

We made it clear that we did not wish Laos to become a satellite of either the Communist or the nonCommunist Powers. We desired it to be independent, united, sovereign and neutral. We felt that if Laos were unalined with any power or group of powers, no good excuse would arise for further Communist intervention.

We had, and I now more than ever have, great hopes that the Soviet Union would accept the United Kingdom proposals. But we affirmed that, should there continue to be an active military attempt to obtain control of Laos, members of Seato are prepared, collectively and in the terms of the treaty, to take whatever action may be appropriate in the circumstances. We all hope and believe that no military intervention will be necessary. There can be no actual commitment of forces except by the decisions of governments. I say this because I would wish to dispose of any idea that Seato is either truculent or aggressive. But it is necessary to say that if, unhappily, collective Seato action is forced upon us, we will need to act together , or find Seato weakened and destroyed.

I must not dwell on these possibilities. At present, we have high hopes of a peaceful settlement and should concentrate our efforts upon it.

Before I conclude, I would like to say two things: The first is that this statement of mine, though inevitably expressed very largely in the first person - since I have been actively and personally concerned in these matters, and have no desire to escape my great personal responsibilities - expresses the views of Cabinet, which has taken a full share in its preparation.

The second is that I have had no desire to rehearse differences, or merely to criticize decisions already taken. But over a period of a quarter of a century, it has been my privilege to have something to do, or say, or write, about the Commonwealth. It is something dear to our hearts. It means, and will mean, much for sanity and tolerance in a grievously troubled world.

We shall play our part with as much vigour and determination as in the past. We maintain our faith in the Commonwealth, inits value to its member nations, and in its ability to make constant and notable contributions to the peace and prosperity of the world and of all its peoples. ‘Controversies have arisen about myown attitude towards recent events. It is, if I may say so, only justthat my reasons for my views should be plainly stated to the Australian Parliament, which has given me its generous confidence for so many years, and to the Commonwealth of which I have tried to be a loyal servant.

I day on the table the following papers: -

MeetingofCommonwealth Prime MinistersFinal Communique - 17th March, 1961; Council of the South-East Asia Treaty Organization - Seventh Meeting - Bangkok, 29th March, 1961 - Resolution regarding Laos and Republic of Vietnam; Overseas Visit by Prime Minister - Ministerial Statement. and move -

That the Ministerial Statement be printed.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr. Davidson) - by leave - agreed to -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) from making his speech without limitation of time.

Mr CALWELL:
Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne

– I thank the House for its indulgence and I thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) for making a copy of his speech available to me at about 5 o’clock this afternoon. I had the opportunity to study the speech and to consult with my colleagues at a special party meeting. I am authorized by the Opposition to propose an amendment to the Prime Minister’s motion, and I move -

That all words after “ That “ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: - “in the opinion of this House, the speeches and statements made by the Prime Minister on the question of South Africa, following the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference, have done great harm to Australia’s relations with other member States of the Commonwealth, and with the nations of South-East Asia; have aggravated the position he created at the United Nations meeting in October last year; and do not represent the views of the Australian people.

The House resolves, therefore, that the right honorable gentleman should be censured and removed from the office of Minister of State for External Affairs “.

This is a very important debate. The Prime Minister spent a considerable time telling honorable members and the nation of the part that he played at the Prime Ministers’ Conference, and at several other international gatherings, in matters of very great importance to the world. In respect of what was done in relation to disarmament; in respect of what was done in relation to the United Nations and the Congo, and in respect of all the efforts that are being made to establish peace in Laos as a selfgoverning independent neutral country, there can be no objection by any one, but on the question of South Africa about which the Prime Minister spoke for so long, I have a good deal to say because the Opposition does not agree with the conclusions that the Prime Minister has reached and will offer quite a lot of convincing evidence to prove a case contrary to that which has been made by my right honorable friend.

On 22nd March last, I had the honour to initiate a debate, as a matter of urgent public importance, on the arrogant and provocative statements made by the Prime Minister after the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference on the question of South Africa. In that debate I was followed by my colleagues, the honorable members for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) and Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) but we were the only Opposition members who were permitted to participate in the debate. Six days previously the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen), who was then Acting Prime Minister, made a statement to the House in reply to a question that I had asked him concerning South Africa’s decision to leave the Commonwealth of Nations. On behalf of the Government he stated that he regretted South Africa’s decision and, speaking for the Opposition, I agreed with what “ he had to say. I remember saying too that everything should be done to strengthen and nothing should be done to weaken the Commonwealth of Nations. I also expressed the hope that one day South Africa, under another Prime Minister and with a reversal of its policy of apartheid, would rejoin the Commonwealth of Nations.

I am sure that no one - not even Ministers and Government supporters, no matter how much they may have applauded the Prime Minister to-night - expected him to criticize and to condemn in such extravagant language what was said at the Prime Ministers’ Conference. The statement that he made in London at his press conference on Sunday, 19th March, and the speech that he delivered to the Australia Club at the Savoy Hotel on the following night, were so remarkable as to be almost unbelievable. It might have been well if all that was said could be forgotten, but unfortunately what was said was so provocative and challenging and contained so many implied reflections upon other member nations, including African and Asian nations, that not only did the Prime Minister harm himself and his own reputation but he also gravely harmed Australia’s reputation and embarrassed us greatly with other members of the Commonwealth and with the nations of South-East Asia.

How badly he damaged our association with the Commonwealth of Nations was evidenced quickly by the action that was taken by Mr. Macmillan, the British Prime

Minister, in his speech on the subject of South Africa in the House of Commons on the day following the Savoy Hotel oration. Mr. Macmillan seems to have gone out of his way deliberately and, if I may use the words, even cold-bloodedly to contradict the statements of our own Prime Minister relating to what actually happened at the conference and to rebuke him for having allegedly disclosed confidential information. I am not claiming that Mr. Macmillan was right in charging the right honorable gentleman with that offence but the inference is very clear that that was what he meant. Yet the Prime Minister to-night spoke in almost affectionate terms of his friend, the British Prime Minister! There is not the slightest difficulty, however, in convincing every purblind Liberal and even the most backward member of the Country Party that the British Prime Minister categorically denied the Australian Prime Minister’s statements on at least four or five important and major counts. Referring to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference, the Australian Prime Minister said this -

Apparently the character of our deliberations is to be changed. I think it is a great pity, but in particular this is the last time we will ever have a discussion on racial policy in the Commonwealth itself in a meeting of Prime Ministers.

He went on to say -

Although it is an established convention of these meetings that we do not discuss the domestic affairs of a member country, the Prime Minister of South Africa agreed that, on this occasion, the racial policy of the Union Government should be discussed.

I observe here that the Australian Prime Minister has misrepresented the whole position when he has sought to claim that South Africa’s withdrawal has destroyed the convention to which Mr. Macmillan has referred several times. The British Prime Minister, in rebuking our Prime Minister on this count - and no one else because no other Prime Minister deserved to be rebuked for what he said - stated -

May I say in passing that 1 da not at all accept the view, whichI have seen expressed in the last few days, that this means that the Commonwealth will in future turn itself intoa body for passing judgment on the internal affairs of member countries. I see no reasons why the existing convention to which I have referred should not be maintained. After all, it was not broken on this occasion, for the Prime Minister of South Africa agreed that this discussion should be held.

Yet we heard our own Prime Minister say a few moments ago that the convention had been broken and that we could not be sure that at some time in the future our own Australian immigration policy, or somebody else’s policy, would not be brought under discussion at the conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. Indeed, our Prime Minister went out of his way to make it appear that Dr. Verwoerd had been very badly treated at this conference. In this connexion, Mr. Macmillan was reported to have said, according to the Prime Minister -

There was no question of the expulsion of South Africa for it became apparent to Di. Verwoerd himself that he could not serve the Commonwealth or help its unity and coherence in any other way except by withdrawing his application.

The Australian Prime Minister in quoting Mr. Macmillan said -

I have myself stated the facts in their sequence, and what I regard as the inevitability of Dr. Verwoerd’s withdrawal.

The Prime Minister did not continue to quote what Mr. Macmillan said, and there is a vital omission in what he had to say on Mr. Macmillan’s views. I think the following words used by Mr. Macmillan were of enormous importance: -

I am convinced that had Dr. Verwoerd shown the smallest move towards and understanding of the views of his Commonwealth colleagues or made any concession; had he given us anything to hold on to or any grounds for hope, I still think the Conference would have looked beyond the immediate difficulties to the possibilities of the future.

That has never been told by the Australian Prime Minister in any of his speeches. I repeat those words are of very great importance. Our Prime Minister said at his press conference in London -

I notice there is a good deal of speculation and perhaps something more about the final stages of this Conference so perhaps I might as well add my own little bit to it.

The British Prime Minister came down rather heavily against the Australian Prime Minister on that score with these words -

It is not my intention to give an account of the discussions that took place at the Conference. Those discussions are confidential and all Prime Ministers should try to preserve in respect of them the traditional confidence of a national cabinet.

Then, again, our Prime Minister said -

My objection to the policy of apartheid is in. simple terms, that in my opinion, it won’t work. It is a policy of separate development It is a policy that the white man occupies a superior position. In other words, it is the same policy that has existed in all colonial establishments until a few years ago. The more this policy succeeds in a sense, the more certain it is to fail in the long run.

Mr. Macmillan has put it in a much better way and in a way which might be more readily acceptable to the South African people. He said -

All kinds of discrimination not only racial, but political, religious and cultural in one form or another have been and are still practised, often as a survival of long traditions. The fundamental difference between ours and the South African philosophy is that we are trying to escape from these inherited practices. What shocked the conference was that the policy of the present South African Government appeared to set up what wewould regard as an inherited practice. Inherited from the past perhaps as a philosophy of action for the future.

To-night, our Prime Minister, in his effort to prove that Australia could be queried at some future Prime Ministers conference over our immigration laws, has himself introduced this question of equating Australia’s immigration laws with the South African policy of apartheid. I had not seen it mentioned until I saw some report from London that it was the Prime Minister himself who raised this issue. He said that what had happened to South Africa in respect of apartheid could happen to us in respect of our white Australia policy.

Mr Menzies:

– Sir Edgar Whitehead said that. I know I have a white head, but I did not say it.

Mr CALWELL:

– I do not know what white head said it, but the right honorable gentleman is getting the credit for it; and the fact that he has kept using the argument may give an opportunity to people, who do not know about Sir Edgar Whitehead, to give him the credit for it. Of course, you cannot equate our immigration laws with apartheid. I need only quote the opinions of the Malayan Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, who also attended the Prime Ministers’ Conference and preserved a dignified silence after it concluded until his return to Malaya. According to press reports which all honorable members have seen, he said that the white Australia policy was being confused with apartheid by the Australian Prime Minister and added -

One is for the protection of Australians, the other is for the repression of Africans and Asians within South Africa.

Tunku Abdul Rahman also said -

The white Australia policy, as it is called, is not racial discrimination. It is to protect the Australian people. If Australia’s doors were open wide they would be swamped. Why create problems in Australia that would be difficult to solve. In Australia, Asians, including Malayan students, are treated properly, decently and on their merits.

The Tunku also said he had no fears for the future of the Commonwealth, which, of course, is quite opposite to what our own Prime Minister has said. To-night, he again expressed his fears as to the future of the Commonwealth because South Africa has decided to leave the Commonwealth. We all hope that South Africa’s decision is only a temporary one; because it is not South Africa that has made the decision, but Dr. Verwoerd and his irreconcilable race-hating people. South Africa under some moderate leadership, even people who would walk in the tradition of Botha and Smuts, to whom reference has been made, might be brought back into the Commonwealth. Our Prime Minister was not content with saying that South Africa withdrew from or left the Commonwealth. In his enthusiasm to make a case from, his point of view, he said that South Africa was expelled from the Commonwealth. He even we’t so far as to say that South Africa was kicked out of the Commonwealth. Dealing witu this matter, the British Prime Minister said -

There was no question of the expulsion of South Africa because it became apparent to Dr. Verwoerd himself that he could not serve the Commonwealth or help its unity and coherence in any other way except by withdrawing his application. This he did, and so, for the time being, ended over half a century of South Africa’s membership of our Commonwealth.

What Mr. Macmillan said was a flat contradiction of the claim of the Australian Prime Minister that South Africa was kicked out of the Commonwealth. It is the sort of oratory one would not expect to hear from the friend of Presidents and Prime Ministers. The impression which the Prime Minister created on his fellow

Asian and African guests and on the other distinguished diners at London’s exclusive Savoy Hotel - including two former Governors-General of Australia, the Duke of Gloucester and Viscount Slim - must have been appalling. At the end of his speech Mr. Macmillan said -

At the end of the day, 1 do not believe it will be words that will win - certainly not bitter words and recrimination.

Who alone displayed bitterness and indulged in constant futile recrimination? It was not Dr. Verwoerd. It was not Mr. Holyoake, nor was it Mr. Nehru nor Mr. Diefenbaker. Only our Prime Minister did that, and only Australia could suffer in consequence. Now we are told by the Prime Minister - we were told it when he was abroad and it has been at least adverted to in his speech to-night - “ But instead of having a discussion in a meeting of a limited number of heads of governments who are men of experience and restraint, this thing will now be put into the United Nations; it will be debated hotly in the General Assembly “.

The question of South Africa was debated the other day in the General Assembly. But it was not hotly debated. The Australian delegates moved very quietly and slowly to the rostrum. They delivered their speeches and they cast their votes. They did not want too many people to notice th,’ fact that this Government, which a few weeks before said that apartheid was a domestic matter for South Africa, was tow saying that South Africa was worthy of the censure of the civilized world because it was following a policy of apartheid. The Government cannot have it both ways. It could not be right on both counts.

Sir. the South African problem will be with us for a considerable time. AH we can hope is that better counsel will prevail in South Africa, and that influential journals in South Africa, such as “Die Trans.vaaler”, which has always supported Dr. Verwoerd and which has changed its attitude, will be followed by other newspapers which, too, will advocate a more temperate and reasonable course.

The Prime Minister in his speech to-night said -

In a section of the Australian press a great effort is being made to show that in all these matters-

He was there referring to South Africa -

I am at loggerheads with Mr. Macmillan and that it follows that I must be wrong.

Well, 1 have shown, I hope to the satisfaction of everybody, that at least he and Mr. Macmillan did not agree, and that Mr. Macmillan has said so very definitely. Our Prime Minister said, referring to the fact that in the Australian press efforts are being made to discredit him-

This is indeed a curious attitude for Australians.

Why should not the newspapers of Australia occasionally transfer their love and affection from the Labour Party and devote a little attention to the Prime Minister’.’ Does he claim that the newspapers of Australia must always support him and must always attack the Labour Party? I know that he has been having a very bad time from the newspapers lately, but I think that he has deserved most of it. He has brought the trouble on his own head. In his measured tones to-night, and in that splendid rhetoric of which he is capable, and in some oratorical passages too, he has sought to extricate himself from all of it, and has said “ Macmillan and I are friends again. Everything is quite all right in our Commonwealth. We are all working for the Commonwealth.” If he had thought that way before he went to London recently, and had behaved accordingly, he might have been able to be more helpful to Mr. Macmillan in the work he was attempting to do.

The Prime Minister has referred to disarmament, and I want to say something on that matter too, because every member of this Parliament - certainly every member of the Opposition - is vitally concerned with the success of any scheme, under the control of the United Nations, to bring about universal disarmament and the banning of the nuclear weapon. No nation has a monopoly of that desire. The Russians fear the use of nuclear weapons just as much as does the West. Every human being would like to see an end put to war. You have only to consider the enormous waste that is taking place at the present time in order to see how suicidal it all is from any point of view.

In the European-descended world, Mr. Speaker - the civilized world, as we like to regard it - we are spending practically all of £148,500,000 a day, or just on £6,300,000 an hour, on arms, armaments and armies, and the United States and the Soviet are spending between them about 73 per cent, of this huge total. The United States figure is 55 per cent, of the United States Federal budget and about 9.2 per cent, of the gross national product of the United States. The Soviet is said to be spending £18,900,000,000 a year, or something like 49 per cent, of the total Russian budget, on war preparedness and defence. This amounts roughly to 12 per cent, of Russia’s gross national product. Communist China is spending about 6 per cent, of its gross national product on its military forces. This amounts to £2,700,000,000 a year.

If world-wide disarmament were achieved, if there were a ban, under the auspices of the United Nations, on the production of nuclear weapons, and if the ban were universally observed, at least 15,000,000 men now serving in armies, navies and air forces would be available to fight want and disease by increasing the production of goods and food. There are about 3,000,000,000 hungry people in the world to-day and these could all be properly fed, and all the sick could be provided with medical care if the vast expenditure on arms were halted. That expenditure is costing the world £18 a year for every man, woman and child now living.

Sir, I turn now to the events of last October, because in our motion we refer to those events. Honorable members will recollect that at the end of October last year the Prime Minister made a special and urgent flight to attend the United Nations because Mr. Khrushchev and other important world leaders had decided to be present at a meeting of the General Assembly. It is no exaggeration to say that when he left this country most Australians hoped that the Prime Minister would help to find the solution of the problem of a Summit meeting. I personally wished him well. To the consternation of everybody, however, immediately on arrival in the United States he went into conference with President Eisenhower and Mr. Macmillan, and sold them on the idea that he should move an amendment to the Afro-Asian five-power resolution calling for a Summit meeting. He neither met nor tried to meet those who had put down this resolution. In the result, Australia got four votes for its amendment out of a possible 97, and those four votes were duty votes. The unworldly Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt), seeking to explain what had happened, said that Russia would have voted for the amendment but did not want to offend the Afro-Asian bloc. It never seemed to strike the Prime Minister, or the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) or the Treasurer, all of whom were personally in New York at the time - all on urgent public business, of course - that the AfroAsian bloc should not be offended or insulted or made to feel inferior in any way by anything Australia did. The Prime Minister described their resolution as useless and in the end it was withdrawn.

Mr. Nehru, after he had made a blistering attack on our Prime Minister, withdrew his motion. He said in his speech that what our Prime Minister had said verged on absurdity; that he was viewing the situation from a superficial point of view; that he had tried to cover up the main issues with a jumble of words. Mr. Nehru asked whether this was not a rather trivial way of dealing with a vital question. The Prime Minister said that he believed the resolution to be useless because the United States President and the Soviet Premier had both said that neither would meet the other except under conditions that were obviously not capable of being reconciled; but, as everybody knows, if the resolution submitted by Mr. Nehru and his friends been passed, neither the American nor the Russian leader could have ignored the decision. The weight of world opinion would have been against whichever one of them refused to attend a meeting which the other was prepared to attend. By helping to pass the resolution which his fumbling, heavy-handed methods destroyed, the right honorable gentleman would have been doing what the smaller powers wanted done and what he himself envisaged when expressing his views on the functioning of the United Nations during the debate in the House of Representatives on 5th September, 1945. On that occasion h? said -

The functions of these small powers will be to influence, so far as they can, the Great Powers.

Was that not precisely what the five neutralist nations sought to do? Our Prime Minister does not like the neutralist nations. He does not like the people who will not line themselves up with one big bloc or another. Both in his second speech at the United Nations on 5th October, 1960, and in his subsequent television interview on 13th October, 1960, he made many sneering references to the neutralist powers. On 13th October, 1960, he said, among other things -

I think there is an awful lot of nonsense being talked about a neutral bloc.

Addressing the General Assembly he said -

Neutralism is of course one of those rather rotund words which does not readily admit of definition.

Mr Menzies:

– That is quite right.

Mr CALWELL:

– He repeats it still. I thought that he was on the penitential stool to-night, but he is still an unrepentent sinner. He said further -

If, when we say that a nation is neutral, that it will not under any circumstances take arms in any conflict which does not concern the protection of its own immediate boundaries, it seems to me to be a notion hard to reconcile with the charter of the United Nations which contemplates under certain circumstances the use of combined force in terms of the charter itself.

I answer the Prime Minister by saying: What can India do? What can Ceylon do? They have no forces. They have no strength. India has 400,000,000 people and most of them are starving. They have no great resources. Men such as Nehru are saving their nation from communism. The attitude of the Menzies Government is to drive these people into the arms of the Communists. The Prime Minister must know that what he has said is a complete distortion of the situation. The neutral powers have striven to remain independent of either large power grouping and, at the same time, to strengthen the United Nations.

The Prime Minister’s condemnation extends also, I presume, to the age old neutrality of Switzerland and Sweden and implies a criticism of the Austrian acceptance of a neutralist position. His criticism must have stunned a man such as Mr. Nehru because without neutrality much of what has been accomplished to keep the world at peace could never have been achieved. Nehru has played his part in helping to preserve peace in the world. If it were not for the neutral powers, the United Nations would never be in a position now to take the preventive steps that it has taken in the Congo, Laos and, earlier, in Korea and the Middle East.

I do not wish to delay the House very long. It has been generous to me. But at least I have something to offer by way of constructive criticism on behalf of the Opposition and on behalf of those whom we have the honour to represent. If the Prime Minister were a statesman he would not behave as he does at almost every international gathering that he attends, be it the United Nations or the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conferences. He should be seeking ways and means to strengthen and expand the influence of both these bodies which are so vital to our very existence and, on the broader plane, so vital to the peace and happiness of mankind.

Why has our travel-stained, speech-happy Prime Minister never tried to do anything about Malta, now at cross-purposes with the the United Kingdom Government? Why has he not tried to bring Burma back into the Commonwealth, or to unite the 32 counties of Ireland, now unhappily partitioned, and bring that country back into the Commonwealth? All that the Prime Minister wants to do is to follow a policy of fragmentation, cutting countries off one by one until the only people left will be those who are eligible for membership of the Carlton Club in London. Unfortunately, the foreign affairs policy of the Menzies Government is the private property of the Prime Minister. He makes it and changes it as he likes. He does so without reference to principles or precedents. It is largely an opportunist policy which varies with his moods. Both he and his Government are deserving of censure for this lamentable state of affairs. If honorable members opposite want to hear support for what I have said they need only walk the streets of any city of Australia and observe the reactions of Australian people - decent, honest, Australians, working for a living and proud of their work - to the Government’s actions in international affairs. The Government is just as likely to be defeated at the next general election on its foreign affairs policy, with its many reversals of attitude, as it is on its internal policy and its many changes and reversals.

The Prime Minister of Australia could say anything on international affairs and the Asin and African peoples, as well as the Americans, would regard his observations as proving that he is completely, pathologically, incapable of understanding the developments that have occurred in international relationships in the twentieth century. The Prime Minister cannot understand the Asian people and the Asian people have given up all hope of trying to understand him - at least since October of last year. What the Prime Minister said in London after the Prime Ministers’ Conference on the South African issue has destroyed whatever influence he or his Ministers, past or present, ever had in Asia.

Mr Whitlam:

– I second the motion and reserve my right to speak to it at a later stage.

Mr CHANEY:
Perth

.- Mr. Speaker-

Mr Curtin:

– After the Lord Mayor’s show-

Mr CHANEY:

– I knew that the mental hazard of remaining silent for one hour and 40 minutes would prove too much for the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith and that he would have to make his usual unintelligent outburst.

Whatever may have been the result ot the Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London and of the deliberations of the United Nations, we have been privileged this evening and over the last few months to witness history in the making. I think that in the future, when the history of these times is written away from the sentiments and feelings of the present and looked at in retrospect away from political prejudices, it will be recorded that history was made at the recent Prime Ministers’ Conference. I am sure that the part played by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) as the Prime Minister of this country will be remembered and appreciated in time to come.

Mr Curtin:

– What is your majority?

Mr CHANEY:

– It is a little too much for the Australian Labour Party at present; so the honorable member need not worry about it. Before the 1958 election, when I was addressing honorable members in this chamber, the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith said by way of interjection that I would not be back here after the election, but I increased my majority by 6,000. I hope that he will continue to interject if his interjections will have similar results again.

I thought for a while that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) was going to confine his remarks entirely to South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth of Nations. I must say that I was very pleased when he touched on the other points which had been dealt with by the Prime Minister in his long and much appreciated address. I believe that what the Leader of the Opposition said will give cause for debate on both sides of this House, but the amendment which he has proposed will not be acceptable to this House or, indeed, to the people of Australia. Before I conclude, I shall foreshadow a further amendment which I intend to move later when the one at present before us has been disposed of.

The Leader of the Opposition accused the Prime Minister, first of all, of being a believer in apartheid. I hope that if the representatives in Canberra of Australia’s press were given copies of the Prime Minister’s speech at 5 o’clock this afternoon, as was the Leader df the Opposition, they paid a little closer attention to it than the Leader of the Opposition did. Obviously, he did not give close attention to it, because he could not have made the statements which he did make if he had paid any attention at all to the speech as it was delivered by the Prime Minister or as it was circulated in roneoed form. As appears at page 13 of the circulated copy, the Prime Minister, referring to South Africa’s policy of apartheid, said -

I think that the policy will, if it continues to be applied as it is now, end in the most frightful disaster.

This has to be looked at in the light of what the Prime Minister had already done in his efforts to retain South Africa in the Commonwealth in the belief that that was one way in which that country could be assisted in overcoming the problems that beset her. I think that the Prime Minister himself believed that the great majority of the inhabitants of South Africa, with whom he himself has expressed the greatest sympathy, have not been assisted by South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth and that, if she remained in the

Commonwealth, there were ways and means of helping her to overcome her difficulties and the difficulties of the Bantu race.

Mr Ward:

– In what way? What would the honorable member suggest?

Mr CHANEY:

– The honorable member ought to study this paragraph of the Prime Minister’s speech. Fortunately, every honorable member now has one of the copies which have been circulated and is able to check his facts before he speaks. The Prime Minister referred to South Africa’s policy towards the Bantus, of which Dr. Verwoerd was proud, and said -

The more zealously the Union builds up the minds and bodies of the Bantu, the more certain will it be that the day will come when, conscious of their own human dignity, their capacity, and their strength, they will no longer tolerate the status of second-class citizens.

It is interesting to note that the number of university graduates among the Bantu race of South Africa far outstrips the number of university graduates in Ghana, Guinea or Nigeria. Quite obviously, it is useless to educate people to university level if you will not allow them to take a normal part in the ordinary society. The realization of this was what the Prime Minister was trying to achieve with the other Prime Ministers at the Prime Ministers’ Conference. The leader of the Opposition said that Mr. Macmillan was completely at cross purposes with our Prime Minister. As appears at page 5 of the copy of the Prime Minister’s speech, Mr. Macmillan said -

There was no question of the expulsion of South Africa, for it became apparent to Dr. Verwoerd himself that he could not serve the Commonwealth or help its unity and coherence in any other way except by withdrawing his application.

I cannot see where Mr. Macmillan expresses a view opposite to that of the Australian Prime Minister. Mr. Macmillan stated afterwards that he could not see any grave danger to the future of the Commonwealth in the withdrawal of South Africa, and it is well to remember that throughout the history of the Commonwealth, Great Britain has been the foremost mover in maintaining the ties of the Commonwealth. She is the only nation among the members of the Commonwealth which maintains a Commonwealth Relations Office. In view of the fact that we have already lost what we term an initial member of the Commonwealth, surely the other members of the Commonwealth must have cause for reflection on the need to establish likewise a Commonwealth Relations Office within their own spheres of influence in order that the ties of the Commonwealth may be tightened rather than loosened.

The newspapers of Australia and some members of the Parliament have said that these developments have done great harm to Australia, and the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition states -

  1. . in the opinion of this House the speeches and statements made by the Prime Minister on the question of South Africa . . . have done great harm to Australia’s relations with other member States of the Commonwealth. . . .

Let us have a look at the situation in Canada. The Canadian Prime Minister took a stand at the Prime Ministers’ Conference. The Leader of the Opposition quoted from the newspapers this evening; so perhaps I may quote from a newspaper to show what is the situation in Canada. In an article entitled, “How Canadians View The Commonwealth “, we find this statement -

The average Canadian rarely sees a Negro, apart from a few West Indian nurses in hospitals, boxers from across the ‘border, jazz trumpeters and drummers.

Looking at this thing a little in retrospect now that the tumult and the shouting have died down, this article refers to speculation in Canada and states -

These Canadians are angrily aware of American press reaction to Commonwealth confusion, the gleeful speculation that the Afro-Asian bloc might some day expel Australia and Britain herself, leaving New Delhi and Accra as the seats of Commonwealth power.

They claim that the way the wind is blowing was shown in the United Nations recently when Canada and the United States voted to condemn South Africa’s mandate of South-West Africa - a vote from which Britain and Australia abstained. They ask how will Canada and the United States vote if the Afro-Asian Powers demand condemnation of Australian immigration policy or administration of New Guinea.

Here we see what are the thoughts that are now circulating in other Commonwealth countries, and this development was forecast by the Prime Minister when South Africa’s action was taken at the conference in London.

Mr Ward:

– He gave the South Africans the idea.

Mr CHANEY:

– It is strange that the honorable member now admits that the Prime Minister is capable of giving any one an idea. This is the first time that I have heard the honorable member for East Sydney pay the Prime Minister such a compliment.

The Opposition has stated that we have had a complete reversal of policy on the part of the Australian Government. The Leader of the Opposition expressed himself on this in typical classical Calwellese. as reported in the “ West Australian “ of Monday, 10th April. Referring to the Australian vote in the United Nations, that newspaper reported -

Federal Opposition Leader Calwell said yesterday that the decision of the Menzies Government to vote against apartheid in the United Nations was completely opposite to the attitude adopted by Mr. Menzies at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference and subsequently. “The Prime Minister’s argument was that the question was a matter of domestic concern to South Africa only “, he said. “ In this respect he was consistent, because Australia put up the same attitude last year and previously when the matter was under discussion at the United Nations. “The Government’s acrobatic feats on its foreign as well as its domestic policies have made Australia the laughing stock of both the British Commonwealth and the United Nations.”

This is the theory that you cannot win. and it should be looked at in the light of what actually happened as we have been told in the statement made by the Prime Minister this evening. Obviously, there has been no reversal of the Government’s opinion. In the first place, the attempt to retain South Africa in the Commonwealth was an attempt to retain her in the family of the Commonwealth. In the light of the development of conferences of Commonwealth Prime Ministers since the enactment of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, this was an idealistic move to assist, not the people who were responsible for the policy of apartheid, but the people who were the victims of that policy. This was the move for which the Prime Minister has been condemned by the Opposition.

What has been the history of this resolution before the United Nations since it was first brought up in 1952? Australia originally voted against it, as did the United

Kingdom. For the last two years, Australia has abstained and the United Kingdom has still voted against it. This year, the United Kingdom voted for it, and so did Australia. At that stage, of course, South Africa was not a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. So the accusations that are made of a turnabout in policy are quite fallacious and stupid. Australia is in a position to make her decisions on foreign policy, and to make them in the best interests of the. people concerned.

I wonder what the attitude of the Opposition would have been to-night if Australia had voted with Portugal against the resolution moved by the three powers. If you study the 25-power resolution, you will find that after deploring, deprecating, affirming and noting certain matters, it then sets out the line suggested to be taken, and it is obvious that any nation would vote against it. The fifth paragraph of the resolution proposed by the 25 member nations recommended that all States should consider taking steps to break off diplomatic relations with the Union Government or refrain from establishing such relations, to close their ports to all vessels flying the South African flag, to prohibit their ships from entering South African ports, to boycott all South African goods and to refrain from exporting goods to South Africa. Honorable members may remember that there was an attempted move in this House to have the Australian Government place a ban on the import of all South African goods and to ban the export of goods to South Africa. This in itself would have been the quickest possible method of penalizing the people of whom honorable members opposite declare themselves to be in favour. Hardships would have been imposed, first, on the Bantu people of South Africa to whom, they say, we are opposed. The whole of this resolution shows that there was no turnabout of opinion at all by the Australian Government.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke about disarmament, which had been mentioned in the Prime Minister’s speech. I, too, believe that idealistically the world needs disarmament, but it seems strange to me that people do not realize that we of the Western world and of the British Commonwealth have never raised forces with the idea of aggression. The whole of our armaments are designed to protect ourselves from threats arising from other parts of the world.

It is quite useless to talk about disarmament until we have a complete agreement between the main nations concerned to adhere to the rules laid down by a United Nations disarmament committee. It is quite obvious to every one who has studied this problem over the years that the Soviet states have consistently refused to accept openskies inspection. I invite honorable members to recall the outcry that arose in parts of Australia at the shooting down of a U2 spy plane. Why was it necessary to send that aircraft over Russia at that time, and to send similar aircraft on like missions during the preceding five months? It was necessary because it was felt that the Soviet states were likely to be aggressors. They were the ones threatening world security and refusing open inspection of their armaments. If it is considered wrong in the minds of some people to send such aircraft in those circumstances, all I can say is that it is not considered to be wrong in the minds of the great majority of Australians, who want to ensure their own future security.

We have seen statements in the press of Australia, since the Prime Ministers’ Conference, suggesting that the Prime Minister has been arrogant in his approach. In this connexion I suggest that honorable members look at the concluding parts of the statement made to-night by the Prime Minister, dealing with the situation in Laos, When the right honorable gentleman was met at the airport by a newspaper man seeking an interview - and it is quite obvious that the Prime Minister did not seek a press interview - he said that he was to report to this House the facts surrounding his overseas mission. Imagine the consternation and perturbation of the Opposition if the statement which he made to-night had been made to the Australian press for dissemination in the way that the press thought fit. In fairness to the Prime Minister it should be realized that he has given us a full statement on matters concerning Laos, and he has given it in the place in which it should have been given, and where members of this Parliament were entitled to hear it.

Let me turn again to the amendment moved by the Opposition, which suggests, among other things, that we have done great harm to the nations of South-East Asia. I heard the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt), by interjection, refer to the harm that had been done in the past in the Philippines and other parts of South-East Asia by rather foolish utterances made by honorable members who now sit opposite when they were on this side of the House.

There is also in this resolution a request that the House censure and remove the right honorable gentleman from the office of Minister of State for External Affairs. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I believe that in the heat, excitement, sentiment and political partisanship existing at the present time, this matter has not been looked at in its proper perspective. When history is written and the matter is looked at in retrospect, I believe that the Prime Minister will be accepted as a person of whom this country may be justly proud for his efforts overseas on our behalf, not only for his efforts at the Prime Ministers’ Conference, but also for his efforts in cementing friendly relations with the American Administration. Surely the Opposition cannot criticize the proposition that the Australian people should be on friendly relations with America, with the future so much in doubt. Only last week I received a letter from the Union of Australian Women protesting at the establishment of military bases in the north of Western Australia. In replying to that letter I said that there were no such military bases, but that I had heard there was a radio station, and I would say that I appreciate the co-operation of the American defence forces in ensuring that the Pacific is a safe place in which to live.

In conclusion, let me foreshadow an amendment in the following terms, which I will propose at a later stage: -

This House welcomes the cordial relations established by the Prime Minister with President Kennedy and senior members of his Administration. It commends the Prime Minister for his efforts, at the conference of Prime Ministers in London, to preserve the unity of the Commonwealth, and for his vigorous expression of Australia’s views on matters of vital concern to Australia at this conference and at the Seato conference in Bangkok.

This House places on record the appreciation of the Australian Parliament and people for his distinguished service in these and other important directions in the course of his recent overseas mission as head of the Australian Government.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- The resolution of which the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Chaney) has just given notice is strikingly ironical. If one thing emerges more clearly than any other from the personalized diplomacy of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) in his capacity as Minister for External Affairs, it is that he has left us more friendless and made us more misunderstood than anybody could have dreamt of even only five years ago. Australia, during his regime as Minister for External Affairs, has not heeded America’s advice on colonial issues. The Government changed its policy in the United Nations only when the United Kingdom changed its policy. It did not change its policy when President Kennedy made it quite plain that he intended to adopt a different- attitude on colonial issues from that taken by his predecessor, ex-President Eisenhower. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) showed very clearly how far out on a limb the Australian Prime Minister has now got himself in the Commonwealth and in the United Nations. He quoted several statements showing how Mr. Macmillan directly rebuffed the Australian Prime Minister and repudiated his remarks. But there are other examples of this. A striking one occurred when, on 19th March, 1961, at a press conference in London, the Australian Prime Minister said -

A lot of people . . . seem to think the British Commonwealth is a court of morals or a court of law. You sit down and sit in judgment on each other.

He used similar words after a dinner the following night at the Savoy Hotel, when he said -

I am a believer in the members of the Commonwealth not sitting in judgment on each other. . . But are we to be sitting in judgment one on the other? . . Never until this year have we sat in judgment on each other.

On 22nd March, Mr. Macmillan very plainly rebuked the Australian Prime Minister on this point. He said in the House of Commons -

I do not at all accept the view which I have seen expressed in the last few days that this means that the Commonwealth will in future turn itself into a body for passing judgment on the internal affairs of member countries.

But unabashed, our Prime Minister at his press conference when he landed in Australia, said - i think it would be a terrible thing for meetings of Prime Ministers to become courts either of morals or of justice . . . sitting in judgment on each other.

Every time, one sees, the British Prime Minister has repudiated, rebuked or rebuffed the Australian Prime Minister, and he is not the only one to do this. The only Asian Prime Minister for whom the Australian Prime Minister has one word of praise or acknowledgment is the Prime Minister of Malaya, the Tunku Abdul Rahman, who, when reporting on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference, said-

The success of the stand against apartheid was not due to one man but to the Afro-Asian countries, Canada and to a certain extent, the Prime Ministers of Britain and New Zealand.

He mentioned every one except the Australian Prime Minister. The Australian Prime Minister has succeeded in putting this country off-side with every member of the British Commonwealth. As I will later show, we all too rarely vote beside the other members of the Commonwealth and practically never beside those in Asia and Africa.

The fate of the Commonwealth is a matter of very great sentimental as well as practical significance to Australia. The Commonwealth is the best bridge - in many ways it is the only bridge - between the Europeantype countries on the one hand and the countries of Asia and Africa on the other hand. It is the only bridge between countries which have a complex industrial society and long-established political institutions and on the other hand countries which are seeking to establish industrial and political societies along the lines which Britain did so much to transmit to them. The Australian Prime Minister has gone out of his way to suggest that the Commonwealth has been weakened by the defection of South Africa. We should make it quite plain in this Parliament and in this country that the Commonwealth is stronger for South Africa, under its present outlaw government, leaving the Commonwealth. We all agree that the Commonwealth would be stronger if a South African Government representing the free will of all the inhabi tants of South Africa were in it, but it is because there is no chance of this coming about under the present regime that South Africa is out of the Commonwealth.

The view I express here is expressed by the British, Canadian and New Zealand Prime Ministers as well as by the Prime Ministers and representatives of Asian and African members of the Commonwealth. In the House of Commons debate, Mr. Duncan Sandys said -

Having now come through the crisis, there is no doubt that the unity and moral standing of the Commonwealth throughout the world will be increased.

On the 5th of this month, the New Zealand Prime Minister said - i believe it-

That is, the Commonwealth- gained in moral stature by expressing itself clearly on a question of principle. If it had failed to do so its disintegration as a Commonwealth would have been much more likely.

The Canadian Prime Minister said -

The Commonwealth could not survive if it could not agree on a strong principle. That principle was non-discrimination.

A week ago in the West Indies, the British Prime Minister said - i do not share the views of those who say Dr. Verwoerd’s action will have weakened the Commonwealth. i myself was the first to recognise that South Africa’s continued presence among us could lead only to increasing strains on our association.

Lord Casey, who was formerly the Australian Minister for External Affairs and who did a very great deal to make Australia understood amongst our neighbours, within the terms of reference that Mr. Dulles permitted, said -

Personally, i think it has strengthened the Commonwealth. i have always thought it would be rather embarrassing if South Africa had remained in the Commonwealth.

Every conclusion reached by the Australian Prime Minister and every argument put by him reveals all the more dramatically how far he has taken Australia from the point of view of every other member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. In the British Parliament, there was complete agreement on what binds the Commonwealth together. Mr. Macmillan said -

This association must depend not on the old concept -.f a common allegiance but upon the new principle of a common idealism.

Mr. Gaitskell said

There must be something else if they are to regard the Commonwealth as worthwhile and that something: else can only be common ideals and the feeling that the Commonwealth as a whole is something which is worthwhile for what it can do in the world.

The Commonwealth now is more worthwhile than it was a month ago. The only Prime Minister in the last month for whom our Prime Minister has had any word of real praise is the Prime Minister of South Africa. 1 shall recall some of the fulsome tributes our Prime Minister has paid. He said that he is a man of obvious honesty, great courtesy and great lucidity, that his arguments “ did him very great credit “, that he comported himself “ with very great dignity “, that he “ expressed his own case very powerfully “, that he speaks “ with great sincerity “ and that “ he is a man of singular integrity, a most impressive man”. To-night, the Prime Minister recalled the comradeship between our countries during the last war at Tobruk and El Alamein and so on. What was Dr. Verwoerd doing during the last war? What was he doing in the Transvales, which he owned and controlled at that time? The Prime Minister said - not here but at one of his press conferences - that he was not an apostle of apartheid. That may be, but he certainly appeared to the whole world as its chief acolyte.

The Prime Minister has at last to-night deplored the Sharpeville incident. When the Labour Party raised this matter in the House a year ago, he said that we should wait until the royal commission had reported on this matter. He said that the South African Prime Minister had done what any Australian Prime Minister would do and that is appoint a distinguished judge to inquire into the matter. This inquiry concluded on 24th January last and a summary of the report was contained in the “ Sydney Morning Herald “. Incidentally, the “ Age “ carried the same summary, so it appears in two sources which the Prime Minister would find equally palatable. The summary said -

The report of the . . . commission of inquiry . . . gives no findings or conclusions. The Commissioner said in his opinion it was not his task to report on the liability or responsibility of individuals.

At his press conference when he returned to Australia the week before last, the

Prime Minister once again took refuge im the same excuse and said -

But was the government of South Africa responsible for the shootings at Sharpeville? Did the government order the shooting? Do we know that yet? No. Well, I think we should wait until we know.

How much longer must we wait? Tonight, after consulting with his colleagues, he has apparently come to see that his arguments and his excuses are no longer tenable.

The question of apartheid not only arose in the Commonwealth. There is also thequestion of the attitude Australia should take on apartheid as a member of the United Nations. Let it be understood forthwith that the United Nations will no longer tolerate the excuse of domestic jurisdiction on these matters - nor should it. Not only has Australia subscribed to the Declaration of Human Rights but we have also subscribed - it is in our statutebook - to the Charter of the United Nations. The charter in articles 55 and 56 makes plain that all members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operating with the organization for the achievment of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. We are all committed to this policy and have been since 1945.

South Africa undertook this enactment and has never carried it out. I know it will be said that this is purely a pious or a precatory statement in the charter. The fact is that in all the various language versions except the English language the same words were used in these articles as are used in the other articles which impose legal obligations on members of the United Nations. And the leading international lawyers appointed to tribunals such as the World Court and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights by Britain and France have subscribed to that point of view - that Articles 55 and 56 of the charter impose on members the legal obligation to see that there is no discrimination, on the basis of race, between any of the people within their borders. It is not a question of domestic jurisdiction and it is a shabby subterfuge still to assert that it is.

The Prime Minister now says that there was no change in our view in the United Nations, and that when Mr. Hood addressed that body he did not say how we were going to vote - for or against South Africa’s policy of apartheid. Of course, he did not. He expected to abstain, as Australia ignominiously did at the session before last. “That was intended; and it was typical of the slick subterfuges to which the Prime Minister resorts on these occasions.

Mr Harold Holt:

– Did not Britain support South Africa in the past?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Of course it did, but there are certain economic reasons why Britain has covered up for South Africa. There are no such reasons for us to cover up for South Africa. We are alone. The United States of America has never supported South Africa on these matters. We have always differed from the United States of America on this question. The last occasion when Canada and New Zealand supported South Africa was in 1955. In 1958, we were still supporting South Africa. In 1959, we abstained; and it was proposed in 1961 that we should abstain, and Mr. Hood spoke in that sense and the morning papers revealed that. That was their interpretation of his remarks, but the morning newscast over the Australian Broadcasting Commission reported what Mr. Smithers had said on behalf of the United Kingdom in the United Nations. Thereupon the Prime Minister sent for such Cabinet members as were available to help him out of his dilemma. It was then that the directions were given to Mr. Plimsoll to repeat what were called the salient features of Mr. Hood’s remarks and to put a different paragraph at the end and to say that on this occasion we would vote in favour of condemnation.

We were under an obligation in the United Nations to condemn this sort of conduct and we always abstained or supported South Africa. We were the last Commonwealth country to support South Africa, apart from the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom and Australia were the only members of the Commonwealth still to abstain when there was a vote on the last occasion.

Mr Harold Holt:

– Great Britain did not abstain. It supported South Africa on the last occasion.

Mr WHITLAM:

– In 1959, we abstained from voting. On this occasion, we voted in favour of the resolution and against South Africa. Of course, people will have heard on the news to-day that once again South Africa’s Prime Minister says, “We will continue in our course “.

It is not sufficiently realized that Australia, as I said at the commencement, is getting more misunderstood and more friendless with every participation by the Prime Minister in international affairs. In the Suez affair we lined up with three other countries. Last year in the United Nations on the Australian amendment - that is the one which Mr. Nehru exposed - we lined up with four others. Let me further illustrate our isolation by giving details of voting in the first part of the current session. In this early part of the session there were 52 roll calls and on those Australia and the United Kingdom always voted together, but Canada voted with ui«n»Jy 33 times, New Zealand only 39 times, Pakistan only 26 times, Ghana and India only four times, Nigeria only three times, Malaya only fifteen times and Indonesia, our neighbour, only four times. Ireland, with which we have historic ties, voted with us only 24 times, and Burma, with which we also have historic ties, only six times. The United States voted beside us only 43 times out of 52. We have been in minorities varying between two and nine out of 99 nations.

The plain fact is that as shown by the way we vote in the United Nations we do not consult or value the views of other members of the British Commonwealth, or of Seato or of any .other association. We are becoming more and more friendless, particularly since President Kennedy has come into office and has voted against the colonial powers on Angola and South-west Africa and so on. We were still abstaining on the question of South-west Africa last week.

The Prime Minister has shown himself to be more out of touch with world affairs than any of his predecessors. He has been less successful and more disastrous, internationally, than any other Prime Minister we have ever had. He reels from rebuff to rebuff and his failures are becoming more frequent and more resounding. He takes each reverse with worse grace. The tides of colonialism and racial domination have receded and they have left him, like a stranded whale, moaning and forlorn. We cannot afford to carry this burden any longer. He should resign before he brings Australian still more into odium with the rest of the world and its associates in the Commonwealth, in Seato and with all our neighbours.

Mr ANDERSON:
Hume

.- We have heard in the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) a very bitter attack on the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies). But from where does the Opposition get its information on foreign affairs? That is a point I would like to make. On all economic matters the Opposition has quoted exhaustively from newspaper reports. From what other source does Labour, in opposition, get its information? Only from newspaper reports, and it quotes newspaper reports on every single measure in this House, Members of the Opposition have only one source of information; they have to rely on the newspapers. It is interesting to note that fact because some people are not foolish enough to rely on newspaper reports.

We have heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition an attack, again and again, on the Prime Minister’s two speeches in the United Nations. Here is a case where he made headlines in the American press, and the headlines were entirely complimentary and said that he was doing a great job. At the same time we have a State Labour Minister of State, the honorable Mr. Sheehan, who was present at both the Prime Minister’s speeches in the United Nations, telling a civic reception in Young - he said it also in the Parliament in Sydney - that when he was there he was so impressed with the magnificent speech of the Prime Minister that he. was proud to be an Australian. Mr. Sheehan, the Minister for Health in New South Wales - a Labour Minister - at a civic reception in Young said, “ I was proud to be an Australian when I heard this speech made, but when I came back to Australia I found that the whole of that speech was grossly misrepresented “. Yet, on that basis Labour produced its urgency motion - on the say-so of a newspaper report.

What sort of Opposition to a federal government is that on the vital matter of external affairs? What was the resolution that Mr. Menzies spoke so strongly against? It was Mr. Nehru’s resolution. Let us see who supported Mr. Nehru. We have Soekarno of Indonesia, Tito of Yugoslavia and Nasser of the United Arab Republic. Those were the people who supported India in this resolution to require the President of the United States of America, Mr. Eisenhower, on the eve of his resigning, to meet Mr. Khrushchev. Here was a man on the point of resigning and who could not commit his nation at all; yet the resolution demanded that he negotiate with Mr. Khrushchev. What kind of equality of negotiation was that when it was the result of weakness? Was that the kind of resolution to be expected of any elder statesman? After all, our Prime Minister is regarded in the world to-day as an elder statesman, a man with a profound knowledge of human feelings, and a man with a history of negotiations. He is the man who in 50 or 100 years will be talked of as an historical figure, but the people who have criticized him will be lost in the oblivion of time.

We have a Labour State Minister, an able man, who states that the Prime Minister made a magnificent speech, yet speaker after speaker from the Opposition side have derided him. The Opposition should not forget that the right honorable gentleman is the national Prime Minister, and that they are not helping the nation nor giving support politically by talking about our Prime Minister in this way. The Labour Party view is the view of the press from which it derives its opinions.

As to the London conference, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition stated that the Prime Minister had said that it was a bad thing to weaken the Commonwealth of Nations by forcing out South Africa. The Labour Party used for its own purposes the statement of the British Prime Minister who said that he did not agree with that point of view. These are not matters of fact; they are matters of opinion. But we have this fact: The Prime Minister of Australia, an elder statesman, has years of experience in Prime Ministers’ Conferences while Mr. Macmillan, although a very able man, is still much younger in these matters than is the Prime Minister of Australia.

Tunku Abdul Rahman, a man of great stature whom I admire immensely, and who will I think unite the three races of Malaya into one multi-racial nation, has suggested that South Africa’s departure will not weaken the Commonwealth. However, he also is a new boy. As I have said, these are not matters of fact; they are purely matters of opinion, and in these matters I am prepared to back the opinion of our own Prime Minister.

In any case, why not reason this out for ourselves? The Prime Ministers agreed not to argue about the domestic policies of member nations. Honorable members will recall the speech that was made by Dr. Verwoerd when he returned to South Africa. He claimed that his country was forced out of the Commonwealth because of intense bitterness and vindictiveness by others. It cannot be claimed that our Prime Minister made that statement; it was made by Dr. Verwoerd himself. Nearly all members of the Commonwealth have some problem of a similar nature in their own country. Ceylon, Ghana and India each are confronted with difficulties of some kind. To-day the Afro-Asian members of the Commonwealth do not want South Africa in it; to-morrow they themselves may be under criticism. This procedure could cause great trouble for future Prime Ministers at future conferences.

I agree with our Prime Minister that it is very sad that South Africa should have left the Commonwealth. He made a point that must be borne in mind by the Opposition: It is not a government that has been excluded from the Commonwealth, it is a nation, 45 per cent, of which is composed of English speaking people and 55 per cent, of Afrikaanders. Then there is the great mass of native races in that country. The Prime Minister referred to the historical relations between South Africa and Asia, and stated that we had fought side by side in two wars - at Deville Woods in the First World War and at El Alamein in the Second World War. Do you think that that means nothing to us? But the honorable member for Werriwa referred to it sneeringly. Our relations with South Africa should not be forgotten. The present Government of that country will not always be in control and we should be patient until it is changed. But to me it is a tragedy that a foundation member of the British Commonwealth of Nations has left it. Those are matters that the Prime Minister, with his wealth of experience, has very rightly deplored. There is no question in my mind that he does not agree with apartheid, which is a policy that we would not care to advance.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke very strongly about disarmament and cited numerous figures to indicate the enormous sums of money that are being spent on instruments of war, but he forgot to say what his solution of the problem is. All he said was that there is a need for disarmament and he dismissed the question from his mind because he claimed that it is a matter for the United Nations. The Prime Minister’s speech was a reasoned careful expose of what we must expect i” relation to disarmament.

Consider the attack that is being made ai present on the United Nations structure. The Soviet bloc is attacking it constant!’ in an endeavour to create disorder and to weaken its effectiveness. The Leader of the Opposition agrees with the Government and with the rest of the world that we must have disarmament, but what protection will there be if the United Nations b rendered ineffective? In view of the deliberate attack that the Soviet bloc is making in an effort to destroy the executive of the United Nations, should we disarm and then take the risk of suddenly finding that the United Nations is sterile and unable to help us? Is that the kind of statesmanlike approach that the Labour Party has to disarmament? Or has it not read the latest report in the press and so cannot state its policy until it finds out what the press thinks of disarmament?

The position in Laos could be very dangerous for Australia. I think that the determination of our Prime Minister and the forthrightness of the communique which was issued from the Seato conference is of first-class importance. There is a tendency on the part of the Opposition to use for its own purposes various aspects of foreign affairs from which it hopes to gain political advantage. At present South Africa is in the limelight. Many people feel unhappy about the situation that has arisen and in relation to which Australia has taken a stand. But that stand will be misinterpreted, and the Opposition will always refer to the tragedy of Sharpeville. I have heard the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) and every member of the Opposition who has spoken on this subject refer time and time again to Sharpeville. The honorable member for Werriwa referred in a sneering way to the report of the royal commission on Sharpeville. The incident at Sharpeville was not ordered by the Government; so far as I know it was the error of an excitable police officer. But the incident at Sharpeville is minor when compared with the horrors of Tibet. 1 challenge any honorable member to find in “ Hansard “ one single condemnation by the Opposition of China’s action in Tibet. I can assure the House that there is not one reference to Tibet, but Sharpeville has been mentioned in every speech by Opposition members. Sharpeville was an ugly incident which involved the killing of some 130 people, but in Tibet thousands are being murdered, children are being taken from their families and people are being exiled from- their country. Genocide of the worst order is being practised. Curiously enough, these horrors are being perpetrated by an ally of the Soviet. No reference to this matter by members of the Opposition appears in any debates on external affairs.

Mr Stewart:

– Has the Prime Minister ever deplored it?

Mr ANDERSON:

– Yes, the right honorable gentleman has done so time and time again. So also has every other member of the Government. The honorable member will find that every single supporter of the Government has deplored the treatment of Tibet but never once has the honorable member himself ever done so. The situation there has never been deplored by the honorable member for Parkes, or by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward); if he knows where Tibet is. We have this continued harping on one episode because it might have political significance, irrespective of the value of such: comment to Australia and the world. We never hear any comments from the Opposition on the young freedom fighters of Hungary who were put into gaol at fifteen years of age and held there until they were eighteen because the death penalty in

Hungary can be enforced only on persons who have reached the age of eighteen years. When these young freedom fighters reached their eighteenth birthday they were quietly executed. We have not heard one word from the Opposition about Hungary because Hungary is in the Soviet bloc. The same Opposition now claims that the Prime Minister should be relieved of office and that those who now sit in Opposition should take over control of external affairs.

I have travelled in Asia as have many members of the Opposition. How are Australians regarded in Asia? They are regarded with the highest respect. Does that bear out the opinions that have been expressed by the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy? Australia is highly respected in Asia just as we respect the Asians. The Malayans have a very warm affection for the Australian people and we reciprocate that feeling. The first Malayan legation building erected outside Malaya in any part of the world was built in Canberra by Tunku Abdul Rahman Would the Tunku have done that if. he did not respect us? Would he not have built a legation building in Great Britain, India or Germany? The fact is that he built such a place in Canberra because he has a warm regard for the Australian people. He knows, that we are his friends and that the Malayans are our friends. If you go to India or any part of Asia, you find that we have the respect of the Asian people. Why? The answer is: Because of this Government’s foreign policy. Our Government is closely associated with Asia. It is in the interests of Australia that our friendship should be placed among the Asian people. The Opposition cannot deny that Australia’s prestige is high everywhere in Asia.

If you examine the censure motion thai has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition, you find that it is not supported by any factual criticism but only by a repetition of the opinions of leader writers in the press. What value can be placed on such a motion? This Government has earned a reputation among coloured people for fair dealing. Our prestige is high in Asia because the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are respected in the Asian countries. I am very proud of our Prime Minister. He has come to be regarded in the world as an elder statesman. His word has carried great weight in world councils. He was criticized in a minor vote on Mr. Nehru’s resolution only because the delegates to the United Nations did not have time to refer to their governments for instructions on how to vote. The Opposition in this House has done a great disservice to Australia by its attacks on our foreign policy. It takes no part in external affairs. This should be a non-party matter but the Opposition derives all its background on external affairs from newspaper reports.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Stewart) adjourned.

House adjourned at 10.35 p.m.

page 675

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:: -

Steel

Mr Ward:

d asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Does the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited have a monopoly in the field of steel production in Australia?
  2. Is it a fact that, despite substantial expansion of its manufacturing plant, the company is failing to an increasing extent to meet Australian requirements in respect of certain types of steel?
  3. Is the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited,1 through its great strength, able to destroy any organization attempting to challenge its position in the Australian market?
  4. If so, is there little or no likelihood of any competition arising in this field of production?
  5. Is he able to say whether the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited has deliberately followed a policy of producing less than the local market requirements?
  6. Has the company’s failure to produce sufficient steel to meet Australian needs forced, particularly in recent years, an increasing importation of certain types of steel, thus adding to our balance-of-payments problem?
  7. Does the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited enjoy a privileged and protected position in the industry?
  8. If this is so, and in view of the essentiality of the company’s products for future Australian development, has the Government taken, or does it propose to take, any steps to see that production is expanded to a satisfactory level and that national interests are placed before those of a private company operating for the gain of its private shareholders?
  9. If the Government has plans to deal with this problem, what are the details?
Mr Menzies:
LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

  1. Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, together with its subsidiary company, Australian Iron and Steel Proprietary Limited, is the only company in Australia producing steel from iron ore. Another company makes steel from scrap metal in Melbourne.
  2. Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited was unable during the past year to meet the strong upsurge in demand for certain types of steel, but there are indications that demand and supply are coming closer to balance.
  3. I am not aware of any evidence to support this contention.
  4. See 3 above.
  5. No.
  6. There was an. increase in the level of steel imports during 1959-60, but there was a net export surplus for steel mill products totalling almost £8,000,000 for the years 19S8-S9 and 1959-60.
  7. No, but certain of the industry’s products are protected by the tariff. 8 and 9. The Government has entered into discussion with the company with a view to examining how Australia might avoid the need to import steel and become a major and continuing net exporter of steel.

Pacific Islands Regiment

Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice -

  1. When was the Pacific Islands Regiment first formed in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea?
  2. What was the original scale of pay to the respective ranks to which native personnel were eligible for appointment?
  3. What are the details of any alterations in the pay rates of native personnel which have since been made?
  4. What has ‘been the percentage increase in the cost of living in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea since the regiment was formed?
Mr Cramer:
Minister for the Army · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

  1. The Pacific Islands Regiment was raised in 1944 and included the Papuan Infantry Battalion which was raised in 1940, and the 1st New Guinea Infantry Battalion. It was disbanded late in 1946 by which time five native infantry battalions had been raised. The regiment was raised again in May-June, 1951, on a permanent basis.
  2. The first post-war pay scale for native soldiers was issued on 14th March, 1951, and is shown in Table 1 appended. In accordance with Government policy, the rates were based on the pay and allowances of the native constabulary as promulgated in the “ Territory of Papua and New Guinea Gazette “, No. 50, of 23rd December, 1950. It is emphasized that pay rates for native soldiers are assessed on an “ all found “ basis; that is, in addition to pay they receive free accommodation, rations, clothing, tobacco, soap and transport and, in certain circumstances, free rations and accommodation for their families.
  3. The first pay increase became effective from 1st June, 1955, the date on which similar increases were provided for the native constabulary. At the same time, because the original native pay system was ‘becoming unwieldy with the expansion of the regiment and the introduction of additional trades, a group classification system was adopted. The increased rates for the respective groups are set out in Table 2 appended. During 1959 it became evident that certain anomalies existed in the native pay system, and a complete review of native conditions of service was carried out. This resulted in a recommendation being made for a revised pay structure, including the addition of a new, higher pay group. A rise in pay was effected by the member moving from the grouping held under the old pay structure to the next higher grouping in the new system, subject to qualification in his particular skill. The new pay scales, which are appended as Table 4, were approved by the ‘Executive Council on 10th January, 1961, with retrospective effect to 1st July, 1960. Following agreement between employers and employees under which the wages of natives employed in private enterprise in the Territory were increased from 2nd January, 1961, a complete review is being made by the Papua and New Guinea Administration of pay and conditions of service for natives employed by the Administration, including members of the Royal Papuan and New Guinea Constabulary. Pending completion of the review, interim adjustments were made to the rates of pay of the natives with effect from 2nd January, 1961. Similar interim increases were made to the rates of pay of native soldiers of the Pacific Islands Regiment, effective from 2nd January, 1961, hut their rates of pay are also being reviewed simultaneously with natives of the Administration. The interim pay rates for the Pacific Islands Regiment are appended as Table 6.
  4. As I understood the situation, it is only recently that any natives have been placed on a complete monetary wage, and even then only those in urban areas. In the past, natives have derived their living mainly through the provision by employers of rations, accommodation and other services in kind, augmented by a varying cash wage according to the nature of employment. In these circumstances statistics on living costs of natives have not been kept

Education: Commonwealth Activities

Mr Bryant:
WILLS, VICTORIA

t asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will he amplify the Prime Minister’s reply to the question regarding educational, research and training activities within departments which I placed on the notice-paper on 1st September, 1960, by giving, in relation to each of the Departments of State, answers in detail to the following questions: -

What educational institutions are conducted by or for the department?

What is the function, staff and student strength of each institution?

What is the annual cost of each educational activity conducted by the department, and when was each introduced?

How are these educational activities of the department co-ordinated with other departments or State authorities?

How are the activities planned as regards scope and curriculum, and what departmental officer is responsible for their administration?

What legislative or other authority exists for these activities?

What research functions, not included in these activities, are carried out by or for the department?

What reports or other publications are available covering any of the department’s educational activities?

What has been the cost of these activities in each year from and including “1944?

What educational activities, including correspondence classes, are conducted within the department for in-service training of departmental staff?

What scholarships, fellowships, bursaries and travel facilities, &c, are granted to officers of the department or to others by the department or by instrumentalities responsible to the Minister?

Mr Menzies:
LP

– The answers to the’ honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

The information requested is shown for each Department of -State.

In relation to part (f) legislative authority has been shown where it is specifically related to training and educational facilities. In the main however the Public Service Act provides the authority.

With regard to part (i) training costs are often not itemized out from administrative costs and are therefore not always available. Wherever possible, however, information on costs has been given.

Department of Air.

  1. The Royal Australian Air Force School, Penang, Malaya.
  2. The function of the school is to provide education to second-year secondary level for children of the R.A.A.F. members serving in Malaya. The staff strengthof the school is seventeen and the student strength is 525.
  3. The annual cost of the school is £51,000 and it commenced in . 1959.
  4. The departments of education in Victoria and New South Wales make available teaching staff for the school and make regular inspections.
  5. The activities of the school are planned by the departments of education in Victoria and New South Wales. The officer responsible is the First Assistant Secretary, Department of Air.
  6. The school was established as a result of a Government decision.
  7. Nil.
  8. Nil.
  9. £51,000 in 1959-60.
  10. Normal in-servicetraining for civilians in the department and specialist courses in supervisory techniques, stores depot site management and control procedures, safety procedure, correspondence, supply and equipment requirement and procurement procedures, dictation techniques, instructional techniques; technical trainingin inspection administration, aerodynamics, gas turbines, metallurgy, and metrology. In addition, instruction is provided on a voluntary basis to temporary employees to assist them to qualify for entrance to the Fourth Divisionof the Commonwealth Public Service.
  11. Nil.

Department of the Army.

  1. to (i) Nil.
  2. Normal in-service training for civilian staff.
  3. Cadetships in engineering are offered.

Attorney-General’s Department.

  1. The Commonwealth Police Training Depot at North Head, Manly, New South Wales.
  2. (i) The function of the depot is to provide training for Commonwealth law enforcement officers and for officers of the Commonwealth and State police forces ‘and the New Zealand Police Force; (ii) The staff comprises a principal, three instructors,one registrar and three kitchen staff; (iii) Up to 22 students are in residence at any one time.
  3. The depot was opened in October, 1960, and the estimated cost will be £25,000 per annum.
  4. By liaison with appropriate departments and authorities and through discussion at the annual conference of Police Commissioners of Australia and New Zealand.
  5. The principal is responsible for the courses conducted at the depot.
  6. The establishment of the Depot was approved by the Government.
  7. Nil.
  8. Nil.
  9. Not applicable - see (c) above.
  10. Normal in-service training activities.
  11. Cadetshipsin the PatentOffice are offered.

Department of Civil Aviation.

  1. The educational (training) institutions conducted by the department are as follows: -

*Air Traffic Control School.

*AircraftSurveyors’ School.

*Electrical Equipment School.

*Radio Technicians’ School ‘(Melbourne).

Radio Technicians’ Schools at Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide and Perth.

Communications Officers’ School (Sydney).

Fire Services Training School (Sydney).

Linemen’s Training School (Sydney).

Diesel Engine and Mechanical Maintenance (Moorabbin). (* These are housed in the one building at Grattanstreet, Carlton and constitute one institution which is referred to as the Victoria-Tasmania Regional Training School.)

In addition to the above there are programmes of training of a non-technical nature designed to cater for the needs of management, supervisory, and clerical staff. These are referred to under 0). There are no educational institutions conducted for the department. However, it is the policy of the department to use an existing educational facility wherever it meets the training requirements of the department. Educational institutions used by the department are as follows: -

  1. University of Melbourne - for short courses on such subjects as “‘Operational Research “ and “ Fatigue and its influence on Engineering Design “.
  2. In addition - (a.) The University of Adelaide (Professor Willoughby) is provided with a yearly grant of £3,000 to conduct research into aerial systems and to provide post graduate training for selected departmental airways engineers. (b.) The University of New South Wales ‘(Professor Blunden) is providing training for a sectional airways engineer in the study of traffic engineering problems (A.T.C.).
  3. Royal Melbourne Technical College - for courses such as supply management, and for short terms training courses on technical subjects bearing on the work of the department.
  4. Swinburne Technical College - for training of certain selected maintenance staff in refrigeration and air conditioning.
  5. Australian Institute of Management - for occasional short term courses pertaining to the work of the department.
  6. Training Schools and Courses conducted by the Airlines - T.A.A., Ansett-A.N.A., Q.E.A. - The department arranges training with these organizations for pilots and aircraft surveyors in the engineering aspects of new type aircraft. Conversion flying training for new type aircraft is also arranged for departmental -pilots. (b)-
  1. The annual cost of each of the institutions referred to in question (a) is given below for the last three years.

It should be noted, however, that the above costs are not so much a cost of training as an integral part of the cost of providing the service concerned. For example, it would not be possible to provide a fire service without providing training in the techniques of fire fighting and of operating the necessary equipment. It is for this reason that the department when preparing its estimates includes the above costs as part of the administrative, maintenance or operational costs of the organization, i.e., it does not isolate them as far as in-service training is concerned. However for administrative purposes it does isolate the costs of training carried out by agencies external to the department, e.g., flying training and training at universities and technical colleges. Over the past three years this amount, expended under Division 262/0/12 of the Estimates has been as follows: -

  1. The activities conducted by the department are mainly self-contained. Where necessary arrangements are made directly by the department, through its Training Branch, with the Commonwealth or State instrumentality. For example, as a result of an approach made by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission the department trains a small number of radio technicians for the O.T.C. Similarly, training has also been provided by the department for small numbers of staff from -

    1. The Postmaster-General’s Department in V.H.F. techniques and in diesel maintenance.
    2. the R.A.A.F. in air traffic control and aircraft fire fighting.

The department makes its own negotiations with the universities and technical colleges for any training it requires. (See answer to (a).)

  1. The activities are planned by the Training Branch in close collaboration with officers of the technical and operational divisions concerned. The overall responsibility for the administration of training lies with the Inspector (Training) who is directly responsible to the Assistant DirectorGeneral (Administration).
  2. The Public Service Act
  3. Nil.
  4. The only printed document relating to the department’s training activities is a pamphlet on the training of technicians-in-training.
  5. See answer to (c).
  6. Normal in-service training and specialist courses in management, supervision, clerical work, stores, safety, instructional methods and for finance officers and new entrants. Appenticeships are available.
  7. Cadetships in engineering (civil, electronic, mechanical) and positions of trainee engineer for the training of professional engineers in civil, electrical, mechanical and aeronautical engineering are offered.

Department of Customs and Excise.

  1. to (i) Nil.
  2. Normal in-service administrative training and specialist courses in invoice examining, wharf examining, and preventative work.
  3. Nil.

Department of Defence.

  1. to (i) Nil.
  2. Normal in-service training,
  3. Nil.

Department of External Affairs.

  1. to (i) Nil.
  2. ‘Part-time formal training in diplomatic practice, economics and international law is conducted by officers of the Department of External Affairs and training in languages and Australian affairs is carried out at the School of General Studies, Australian National University, during the first year of appointment of diplomatic officers. Departmental and training courses are conducted for all officers, prior to overseas posting, in financial, administrative and consular procedure.
  3. Nil.

Department of Health.

  1. (i) The School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, (ii) The Institute of Child Health, (iii) The Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories, as an incidental to its main functions, provides limited educational facilities for deaf children.
  2. (i) The School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine provides teaching facilities in postgraduate, undergraduate and specialist studies and lectures at general annual courses, in the above fields. It also engages in comprehensive research into these subjects. Staff strength, including teaching, research and administrative workers, is presently 65. Student strength varies, but in 1958 lectures in Public Health were delivered to 228 students. (ii) The Institute of Child Health provides teaching facilities for post-graduate and under-graduate students and for other workers in the field of child health. It also engages in extensive research into problems of child health. Staff strength is approximately twelve. No details of student strength are readily available, (iii) Educational facilities for deaf children at Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories are incidental to a main function of conducting tests on, and research into, the problems of the deaf child.
  3. (i) and (ii) Departmental estimates for 1959-60 provided amounts of £108,560 and £26,580 for salary and administrative costs at the School of Public Health and Institute of Child Welfare, respectively. These services were first introduced at the University of Sydney in 1930 and 1948, respectively.
  4. (i) and (ii) Co-ordinated within the University of Sydney’s curriculum.
  5. (i) and (ii) Director, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine. The scope and curriculum of these activities are planned to fit within the framework of activities at the Medical School of the University of Sydney.
  6. The National Health Act 1953-1959, section 9.
  7. Apart from research carried out relating to the functions of the department, medical research in many fields is conducted at private research institutions under tire auspices- of the National Health and Medical Research Council. Lady Cowrie Child Centres receive annual grants towards their costs. Activities at these centres are directed towards establishing patterns in preschool training practices: and medical supervision and research material in the problems of child health.
  8. (i) The: report of the Director-General of Health, 1956-58. (ii) Interim report of. the Director-General for the year 1959-60. (iii) Reports upon the “ Work done under the Medical Research Endowment Act’” during’ the year 1958, and’ earlier years.
  9. ; Dissection of departmental expenditure to calculate the cost of these activities is not practicable. (j). Training courses- in management techniques, general and financial administration are conducted in. the divisional offices and at the. Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, and’ staff at the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories are trained in the administration of audiometric tests and the maintenance of. hearing aids. At the School of. Public. Health and Tropical Medicine medical officers attend for post-graduate training in the Diploma of Public Health and the’ Diploma of Tropical ‘Medicine’ and Hygiene,, and’ medical officers and biochemists are given training before taking up duty in the department’s’ health laboratories.
  10. Professional officers of the department may from time to time be awarded scholarships or fellowships from organizations; such; as the World Health. Organization

Department of Immigration.

  1. to (i)Nil.
  2. Normal in-service training.
  3. Nil.

Department of the Interior.

Information in terms ofitems (a) to (k) has been provided for each of the following institutions: -

  1. Education Section, Australian. Capital Territory Services. Branch.
  2. Australian Civil Defence Branch, Mount Macedon.,
  3. Central Training School (Meteorology).
  4. Australian Forestry School.

Excluding these the only question’ which relates to the: department as a whole is (j). In this respect normal inservice training is provided, with specialist training, in public: relations and’ for bushfire fighting’ teams, &c, 1. (a) The Education Section; AustralianCapital Territory Services Branch.

  1. Functions. - In administering public education in the Australian Capital Territory to provide. -

    1. Education from Primary to Leaving Certificate standard in the Australian Capital Territory;
    2. Through pre-school centres, education to the Australian Pre-school Association standards;,
    3. Through the Canberra. Technical College, trade and post-trade courses; certificate, commerce, management and hobby courses..

Staff. - (i) 396 teachers and instructors, including 40 part-time teachers at the Technical College. (ii) Education section - 6.

Students. - 11,550 students enrolled in the Australian. Capital Territory.

  1. (See Estimates of Expenditure for Year ending 30th June, 1961, Department of the Interior, pp. 70-72)-

    1. Primary and secondary schools,, 1959-60: £432,993. Started- 1911
    2. Pre-school education 1959-60: £32,861.. Started- 1942.
    3. Canberra Technical College, 1959-60: £68,719. Started- 1925.
    4. Canberra University College, 1959-60: £338,530. Started 31st March, 1930; transferred to Australian National University 31st December,1960;
  2. . By, agreement between the. Commonwealth and the. New South Wales Government, the New South Wales Department of Education and the New. South Wales Department of Technical. Education arrange the teaching services for the Australian. Capital Territory maintained public school’s and the Canberra Technical College. The New South Wales Government is reimbursed by the Commonwealth for its services.
  3. Instruction in the Australian Capital Territory follows the curricula’ of the New South Wales. Department of Education and the Department of Technical. Education; The Assistant Secretary, Australian Capital Territory Services Branch, is responsible for education services in the Australian Capital Territory.
  4. Education Ordinance and Education Regulations (1937-59);
  5. No research in educations is undertaken by the section- research work is done by the New South Wales Department of Education.
  6. No separate publications apart from pamphlets on pre-school activities are published by the department on education activities in the Australian Capital Territory;

Thistotal includes -

  1. Private schools - Reimbursement of interest on capital borrowed for construction and extension of school buildings £24,065.
  2. Contribution towards cost of the Occupational Centre, Handicapped Children’s Association- £5,000.
  3. Grants to Canberra University College from 1943-44 to 1959-60- £1,444,011.

  4. Transport of both private and public school children- £453,632.

    1. Limited to on-the-job training.
    2. (i) Kindergarten Teachers’ Training Scholarship £11.000*
  1. Function. - The study and conduct of courses in all aspects of civil defence including the training of instructors and key personnel for the several States and Commonwealth departments. The conduct of such trials and experiments in civil defence techniques and equipment as may be required from time to time.

Staff.- Establishment - 42. (Actual at 1st December, 1960-39).

Students. - The normal intake of students on each civil defence course is 30. Total student attendance to 1st December, 1960 - 4,125.

  1. Officially opened, 2nd July, 1956. Maintenance and operating costs, excluding directorate costs- 1956-57, £129,715 (influence of capital works); 1957-58, £95,064; 1958-59, £101,612; 1959-60, £96,712.
  2. Proposals for the planning and development of civil defence policy by the various State and Commonwealth authorities is guided by the teachings and techniques of the Civil Defence School. Students who qualify by examination are recognized by the Commonwealth as competent instructors on civil defence in the States. Students numbering 475 have now qualified as instructors in various sections of a Civil Defence Corps. When nominating students, the various authorities are asked to select those likely to be concerned with the organization or administration of some aspect of civil defence, or whose work will be affected toy civil defence requirements. Preference is given to State and local government nominations.
  3. The schedule of civil defence courses is planned by the Civil Defence Directorate at least six months in advance after due consideration of views expressed by the school, the several State civil defence authorities, students, policy, holiday breaks and experience generally of present desirable type courses. Thesyllabus, prepared in advance for each individual course, follows a standard pattern but it is, of course, varied from time to time in the light of experience and circumstances. The set school questions to students on specialized study -periods are appropriately framed for the particular profession or callingrepresented. Particularly valuable information has been gained from study period conclusions. These are also passed on to State authorities. Subject to policy, and with responsibility to the Directorate, the Commandant of the school is responsible for giving effect to approved civil defence teachings and techniques, and for the general conduct of the school.
  4. Administrative responsibility for the Commonwealth Government’s policy on civil defence is vested in the Department of the Interior.
  5. None. Instructional staff members keep abreast of current developments in civil defence from overseas literature, books, &c, regularly supplied, on aspects of civil defence.
  6. No publications are available. Students are issued with precis of lectures during the courses.
  7. See answer (c) above. 0’) Not applicable.
  8. None. 3. (a) The Central Training School, Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne.

  9. Functions: -

    1. Train meteorologists, weather officers, weather observers and observers (radio) for service within the Bureau of Meteorology.
    2. Train overseas students as meteorologists under theColombo Plan and the Australian International Award Scheme.
    3. Train meteorologists, weather observers and observers ‘(radio), for service with Australian National Antarctic Research Expedition.
    4. Supervise the practical work in meteoro- logy of university cadets of the Bureau of Meteorology during vacation periods.
    5. Conduct lectures and practical work in meteorological ‘subjects in conjunction with the Royal Melbourne Technical College for cadets of the Bureau of Meteorology, studying for the Diploma of Applied Physics (Meteorology).
    6. Provide lectures and examiners in meteorological subjects for Department of Civil Aviation examinations forsenior commercial pilots, flight navigators and airline transport pilots.
    7. Provide examiners in meteorological subjects for Department of Civil Aviation examinations conducted Tor commercial pilots and communications officers.
    8. Supervise the training course and syllabi of R.A.A.F. pilots and navigators studying meteorology,
    9. Provide lectures for Postmaster-General’s Department clerks,Department of Civil Aviation groundsmen, port meteorological agents and other personnel, who are to carry out special meteorological observations for the Bureau of Meteorology.
  10. Provide technical information for television talks, radio broadcasts, schools, &c.

Training Staff.- Eight.

Students. - While numbers vary during any year for particular courses, the average for 1960 was 61.

  1. Large scale training activities commenced in 1937 with the establishment of field staff. Operating costs for 1959-60, £45,000.
  2. The educational activities of the Bureau of Meteorology are co-ordinated with other departments and authorities by inter-departmental agreements. The Supervising Meteorologist, Central Training School, is responsible to the Assistant Director (Administration) for carrying out this liaison work in accordance with policies determined by the Director of Meteorology.
  3. The aim of the school is to provide for the meteorological requirements of the Australian public whilst conforming to the standards of the World Meteorological Organization. The scope and curriculum of training varies with the purpose of the particular educational activity. Thus, in the professional courses, personnel are trained in the techniques needed for meteorological analysis and forecasting. They are also provided with the necessary theoretical background which, at a later stage, will enable them to carry out meteorological research projects. In the courses for technicians, the curricula are designed to develop skills, which are required for making accurate meteorological observations and servicing special scientific equipment. The aim of this work is to accumulate data, which will be of value not only for general forecasting, but also for research in problems associated with hydrometeorology, agro-meteorology, aeronautical meteorology, fire-control &c. Finally, the curricula for the external courses are designed to integrate the meteorological lectures with the particular needs of the organizations involved. The Supervising Meteorologist, Central Training School, is responsible for the scope of the educational activities and the curricula.
  4. The Meteorology Act No. 6 of 1955, section 7-(l)(d).
  5. The Meteorological Section of the Chair of Natural Philosophy at the Melbourne University conducts research in addition to its educational activity. The Commonwealth contributes £6,000 per annum to this section, vide Division No. 632/04 of the approved Estimates under Department of the Interior.
  6. The curriculum of meteorological training is laid down in paper Met. 48/1466 of 28th November, 1958. A report, Met. 50/834 of 2nd November, 1960, entitled “Meteorological Education” covers the research programme and details of the professional courses conducted by the Commonwealth Bureau of Meteorology. A brochure entitled “ Make Meteorology your Career” summarizes the most important aspects of the internal educational programme. A formal report is furnished by the Central Training School at the conclusion of each training course.

These amounts include training staff salaries and operating overheads, but exclude trainees’ salaries.

  1. The Central Training School conducts inservice training for meteorologists, weather officers, observer and observer (radio). Courses are also conducted for advanced forecasting, refresher courses and conversion courses. Assistants (Bureau of Meteorology) can qualify for promotion with on-the-job training. Practical training is given at divisional offices in the capital cities. Correspondence courses in theoretical meteorology are available from the Central Training School, which conducts the examinations for the promotion of assistants.
  2. None. 4. (a) The Australian Foresty School. (Attached to the department through the Forestry and Timber Bureau.)
  3. Function. To provide the third and fourth years of the degree course in forestry given by Australian universities. The school is, in effect, a part of each university under the various university regulations governing degrees in forestry. In addition to the formal third and fourth years of the degree course in forestry, the school gives specialized undergraduate and postgraduate courses to foresters from Australia and overseas.

Staff. There are six permanent and two parttime lecturers on the school staff. Members of the research divisions of the Forestry and Timber Bureau and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization lecture to students as part of the curriculum.

Students. The total number of students in the school varies between 40 and 80; half the number comprises each of the third and fourth years.

  1. The Australian Forestry School commenced in 1926. Annual cost for 1959-60 was £44,000 (approximately). See para (i).
  2. The school is a co-operative venture between the Commonwealth Government, the forest services of the States and the universities of the States.
  3. The activities of the school are planned by the Board of Higher Forestry Education which is a statutory advisory body established under the Forestry and Timber Bureau Act. The administration of the school is under a principal, responsible to the Director-General of the Forestry and Timber Bureau.
  4. Forestry and Timber Bureau Act 1930-1946.
  5. Lecturers of the school, as members of a teaching institution at university standard, undertake personal research into various aspects of forestry to improve the content of the courses and the value of their instruction. The Forestry and Timber Bureau conducts research divisions in forest management, silviculture, and timber supply economics.
  6. Calendar and annual report.
  7. Separate costs for the school are not available. The costs of the activities for each year from and including 1944 are included in the published estimates for the Forestry and Timber Bureau for each of those years, but the Bureau estimates include other activities besides education and research.
  8. Not applicable.
  9. Commonwealth forestry scholarships to attend the school are awarded by the Minister on the recommendation of the Director-General, Forestry and Timber Bureau.

Department of Labour and National Service,

  1. to (i) Nil.
  2. Normal in-service training with some special training to assist typists, stenographers and employment office staff.
  3. Nil.

Department of National Development.

  1. to(j)) Nil.
  2. Cadetships in geology or geophysics are offered.

Department of the Navy.

  1. to (i) Nil.
  2. Normal in-service training. Apprenticeships are available.
  3. A limited number of university “free places “ on a part time basis are granted each year to enable officers employed under the Naval Defence Act to study for university degrees. Cadetships in naval armament supply are offered.

Postmaster-General’s Department.

  1. (a), (b), (c). During 1959-60 the following institutions were conducted on more or less a permanent basis: -

    1. Technician Training School.

Schools are established in all States to train staff in the methods of installing and maintaining telecommunications equipment used by the department in providing telephone, telegraph and radio facilities. Prior to 1929, trainees attended technical colleges or other approved institutions, but by that date it was becoming increasingly evident that developments in the telecommunication field were drawing away from the type of course conducted by the colleges and institutions. Those institutions were geared more toward heavy direct and alternating current working, whereas telecommunication work was developing toward light currents and high frequencies. Consequently, much of the subject-matter included in technical college courses was redundant so far as departmental requirements were concerned, and, in the years between 1929 and 1954, departmental training facilities were extended and attendance at technical colleges progressively reduced. Since 1954, the complete training course for technicians-in-training has been conducted within the department, and this has permitted of a reduction in the theory content of the course by eliminating all matters not directly related to telecommunication practices.

Trainees are selected from within and without the service in the age group from over 15 to under 18 years. Selection has been made on a 50-50 basis from the two fields of recruitment, but this procedure is currently under review.

The training course is conducted over a period of five years. First year trainees attend the school on a full-time basis, while second, third and fourth year trainees attend, respectively, for 336, 336 and 147 hours annually, with the balance of their time ‘being devoted to on-the-job instruction in the field. Fifth year trainees receive fulltime on-the-job training - more in the nature of an apprentice - and do not attend the school.

As at 30th June, 1960, the following techniciansintraining were “ on course “: -

In addition, 100 adult trainees were attending the schools for special short courses varying in duration from one to eighteen weeks.

The overall number of instructors employed as at 30th June, 1960, was 320. The Public Service Board has prescribed that departmental instructors employed at technician-in-training schools shall control a maximum number of trainees as indicated hereunder -

For other short courses of practical instruction the number controlled is eight. Where practicable, having regard to the number of trainees requiring tuition in the various technical fields, the above grouping is adhered to, except where the number of trainees in a particular field is insufficient to fill a complete group. However, in such cases instructors are required to control more than one group if practicable.

The cost of conducting technicians-in-training schools in 1959-60 was £1,539,358, which includes an amount of £1,321,666 for the salaries paid to instructors and trainees.

  1. Lineman Training School.

Schools are established in all States to train staff to install and maintain aerial lines and underground cables associated with telecommunications equipment. These schools were established initially in 1938, to overcome deficiencies resulting from the practice whereby appointments to the lines staff had been made invariably from men experienced, although seldom systematically trained. in line work. It had been necessary also for training in special sections of the work, such as cable jointing, to be undertaken in the officers’ own time at. institutions, where classes were available.

Trainees, are selected from within and without the service in the age group of 16 years 6 months to 19 years 6 months. In. the past, priority has been given to persons from, within the service but this procedure is currently, under review.

The. training course, is. conducted over a period of two years, and, as. at 30th June, I960; 633 linemen-in-training, were “on. course”.. In addition!, selected’ linemen attend, special, short-term courses varying in duration from, one day to ten weeks, and, as at 30th June, 1960, 250 of these officers were also attending the schools.

Linemen-in-training undertake a two-year training course; During the first, year when instruction is related, mainly to cable work, trainees spend 25 weeks in. the. school and receive on-the-job- tuition for the remainder, of. the time. The second year is devoted chiefly, to aerial work with 19 weeks being spent in the. school and the remainder on the job. During the. periods in which on-the-job training is received, trainees are visited by instructors from the schools who spend approximately 20 minutes per week with each trainee.

At 30th June, 1960, the overall number of instructors was 138. Because instruction is mainly of a practical nature, the maximum number of trainees per instructor as- prescribed by the Public Service Board is largely in keeping with that laid down for the practical section of technicians’ training. Details are as follows: -

Pole inspection 6:1

Aerial construction 8 : 1

Cable jointing 12 : 1

Conduit construction 12 : 1

Transport and mechanical aids 12 : 1. After taking into account non-instructional time allowed for class preparation, setting and marking examinations, staff conferences; &c, and provision for supervisory staff, the average ratio of trainees, per instruct©! is in the vicinity of 6 : 1-, which corresponds to the ratio, obtaining as at 30th June, 1960.

The cost of conducting these schools in- 1959-60 was. £943,680), which includes, an amount, of £730,026 for salaries paid to instructors and trainees. (iii> Postal Clerk Training School.

Schools are established in all States to train staff in postal,, telegraph and telephone activities undertaken at post offices, and also in those services provided at post offices on behalf of other departments and instrumentalities. These schools were established initially in 1944, and, except for the years 1958 and. 1959, have been conducted each year since then. Prior to 1944, officers were required to obtain the necessary qualifications in their own time and at their own expense, but telegraph equipment and books of instruction were made- available: by the department at the officer’s local post office:

The- training course, reintroduced at the beginning of. I960 following, ai two-year break, now provides for a period of training of 32 weeks. Half of this-, time: is spent in’ the- class-room and half is devoted to- on-the-job training, at selectedpost offices.

During the 1960 calendar year, 425 trainees attended the schools, where the; total instructional staff was 32, or the equivalent of one instructor to every thirteen trainees.

The cost of conducting these schools in 1960 was estimated at £233,000, which includes an amount o£ £200,000 for salaries paid to instructors and trainees. (iv)- Mau. Officer Training School.

Schools for training mail officers have been established in all States since 1930 (New South Wales and Victoria), 1937’ (Queensland and South Australia) and 1946 (Western Australia and Tasmania). Ifr some States there have been periods when the schools have been closed temporarily, but ali schools have been functioning during 1960. Training is given in mail handling and sorting- operations.

Class-room training is conducted over a period of eight weeks, but the overall duration of each course is extended slightly- on occasions to permit of a small amount of on-the-job training being incorporated.

During the 1959-60 financial year a total of 1,350 trainees passed through the schools. As at 30th June, I960; 189 trainees were “ on course “ and the number of instructors employed was. nine, or the equivalent of one instructor to every 21 trainees.

The cost of conducting these: schools in 1959- 60 was £155,605, which includes an amount of £154,532 for the salaries paid to instructors and trainees.

  1. Telephonist Training School.

Classroom training of telephonists is conducted in schools located in each capital city and, on occasions, in major provincial centres such as Newcastle and Launceston. The schools were established prior to the second world war and are conducted either continuously or periodically as determined by staffing requirements.. During 1959-60, schools were conducted continuously in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, and for varying periods in other capital cities, for the purpose of instructing new staff in. telephone switchboard operating techniques and procedures.

As a general rule, training is given over a period of six weeks, and,, during 1959-60, 970 girls passed through the training schools. As at 30th June, I960,, 52 trainees were “ on course “ and the number of instructors was eight, or the equivalent of one instructor to every six trainees.

The cost of conducting these schools in 1959- 60 was £95,092, which includes an amount of £78,066 for the salaries paid to instructors and trainees.

  1. Phonogram Operator Training School.

Classroom training of phonogram- operators is conducted in schools located in each capital etty except Hobart. These schools were established in 1944 due to the necessity to recruit phonogram operators from sources other than the permanent ranks of the department. Prior to that date partial training was given, but the method of instruction depended upon the facilities available, and in some cases . no extended training was possible before the employee undertook phonogram duties.

During 1959-60, a school was conducted continuously in Melbourne, and for varying periods in other capital cities, for the purpose of instructing new staff in techniques and procedures associated with the receipt and transmission of phonograms and other telegraph traffic transmitted by telephone..

Training is given over a period of five weeks, and’; during 1959-60, 169 trainees passed through the schools. As at 30th June, 1960, 28 trainees were “ on course “ and the number of instructors was three, or the equivalent of one instructor to every nine trainees.

The cost of conducting these schools in 1959-60 was estimated at £13,000, which includes an amount of £12,750 for the salaries paid to instructors and trainees.

  1. Accounting Machinist Training School.

Since 1956, schools have been established in New South Wales and Victoria to instruct girl’s from all departments in the operation of a basic type accounting machine. In Victoria, trainees are also taught touch typing up to approximately 20 words per minute to fit them for subsequent advancement to the more complex type accounting machines having a typewriter keyboard incorporated, but in New South Wales typing instruction is received in the Typist-in-Training School conducted by the Public Service Inspector. In other States; girls desirous of advancement to positions of accounting machinist attend evening classes conducted; by the Postal Institute. Advantage is taken in all States of any free tuition offered by business houses and, on occasions, where a course has been conducted by the Public Service Inspector, this department has participated.

In the schools conducted in New South Wales and Victoria, training is. given over a period of fifteen weeks, accounting machine only, and 24 weeks, accounting machine and typing, respectively. Trainees spend’ less than 50 per cent of their time in the classroom, the remainder being spent on-the-job where practical training is arranged if possible.

During 1959-60, 121 trainees passed through the schools. As at 30th June,1960, 30. trainees were “ on course. “ and the number of instructresses was two, or the equivalent of one instructress to every fifteen trainees.

The cost of conducting these schools in 1959-60 was £9,609,. which includes an amount of £8,270 for the; salaries paid; to instructresses and trainees.

  1. Wherever possible training facilities are shared with other departments. The training schools for accounting machinists in New South Wales and Victoria are attended by trainees from all departments in these States-, the local Public Service Inspector’s office being the co-ordinator.
  2. The training schools listed above have been functioning for many years for the purpose of producing operatives qualified to. perforin efficiently the duties of the position to which promotion or advancement will be made. At the outset, the curriculum of each course was designed to teach the basic knowledge and skills required in this direction and. over subsequent years, each curriculum has been revised regularly to ensure that training has kept pace with changing conditions and, industrial awards, &c., influencing the duties actually performed on the job.

Training; policy in respect of techniciansintraining and linemen-in-training. is. determined within the central administration of the Engineering Division, and passed to State administrators where the schools; are actually located. Training activities in the States are controlled by a divisional engineer, and each school is under the direct charge of a senior instructor.

Training policy in respect of the nonengineering schools shown is determined in the central administration by the Principal Training Officer, Personnel Branch, in conjunction with the division or branch head concerned, and implemented in State training schools by the Senior Training. Officer, Personnel, Branch, in co-operation with”, the State head of branch. Each school is directly controlled by a training officer or instructor/ instructress.

  1. Public Service Act.
  2. Continued research into the methods of selecting: trainees for entry into the department’s, training schools is conducted with the aim. of reducing the costs of staff wastage during training.
  3. Concise information regarding departmental training activities is given in the following publications: -

Annual report of the Postmaster-General.

Public Service Board’s annual report to Parliament.

Annual report of the Personnel Branch, PostmasterGeneral’s Department.

Bi-monthly Bulletin produced by the Engirneering Division, Postmaster-General’s Department.

During 1950, a committee constituted by the Public Service Board to inquire into technical training in the Postmaster-General’s Department produced’ a report on the nature and scope of training given to technicians-in-training and linemenintraining, to that date.

  1. In showing training costs each year since 1944, the cost of conducting the department’s permanent training institutions has been combined with other training costs and listed “H “ under the functional headings of -
  2. Engineering and technical.
  3. Postal.
  4. Telephone.
  5. Telegraph.
  6. General

The training costs for other years do not relate only to those courses conducted during 1959-60. Since1944,. there has been a number of training schemes conducted to meet specific needs over certain periods, but these have been discontinued as warranted by circumstances. The figures shown represent training costs actually incurred in each of those years covering permanent training institutions, certain short-term or part-time training courses, and fees, paid to outside authorities for training given to departmental staff. Where an officer attends a part-time training course, of, for example, one or two hours weekly over, several weeks, his. salary during these short training periods is. debited against his, normal branch classification account and not against training costs.. Nevertheless,, a cost control system has been introduced over recent years which provides for an assessment and control of training costs in respect of each designation group where parttime, or short-term training is involved.

  1. Normal in-service training, specialist training in post office management, public relations, foremanship, correspondence, stores, procedures, safety, &c, and for inspectors, supervisors (mail) and traffic officers, &c. Apprenticeships are available.

A limited general education service including correspondence courses is available through branches of the Postal Institute established in all States. The institute receives some assistance from the department but it is mainly a staff organization and the charge to students covers instructors’ fees. Courses are conducted for employees sitting for the clerical or intermediate certificate examinations or to enable staff to qualify for promotion or advancement as typist, accounting machinist, senior technician, &c.

  1. Cadetships in engineering are offered.

Department of Primary Industry.

  1. to (i) Nil.
  2. Normal in-service training.
  3. Cadetships in veterinary science and agricultural science are offered.

Prime Minister’s Department.

  1. to (i) Nil.
  2. The department makes use of the Public Service Board’s course.
  3. The Commonwealth Literary Fund awards fellowships to persons who have proved their capacity to do creative work in the field of literature. These fellowships are awarded to persons who have submitted proposals for a literary project. At present the value of a fellowship is approximately £1,000 and usually three are awarded each year. The purpose of the fellow ship is to enable the writer to devote sufficient time to complete the project for which the fellowship was granted. The fund also assists in the publication of some manuscripts which have outstanding literary merit. Literary quality is the dominant criterion in providing such help. Insofar as scholastic works can and do on occasion have literary merit, the fund’s activities in this particular field have some significance in education and research. The Office of Education is concerned with activities in a number of educational fields but does not itself conduct any educational institutions or carry out any programmes of training. The office was created by the Education Act of 1945 and its estimated expenditure for 1960-61 is £222,600. The office is concerned with international relations in education, language work and migrant education programmes, the provision of information and advice on aspects of Australian education and with the secretariat work of the Commonwealth Scholarships Board and the National Advisory Committee for Unesco. It also plays a part in the administration of training schemes for students from overseas, e.g., training under the Colombo Plan. In carrying out these functions the office works in very close co-operation with other government departments and with State education departments. This is particularly so with migrant education, the administration of the Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme and the various international training schemes. The office also has the responsibility for expenditure on the Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme, estimated at £2,487,000 in 1960-61; the scheme of Commonwealth co-operation in education, estimated at £50,000 in 1961; and the

Australian International Awards Scheme, estimated at £28,000 in 1960-61.

Public Service Board.

  1. The Public Service Board, as the central personnel authority for the Commonwealth Public Service, has a general responsibility for training and educational matters in the service. The nature of the board’s participation or control varies with the scheme in question,but as far as possible, departments are encouraged to provide their own training in accordance with their individual requirements. To this extent, the board exercises a general oversight over departmental training, acting as an adviser and providing assistance as required. In addition, the board provides training for departmental officers in a number of specialized and general fields, arranges conferences of training staff, provides a central information service on training matters and conducts a variety of educational schemes. These activities are directed, as with a number of other functions of the board, towards improving the overall efficiency of the service but are not administered through any special educational institution. The following organizations and schemes can be distinguished: -

    1. The Training Section, which is responsible for service-wide training, as well as Colombo Plan and United Nations training. The latter is treated as a separate scheme under (vii) below.
    2. University Free Place Scheme - full and part-time.
    3. Post-graduate scholarships - Australia and overseas.
    4. Financial assistance for (a) short courses; (b) study projects, Australia and overseas.
    5. Research fellowships at Australian National University.
    6. Typist-in-training schools at Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Canberra and Darwin.
    7. Colombo Plan and United Nations training.

  2. (i) The functions of the Training Section (Commonwealth Service training) include -

    1. Provision of central courses for departmental officers in a number of specialized and general fields of Public Service management (e.g. general administration, personnel and establishment, supply and stores, organization and methods, automatic data processing systems, &c). Representatives from Commonwealth statutory authorities are also invited to attend these short courses.
    2. Advice and assistance to departments in the organization of their internal training programmes to ensure that their training activities arecarried out efficiently.

There are seventeen training staff in the board’s central and State offices, engaged on in-service training, apart from Colombo Plan activities. There are also four officers with combined training and recruitment duties. Student strength at the board’s major courses for the financial year 1959-60 was 400, excluding the various ad hoc courses - new entrants, supervisors, counter staff, &c. A list of the principal courses conducted during that year and the student strength for each is given under (c).

  1. The University Free Place Scheme permits selected permanent officers of the Third Division, and officers qualified for transfer to that division, to undertake full-time final year or part-time university courses, which must be appropriate to the work of the department and the service. At present, 159 officers are being assisted financially by the board in this way, and of these, seven are full-time students.
  2. The post-graduate scholarship scheme provides opportunities for officers to participate in post-graduate studies in Australia and overseas for periods up to two years. Studies may consist of formal courses at universities or other institutions. This year, nine officers are studying under this scheme.
  3. Financial assistance is provided to officers undertaking short courses of a specialized nature at the request of their department. The board also grants financial assistance to officers proceeding on leave without pay to do post-graduate work, where the emoluments otherwise available are inadequate. In determining these grants, the Board takes into account the value of the proposed study to the service. During 1960, approval was given to about 40 officers to undertake short courses and to ten officers to engage in study projects under various fellowships or scholarships such as Fulbright awards, Carnegie grants, Commonwealth Fund fellowships, Ac.
  4. Fellowships at the Australian National University are available for one year to senior officers of substantial experience who would benefit from a period of reading and supervised writing on a research topic. The primary purpose of the fellowships is not to enable officers to obtain a higher degree, but to provide them with the opportunity to make a worth-while contribution to a particular field of research. Such research, chosen by the fellow in conjunction with his department and the university, must be of interest and benefit to both the university and the Commonwealth Service. Three fellowships will be available in 1961.
  5. The typists-in-training schools provide for the full-time training of typists and stenographers for the Commonwealth Service. The student strength at the various centres at 30th June, 1960, was -

Teaching staff at Sydney is four, and at Darwin one. In Hobart, staff is supplied by the Technical College and the board makes a contribution to cost. In Canberra, staff is supplied by the Technical College under the control of the Department of the Interior.

  1. The Colombo Plan and United Nations section of the board’s staff provides training in most phases of government administration for fellows visiting Australia under the Colombo Plan and other international technical assistance schemes. Training facilities are provided through the ‘various ‘Commonwealth and State departments and the local government authorities. There are .fifteen full-time training officers in the ,board’s central and State offices engaged on this training. .During .the financial year 1959-60, 185 fellows completed their training, and at the end df that period ‘there are “306 -active cases, -that is, on course or being ‘negotiated.
  2. (i) Residential and other courses conducted by the board during the year 1959-60 are listed -in the table below, which also shows the student strength, and the year -in which each course was -introduced.

In addition to the above programme, ‘the board’s central and State offices provide short courses for new entrants to the Service in the smaller departments and branches.

The total direct cost of all training activities undertaken by the Training Section, including assistance to departments, for the year ‘1959-60, was as .follows: -

  1. The university free-place scheme was introduced on a sma’ll scale in 1928. The cost of the scheme in 1960 is £5)600 for payment of university fees.
  2. The post-graduate scholarship scheme was introduced in 1937 but suspended at the outbreak of war until 1948. The cost of the .scheme in I960 is £5,600 for travelling expenses and university fees.
  3. The financial assistance scheme commenced in 1949. The cost of the scheme in 1960 is £6,700 -to cover fees for attendance at specialized courses.
  4. The cost of the Australian .National University fellowships is borne by the Australian National University. The fellowship scheme was instituted in 1959. (vfl The .cost of the typist-in-training scheme for 1960 is ‘£28,500, consisting of salaries for instructors and trainees and miscellaneous expenses such as -stationery -and materials. (The scheme was introduced in the States in 1949 and in Darwin in 1956.

  5. The Colombo Plan training scheme was introduced in 1951. The total salaries of fulltime staff on Colombo Plan and United Nations training for 1959-60 was £20,985 which was borne by the Department of External Affairs.

    1. (i) The board’s central training programme covers the common areas of public service management. This programme is ‘therefore complementary to training conducted in departments. Co-ordination is arranged through inspections and the normal administrative processes, as well as through conferences of all senior training staff of the service, held at regular intervals. Departments are invited to nominate officers for attendance at the board’s central courses. Within limits, officers from the State Public Service as well as from statutory authorities, private organizations, and overseas countries, through the Colombo Plan, are .invited to participate regularly in the board’s higher administrative courses. By special arrangement between the State and Commonwealth Public Service Commissioners, courses are held from time to time in which officers from all the Australian Public Services participate. The first of these was a course for assistant secretaries held in 1957 and the most recent was held in 1959 for senior administrative officers.
  6. Departmental officers are selected for university free places by a selection committee consisting of a representative each of the Public Service Board, the Department and the university.
  7. Selection for post-graduate scholarships and study projects is by .a selection committee COnsisting :of a representative each of the Public

Service Board,theDepartment of the Treasury and the Commonwealth Office of Education.

  1. For short courses where an officer undertakes a short course of a special nature at the request of a department, the full cost of the course may be met by the department provided the cost does not exceed £20 for any one person and the time off involved does not exceed five hours per week. Where anofficer undertakes a short course of study in his own time, which the department considers would substantially increase his efficiency, consideration will be given by the board to a refund of half of the fees provided the cost of the course does not exceed £20.
  2. Applicants for fellowships must first obtain sponsorship from their departments. By sponsoring an officer, departments indicate their willingness to release him for the period of the fellowship and pay him full salary during that period. Departments then submit their nominations, which are considered by a selection committee, comprising representatives of the university, the Department of the Treasury and the Public Service Board.
  3. Co-ordination of typists-in-training activities is solely a matter for the board.
  4. In the field of government administration the training of all Colombo Plan and United Nations fellows is co-ordinated by the board, and training programmes are arranged in appropriate Commonwealth and State departments, statutory authorities and local government bodies.
  5. (i) All in-service training programmes are designed with the broad objective of promoting greater efficiency in the service. The scope of training programmes, both board’s and departmental training, is based essentially on the needs of officers at various levels and throughout all stages of their careers. In general, training programmes aim ‘to improve an officer’s knowledge, skills and attitudes, as well as to prepare staff for higher responsibilities according to their aptitudes and talent.
  6. to (v) The scope and curriculum of courses for officers selected to undertake university work at both undergraduate and post-graduate levels are set down by the particular university attended. For short courses, the scope and curriculum vary with the course chosen and range over a wide field such as draughtsmanship, data processing and work simplificataion.
  7. Typists-in-training courses are designed to provide a general training in the skills of typing - 30 to 35 words a minute - and shorthand - 80 words a minute - in the shortest possible time.
  8. Colombo Plan and United Nations’ training is based on the specific needs as expressed in the nomination papers submitted to the board. In general, visiting fellows are nominated individually or in small groups to undertakea specific training course, as well as training on the job.

  9. Section 17 of the Public Service Act is the board’s authority for all these educational and training -activities affecting the service as a whole. Colombo Plan training activities stem from the original agreement entered into by the countries participating in the Colombo Plan; the general level of training activities is determined by the Department of External Affairs and provided for in the annual Estimates submitted to Parliament each year.

    1. None at present.
    2. The board’s -annualreports give an account of its training and educational activities during each financial -year. Special training publications include: -
    1. Programmes for each training course conducted; (2)Training handbooks,of which the following are now available: -

Career Service.

Correspondence.

Operation of the Registry.

Records and Archives Management.

Serving the Public.

Better Teaching (a handbook for guest lecturers).

Tricks of the Trade (a handbook for typists).

Work Improvement.

Training Officers’ Guide.

  1. ‘Documents ona wide variety of subjects in the general field of Public Service management;
  2. O. and M. Manual - for practising O. and M. officers.

Notifications are published in the “Commonwealth Gazette” from time to time covering the specific scholarships and educational schemes.

  1. (i) As thetraining section is an integral part of the board’s organization, a separate statement of all costs ‘for the section’s activities is not available. However, the direct costs, including salaries of full-time training staff, for in-service training and associated activity have been obtained for a sample number of years over the period mentioned, to -enable the trend of expenditure to be understood. These costs are -
  1. to (v) Detailed costs of the board’ s educationalscheme are not avaliable before 1951. Since then actual expenditures by the board have been -
  1. Costs of the typists-in-training ‘schemes are not available before 1956. Since then the -expenditures by the board have been-

  1. Colombo Plan training activities are financed from Colombo Plan funds through the Department of External Affairs. (See (c) for details of salaries in 1959-60.)

    1. No training or educational activity is conducted specially for the board’s staff. The board’s officers participate, on the same basis as those of departments, in the training programme provided annually by the board for the Commonwealth Service as a whole.
    2. See previous answers. In addition to the scholarship and other schemes administered by the board, use is made of such institutions as the Australian Administrative Staff College, the Melbourne University Summer School of Business Administration, short courses of the Australian Institute of Management, technical colleges, institutes of technology, Ac. The Australian National University has provided fellowships which have been available to members of the Commonwealth Public Service and overseas fellowships made available by the Fulbright, Harkness, Carnegie, Rockefeller and other foundations have also been used. The board also determines the conditions governing the award of a number of cadetships in various university faculties. The type of cadetship, number selected in 1959-60 and the number of cadets in training at 30th June, 1960, are detailed on page 14 of the Public Service Board’s thirty-sixth report

The board also has an overall responsibility for determining conditions of, and administering Commonwealth Service cadetships. Actual daytoday administration of the cadets-in-training is, however a function of those individual departments which have the board’s approval for cadetships in their respective organizations.

Most of the currently approved cadetships are provided for purposes of training in professional designations and require completion of a university degree or a recognized technical college diploma as part of the approved course. Cadetships in all fields of engineering are regularly available in the Postmaster-General’s Department and the Departments of Civil Aviation, Supply and Works. Cadetships requiring completion of a science or allied degree or diploma are normally available in the following departments for the fields of study indicated -

Health- Biochemistry.

Supply - Chemistry, physics and other fields relating to defence science.

Interior - Meteorology and surveying.

Primary Industry- Veterinary science.

In addition to these a variety of cadetships in other departments provide for completion of professional qualifications in the following areas: -

Works - Architecture and quantity surveying.

Health- Medicine.

National Development - Geology and geophysics.

Territories - Agriculture.

Attorney-General’s - Science or engineering as relating to examination of patents.

Cadetships not in the specifically technical fields, but which require completion of a specified degree or diploma, include-

  1. Cadet education officers in the Commonwealth Office of Education who are required to have or obtain a degree in any one of a number of faculties and to complete a diploma of education;
  2. Cadets (Statistics) who are required to complete an honours degree in one or more of the fields of statistics, mathematics or economics, together with departmental training and instruction in the Bureau of Census and Statistics; and
  3. Cadets (Agricultural Economics) who as from the beginning of 1961 are being recruited for the division of Agricultural Economics, Department of Primary Industry, to complete a degree course in agricultural economics or a directly related field together with departmental training and instruction.
  4. Recruitment to position of cadet (Personnel) and cadet draftsman has now ceased, although there are still cadets in training.

The types of cadetships available, the number selected in 1959-60 and the number of cadetsintraining at the 30th June, 1960, are detailed on page 14 of the Public Service Board’s Thirty-sixth Report.

Repatriation Department

  1. In the New South Wales, Victorian and Queensland regions of this department training schools have been established at repatriation general hospitals for the training of student nurses. At repatriation general hospitals in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia, schools also exist for the training of nursing aides.
  2. The function of the nursing training schools in repatriation general hospitals is to prepare student nurses through lectures, demonstrations and practical experience to fulfil the conditions laid down by the State Nurses Registration Board to qualify for the General Nurses Certificate. The course is of three years’ duration in Victoria and Queensland, four years in New South Wales. The function of the Nursing Aide Training School is to prepare student nursing aides through lecture and practical experience to fulfil the conditions laid down by the State Nurses Registration Board to qualify for registration as nursing aide. The course is of twelve months’ duration in all States. As at 30th September,1960, the staff and student strength of each institution was -
  1. Training schools for nurses were established in Victoria and New South Wales in 1948, in Western Australia in 1949 and in Queensland in 1951. The Western Australian school which catered solely for male nurses was closed in March, 1960. Training schools for nursing aides were established in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia in 1959. Of the total costs of repatriation general hospitals involved in the training of nurses and nursing aides, the amounts allocated from the training vote for the year ended 30th June, 1960, were -
  1. The syllabus and conditions of training for nurses and nursing aides are laid down by the State nurses’ boards. These boards also register hospitals as recognized training institutions, inspect training and examine candidates for final registration as a trained general nurse or nursing aide.
  2. The curriculum is planned in relation to the syllabus laid down by the State Nurses’ Board. Within the institution, a tutor sister, who is responsible to the matron, is responsible for the training of nurses and nursing aides. Staff assistance is provided according to the training responsibility and student strength. General administration is the responsibility of the Branch Training Officer, and policy matters are determined by the Central Training Unit in conjunction with the Principal Medical Officer.
  3. The Nurses’ registration acts and regulations as passed by the various State Parliaments, govern the training of nurses and nursing aides.
  4. The department has not endowed outside research bodies to carry out assignments directly related to the education of nurses or nursing aides in repatriation general hospitals. The colleges of nursing do, however, carry out research into this aspect and the department is kept informed of their activities. Departmental research in this field has been limited to recruitment, selection and wastage matters.
  5. The annual report of the Repatriation Com mission to Parliament contains information on the department’s educational activities carried out during the period of the report.
  6. The training of nurses in repatriation institutions did not commence until 1948 in Victoria and New South Wales, 1949 in Western Australia and 1951 in Queensland. Nursing aide training commenced in 1959. Costs of each of these courses for the years since the establishment of the training are not readily available.
  7. Normal in-service training. Specialized courses includeeffective letter writing,public relations, typing and shorthand improvement, dictation techniques, efficient reading, techniques of work simplification, clinical meetings, conferences, Post-graduate week-ends and short courses cater for the training needs of the professional, semiprofessional and technical staff groups.

  8. Particular scholarships granted to the department are -

    1. Four places at the College of Nursing, Australia, and the New South Wales College of Nursing for departmental nursing sisters to study for the Tutor Sisters’ Diploma, certificate course in Ward Management and the Diploma of Nursing Administration.
    2. One place at the University of New South Wales to undertake the certificate course in Hospital Administration.

Department of Social Services.

  1. (i) Nil.
  2. Normal in-service training. Specialized courses for stenographers, correspondence clerks, counter staff, unemployment and sickness benefits assessors, pensions examiners.
  3. Nil.

Department of Supply.

  1. (0 Nil.
  2. Normal in-service training. Specialized courses in work simplification, safety, dictation techniques and correspondence, improved reading methods, engineering supply cataloguing, TWI programmes in departmental factories. Apprenticeships are available.
  3. Since 1948, the department has conducted a training programme whereby a number of professional officers have been sent overseas for training and experience not available in Australia, which has direct application to the activities of the department. Generally, the selected officers - approximately twelve per year - have been sent to the United Kingdom and attached for a period of one year, occasionally two years, to research establishments, including universities and, in some cases, to commercial undertakings. Cadetships in mechanical, electrical, electronic, metallurgical, chemical and aeronautical engineering, chemistry and defence science are offered.

Taxation Branch.

  1. (i) Nil.
  2. Normal in-service training. Specialized courses in income tax assessing, investigation, instalment inspection.
  3. Cadetships in valuation are offered.

Department of Territories.

  1. (i) Fifteen public schools in the Northern Territory.

    1. Seventeen special primary schools for semiprimitive aboriginal children in the Northern Territory.
    2. Australian School of Pacific Administration.
    3. (i) Provision of general education of children to secondary standard; 120; 3380. (ii) Provision of special form of primary education for semi-primitive aboriginal children; 36; 883. (iii) Provision of training courses required for work in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea and the Northern Territory; 16 full time- total of 428 during1960, most of whom attended short orientation courses for work in Papua and New Guinea.
    4. (i) £254,984 in 1959-60, excluding capital works expenditure; 1877- Commonwealth responsibility since 1911. (ii) £36,441 in 1959-60, excluding capital works and services and teachers’ salaries; 1950. (iii) £41,380 in 1959-60; 1946- formerly Army School of Civil Affairs, established 1945.
  2. (i) Only co-ordination required is with South Australian Education Department. This department staffs the schools and supervises their operation (ii.) Not applicable, (iii) Coordination with the New South Wales Department of Education, which provides part of the courses for trainee teachers and cadet education officers given at the school is primarily the responsibility of the Principal.
  3. (i) The curriculum of the South Australian Education Department is followed; Supervisor of Education for the Northern Territory, an officer appointed by the South Australian Education Department, (ii) A special syllabus designed for the schools by the Commonwealth Office of Education is followed. This is. adjusted as required by. the. Northern Territory Welfare Branch; Director of Welfare, under the direction of the Administrator. (iii) The courses and curricula are planned by the School Council, which has the function of. advising the Minister on this; the Principal of the School (0 (i) Education Ordinance 1957-1959. (ii)

Welfare Ordinance 1953-1960. (iii) Papua and New Guinea Act 1949-1960. Australian School of Pacific Administration Regulations.

  1. No special research agency has been established within the department or for its purposes. Research related to the policies and functions of the department is carried out in the normal course of administration as required.
  2. (i) and (ii) Northern Territory annual reports, (iii) None. (i)-
  1. Normal in-service training.
  2. (a) Northern Territory students who live more than 10 miles from the nearest school are eligible for a boarding allowance of £80 per annum plus an annual return, fare. There are also twelve intermediate bursaries awarded, each year, valued at £40 per annum, book allowances for all junior secondary students of £8 per annum, and £9 per annum for post-intermediate students. Since the beginning of this year, twelve leaving honours scholarships per annum are being granted to Territory students wishing to undertake a leaving honours year in South Australia. The scholarships, which are competitive, are awarded on the results of the South Australian leaving certificate examination. The leaving honours scholarships are additional to the present boarding allowance of £80 per annum, and are valued at £50 per annum, subject to a means test. The Commonwealth also meets the cost of one return air fare, NorthernTerritory-Adelaide, per student per annum. (b) Up to three free places in the Australian School of Pacific Administration are offered each year to qualified mission teachers from Papua and New Guinea to enable them to undertake a teacher training course.

Department of Trade.

  1. to (i) Nil.
  2. Normal in-servicetraining.
  3. Nil.

Department of the Treasury.

  1. to (i) Nil.
  2. Normal in-service training.
  3. Cadetships in statistics are offered.

Department of Works.

  1. to (i) Nil.
  2. Normal in-service training; specialized courses in work simplification, communications, staff reporting, safety, public relations. Apprenticeships are available.
  3. Cadetships are offered in architecture, civil, mechanical and electrical’ engineering and quantity surveying.

War Service Homes

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

What are the (a) dates, and (b) texts of ministerial directions issued under section 20 of the War Service Homes Act?

Mr Roberton:
CP

– The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answer to the honorable member’s question: -

The texts of ministerial directions relating to section 20 (1.) of the War Service Homes Act which are still in force and the dates on which they were given are as follows: -

An advance is not to be made to discharge an existing mortgage-, charge or encumbrance unless that mortgage or charge has been arranged with the prior approval of the War Service Homes Division. Exceptions to this instruction have been approved in circumstances such as the following: -

Where a widow to whom a home has been transferred on the death of her husband is unable, from her reduced income, to meet the obligations under a mortgage entered into by her husband’ before his death, and

Where an applicant, after entering into a private mortgage, suffers a considersiderable: permanent reduction in his income due to illness: or some other cause beyond his control and cannot meet the obligations under that mortgage.

When the War Service Homes Act was amended in 1951 the- opportunity was taken to clarify, amongst other things, the legal position regarding ministerial policy directions relating to the making of advances under section 20 (1.) of. the act. On 29th November, 1951, the. then Minister directed that, as from the date that the amending act came into operation, the policy set out above, regarding the discharge of an existing mortgage, charge or encumbrance, should be adopted. Subsequent Ministers have- each affirmed this policy.

Assistance is not to be given to members of the Citizen Military Forces or to members of the Women’s Services unless they actually served outside Australia. This direction was given by the then Minister administering the War Service Homes Act, on 17th December, 1948. The policy implemented under the direction has been affirmed by each successive Minister since that time.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

r asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

  1. Are applications involving most exceptional circumstances sometimes received for a second War Service Homes loan, or for the transfer of an existing loan from one house to a house in another district? 2’. Have the rules governing these applications been so tightened in the last three or four years that now second loans are granted only to totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen and people in like case?
  2. Is one reason for this the provision in the act which requires that when a property is sold the department has to pay the proceeds into the National Debt Sinking Fund and so that amount is lost to it for ever, thus meaning that if the department financed an ex-serviceman in the purchase ofa second house it would have to use part of its current grant to do so at the expense of refusing a loan to some other serviceman who has not had a loan at all?
  3. Will consideration be given to amending the act so that where a serviceman is required by exceptional circumstances to transfer his residence from one district to another the department will be enabled to apply the proceeds of the sale of the first house towards a loan to the serviceman towards the cost of the second house, thus involving no additional or new expenditure by the War Service Homes Division?
Mr Roberton:
CP

– The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answers to the honorable member’s questions: -

  1. Requests are received from ex-servicemen who have been provided with a war service home for a second loan under the act, in respect of another property.
  2. The act prohibits, except with the approval of the Minister, the granting of assistance to any one eligible person in respect of more than one property. In conformity with the intention of the act, which is to provide an eligible person with one home only, it has never been the practice to consider applications for the transfer of an existing loan to another home and applications for second loans have been considered only in exceptional circumstances. This policy was reviewed and affirmed by the Government in 1956 when it was decided that the granting of second loans would be limited to cases of grave emergency.
  3. As stated in 2 above the policy is based on the intention of the act which was to assist an applicant in respect of only one home. It was never the intention to provide an ex-serviceman with a. fund which he could use to finance the acquisition of more than one home.
  4. Having regard to the provisions and intention of the act and to the policy followed by all governments since the inception of the war service homes scheme it is not considered that it would be desirable to amend the act on the lines suggested.

Melbourne Airport

Mr Pollard:

d asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

  1. What is the (a) cost and (b) area of land already acquired for the Tullamarine jet airport project?
  2. How many acquisitions have been completed and paid for?
  3. To what companies, estates and individuals have final payments been made?
  4. On what date were those payments made, and what area, to the nearest acre, was involved in each case?
  5. What is the estimated cost of all land acquisitions deemed necessary for the airport project?
Mr Freeth:
Minister for the Interior · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

  1. An area of 3,273 acres has already been acquired at a cost of £1,581,200.
  2. Twenty-two separate holdings have been acquired and paid for.
  3. and 4. The information asked for is set out in the schedule below: -
  4. £2,600,000 is the estimated cost of acquiring all the land deemed necessary for the airport.

Defence Supplies

Mr Stewart:

t asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Government and contractors to the Government have placed, and are placing, orders overseas for the following goods: - Guns, shells, ammunition, cordage, webbing, tapes, threads, parachutes, dinghies and underwater equipment?
  2. If so (a) What quantities of these goods have been supplied and what orders are still oustanding? (b) Are any other items of defence equipment being obtained from overseas sources? (c) Are any of these goods available from Australian manufacturers and have many of them been previously obtained from these manufacturers?
  3. What was the value of defence equipment obtained from overseas during 1959-60, and during the current financial year to the latest date for which figures are available?
Mr Hulme:
Minister for Supply · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is the Government’s policy to buy defence equipment in Australia wherever it is practicable and desirable to do so. The services may place orders overseas for specific items of equipment where there are significant economies in doing so and where there is no over-riding defence reason for it to be produced in Australia. It is not considered appropriate to give publicly detailed information on all the items mentioned.

Royal Australian Navy

Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

  1. How frequently is the diving equipment used by naval “ frogmen “ checked to ensure that it is in good condition?
  2. Is it customary for these men to operate alone?
  3. If so, does this practice expose these men to unnecessary risk?
  4. Could the danger be minimized by providing that the number operating together should never be less than two, thus ensuring a prompt alarm being given should an emergency arise due to faulty equipment?
Mr Freeth:
LP

– The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answers: - 1. (a) The equipment to be used in a diving operation is invariably assembled, checked and tested by the diver who is to use the equipment. It is further checked by the supervisor in charge of the diving operation immediately before use, and is again checked and examined immediately after use. Cb) All diving equipment in current use is examined and tested weekly, in addition to those tests in (a) above, (c) Individual components of the apparatus are further tested periodically in accordance with maintenance specifications prepared by the manufacturer, the frequency of these tests will vary for each component, (d) In addition to the above, every item of diving equipment and breathing apparatus, whether in current use or in store, is surveyed annually by a qualified diving officer to ensure its suitability for operational use. 2. (a) With the exception of the circumstance described in paragraph (d) under, all divers are connected with the surface by lifeline: they are not necessarily accompanied by another diver actually in the water, (b) The lifeline is normally attended on the surface by an attendant, who is invariably a qualified diver, or in the case of a particular operation, the lifeline is attached to a float which is kept under surveillance by the attendant, (c) In addition to the “ attendant “, a second diver is kept dressed in diving gear and immediately ready for diving whenever a diver is down, and a second attendant is provided for this “ stand-by “ diver. A qualified diving officer supervises the diving operation, (d) The exception referred to above is the occasion when divers are “ free swimming “, i.e. without lifeline, but in this circumstance they are in company with a second diver and attached to him by a “buddyline”.

  1. It will be seen that, in order to send one diver down, a total of one diving officer and four divers are required, and ‘.his number ensures the maximum degree of safety and least risk to the diver under water. The diver is, of course, in constant communication with the surface through his lifeline which, by a laid down code of signals, relays all the diver’s requirements. 4. (a) The regulations provide that the attendant on the surface checks frequently that the diver is all right. The frequency of checking provides that there would be sufficient time to bring the diver to the surface, on his lifeline, in the event of a failure of which the diver was unable to give warning, (b) The precaution against a failure of which a diver can give warning is the provision of the stand-by diver: in the event of, say, the diver becoming fouled on an underwater object the stand-by can be sent to free him immediately, (c) There is, therefore, no advantage to be gained in having a second diver in the water, but much to be gained by having him rested and with full supply of air, ready on the surface.

General Remarks.

  1. The regulations provide that a diver is always medically examined before being permitted to dive. Furthermore, regulations provide that a diver who has not had the prescribed minimum period under water within one month must undergo a refresher course before again diving operationally.
  2. The regulations governing diving operations have been compiled after a great deal of operational experience by the Navy with a view to ensuring the maximum safety of the diver, and it is considered that no circumstance has been overlooked. Practices in emergency procedures and drills are an integral part of divers’ training and are thoroughly undergone before an operational dive takes place.

Australian Forces in Malaya

Mr Ward:

d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. How much longer is it anticipated that it will be necessary to retain Australian armed forces in Malaya?
  2. Has the Government determined the point of time at which it will be considered that the Malayan Government should accept the full responsibility of maintaining order in the area under its control?
  3. What contribution is made by the Malayan Government towards the cost of maintaining the

Australian forces which are performing a service which normally should be a charge upon the revenues of the local government?

Mr Menzies:
LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

  1. Australian forces, in conjunction with United Kingdom and New Zealand forces, are stationed in Malaya under arrangements agreed with the Government of the Federation of Malaya in 1957; these arrangements continue at the desire of the Federation and other Commonwealth governments concerned. The retention of these forces in the area depends on circumstances as assessed by the governments concerned from time to time.
  2. On attaining independence in 1957, the Malayan Government accepted full responsibility for the maintenance of public order within its territory. In view, however, of the particular security threat with which it was faced, the Federation Government sought the continued assistance of Commonwealth forces in operations against the Communist terrorists remaining in the area of the border between Malaya and Thailand.
  3. The Australian Government accepts the additional cost involved in maintaining these forces in Malaya compared with their maintenance cost in Australia.

Employment

Mr Daly:

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

  1. How many (a) men and (b) women are registered for work in (a) each State and (b) Australia?
  2. What are the occupations of those registered in each case?
Mr McMahon:
Minister for Labour and National Service · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

  1. The number of adult males and adult females registered for employment with the Commonwealth Employment Service in each State and in Austrafia at 24th February, 1961, was -

These were persons who claimed when registering that they were not employed and who were recorded as unplaced at the date shown. They include persons - (i) who, since registering, had been referred to employers, but whose placement had notbeen confirmed at 24th February; (ii) who, since registering, may ‘have obtained employment without notifying the Commonwealth Employment Service; and (iii) receiving unemployment benefit.

  1. The distribution of the adult males and females registered for employment at 24th February, 1961, in the occupational groups in which they were seeking employment was -

Mulkara Anti-tank Missile

Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice -

Has the Malkara anti-tank missile been adopted for use bythe Australian forces?

Mr Cramer:
LP

– “The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

No.Studies currently being made by the Department of Supply and the Army including firings of inert missiles at “Puckapunyal, “Victoria, do not imply any alteration to my previous statements that the Army does ‘not at present propose to adopt Malkara.

Government Loans and Finance

Mr Ward:

d asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What Australian Government loans have been floated overseas in each of the last three years?
  2. What percentage of the amount sought in each instance was left with the underwriters?
Mr Harold Holt:
LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

  1. The following loans have been floated overseas by the Commonwealth Government since 31st December, 1957: -
(2.) AH cash loans, and the February, 1958, conversion loan, were fully subscribed. The three following conversion loans raised in London were not fully subscribed: -

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 11 April 1961, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1961/19610411_reps_23_hor30/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant