House of Representatives
17 May 1961

23rd Parliament · 3rd Session

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

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

page 1973

PETITIONS

Education

Mr. ASTON presented a petition from certain electors of the Commonwealth praying that the House will -

  1. make immediately a substantial federal emergency grant to all State governments for education services and
  2. set up a national committee of in quiry patterned on the Murray committee to investigate and report on the needs of primary, secondary and technical education throughout Australia.

Petition received and read.

Canberra Rentals

Mr. J. R. FRASER presented a petition from certain citizens of the Australian Capital Territory praying that the Government will take immediate action to defer the rental increases on government-owned dwellings in Canberra and immediately promote an inquiry into rentals in relation to costs of living in Canberra and the need for the establishment of a Canberra basic wage.

Petition received.

Mr. J. R. FRASER also presented a petition from certain citizens of the Australian Capital Territory praying that the Government will take immediate action to defer the implementation of rental increases of government-owned dwellings in Canberra and conduct an inquiry into Canberra rentals at which evidence may be taken both from individuals and from community organizations.

Petition received.

page 1973

QUESTION

COMMEMORATIVE POSTAGE STAMPS

Mr RUSSELL:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the PostmasterGeneral whether he has done anything yet about the issue of a commemorative postage stamp to honour the late A. B. - Banjo - Paterson, and whether he will give early consideration to issuing a stamp in honour of Mrs. Aeneas Gunn, who is still living, and whose book, “ We of the Never Never “, is as popular with the children of to-day as it was with their grandparents.

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

– I have not considered either of the two proposals put forward by the honorable member for Grey. 1 shall do so and advise him of the result at a later date.

page 1973

SALE OF NAVY MINESWEEPERS

Mr ASTON:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 ask the Minister for Supply whether it is a fact that the Federal Government has repudiated a contract entered into with Japanese interests for the purchase and scrapping of eight former Royal Australian Navy minesweepers.

Mr HULME:
Minister for Supply · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– On 6th January last, my department entered into a contract of sale covering eight surplus minesweepers to the firm of Kinishota (Australia) Proprietary Limited. The offer of the company to the Department of Supply was to purchase these surplus craft from the Commonwealth, the ships to be removed from Sydney Harbour on or before 6th April. 1961. In its offer, the company indicated that, the ships would be taken to Japan to be scrapped, or, if the Commonwealth Government permitted, the ships would be scrapped at Darwin and exported to Japan as scrap. Clearly, there was in the offer from the company an appreciation by the company of a requirement, if the price offered was acceptable to the Department of Supply, to obtain appropriate approvals to scrap the ships at Darwin should this become the buyer’s desire. Requisite approvals covering this latter question are matters for the Minister for Territories.

Insofar as the Department of Supply is concerned, the monetary offer of the firm has been accepted and the purchase price paid.

Mr Uren:

– I rise to order. Is this a question without notice, or a question of which notice has been given, and is the Minister reading from a prepared speech?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The matter is quite clearly covered by the Standing

Orders. A question may be directed by any honorable member to a Minister provided it complies with the Standing Orders. As to the form of the reply, that is a matter entirely in the hands of the Minister. However, I think there are occasions when replies given by Ministers might be more suitably made in the form of ministerial statements.

Mr HULME:

– This matter has assumed some public importance, and I suggest that good staff work has produced this sort of answer. The company has on two occasions sought my help in having the date of clearance of the ships from Sydney extended. After collaboration with the Royal Australian Navy I have already extended the clearance date to 6th June, 1961, and now have before me for consideration a request to extend the date to 1st August, 1961.

As is the case in all such sales, the purchaser must not only pay the agreed price but also meet the requirements of all relevant governmental authorities, such as the harbour authorities at Sydney, with respect to the clearance of the ships, and, in this case, the requirements of the Department of Territories with respect to either anchorage or scrapping at Darwin. The terms of the contract itself grant no dispensation in this connexion.

page 1974

QUESTION

INVALID PENSIONS

Mr MAKIN:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister foi Social Services whether he will sanction his department’s examining during the recess the possibility of a scheme for extending the provisions of the invalid pensions legislation to enable partially invalided persons, with 60 per cent, or more but less than 85 per cent, incapacity - the latter being the percentage of incapacity at present accepted as qualifying a person for an invalid pension - to receive a pension in accordance with the degree of their invalidity; At this stage, I do not ask the Minister to make a policy statement on the matter. I merely suggest that the proposal be examined before the Budget session. As can be readily understood, persons so afflicted experience tremendous difficulty in securing suitable employment.

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

– I can assure the honorable member that suggestions such as the one he has just made are considered carefully by the Government from time to time. It is true that at present a physical incapacity, on medical advice, of not less than 85 per cent, is necessary before the invalid pension is paid. In my own experience, any physical incapacity which can be described on medical advice to be in excess of 60 per cent, almost invariably reaches 85 per cent.

page 1974

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question to the Postmaster-General relates to frequency modulation broadcasts. Is it a fact that for about fourteen years what has been called an experimental system of frequency modulation broadcasting has been in operation in most capital cities, transmitting one of the normal Australian Broadcasting Commission programmes? Is it a fact that this system is greatly appreciated by an increasing number of discriminating listeners because it eliminates background noises and gives far more faithful transmission than does the normal system? Is it a fact that for this reason a substantial number of people have gone to the expense of installing appropriate receiving sets? Is the honorable gentleman aware that his announcement that these broadcasts will be discontinued after 30th June has left many people with the impression that the technical reasons given for this decision are not sufficiently convincing, and that there is no adequate reason why such broadcasts should not be continued with not very extensive technical modifications?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member should direct his question.

Mr TURNER:

– I shall do so in one sentence. Is this matter receiving further consideration?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– I have already offered to discuss this matter with the honorable member for Bradfield and others in greater detail than can be done at question time. I replied to a question on this matter in the House last week. The position briefly is that these experimental programmes which have been transmitted by the frequency modulation system for some time from four of the capital cities are on a band which it has been decided can be better utilized in the extension of our television services. That is the reason for the decision to which the honorable member has referred. However, I shall be glad to give him further information at an opportune time.

page 1975

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. As the Government’s latest economic policy seems designed not only to halt inflation but also to promote deflation, with a consequential inevitable increase in the number of unemployed, will the right honorable gentleman arrange for the introduction of legislation to increase substantially the unemployment benefit which has remained unchanged since 19S7? Will the Parliament be given the opportunity to pass this legislation this month?

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– The matter referred to is clearly one of Treasury and financial policy. Therefore, I do not propose to say anything about it now.

page 1975

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Primary Industry give any further information concerning the sale of wheat to mainland China? What I particularly want to know is whether the purchases are being made in such huge quantities because of a famine in China or because of the huge stocks available for sale by the Australian Wheat Board. Has the Government guaranteed payment in the case of default?

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

– The honorable member has asked me whether there is a famine in mainland China and whether that is the reason for some of the sales of wheat that have been made to China by the Australian Wheat Board. My information is that there is considerable shortage of food in mainland China and that would contribute substantially to the very large orders for wheat that have been lodged by China with both Australia and Canada. This has been a windfall for the Australian wheat industry as we would have had an excessive surplus of wheat if that market had not become available. In reply to the second part of the honorable member’s question, I inform him that the Commonwealth Government has given no guarantee to the Australian Wheat Board. As I have said in this House before, it is a matter for the

Wheat Board to make commercial sales as it deems them desirable.

page 1975

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr MINOGUE:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Is the Minister aware that certain provisions of the Stevedoring Industry Bill 1961, which was recently passed by this House, provide, among other things, that the labour of waterside workers should be used to the best advantage-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I remind the honorable member that a question on proceedings that have taken place in the House during the current session is out of order.

Mr MINOGUE:

– Then I will continue from there. In view of the Minister’s support for these provisions-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member is out of order.

Mr MINOGUE:

– Coming to finality, I ask this question: Will the Minister for Labour and National Service confer with the Minister for Health regarding legislation which is to be introduced or should be introduced concerning the British Medical Association whose members have been advised by the president of the New South Wales branch of that body not to apply for appointment to the Sydney City Council should any position become vacant? Furthermore-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable gentleman is again out of order. He is directing a question on a matter for which the Minister is not responsible to this House. I ask the honorable member to be more precise.

Mr MINOGUE:

– For your guidance, Mr. Speaker, would it not be of interest to this House if the British Medical Association

Mr SPEAKER:

-It would be very interesting; but it would be of more interest to the House if we complied with the Standing Orders. I ask the honorable member to resume his seat.

page 1975

QUESTION

TEXTILES

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Trade aware that since the introduction of

Commonwealth legislation on textile labelling there have been some flagrant examples of the flouting of the act? In explanation, I state that a number of goods labelled “ all wool “ have been found to contain 15 to 25 per cent, of synthetics, and one well-known Sydney retailer recently sold a garment labelled “ pure wool “ which was in effect pure orion. Is the Minister aware also that some retailers have been known to cut the labels off garments? Is the Department of Trade co-operating with the Australian Wool Bureau in seeing that appropriate action is taken to enforce the law in such cases?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– I confess that I am a little out of date on the general question of textile labelling. While I was Minister for Commerce and Agriculture a good many years ago, I was concerned with it; but my recollection is that in the federal sphere this matter is administered by the Minister for Customs and Excise. The position is quite complex because the law in respect of articles produced in Australia is State legislation. However, on the information that the honorable member has given the House in his question, I shall be glad to take the matter up with the Australian Wool Bureau, with my colleague the Minister for Customs and Excise if he proves to have responsibility in the matter, and with the Minister for Primary Industry, who will have a very great interest in it.

page 1976

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr BIRD:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the credit squeeze was imposed in order to reduce our overseas indebtedness and to check the rise in internal prices? If those were the objectives, how can they be reconciled with the results achieved, having in mind that our overseas indebtedness is noW greater than ever and that internal prices for basic goods are still rising?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think the honorable member is now giving information.

Mr BIRD:

– Will the Treasurer explain this paradox in the Government’s economic policy?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– The suggested facts upon which the honorable member’s question is based are incorrect. The question invites me to explain the Government’s economic policies. I point out that anexplanation of those policies has been given in detail in this House by the Prime Minister, by me and by other members of the Government on several occasions during, the current sessional period. I invite the honorable member to study those statements and also the statements that we shall make from time to time as our economic circumstances change.

page 1976

QUESTION

REPATRIATION TRIBUNALS

Mr CHIPP:
HIGINBOTHAM, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Repatriation read a series of articles in the journal “ Mufti “, which is the official publication of ‘the Victorian branch of the Returned Servicemen’s League, written by an officer of that branch and strongly criticizing the administration of the Repatriation Department, particularly for its application of the onus-of-proof provisionsof the Repatriation Act? Does the Minister see any substance in the criticisms or any part of them, and has he considered the suggestion made by the author of the articles that a special committee of inquiry should be established?

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Repatriation · EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have read these articles. They make a number of generalized criticisms of my department, quite unsupported by any facts. I can tell the honorable member, on the highest authority, that they do not represent the considered views of the executive of the Returned Servicemen’s League in Victoria, and that they were not authorized by the Victorian branch of the league. Although they have appeared in an official publication, they apparently represent only the personal views of the author.

This kind of criticism overlooks one very important fact. It is directed really at the members of repatriation boards, the commission and the various appeal tribunals, and it charges them, by implication at any rate, with lack of sympathy and with irresponsibility in the discharge of their duties. The criticism overlooks the fact that all members of these bodies - the boards, the commission and the appeal tribunals - are themselves returned servicemen, many of whom have personally suffered very severely. It also overlooks the fact that, in accordance with the Repatriation Act, every board and every appeal -tribunal must have one member appointed from panels of names submitted by exservicemen’s organizations. I can quite sincerely defend the members of these bodies against such charges, and I have no intention of appointing a committee to inquire into these matters as suggested by the author of the articles.

page 1977

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Mr SPEAKER:

– J call the honorable member for Kennedy.

Mr Curtin:

– I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I humbly suggest thai you make a thorough scrutiny of the list of questioners that you have before you. I fear you have overlooked my name.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no point of order involved.

page 1977

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr RIORDAN:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask the Minister for Labour and National Service a question regarding employment in Queensland. Is the Minister aware that although the meat-works have commenced operations and some seasonal workers who were out of work are now employed, the whole of the northern and western parts of the State have missed the usual mon.soonal rains and there has been a serious drying off of the cattle lands on the northern coastal strip? Also is he aware that the meat season could be the shortest on record, and that it will be followed by a record seasonal slack period?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member should put his question.

Mr RIORDAN:

– I ask the Minister what works, if any, are planned to commence immediately the meat season in Queensland ends so that a repetition of last season’s slack, with its unprecedented number of unemployed, will be prevented. I ask this question as the meat season will finish in ten or twelve weeks’ time.

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I was aware that there would probably be a short meat season and that .there had been difficult climatic conditions in Queensland. I think the honorable gentleman knows that the Queensland Government is well aware of these facts, too, and is, I believe, taking remedial action now to ensure that the unemployment position there does not deteriorate at the end of the meat and sugar harvesting and milling seasons.

page 1977

QUESTION

TIMBER

Sir EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization a question. Have any minimum standards for imported Oregon been set by the Standards Association of Australia? ‘ If so, are these standards rigidly enforced? If no standards have been set, will the Minister request the Standards Association to publish appropriate grading rules for imported oregons?

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am sorry I cannot give the right honorable gentleman a detailed answer off the cuff, but I will obtain the information for him and let him have it.

page 1977

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Does the Government regard as serious the alarming increase in unemployment now taking place in the Newcastle and coal-fields areas? What action is the Government taking to alleviate the position? Does the Government regard as more satisfactory the payment of the dole to unemployed than their employment? Has the Prime Minister seen a newspaper supplement produced by the “ Newcastle Morning Herald “ last week on the industrial development survey of the Hunter River islands, which illustrates the vast industrial potential there, if funds were available for development? Will the Prime Minister make available for a conference at Newcastle with members representing the area and surrounding electorates a Minister or departmental heads to ascertain whether the Government can directly assist in the restoration of full employment in the area in view of the work that could be carried out?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I have not seen the newspaper article referred to by the honorable member. The other matters raised by him are, of course, under close examination by the Government.

page 1978

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr PEARCE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Postmaster-General. Is the honorable gentleman aware that his department from time to time issues, on application, permission for persons and firms to include in their mail, as a matter of . courtesy, reply-paid envelopes on which the postage is collected on return of the envelope? Is he aware that, although the department has issued many thousands of these authorities, it has not yet issued one to itself? Will he therefore consider permitting members of his staff to send reply-paid envelopes when they seek information which would be of value to themselves from persons and firms amongst the public?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– At present, no authority exists under the Post and Telegraph Act or the relevant regulations which would enable a person to send a letter to the department without prepaying the postage. However, I know that the subjectmatter of the honorable member’s question has been under consideration for some little time and an attempt is being made by the department to find a solution to the problem mentioned by him.

page 1978

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr CLAY:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Services. How many years have elapsed since the permissible earnings of civilian widows were fixed at £3 10s. a week? At what cost, if any, to the Commonwealth could this minimum of £3 10s. a week be abolished? Is the Government in its deliberations on the forthcoming Budget considering the abolition of this limitation on a widow’s right to earn income?

Mr ROBERTON:
CP

– In reply to the honorable member for St. George, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to refer him to the handbook recently issued by my department which sets out the range of increases over a term of years? The Department of Social Services is, of course, a vast department, and changes have been progressive during the last twelve years with respect to payments, in terms of pensions and allowances, and the liberalizations of the means test with respect to both income and property. It would not be possible for me. in reply to a question, to state with an/ degree of accuracy when all these changeswere made and what were the amountsinvolved.

page 1978

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that the civil service of this country has a wellestablished tradition that, irrespective of the political character of the government of the day, loyalty to the government is given in a way that transcends political considerations? If that is a fact, will the right honorable gentleman have examined the alleged statements of one, Dr. Bazeley-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member will be out of order if he pursues that line.

Mr KILLEN:

– Why, Sir?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr KILLEN:

– I am using the name only for the purpose of identification.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member will be out of order. I am warning him now. <

Mr KILLEN:

– Will the right honorable gentleman have examined the alleged statements of one who purports to be a civil servant, as they appear to represent a breach of a very fine and long-standing tradition?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I have reason to believe that this matter is engaging the attention of the Public Service authorities.

page 1978

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– My question, addressed to the Postmaster-General, relates to the employment as telephonists of young girls aged from sixteen to eighteen years, often at centres very far from their homes. Will he consider arranging that these young girls be given the authority or permission to telephone their homes at regular stated intervals, so that they may keep in touch with and allay the anxieties of parents? Does the PostmasterGeneral know that this was for many years a well-used practice in the department, even though unofficial, but’ that recently girls have been penalized or disciplined for using the telephones in this way?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– The PostmasterGeneral’s Department is always anxious to do its best for young people who are employed away from their homes. I do not know that the proposal which the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory makes would commend itself very much to the department. We think there are a lot of other things which can be done, and we do them, particularly through the provision of various officers whose task it is to look after the welfare of such persons. I will have a look at the honorable member’s suggestion and see what merit there is in it.

page 1979

QUESTION

FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that a vaccine has been produced in the United Kingdom that will give immunity from the dreaded disease, foot and mouth disease, in cattle? Are supplies of this vaccine available in Australia? If not, will the Minister make arrangements for the use of this vaccine in this country?

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– So far we have no definite information on this matter, but inquiries will be made and if a vaccine has in fact been produced and has been proved to be useful, it will be used in this country.

page 1979

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Postmaster-General, is supplementary to that asked by the honorable member for Bradfield. Does the PostmasterGeneral know that many listeners to high-fidelity recordings of concert and orchestral programmes are concerned that their opportunities to listen to programmes free of static and other interferences will now be limited because of his decision to permit television almost to monopolize the frequency modulation band? Is it a fact that his action in this matter is against the findings of the Joint Committee on Wireless Broadcasting, 1942, the Twelfth Report of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, 1 946, and the views of his own department? Is he aware that the decision to close frequency modulation broadcasting stations and to restrict the extension of this quality service has been described by eminent authorities as tragic and short-sighted? Will he now review this matter so that listeners may be assured of quality programmes free of interference?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– I am aware that some criticism has been offered by the relatively small number of people who have been listening to frequency modulation programmes. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the relatively small number of people, particularly in comparison with the great number who will be able to see television programmes as a result of the use of the same frequencies. The honorable member states in his question that this decision is against the views of my own department and against the findings of two committees of inquiry. I take leave, Mr. Speaker, to correct the honorable member for Macquarie because that is not the position. The fact is that the department fully approves the proposed action, which was recommended by the Australian Broadcasting control Board. Further, the board has held at least two inquiries, one of them public, and all the interested people were invited to attend and give evidence as to the desirability of continuing frequency modulation broadcasting. The second was a technical inquiry at the time of the board’s investigation of the last series of applications for television licences. On each occasion no very great support was given for the continuation of frequency modulation. As a matter of fact, there was a dearth of evidence from those who were actually using the medium. So it was evident, Mr. Speaker, that there would be a great deal more value to be had from the use of those frequencies in, I think, the 92-108 megacycle band for television than for frequency modulation. It has already been pointed out that at some future period if it is desired to re-introduce frequency modulation broadcasting that service can be accommodated on the ultra-high frequency instead of the very high frequency band.

page 1979

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD INQUIRIES

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I ask the

Minister for Trade: If a prima facie case is established that harm is being done to an Australian industry, how long does it take to obtain an emergency hearing by a deputy chairman of the Tariff

Board after the industry panel has prepared its documentary case and presented it? Can the Minister also say how many such cases are awaiting hearing at the present? 1 ask this question because it has been alleged in Melbourne that there are so many hearings listed that it takes as long to get an emergency hearing as it does to get a full hearing.

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– Under the system that prevails, once a prima facie case has been made out showing justification for an inquiry into a request for a temporary tariff duty there need be no delay - no delay lasting longer than it takes me to sign the document to refer the matter to the deputy chairman. Beyond that point the law requires that the deputy chairman shall make his report within 30 days. As a matter of practice, I think that there has never been more than a week between the receipt of the deputy chairman’s report and the decision. I do not think that I have ever taken a week to give the decision. There have been quite a few instances of industrial panels claiming that they have cases for reference in respect of the imposition of a temporary duty, but they have not satisfied the officers of the department and, ultimately, me. I should not like it to be thought for one moment that the officers of the department have the ultimate decision in this matter, or that any one but me is responsible for deciding whether or not to sign a reference to the deputy chairman. I accept the full responsibility for that.

There is more to it than merely asking one of the two deputy chairmen to make an inquiry into the case for temporary duty. If I were to take the most convenient political course I would refer every such case immediately, and the net result would be to clutter up the whole Tariff Board system and delay not only applications for temporary duty, but also normal inquiries. T have not taken the convenient political course of automatically sending every application to the board. I have required, as was explained to the Parliament, that the applicants should make out a genuine prima facie case before it is referred to the hoard.

page 1980

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Social Services whether there is any good ground for the present provision that the permitted earnings, for means test purposes, of civilian widows who receive the widows’ pension should be the same asthe permitted earnings of age pensioners, namely, £3 10s. per week. Has the Minister considered the possibility that the permitted earnings of such widows, especially those who have dependent children, should be greater than the permitted earnings of retired aged persons?

Mr ROBERTON:
CP

– Perhaps the honorable member for Fremantle would inform himself of the provisions of the social services legislation. What he calls the “ permitted income “ of a civilian widow with dependent children is entirely different from the permitted income of an age or invalid pensioner without children. This Government has made alterations to the income means test as applied to civilian widows, with children, that were never contemplated by any previous government. These alterations have been of the greatest value to civilian widows in terms of income deductions and increased payments for the dependent children.

page 1980

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Mr ANDERSON:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask the Treasurer a question relating to the 24-hour nation-wide strike on the waterfront. Does this action assist in any way the Government’s efforts to curb inflation and to provide full employment? Can the Minister have the cost to the nation of this strike assessed and advise the House of it later?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– There can be no question but that an overall hold-up on the waterfront is costly to the nation. From my experience as Minister for Labour and National Service, I know that in most industries there is a subsequent opportunity to make up production which is lost during a stoppage. For example, if there is a stoppage on the coal-fields, the coal can be mined on another occasion and stocks can be used to keep industry going. But a hold-up on the waterfront, particularly a general hold-up, results in a loss to the nation which can never be recovered. At a time when Australia is taking measures to increase its exports and so to maintain a proper balance of payments, this kind of action can only be classed as wasteful and stupid industrial sabotage which damages the trade unionists of this country just as it does everybody else.

page 1981

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr COSTA:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Postmaster-General aware that mail branch officers in Sydney were wrongly accused of delaying 200,000 letters on Mothers’ Day, including some Mothers’ Day greetings? Is the PostmasterGeneral aware that the reason for the delay was that insufficient man-hours were allocated by the administration to ensure a proper service? The officers of the union concerned challenge the department to hold an inquiry and to make public its findings for the benefit of mothers whose mail was delayed, thus clearing the good name of the Sydney mail branch sorters. Will the Postmaster-General see that an inquiry is held?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– Mr. Speaker. I have already informed myself about the matter to which the honorable member for Banks has referred. The position, as I know it, is that there was a slight hold-up of mail - not a very great one - owing to objection being taken by a small number of the employees to provisions which had already been agreed upon by the executive of the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union. I am satisfied that the action which was taken was unwise, andI am seeking further advice on the matter.

page 1981

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I ask that further questions be placed on the notice-paper.

Mr Curtin:

– Mr. Speaker, would this be the time to ask you why I can never get an opportunity to ask a question?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member is out of order.

Mr Curtin:

– I ask what Standing Order-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will resume his seat. He is out of order.

Mr Curtin:

– I want to ask your advice. I think that the whole thing is totally onesided.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honorable member does not resume his seat, I will name him.

page 1981

UNITED NATIONS TRUSTEESHIP COUNCIL

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

– by leave - The Australian delegation to the forthcoming Twenty-seventh Session of the United Nations Trusteeship Council, which is to begin in New York on 1st June, 1961, will be as follows: -

Representative: Mr. J. D. L. Hood Minister, Australian Mission to the United Nations.

Alternate Representative: Mr. J. A. Forsythe, Australian Mission to the United Nations.

Adviser: Mr. P. C. J. Curtis, Australian Mission to the United Nations.

Special Representative: Mr. D. McCarthy, Assistant Secretary, Department of Territories.

Advisers to the special representative: Mr. Ephraim Jubilee, member of the Legislative Council for Papua and New Guinea. Mr. Raymond Gadabu, councillor, Nauru Local Government Council.

Two indigenous members - one from the Trust Territory of New Guinea and one from the Trust Territory of Nauru - have been included in the Australian delegation for the first time. They will act as advisers to the special representative, who, under the council’s rules of procedure, is required to be specially qualified by his knowledge of conditions in the two territories. The appointment of Mr. Jubilee and Mr. Gadabu reflects not only our policy of co-operating as fully as possible with the Trusteeship Council - which at its last session, specially requested that an indigenous representative of Nauru at least should be included in the 1961 delegation - but reflects also our recognition of the increasingly activerole which the indigenous people must develop in the conduct of their own affairs.

In the course of the session, the Trusteeship Council will review developments in the seven territories still under the United Nations trusteeship system. As part of this review, it will consider in detail conditions in the two Territories under Australian administration - New Guinea and Nauru - the latter being administered by the Australian Government on behalf of Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. We believe that the Australian administration of these two Territories is developing them in an orderly but at the same time vigorous fashion towards the objectives defined in the Charter of the United Nations. Many developments over the last twelve months since the Trusteeship Council’s last study of the conditions in these territories continue to be a witness to this. In the political field, developments such as the re-constitution of the Legislative Council for Papua and New Guinea; in the economic field, increasing expenditure and effort towards the development of the Territories’ own economies; in the social field, further marked advances in health, education and the many aspects of community development generally.

Mr CALWELL:
Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne

– by leave - Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) will, I think, meet with the approval of all Australians. We have decided to associate with our representation in the United Nations for the first time native peoples of the Trust Territory of New Guinea and the Trust Territory of Nauru. That is a development that would have occurred sooner or later, of course. Indeed, in this House two years ago, after I had discussed the matter with certain of the native leaders in July, 1959, during a visit to Papua and New Guinea which I had made, I suggested that what has now been done should be done. I hope, now that we have decided to send one representative from each of these two Territories, that Australia will not hesitate - whatever government may be in office - to increase the number of native representatives at future conferences.

The Prime Minister has spoken of the increasingly active role which the indigenous people must develop in the conduct of their own affairs and I think it is important that we send an increasing number of them to these gatherings of the United Nations in their own interests, and in our interests, too. I think that the Afro-Asian bloc has a wrong idea about our position in Papua and New Guinea, and the best way to convince a number of the representatives of the nations of that bloc is to confront them with the elected representatives of the indigenous people, who will put the position in its right perspective and destroy a lot of the arguments that are advanced to suggest that we have colonial ambitions or that we have not done all that we could be reasonably expected to have done in discharge of our obligations towards such people.

The Australian representatives who are to attend the forthcoming session of the United Nations Trusteeship Council all are very competent and highly skilled men. Two of them I know quite well. Mr. Forsythe and Mr. McCarthy are not only very distinguished public servants but also authors. They have made their own contributions to the history of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea and to the recording of Australia’s war history as well. I think that Australia is very fortunate in having men of their capacity to represent it at this time.

I should like to suggest to the Prime Minister and, through him, to the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) that when this delegation returns from the United Nations members of this Parliament be given an opportunity to meet the representatives of the indigenous people so that we may learn from them what impressions they gained. That will be to our benefit, too. I suggest again to the Prime Minister that he and his Cabinet consider the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee on Papua and New Guinea, because the time when decisions will have to be made is approaching, and making them on a bipartisan basis is better than making them in a party atmosphere in which we may face the possibility of debate and a discussion which could harm us and also the indigenous people.

page 1982

GUITARS

Tariff Board Report

Mr. OSBORNE (Evans- Minister for

Repatriation). - I lay on the table a report by a deputy chairman of the Tariff Board on the following subject: -

Guitars.

The deputy chairman’s recommendation that no action be taken has been accepted by the Government.

Ordered to be printed.

page 1982

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported: -

Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Bill 1961.

Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Bill

page 1983

COMMONWEALTH SERUM LABORATORIES BILL 1961

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11th May (vide page 1782), on motion by Dr. Donald Cameron -

That the bill be now read a second time.

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

– Mr. Speaker, as has been explained by the Minister for Health (Dr. Donald Cameron), the purpose of this bill is to establish a commission to manage the affairs of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Five commissioners are proposed, and the Government’s proposal is that three shall be businessmen - “ men of wide and appropriate experience in business and financial fields “, in the words of the Minister. This bill is of extreme importance to the people of Australia, because the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories have literally a vital function to perform in the service of this nation, and any proposal to alter the set-up of the laboratories requires the closest scrutiny by the Parliament.

The Australian Labour Party is not opposed necessarily to the appointment of a commissioner to manage the laboratories. Nor is it opposed to some of the aims set out by the Minister in his second-reading speech. But there are many features in the bill itself which were not mentioned in the Minister’s speech. I think that honorable members who have studied the measure will agree with me that there are many serious defects in the bill itself. There are quite a number of highly dangerous provisions which could restrict the scope of the commission in producing life-saving and health-giving medical substances and could completely hamstring the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in their essential work of research for a cure or a preventive of any of the various diseases which affect mankind and other members of the animal kingdom.

I shall endeavour to show to the satisfaction of the House these defects and dangerous provisions to which I have referred, and I hope to obtain the Government’s agreement to stand the bill over during the recess and to appoint a select committee representative of both Houses of the Parliament to examine the bill carefully during the recess and to report to the Parliament on the resumption of the session in August next. I think that many honorable members will agree that this proposal for the appointment of a select committee has much to commend it. I assure the House that it is not put forward in any spirit of seeking party advantage. After all, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are the common property of all Australians. All sections of the nation are very proud of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories’ record of achievement in the 45 years since they were first established in 1916, at a time when it was almost impossible to obtain supplies of anti-toxins which Australians required, the flow of which from overseas had been cut off by the First World War. During all the years since then, the laboratories have acquired, I think, a unique place in the hearts and affections of Australians generally. The people have the highest esteem for the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, for their staff and for the great work they have done. I think that was shown by the widespread and remarkable reaction when the rumour went round some months ago that the present Government intended to sell the laboratories to private enterprise. It cannot be said that any urgent situation has developed which requires this bill, which is of so much importance to all the people of Australia, to be rushed through all the stages of this Parliament on the final sitting day of this series of sittings. Indeed, I think that when the Government was proposing to send Parliament into recess last week it was freely understood that this bill would not be proceeded with but would be held over until August. If that is so, then it is clear that there is no urgency now for rushing it through all stages in this House to-day. If it is rushed through this afternoon or to-night, honorable members clearly will not have the opportunity ot examining the bill on its merits.

As I have said, there are many features and provisions of this bill which were not explained by the Minister in his secondreading speech. The recess gives an excellent opportunity for it to be carefully considered by an all-party committee comprised of members of both Houses to ensure that the measure as finally passed will strengthen and not weaken this most valuable instrument in the cause of health for all mankind, and particularly for our own people. I propose to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading to the effect that the bill be referred to a select committee of members of both Houses of the Parliament for examination and report to Parliament in August. I sincerely trust that the Minister will find himself able to accept that amendment and so enable the Parliament to give proper consideration to this really most important piece of legislation which affects the lives and health of the people of the whole of this continent.

If the Government will not agree to the course I have suggested after hearing a statement of the deficiencies of the bill, and the dangers to the laboratories which are inherent in the present proposal, then it can only lead to the conclusion that these provisions have been deliberately drafted to injure the laboratories and to stultify their work and that the bill is being rushed through in one day in order to prevent the public from learning what is proposed under it until it is too late to do anything about the matter. In those circumstances, if the Government rejects the proposal for a select committee, the Opposition will vote against the second reading of the bill because refusal of a select committee would make it appear that the Government is acting from two motives, both of them equally unworthy. The first is that it has yielded to the consistent and considerable pressure which we know has been exercised by overseas drug houses, who represent very big business indeed, to curtail the activities of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. The bill in its present form will unquestionably greatly curtail the present activities of those laboratories. The second unworthy motive which could be attributed to the Government is that it is seeking to close the door upon the inconvenient insistence of the present director of the laboratories that the Government should give proper recognition and support to the research programme being carried out by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. And that most certainly is not being done at present!

I think honorable members generally will have noted with surprise the public statement made by the director of the laboratories, Dr. Bazeley, criticizing the Government’s proposal. I think I am quite right in saying that honorable members will have noted that statement with surprise because such criticism by a leading public servant is most unusual and, normally, is to be strongly deprecated. I would advise the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Bandidt), who is interjecting, not to take notice of everything he reads in the press; if he does so he is liable to make a very great mistake indeed.

The question must be asked, “ What has caused Dr. Bazeley to take this unusual step? “ In his statement, he says that he and his staff were not consulted in the discussions which led to this bill, but that instead the discussions were confined to the Minister for Health (Dr. Donald Cameron) and officials of the Treasury and the Department of Health. Mr. Speaker, that, to my mind, borders almost on the incredible. If the sole desire was to give the laboratories a new charter enabling them to serve this nation more effectively, why shut out the one man, the key man, who had most knowledge of their operations? His exclusion was unquestionably only on the ground that what was planned was not the extension but the curtailment of the work of the laboratories, not their re-construction but their destruction. There can appear to be no other reason why the Government, in bringing in new proposals for the management of the laboratories, did not consult the key man in its service, the director of those laboratories.

I would think that if it is true, as has been said, that for months, and indeed years past, Dr. Bazeley’s repeated requests impractical governmental recognition of the laboratories’ research work have been ignored, this adds to the considerable suspicion which exists in relation to this matter. I say most deliberately that in those circumstances the Australian people might be grateful for Dr. Bazeley’s courage in coming into the open in defence of the institution to which he is devoted, and to which he has given the whole of his life’s work. It is no part of my plan to champion Dr. Bazeley.

Mr Osborne:

– That is what you are doing.

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

– He is perfectly capable of standing, on his- own feet. If the Minister for Repatriation says I am championing Dr. Bazeley when I direct attention to the extraordinary fact that Dr. Bazeley has been completely ignored in the construction of new legislation for the management of the institution of which he is head then indeed I am.

I simply place on record, therefore, that few men Tate so highly in the estimation of the Australian people as Dr. Bazeley does, and that the people will not stand for any ill-treatment of this particularly fine and devoted public servant. Many Ministers of this Government might well envy Dr. Bazeley his reputation because the Australian people know of his single-minded devotion to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories throughout his whole working life, and of the health blessings that so many people have received through his endeavours, notably his work with Dr. Salk which is so well known to every member of this House and to the people of this country. The people would rise in anger at any open attempt to push Dr. Bazeley to one side. But is this being attempted secretly?

In the first place, we have the extraordinary circumstances associated with the introduction of this legislation. The director of the laboratories was not consulted when the bill was being drafted, and now it is being forced through the House without adequate notice having been given of its introduction. We are required to deal with all stages of the bill in one day. Clause 16 (8.), which relates to meetings of the commission, is extraordinary. It means that the complete management of the laboratories can be formed of any three members of the commission without even the presence of the director being necessary.

Mr Duthie:

– Scandalous!

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

– Scandalous is the .only word to describe the .position, and I thank the honorable member for Wilmot for it. I .state deliberately that the bill as drafted can mean .the cancellation ot all the main research work .at present being done by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I invite honorable members to consider the clauses of the bill for themselves. Till now the laboratories have been able to finance some research work from revenues obtained from its manufactures. In addition, it has been able to obtain annual grants from the Treasury. By those two means - by the profits that it has made on its manufacturing operations and by annual grants from the Treasury - it has been able to carry out a certain amount of extremely valuable research work. The normal procedure has been for the laboratories to submit a research programme to the Director-General of Health, to receive his approval and thereupon to proceed with the research.

According to Clause 19(b) of the bill, the commission will not ‘have power to initiate any major research. In future it will be able to carry out research only if the Minister so determines. The bill gives it no power to initiate research or even a recommendation for research. The power is taken from the laboratories and vested solely in the Minister. Unless he chooses to give instructions for a particular research programme, it will not be possible for the laboratories to carry out main research of any kind in future.

Mr Bandidt:

– Do you not think that the Minister would give such instructions?

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

– I do not know. If (the Minister intends to allow the laboratories to continue operating as they have been in the past, why has the power to initiate research been taken from them and vested solely in >the Minister? Surely the Parliament has a Tight to .consider that aspect because, with the transfer of this power to the Minister, the research activities of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories could be destroyed completely. I do not think that the Parliament should stand for this. We should insist on the appointment of a select committee to consider the provisions of this legislation.

Till now the laboratories have .been Able to devote their profits .to research and, in addition, they have received Treasury assistance to do so. This “bill alters that. In the first place, there is no provision in the bill for financial assistance to enable the laboratories to carry out future research, so the assistance that they have received from the Treasury in the past is not provided for in the ‘bill. In the second place the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, which certainly are not just a commercial enterprise but an undertaking that is viewed by the Australian people with great respect and admiration as a great research institution, are to be treated solely as a commercial enterprise by being made subject, for the first time, to taxation. The laboratories will be expected to pay tax just as any ordinary profit-making commercial enterprise is expected to do, and so it will be deprived of part of the revenue which it has been able to devote in the past to research. But to make sure that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories will not have any money for research unless the Government chooses to give it some, there is a further provision in clause 33 to the effect that the laboratories shall pay the Commonwealth each year such amounts from their profits as the Treasurer determines after consultation with the Minister for Health.

In the first place, their power to initiate research is taken away from them completely; in the second place, the provision of financial assistance by the Government for future research is taken away; in the third place, they are made subject to taxation so that they will be deprived of some of the revenue that otherwise would be used for research, and finally, they can be required each year by the Treasurer to pay the whole or any part of their profits into Consolidated Revenue. It must be clear to every member of this House that the upshot will be that the research department of the laboratories will be destroyed if effect is given to the provisions of the bill.

Mr Bowden:

– No one would believe you.

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

– Did the honorable member say that no one would believe me?

Mr Bowden:

– Yes.

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

– I assure the honorable member that he does not need to believe me. He has a keen, shrewd mind, as I have known for many years, and he needs only to look at the clauses of the bill to which I have referred to find substantiation for my statements. As a former Chairman of Committees he is quite competent to examine and assess the meaning of these words. If he will do so I assure him that there will be no need for him to believe me. What I have stated is written clearly in the clauses of the bill to which I have referred.

Mr Turner:

– Nothing of the kind.

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

– I cannot convince honorable members against their will. I assume that they have read the bill carefully. I have mentioned the clauses on which I rely for the statements that I have made and when honorable members opposite speak in this debate they will have the opportunity to point to the clauses and to the interpretation that they place upon them. The only exception to what I have said is contained in the miserable provisions of clause 38 which reads -

Where-

the Commission undertakes research installs or maintains plant or equipment or produces or holds stocks of a biological product in accordance with a determination by the Minister under section nineteen of this Act;

the Commission satisfies the Minister that the operations (including the undertaking of research) carried on by the Commission in accordance with the determination have been so carried on at a loss in a financial year; and

a loss results in that financial year from the whole of the operations of the Commission, the Commission is entitled to be reimbursed by the Commonwealth to the extent of the firstmentioned loss or to the extent of the second-mentioned loss, whichever is the less.

In those circumstances only is the commission entitled to reimbursement, and even then the reimbursement is restricted in the manner stated. That is the only provision in the bill for financing the future operations of the commission. I have read the clause, and I think that every member of the House is capable of putting his interpretation on it. By contrast, it is worth mentioning that for the past ten years the laboratories have received an annual grant from the Treasury of £40,000 for research purposes and, in the current financial year, due to the exercise of extreme pressure on the Commonwealth, that amount was increased to £100,000. It would seem that grants of this kind are not proposed for the future. The crippling effect of this upon the laboratories must be plain to all.

If honorable members, and the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Bowden) in particular, will look at clause 19, paragraphs (a) and (b), they will see that the only kind of research which the commission henceforth will be entitled to initiate, if this bill becomes law, is research in connexion with any prescribed biological product which it manufactures and sells. That is not main research; that is not research designed to find some new remedy or preventative; that is only research in connexion with any prescribed biological product which it already manufactures and sells. This covers only what is called developmental work in which a specific product is passed through its teething stages prior to general production. The cost of that has always been regarded as part of the cost of production, and the costs have always been added to the cost of the item when it is sold. No request has ever been made to the Commonwealth Government to finance that kind of research.

To limit the commission in future to this kind of research unless the Minister otherwise directs it will be really, as I have said, to destroy its main research task because non-developmental research represents almost entirely nonrecoverable expenditure. Yet non-developmental research is concerned with the most vital task of seeking a solution to urgent medical or veterinary problems. If the members of the Australian Country Party are not interested in human problems, I hope that at least they will be interested in veterinary problems. The laboratories’ ability to pursue their work in connexion with veterinary problems will also be greatly handicapped if this bill is allowed to become law in its present form.

There are a great many researches of a non-developmental kind at present taking place in the laboratories, and it will not be possible to continue any of them if the bill becomes law unless the Minister directs the commission to continue them and unless by some actions not specified in the bill, finance is provided to enable them to be continued. As an example of the kind of non-developmental researches at present proceeding in the laboratories, I mention the research into infectious hepatitis which everybody will realize is of extreme importance. I believe some slight progress has been made in the endeavour to find whether there is any method of securing a vaccine for this particularly serious illness, which has been causing so much harm in Australia in recent months.

Another important form of research at present required is to seek an improvement in the existing poliomyelitis vaccines because the fight against this disease has by no means been won in Australia. While great success has been achieved with school children, less success has been achieved with adults and - while I do not want to underrate what has been done - with infants and the younger school children. Both Dr. Salk and the Merck Institute in the United States of America have found means of considerable improvement. This research is most important, because, as I have said, the battle against polio has by no means been won, particularly in the case of infants and younger children. It becomes of special importance that this research should be continued because of the present action in combining a poliomyelitis vaccine with the treble immunization against tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough. The search for this new quadruple vaccine has introduced problems that only further combined clinical and laboratory research will overcome. We cannot expect the other countries of the world continuously to supply us with research information in this way unless we, as Australians and as a nation, do our part in research and supply them also with the fruits of our endeavours so that there can be joint action for the benefit of mankind and the improvement of health generally.

I have mentioned other research work, and without doing more than make a passing reference to a few forms of specific research and developmental projects now proceeding at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, I mention german measles, known as rubella, the common cold, influenza, staphylococcus, tetanus, dysentery, gas gangrene, anti-haemophyllic globulin serum, and various others. A great and important programme is proceeding at these laboratories, and it is the duty of Parliament to ensure that they are allowed to continue in full measure.

The revenues available to the laboratories from the sale of their own products have been substantially reduced since import restrictions were lifted. This is a point to which I particularly direct the attention of the House; because it seems to me to highlight, a. really’ tragic: absurdity. Let us consider penicillin as an example-. The laboratories were receiving about £1,500,000 a year from the manufacture of penicillin until import restrictions were lifted. Now, and ever since last October, the penicillin section of the laboratories has been completely closed. Men have been dismissed and1, stocks, are there awaiting, sale. Why has this happened? It. has happened because the. impojr.ta.tion. of dumped penicillin from, overseas, countries has. been freely permitted.

Mr Turner:

– You mean, it is- cheaper and that the; taxpayers are- being: saved money.

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

– It is cheaper. I’ am glad’ to state that it- is cheaper in one sense, it is much dearer in- many other senses. Certainly, it is dumped. Penicillin is in. over-production throughout the world and a good deal’ of international dumping is going. on.. That has been generally recognized, and. the fact has been published in many journals. It is. possible to-day to purchase, penicillin very cheaply indeed on the international market. In fact,, you can. buy it. for. less than* the. people- pay in. the. country where, it is. manufactured.. That is clear proof that it is. being dumped at much, less than. cost. So the- position is that- since import restrictions were lifted,, the bulk of the penicillin used; in Australia has been, imported. The- penicillin section- of the- Commonwealth Serum Laboratories has- been closed down and men have- been- dismissed: The Glaxo laboratory, the only other laboratory in Australia, which was manufacturing penicillin,, and then, under subsidy, from the Commonwealth, has. also partly closed, down. Could anything, be. more ridiculous- when the Government itself is- the ultimate- purchaser of penicillin? The Government pays, for the penicillin It has- its- own plant. It has the. know=how and all the ability to- produce the penicillin without any charge whatever. It could make- penicillin- available free if you like; yet the- Government which is the purchaser of this- product, instead of using penicillin from its own’ laboratories, is allowing dumped penicillin to be imported in such a way as to cripple the activities of the Government’s own laboratories in Victoria. 0 mention1 also’ for the* interest of membens of the Australian Country Party that the. Commonwealth Serum. Laboratories own a patent, for the manufacture of penicillin using; dried skim milk as a basic ingredient. If the manufacture of. penicillin were repsumed in Australia on. the. basis of meeting the whole of. Australia’s requirements, a very considerable quantity of dried skim milk, would be. utilized, and a large market would, be opened up in this country for the powder.. Members of the: Country Party should he. interested! in the extraordinary and tragic, position concerning, penicillin,.

An equally unfortunate position also exists concerning, insulin. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are practically the primary, producers in the field’ of insulin. They have arranged’ supplies of pancreas glands from cattle and these supplies are more than adequate to meet Australia’s, requirements. Further, it is recognized’ that the laboratories make the best and purest and most standardized insulin in the. world to-day;, and yet because imports are being permitted, the laboratories possess only one-third of the Australian; market. They are unable to- use all- the- cattle- glands available to them for Australian! requirements and the manufacturing plant’ in our own laboratories’- has to be shut down for long periods. The Government; the- ultimate purchaser, pays for insulin while- its own plant’ stands idle! Nothing could represent more tragic folly.

The- Commonwealth Serum- Laboratories are the- only government undertaking! which conducts research into- the prevention of disease or the alleviation: of medical conditions: by the use of vaccines,- sera-,- endo1crines, antibiotics and: related’ products, and it is quite definite that no other work of this kind is conducted on- any reasonable large scale elsewhere in the Commonwealth. I do not know what defence can be. put forward, of the provisions in this bill,, but it may. be argued that if the function of research is denied the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in the future,, the medical school of the Australian- National University could, undertake the. work,, or that part, at any rate; of the work could.be transferred to. the National. Biological Standards Laboratory of. the. Department of Health. Neither of these, propositions, I am: assured, is sound’.. The John- Curtin School- of Medical Research is not devoted to the development of methods of controlling or curing disease, and the National Biological Standards Laboratory is clearly concerned only with work in connexion with standards.

When the revenue of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories has been buoyant in the past, the cost of research has been met readily from surplus funds accumulated. Recently, however, the loss of the penicillin trade has meant that if research projects are not to be abandoned, they may be carried on only with government financial support by way of an increased grant. The laboratories received an increased grant for the present financial year, after very strong pressure was brought to bear on the Government, but it appears from this bill that there is no provision for similar financial assistance to be given in the future.

The Labour Party believes, as I think the majority of the Australian people believe, that recognition of the importance of the research function of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories is fundamental to the future of that organization and to our national future. We believe that the laboratories should be given every possible assistance in the task of finding cures or preventives for any serious disease of man-; kind for the treatment of which it might be possible to find a prophylactic or therapeutic substance. How can we better spend our money than in research of this kind? Why should this enterprise of the Commonwealth Government be starved when money is being poured out in lavish fashion for the purposes of other Government undertakings and departments? Here is an institution not devoted to war, but to peace, not devoted to destruction but to the preservation of human life. If we can afford to spend money on the purposes of destruction, we can afford to spend proper sums of money for the purposes of construction for which these laboratories stand. I would not question the expenditure of very many millions of pounds in this way, because I realize the benefits that could be obtained from such expenditure.

We believe that the Government has, in the past few years, refrained from giving proper recognition and support to this function of the laboratories, and that under the operation of legislation such as we are now considering the research function could be given such little emphasis as to make the laboratories almost solely a commercial factory dedicated to the making of profits. However, having in mind that the Minister controls the prices of 75 per cent, of the output, the laboratories could be so held in restraint, even as a commercial undertaking, that they would provide no real competition for the great overseas drug houses which have a stranglehold on many sections of the Australian medicine market, in which prices of drugs are absolutely exorbitant.

We believe that together with the encouragement of a full research programme we should also arrange for extensive interchanges of Commonwealth Serum Laboratories scientists with their opposite numbers in overseas countries. There should also be a full and free exchange of research information, so that all mankind may benefit, and so that duplication and overlapping of effort may be avoided. 1 stress again my contention that Australia cannot expect to continue to receive help in this sphere from other countries unless Australia itself plays a full part in the research task - and Australia simply is not doing so at the present time. If this bill becomes law our research activities, if they are continued at all, will be on a very small scale.

I have spoken of the profiteering that is indulged in by the great overseas organizations which hold the Australia consumer practically to ransom. The full extent of that profiteering was recently disclosed by a committee of inquiry of the American Congress. In this respect let me give the House a few pertinent figures. Penicillin treatment costs from 7s. 6d. to £1 a day for an average case, but for treatment with particular forms of antibiotics the average cost per patient per day is from £2 to £10. These higher costs are for what I understand are called the wide spectrum antibiotics. These antibiotics are wholly imported, except for one, I think, which is partially produced here. In this respect Australia, if it liked, could even now take a stand and refuse any longer to be robbed in this way. Other countries have already taken such a stand and have refused to be robbed. We could deny permission to import these drugs into Australia, and instead we could offer to pay the companies that manufacture them overseas standard royalties for the right to manufacture them in our own laboratories. Let me emphasize that our laboratories here are fully able to manufacture these drugs, and that we could in this way ensure immense savings for this country.

If the laboratories were to supply all bio.logicals free to the point of distribution, with the distributors and chemists authorized to make a flat charge - and quite properly so - for their services in distributing every prescription to patients, the savings to the Government would be immense, when one considers the very many millions that are poured out at present in this direction. For instance, a quantity of penicillin which comes from the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories at a price of 10s. or 12s. is to-day sold by the chemist for about 23s., and the Government, of course, is the purchaser. That is due to the practice of distributing to wholesale firms and other distributors, with merchants’ charges and handling charges added to the cost of the product at every stage. These charges represent quite unnecessary impositions on the Australian people, and they could be avoided in the way I have described.

I turn now to the matter of staff arrangements. It would appear that the commission is to have complete power with respect to the conditions of employment of all staff at the laboratories receiving salaries of £2,500 a year or more. But - and I think this is of vital importance - no direction is given in the bill to the commission that the satisfactory staff arrangements now existing with respect to lowerlevel medical, scientific and technical employees are to be preserved in the future, or that any reasonable substitute is to be introduced. The bill is notably lacking in any direction of this kind. The whole matter is left entirely to the commission, which is to be dominated by businessmen who will have no special knowledge of these matters but only a general knowledge of business and the making of profits. It seems to me that the commissioners should be directed to maintain suitable standards of staff arrangements for employees of the laboratories.

Furthermore, no direction is given to the commissioners in the bill that they have any responsibility to maintain existing standards of quality in production of bio.logicals at the laboratories. This appears to me to be an extraordinary omission from the legislation. The whole measure, I may say, is conspicuously weak with regard to definitions. As the bill now stands, if its provisions were interpreted literally an almost unworkable situation would develop. I direct the Minister’s attention particularly to this point. For instance, the word “ therapeutic “ is frequently used, and it obviously can be defined as “ curative “ or “ healing “. No definition is contained in the bill.

Mr Haworth:

– Who told you that?

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

– I take the ordinary dictionary definition in the absence of any definition in the bill itself. Most of the products of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are of a preventive character, and some are diagnostic. There is obviously a grave fault in the bill in this respect, and it is obviously necessary, as I think the Minister must agree, to give a definition of “ therapeutic “ which will include “ preventive “ and “ diagnostic “.

The bill does not refer to many of the business arrangements under which the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories is now operating, except to mention, as I have pointed out, various taxation proposals and proposals for the return of profits to the Treasury. These proposals, when considered in conjunction with the actual cost of installing the commission, must inevitably result in a steep rise in the cost of biologicals produced in Australia, and if there is a steep rise at the point of production, there will be a further steep rise when the merchants add on their margins at all stages of distribution.

It is difficult to see, in view of the extensive organization of production processes, and the introduction of modern business methods into the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories during the past five years, that greater efficiency in the internal operation of the laboratories can be ensured by the bill as at present framed. If increased business is intended for the laboratories it must be that the commission is expected to have certain freedom to develop further markets not now envisaged by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, either within the Commonwealth or outside it.

If this is not so, it must be expected that the commission will gain greater revenue from increasing charges for which it would have to be responsible as distinct from the Government being responsible at the present time. I think that most modern opinion is the exact reverse of this. There has been an increasing trend towards the payment of medical benefits by the Government, and 76 per cent, of the present revenue of the laboratories is derived from the Commonwealth Government - 34 per cent, from reimbursements and 42 per cent, from payments made under the free medicine scheme. Therefore, we all have a direct interest as taxpayers in ensuring that the price of these products at the point of production is the minimum possible.

Mr Davis:

– Are these figures authoritative?

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

– I could not say that they are authoritative. I believe that they are reliable. They are the best I have been able to obtain.

The present proposal is to have four parttime commissioners, who are required to meet at least once every five weeks. The whole of this great enterprise is to be handed over to the control of the director and four part-time commissioners who must meet at least once every five weeks. We believe that, if there is to be a commission, it should be a full-time commission and instead of businessmen forming the majority of the commissioners, scientists and medical men should form the majority. We believe that no quorum of the commissioners should be formed unless the director is present.

Before my time expires, I move this amendment -

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: - “ the bill be referred to a Select Committee of both Houses to report to Parliament in August next “.

I again earnestly ask the Government to consider accepting this amendment which I am sure would meet the independent wishes of the majority of the members of this House. In view of the damage that could be done to a great Australian institution by this bill, I sincerely trust that the Government will give this opportunity for further examination of the measure. If it forces this contemptible bill through the Parliament to-day by the use of the gag and the guillotine, and so destroys an institution to which the Australian people are particularly devoted and loyal, I hope that some day the people will have their opportunity to revenge themselves on the Government for doing such a wretched thing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Chaney:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Whitlam:

– I second the amendment and reserve my remarks.

Mr HAWORTH:
Isaacs

.- I am very glad that the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser), who is representing the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) when speaking on the bill, has seen something in it to commend. At least we are on some firm ground to begin with. However, as his speech continued, the area of disagreement seemed to widen considerably. He made some very wild statements which were not associated with the facts, and I very much regret that he found it necessary to accuse some most reputable business houses of activities in which they are not engaged. He did not do justice to himself in raising these matters. I want to say this, and I want to say it early because of the statements made by the honorable member, that overseas companies engaged in medical science and research, in this country as well as overseas, have the very closest co-operation with the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in one way or another. Success in medical science is not the prerogative of one person, any one organization or any country. All that these people work for is humanity, and in fact there is the greatest co-operation between them. I shall make further reference to this later.

The bill before us is the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Bill, which makes certain changes in the administration of a key section of the Commonwealth health services. This sphere of Government activity is very costly. The area of the present operation is abnormally difficult because it touches on the means and motivations of scientific research, as well as the sensibilities of the scientists themselves. The laboratories, like other business functions of the Government, became a government business in the first place because no one else could have undertaken the job. This situation arose with the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories 55 years ago, I understand. Since they were established, they have done an excellent job, and the community recognizes this. The laboratories to-day do not form a small enterprise; they are big business, and they are big by any standards. This is a £6,000,000 business operating as one of the Australian ethical drug suppliers. A number of private companies also operate in this field, but they are chiefly concerned with making various sera, vaccines and biologicals under licence. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories undertake very little research to-day in comparison with the £6,000,000 of capital involved.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is rubbish!

Mr HAWORTH:

– The honorable member may know more than I do about this. If he does, I will bow to his opinion. But I do not want to be diverted from the points I am making.

In presenting the bill, the Minister for Health (Dr. Donald Cameron) was at pains to explain that the whole point is to put the establishment on a business-like footing. For this purpose, administrative control is to be transferred to a commission - to a board of directors, if that term is preferred. The laboratories will become a statutory authority operating on lines similar to those on which other business undertakings of the Commonwealth operate. There is plenty of precedent for this, because we are to-day involved in such business undertakings as Trans-Australia Airlines and the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which are government instrumentalities working under a business directorate or a commission.

I know of no private business undertaking with capital of £6,000,000 which does not work under a board of directors. Indeed, I do not think that any one associated with a company would hold the view that that is not the right way to operate. The laboratories should operate under a well-balanced directorate comprising not only scientists but also business people. Indeed, one will find in the whole scheme of health and medical services that all organizations, whether hospitals or laboratories, private or public, are controlled by boards of directors. It is most obvious when one sees the number of business people who are on hospital committees. It is preposterous to think that an undertaking engaged in commerce, as the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are, should be solely controlled by a scientist, however eminent he may be in his profession. I am sure that the gentleman concerned in this case would be prepared to agree that it is necessary, in a great business organization such as this, to have a well-balanced directorate composed of people with a knowledge of commerce and business. Indeed, the Labour Party took that very attitude when it set up the Trans-Australia Airlines organization so many years ago. That organization has carried on successfully. When the Labour Government appointed the Australian National Airlines commission or board of directors for Trans-Australia Airlines it did not appoint an aeronaut or a person with a knowledge only of aviation as the chairman or managing director. It appointed a person engaged in commerce, and who had a very good background of business principles.

I think the Government is wise to place the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories under a commission or board of directors of balanced people who can control its affairs. The bill makes the notable provision that no interest is to be paid on the £6,000,000 capital of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Clause 38 of the bill spells out, in addition, the right of the commission to make a loss and to have the taxpayers foot the bill. That is the clause which I particularly want to discuss. One assumes that the idea behind this provision is that business-like thinking does not apply to research and that, therefore, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories must be considered on a different basis from the Post Office, for instance, which recently had to dig deep for interest payments.

I disagree with the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser), who said that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories could not engage in research. Of course this undertaking can engage in research and there is nothing in this bill to prevent it doing so! The honorable member obviously tried to suggest to the House that this organization could not engage in research. Clauses 33 and 38 of the bill are two provisions with which I disagree. The Minister for Health (Dr. Donald Cameron) has indicated to us that the Government is to set up a business and commercial undertaking to stand on its own feet, in place of the present management of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.

If we are going to do what the bill purports to do I think we should say to the management of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, “You have £6,500,000 of capital involved and therefore you have to pay interest on that sum “. That seems to be a reasonable and business like approach to any great undertaking, whether in the private sphere or in the government sphere. It should be expected to pay the due and proper rate of interest to the taxpayers of this country on the capital involved in conducting the business.

Clause 19 of the bill provides for the Minister for Health to retain a very tight control over the research laboratories. The clear-cut intention of this clause is to enable the Minister to say to the directors of this undertaking, “ Here you have an organization and your job is to make biologicals which we ask you to make “. Apparently Dr. Bazeley is very concerned about that, and found it necessary to make what I must confess were the most extraordinary statements that were reported in the Melbourne newspapers at the week-end. I suppose he feels that research - I think most scientists feel that way about it - should not be governed in any way by pounds, shillings and pence. Perhaps it is that point in the bill which alarms him so much. I do not think he wants to be tied down to business principles in regard to research.

I would not like to see a cash register installed in a research laboratory, and particularly not in the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Would it not be a proper business direction if we were to say that research was to continue as. it has in the past, but that in future it would be carried out under some special appropriation of funds made available to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories for that specific purpose? In the bill there is no reference to an appropriation of funds for a specific purpose. The provisions are mixed up in such a way as to give the board of directors the opportunity to utilize profits for research and vice versa in a way that is difficult to understand. Private enterprise is not carried on in that way. It engages in a tremendous amount of research, but it appropriates a certain amount of money for a specific purpose and is not in any way cloudy as to where the money comes from or how it is used. On this businesslike basis the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories can make prescribed biologicals to their hearts’ content, using capital upon which no interest is payable and with an open invitation to incur a loss. That is why I object to certain clauses of the bill.

Easily the greatest share of the production of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories -probably £2,500,000 worth of its products - is sold every year through the Commonwealth health services. Therefore, in case the new businesslike commission of the laboratories should apply business principles to the prices of the products, the Minister cautiously retains the price-fixing functions for himself. Is it the purpose of the bill to set up a board of directors to place this organization on a proper businesslike footing? If it is, I do not think that the clause concerned applies, very well, and it certainly win not make the functions of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in pure research any easier. Even at its face value I think that Dr. Bazeley’s judgment that the provisions of this measure will hamper the organization must be respected. This man, who publicly criticizes the Minister in charge of his department, is a man of world repute, and I am rather surprised that he has taken on this particular role. Admittedly he has ability. He has a great record and he has spent, as the Minister has well said, a lifetime in public service.

So far as the function of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories as a business undertaking, is concerned, I cannot understand why Dr. Bazeley objects to having the undertaking placed on a proper businesslike footing. I can well understand that clauses 21, 22, 33 and 38 will, if anything, hinder rather than help the future of the organization. Interest payments, profits, prices, investment in research - these are the key matters, and. they are the matters which are and can be kept away from the commissioners. I feel that that is particularly wrong. la spite of this criticism, the fact of the matter is that this bill goes very close to being a very sound and important piece of legislation. I think that the Minister’s general idea that it was time for the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to stand on their own feet was a sound idea. No one knows exactly what have been the losses incurred by these laboratories through the years. I should imagine that they have been rather great, and I think that the Minister is really aiming at making the organization do just what I have said - stand on its own feet. As it is, he has tried to play Professor ‘Iggins to a most unlikely Eliza, and he must drop those strings that he is obviously trying to hold.

It would give me very great pleasure to support this bill in its entirety provided that the commissioners were given control of their own destiny. They must carry out their responsibilities under their own charter, and to do this they must determine their own prices, pay their own way and carry their interest burden, and must not be invited, as the bill invites them, to apply to the Treasurer for a subsidy.

In the discussions about the bill there seem to have been implications that when we are dealing with the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories we are dealing with a dedicated home of pure research. With all due respect to Dr. Bazeley, this is simply not true. An enormous amount of research that goes on at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories is directly related to production methods, quality control and such matters, and this activity goes on not only in those laboratories but in equal degree in private industry. Centres such as the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, the medical school at the Australian National University, the State universities, all contribute their measure towards research. So, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories do only a portion of the research that is done.

It is entirely reasonable that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories should determine the extent of their own research programme and cover their production costs in the prices of their saleable products, as does every private company engaged in similar research throughout the world. When one buys a biological from an ethical company the price includes a component to cover the cost of the firm’s research programme. It is in this way that funds are found for the research that produces easily the greatest part of the new products that are constantly becoming available in this field of medicine and treatment. More than £100,000,000 is spent annually on research by private enterprise throughout the world. Many of the private organizations engaged in this field have capital employed in Australia and do quite a lot of research in Australia also. It is, I am sure, a matter of very great satisfaction to us all that this does go on, and it works very well indeed.

As I said earlier in my remarks, there is the closest co-operation to-day between all the great research laboratories of the world, but nothing like that was suggested by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro when he said that it was the desire of some overseas interests engaged in research work to see that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, which have functioned so well in the past, should not succeed. This interchange of knowledge between all these various research laboratories is going on constantly, and I am perfectly satisfied that it would be of a good deal of concern to all these other laboratories if the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories were not permitted to carry on their research programme as they have been doing.

It is only natural and proper that the Government, with an annual expenditure of £30,000,000 on pharmaceutical benefits in mind, should be careful about the costs of its biggest biological supplier, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. By the same token, costs are best kept where you see them. There is no point in giving the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories a handout from the taxpayers so as to delude them that they will not have to pay so much for vaccines as they would otherwise have to do. That is just an illusion which some people are trying to create.

If changes that I have outlined are made to those clauses which are not in keeping with my thinking, then I believe the principles of the measure will come into line with its practice. If that is done I think it will be a sound administrative step. If certain clauses are not altered it seems to me that every one will be unhappy - Dr. Bazeley because he will not get his own way, which he apparently wants; the newly appointed commissioners because they will be trying to make bricks without straw; and the Minister himself, because as long as this arrangement is continued he will be harassed by the absurd financial implications that are involved in the bill.

I support the principles of the bill, but I do not support certain of its clauses.

Mr CAIRNS:
Yarra

.- I think that the honorable member for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth) has made a very remarkable contribution to this debate. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories is one of the largest organizations of its kind in Australia, and it has been working in a manner that has aroused criticism from nobody. Nobody has ever suggested that one penny of the money that has been used by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories has been wrongly or improperly used. At no stage has anybody made out a case on any basis of wrong practices, uneconomic performance, faulty research, incorrect production methods in relation to pharmaceutical products, for a change in the administration of the laboratories. At no stage has anybody criticized the record of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Yet, completely out of the blue, and without any valid reason being given for its action, the Government introduces a bill to change completely the control of this organization. The director of the laboratories himself says he disagrees with this bill. The first private member to speak on behalf of the Government in this debate - the honorable member for Isaacs - says that he disagrees with the bill, too. He says that unless some alterations are made to it everybody will be unhappy about the result. I think it is a remarkable position that a government, in a situation when there was no complaint, when nothing had ever been pointed out to be wrong, when everything was apparently going well and everybody was happy, should suddenly introduce a bill to alter the whole set-up considerably. The director of the organization and the Government’s first speaker in this debate both disagree with the Government and say that there will be an unhappy situation.

The Government has deliberately chosen to introduce a disturbing factor into an organization that was working well. This is not the first time in recent weeks that we have found the Government provoking discontent. It did so last week in the stevedoring industry. It is doing so this week in connexion with the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. The honorable member for Isaacs accused the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) of making wild statements not associated with the facts - statements which he said were unreasonable and completely wrong. But the honorable member for Isaacs did not specify one thing which the honorable member for Eden-Monaro had said which was wild, not associated with facts, unreasonable or completely wrong. The honorable member for Isaacs simply made an allegation which, if it were made anywhere else, would be considered as slander. It was completely unsupported by fact.

I am completely impatient with honorable members who make blanket allegations of this kind, completely unsupported by facts. If they were made outside the House they would be regarded as despicable. In here, anything goes. When did the honorable member for Eden-Monaro make these statements which were wild, unassociated with facts, unreasonable or completely wrong? The honorable member for Isaacs has given us no evidence on this point. He said that all those who were associated with the production of drugs were humanitarian, but I think it is worth noticing that this great organization, Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, which I think has been functioning since 1916, has not had one penny of assistance from private enterprise to carry out its research. There are two international monopolies in drugs - one in the eastern and one in the western hemisphere. These drug houses dominate the production of drugs and put them on the market at a profit ranging from 100 per cent, to 1,500 per cent. Yet they call themselves “ ethical “ ! The only ethical producer of drugs in this country is the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.

I shall produce facts to support my allegation that Dr. Bazeley is critical of the bill. The honorable member for Isaacs said that he was surprised that Dr. Bazeley had criticized the Minister for Health in relation to this matter. I ask the honorable member: Are you surprised that you did so yourself? Are you surprised that you went as far in criticizing the Minister as Dr. Bazeley did? Does that surprise you? Are you, then, surprised that Dr. Bazeley agrees with you and thinks that this bill is wrong? The honorable member for Isaacs rightly said that Dr. Bazeley is a man of world reputation. Is the Minister a man of world reputation? Are those in his department who advise him people of world reputation? I suggest not. I think that Dr. Bazeley, this man of responsibility and world reputation, would not criticize the Minister unless he thought that it was of very great importance that he should do so.

The honorable member for Isaacs agrees with him. The honorable member says that the commission must have the control of its own destiny. He recognizes that, under this hill, the commission will not have control of its own destiny. He recognizes that the commission will be under the control of the Minister and of his department. This, at best will be a Public Service set-up. The commission will not be in control of its prices, the honorable member for Isaacs said; it will not be in control of its own interest burden; it should not be required to apply to the Treasury for permission to carry on its activities. We know the attitude of the Treasury on these things.

The honorable member for Isaacs mentioned the Australian National University and the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute as organizations which carry on research. Does the Government propose to put those organizations under a commission and make them subject to the Treasury? Of course not! This reveals the whole weakness in the Government’s position. This bill provides what the honorable member for Isaacs sailed an absurd financial structure. Dr. Bazeley has not ..gone as far as to say that. Yet the honorable member for Isaacs is surprised that Dr. Bazeley has criticized the Minister.-!

I suggest that we should try to clarify what is involved in this bill. First of all, :he Commonwealth Serum Laboratories have been a great success. No one has pointed a finger at any weakness. Neither the Minister nor his department has suggested that there is anything wrong with he organization. In this situation, the Government has introduced a bill which will change completely the principles of operation of the organization. It has introduced into this situation the conflict of private profit versus public operation. We know the attitude of the Government to public operations. We know that the Government sold Australia’s interest in Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited and in Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited. We know that it has almost completely hamstrung Trans-Australia Airlines. We know that the Commonwealth Trading Bank has been restricted in its hire-purchase operations. We can conclude from this, that it is the intention of the Government to restrict public enterprise; to prevent it from putting on the market products at lower prices than those charged by private enterprise.

The Liberal Premier of Victoria wants an assurance that the Commonwealth Government’s proposal will not involve Victoria in considerably higher costs. The people of Australia want such an assurance too. Once you become concerned with making a profit, you become concerned with charging higher prices. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories have been a competitor with the international drug houses which dominate the market The Australian Labour Party says that the laboratories must remain a competitor. To sell Commonwealth Serum Laboratories has not been the choice of the Government. This would have involved the international drug bouses in an expenditure of between £6,000,000 and £10,000,000 to have purchased the laboratories. There is a better way of eliminating the competition of the laboratories. You simply put a commission in control. This costs nothing. On that commission you put three people who will carry out the policy of the international drug houses whether they are directly or indirectly connected with them or not

This hill also brings up the alternatives of a scientific method of operation and a business method of operation. In some respects, there is nothing wrong with a business method of operation. But the scientific method of operation in the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories has given Australia the best insulin, I think, in the world and the safest poliomyelitis vaccine in the world. In some other places in which this method did not prevail poliomyelitis vaccine was far fromsafe. Yet the Government wants to make a change! No reason has been given for it.

Then we must pay attention to the method of presentation of this bill. Discussions were held but the Director, Dr. Bazeley, was excluded from them. Why, if you are going to change the method of control of an enormous organization of this kind would you not include the man who is now in control of it in the discussions to arrive at the new way of operation? Why were the discussions confined to officers of the Department of Health? Why were they confined purely to public servants who, of course, have the Public Service attitude? Is not Dr. Bazeley and everybody else justified in the fear that, at best, it is this Public Service attitude that will prevail in future?

This bill was hastily prepared. We were told only a few days before the end of last week that this bill would be introduced. Presumably, if the House had risen last week it would not have been discussed at this length. Presumably, it would have been forced through at a late hour of the night. The bill was so hastily prepared that the Minister for Health, at a late hour, had to produce an amendment which goes to the root of the bill. It provides that the three businessmen who will be on the commission shall not have any connexion, direct or indirect, with the drug houses. This amendment, from the Labour Party point of view, goes to the root of the business. But the necessity for its introduction shows that insufficient time and attention was given to the preparation of the bill. No doubt, this bill will be forced through the Parliament to-day. No doubt it will be forced through the committee stage to-night by means of the guillotine. So, important clauses will not receive a proper examination.

The Australian Labour Party has proposed an amendment designed to give effect to its submission that the bill be delayed for a short time so that a joint committee of this Parliament can be appointed to inquire not only into what should be done with the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories but also into what is being done by the large concerns that sell drugs in this country. The Labour Party has asked for time to examine the whole situation. There may be some good features in this bill. There certainly are some hopelessly bad ones. We want to have time to separate the good from the hopelessly bad so that this great organization will not be subjected to something which is ill-considered and possibly improper.

The next point that I want to make is that this bill will impose on the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories some severe limitations of functions. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro dealt with one which was not mentioned by the honorable member for Isaacs, who, I understand, is himself a proprietary chemist. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro pointed out that in the definition of the functions of the proposed commission in clause 19 the commission’s functions are restricted to the production and sale of substances used for therapeutic purposes. The laboratories already are working extensively in the preventive and diagnostic fields. If this bill becomes law in its present form, activities in that field will be outside the scope of the laboratories, as far as I can see. Has this been overlooked?

Mr Buchanan:

– That is dealt with in the bill.

Mr CAIRNS:

– Here is the bill. The honorable member can read clause 19 for himself. It states -

The functions of the Commission are -

to produce and sell such biological products of a kind used for therapeutic purposes . . .

There is no mention of preventive or diagnostic purposes.

The second point that I want to make about these severe limitations is that the development of the whole programme for research in the future will be in the hands of the Minister, and that means in the hands of the Public Service. The Minister is to determine the research programme. Clause 19 tells us that. If the Government does not want the Minister to do these things, why did it not include in the bill provision that the commission or the director of the laboratories may initiate and submit to the Minister proposals for research. Give the Minister power to reject those proposals if you will, but give the commission power to submit to the Minister proposals for research. As the bill is drafted, the commission will have no such power. The initiative must come from the Minister.

Mr Chaney:

– Why?

Mr CAIRNS:

– The answer to that question is that the Government wants to have ministerial and departmental control over this organization.

Then there is the question of funds, which are to be provided in three ways. First of all, they are to be provided by a book entry which will capitalize all the assets of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories as the organization now exists. This will not give the laboratories one penny for future development. Secondly, the laboratories will have power to borrow from the Reserve Bank of Australia, presumably on the security of those assets. The third and only other source of funds will be profits made by the laboratories. All the research and development - and there may be great scope for it - will be limited in future to what can be financed out of the profits of the organization. But from those profits there will first be taken for payment to the Treasury an amount to be determined by the Treasurer. Tax will be paid on what is left. How ridiculous can the Government become in the operation of a public enterprise when it requires one government instrumentality to pay tax to another! That is just extracting out of one pocket by taxation something which is merely paid into another pocket. The net result is the expenditure of time, labour and resources and the restriction of the operations of the enterprise.

It seems pretty clear to me, in the light of these circumstances, that Dr. Bazeley and the others who support him are quite correct when they say that this bill will merely constitute a strait-jacket on the future development of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. This bill will impose business and Public Service principles on an organization which can function successfully only in the absence of such principles - an organization with which no person in this Parliament or outside it has at any stage found fault. What has been wrong with the operation of the laboratories in the past? In what way have they functioned contrary to business practices? In what way have they been administered wrongly? We hear no answer at all to those questions. Yet, in the absence of any answers to them, the Government intends to try to impose on the laboratories the decisions of the Minister and the Department of Health and to override those of the director of the laboratories. The Government intends to try to impose on this organization restrictions which at best, in the words of the honorable member for Isaacs, will create a most unhappy situation.

But the case of the Australian Labour Party goes further than that. I submit that this measure, which gives effect to the Government’s intentions, clearly is consistent with the proposition that the Government is the servant of private enterprise - of the large international drug houses which have not been happy even with the mere existence of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, and certainly not with its possibilities for the development of research in all sorts of other fields in which this organization will undertake research once there is a Labour government. I say to the 1,000 servants of the laboratories: Do not give up hope at the prospect of anything that the Government proposes to do by means of or as a result of this measure. Before very long, there will be in the Commonwealth a government which will be completely sympathetic with the 1,000 servants of the laboratories. The Australian Labour Party will restore them as soon as it possibly can to their rightful position in this country.

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

.- Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Cairns) and tried to find in what he had said some substance which I could grasp and which I could answer. I found some difficulty in discovering anything but vague statements in his address. However, there are one or two things on which I may comment. First of all, the honorable member asked why there is any need to do anything about the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and said that nobody has claimed that there was anything wrong with them. We all know that we can carry on many things in a very slipshod way and still get by notwithstanding. This is quite a common human experience. But the fact that we have been able to get by, whether or not an enterprise has been carried on in a slipshod way, does not mean that we do not look at the affairs of an organization and see whether we can conduct them in a rather more businesslike fashion. We do not have to find that there has been some kind of corruption or some opportunity for mismanagement before we look to see whether we can be more efficient. I imagine that every business organization to-day, perfectly efficient though it may appear to be, goes to great pains to see whether it can make itself more efficient. This is common business experience.

The honorable member for Yarra, like the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser), I think, tried deliberately to mislead the House, the public, anybody who may be listening to this debate, and anybody who may read the report of it, by stating that there was in this bill no provision for research to be carried out by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.

Mr Pollard:

– They did not say that at all.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– They did not say that at all.

Mr TURNER:

– They did. I am quite clear about that. They said that there was no provision for research, and they deliberately ignored clause 38, which makes the fullest possible provision for research by the laboratories. These two Opposition speakers quite deliberately refused to quote that clause of the bill. They deliberately ignored it.

Mr Chaney:

– Both of them did.

Mr TURNER:

– Both of them did, as my honorable friend says.

Again, the honorable member for Yarra suggested that the purpose of this bill is to hand over the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to the wicked drug houses of the eastern and western hemispheres and that the plot was to establish a commission which would give effect to policies which suited these octopuses. The Minister for Health (Dr. Donald Cameron) has circulated an amendment which was suggested by the Opposition and which is designed to ensure that none of the members of the proposed Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission shall have any interest in the drug business in Australia or anywhere else. This was something that was willingly accepted by the Government. It has the agreement of every member on both sides of the House. If this was not provided in the original bill it was only because it would never have occurred to the Minister to appoint people who had an interest in this trade, and one may assume that neither would a Labour government wish to appoint a person with such an interest. If it was overlooked, it was because, through sheer honesty and innocence, nobody expected anything of this kind to be done. But, for greater assurance, when this matter was pointed out by the Opposition, the Government most readily put in black and white what was its intention from the very beginning and what would have been the intention of any Labour government.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That makes me all the more suspicious.

Mr TURNER:

– I am afraid that I can never hope to convince the honorable member if he persists in being suspicious without any justification whatsoever. Let us consider this bill in a common-sense way. Let us forget about these ridiculous party manoeuvres. What does this bill do? As the honorable member for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth) has said, it puts this very large organization, which has a capital of approximately £6,500,000 and an annual turnover of more than £2,000,000, on a business footing. The reasons for that should be obvious, but if honorable members opposite would wish me to state them, one is that it is proposed to do this in the interests of sheer administrative efficiency, if for no other purpose. Let us be quite frank about the matter. Another reason is that, because it is a business enterprise selling products in competition with private enterprise, we must, if we are fair-minded people ensure that this competition between it and private enterprise is fair on both sides. We must ensure that we do not load the scales one way or the other, that we do not give unfair advantages to one over the other, that one cannot hit below the belt, that one cannot put in little trip wires, and so forth. Is there any one in this House who will openly deny that fair competition is just and proper? Nobody will deny that, yet when a Labour government gets into office it tries to give every advantage that socialist legislation will enable it to give to its undertakings over private enterprise. For some reason, the Labour Party dislikes private enterprise. I am merely setting out the facts without making further comment on them. Where an organization of this kind is selling products in competition with private enterprise it is essential that we ensure that the competition is fair. As I have said, past experience has given private entrepreneurs every reason to have their suspicions of government enterprises for they remember the unfair advantages given to such enterprises by socialist governments.

Then public interest must also be considered. We all know, for instance, that private enterprise is capable of collusive tendering, of joining in price rings and of engaging in other restrictive trade practices which are against the public interest. There must be safeguards against these things. Let there be fairness on both sides. This bill must be examined to see whether an enterprise of this kind, selling products in competition with private enterprise and carrying out research for public purposes, is given adequate means of working efficiently and of carrying out all its purposes with fairness to everybody concerned. Public interest requires that research should be done of a kind that it might not be worthwhile for private enterprise in the same field to pursue, and there must be provision for that kind of research to be carried out. So that to that extent we do depart from the ordinary principles of business in private enterprise. In a moment I shall examine how far this bill separates those two things. Again, in the public interest, it is necessary that stocks of certain types of substances should be kept in readiness for an emergency. For instance, it is necessary that there be stocks of vaccine in case there should be an outbreak of smallpox. Large and expensive stocks of this kind represent dead money to private enterprise which would not wish to carry large stocks of products that are returning no revenue. Nevertheless, it is in the public interest that such stocks be carried. Therefore, they must be carried by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Because they are a non-commercial and non-profitable organization, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories must be compensated from the public purse for doing something in the public interest which is contrary to what might be in their own interests if they were a purely commercial concern. I have tried to show that on the one hand this must be a purely business concern competing on a fair basis with private enterprise, and on the other hand that it has to carry out certain public purposes that are not commercial in their nature. Let us, therefore, examine the bill to see how far it covers these requirements.

The Opposition has made a great song and dance about the important work done by the laboratories in the research field. In clause 19 the bill provides that the functions of the commission are -

  1. to produce and sell such biological products of a kind used for therapeutic purposes as are prescribed and to undertake research in connexion with any such prescribed product;

They have a clear charter to carry out research with respect to prescribed products, which, in the main, are those which the laboratories manufacture now. As to the carrying out of research, clause 19 goes on to provide that they shall be required -

  1. if the Minister so determines -

    1. to undertake research towards the production of biological products of a kind used for therapeutic purposes, being products other than products prescribed for the purpose of the last preceding paragraph; and
    2. to install or maintain plant or equip ment capable of being used for the production of biological products, and to produce and hold stocks of biological products, for purposes other than the immediate sale of those products. in accordance with the determination; . .

So, the Minister may determine what special research, in addition to research with relation to products which they are now making, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories may carry out. Further, under their charter, the laboratories are required to install what might be called stand-by plant to enable them to turn out some product quickly if an emergency arises, and they are required to hold stocks of substances of that kind. The public interest is safeguarded in this way. The clause contains a special provision which enables the laboratories to carry out research with relation to the products they are now making. If some special research is to be carried out, as determined by the Minister-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Ah!

Mr TURNER:

– The honorable member says “ Ah! “. Let us have a look at this “ Ah “ business. If the honorable member will read clause 38, he will find that where the commission undertakes research, installs or maintains plant or equipment, or produces or holds stocks of a biological product in accordance with a determination of the Minister under clause 19, and where the commission satisfies the Minister that the operations, including the undertaking of research, carried on by the commission in accordance with the determination have been so carried on at a loss in a financial year, and where a loss results in that financial year the commission is entitled to be reimbursed by the Commonwealth. There is, of course, no need for the Minister to give any special sanction with regard to research respecting products already being made.

Let us assume that it is thought desirable to produce some vaccine, or whatever is necessary, to deal with hepatitis. It has been suggested by the Opposition that there is no provision in the bill for the director to make suggestions to the Minister as to what research shall be carried out. Does any one in his right senses believe that the director is so tongue-tied that he cannot suggest that to the Minister? Or does any one in his right senses believe that the Minister is so utterly stupid that that line of research would not occur to him as being desirable? Let us leave aside these idiotic suggestions and assume that it is decided that this is a useful kind of research to be carried out. The Minister then gives his O K - so he should. Then suppose that the laboratories incur a loss in a given year on account of the extra expense of special research in this matter which is nonproductive. What happens then? The Commonwealth foots the bill. Who claims that there is no adequate provision for such special research projects?

All this bill does is to bring into the light of day something that hitherto has been confused and hidden. When the Estimates come before the Parliament we shall be able to see the allocation for research in these laboratories. If the Opposition is of the opinion that the amount allocated is too little, it is for the Opposition to say so.

The amount that the Government appropriates will be in the clear light of day for us all to see; there will be a clear statement as to the proposed research, and the Parliament will be able to give its views on the proposal and the appropriation. The bill simply brings the whole matter into the light of day. Hitherto the profits of the enterprise have been mixed up with the funds available for research. No one knew the profits or the losses or how much had been spent on research. I believe that the bill is to be commended because it clarifies these aspects. The song and dance about no provision being made for research is completely unjustified.

Let us now consider the principal aspects of the bill and turn to what might be called the business side of the enterprise. In effect, a board of directors, which will include two or three businessmen, is to be appointed. 1 do not think any one can cavil very much about that. The position in relation to the qualifications of the directors is safeguarded in every way. Then there is the separation of what might be called the purely commercial functions from the non-commercial functions such as special research, stores and stand-by equipment which are necessary in the public interest and which do not form part of a commercial proposition. Clause 19 defines pretty clearly the purely commercial operations of the laboratories and the basis upon which the undertaking shall make its charges to ensure fair competition. Clause 2 1 is in these terms -

The Commission shall, in relation to biological products prescribed for the purpose of paragraph (a) of section nineteen of this Act-

Those are the products which the laboratories are now making - pursue a policy directed towards securing revenue from the sale of those products sufficient to meet all its expenditure (including expenditure in undertaking research) in connexion -with those products that is properly chargeable to revenue, and to permit the payment to the Commonwealth of a reasonable return on the capital of the Commission.

Can any one reasonably object to that as providing a basis for fair competition between this enterprise and private enterprise in respect of the commercial aspect of this undertaking? Can any one complain about that as being unfair? Some honorable members may say that “ reasonable return “ is a rather vague term. This is a criticism that would more likely come from this side of the House than from the other. What is “reasonable”? Obviously, the amount of the profits should be clear and unambiguous and therefore open to parliamentary scrutiny and criticism. The only criterion in relation to the profits of this enterprise is that they must be “reasonable”. We should be able to see clearly what the profits are and form our judgment as to whether they are fair and reasonable when compared with profits made by outside enterprises. The important factor is that the matter will be open to parliamentary scrutiny and criticism.

According to clause 32 the Treasurer will determine the capital upon which this profit is to be made. However, for some reason that I do not understand, the capital is not to include land and buildings. Why should it not include land and buildings, which clearly are a very large part of the capital that any enterprise uses in the manufacture of its products whatever they may be? I do not understand why land and buildings have been omitted from the capital upon which a reasonable return has to be earned.

The commission should cover in its “reasonable” returns all expenditure associated with its commercial products. What expenditure must be covered? It occurred to me, for example, that governments could give certain advantages to their own enterprise that would not be accorded to private enterprise. Another department, such as the Department of Customs and Excise, may provide some warehouse or storage facilities. A government may provide transport. Indeed, it may provide many things of this kind which are not charged against the particular enterprise. I am not sure whether such items are covered because I have not had time to study the bill as carefully as I would wish.

As to the special research which may be carried out and for which special provision is made in the appropriation by Parliament, let us assume that the laboratories engage in research into means of combating hepatitis, and let us assume that over a period of two or three years £500,000 or £1,000,000 is spent on the programme. That research has been carried out at the expense of the general Budget and it is not charged against the revenue coming in from the sale of commercial products. Let us assume that at the end of two or three years a drug is found which will deal with this particular disease and that the laboratories proceed to sell it as a commercial product. Is no part of the research expenditure that has been met by the general taxpayer to be counted in the cost of the product and the price at which it is offered to the public when some years later it becomes a commercial product? I am not clear about this and it is desirable that it should be clarified.

Clause 22 provides -

The Minister shall, after consulting the Commission, determine the prices to be paid for products supplied by the Commission directly to the Commonwealth or a State or to a person on behalf of the Commonwealth or a State.

As the commission has been given power to fix prices in accordance with the charter provided in the earlier clauses, there seems to be no adequate reason why there should be a departure from that principle in clause 22 which covers the case of the Commonwealth purchasing a product. It may be said that this provision is desirable because the commission may seek to over-charge the Government. But the commission consists of businessmen and there is a safeguard against over-charging inasmuch as the products of the laboratories will be competing with products that no doubt can be imported. This, in turn, automatically fixes a reasonable price. If the laboratories are not prepared to sell a particular product at a price that is comparable to the price that the Commonwealth would pay if it obtained the product from another source, clearly the price is too high and the commission will be unable to meet competition. There is really no need for the Minister to retain this power to fix prices. There is no chance that he will be exploited if he does not because prices will be fixed automatically.

Let me turn now to clause 33 which, to my mind, contains a rather muddled provision. According to this clause, after consultation between the Minister and the Treasurer, a certain amount from the profits of the undertaking will be paid to the Treasury. Not the whole of the profits but some of them apparently are to be retained by the commission and may be used in furthering its research projects.

I feel that by reason of this provision it is difficult for the Parliament to know what the profits of the undertaking really have been. All we will know is that a certain amount has been paid to the Treasury after the reduction of an amount which might not be known to us. Surely it would be better in the interests of clarity, so that we could see what the results of the operations had been, if all the profits after deducting expenses were paid over to the Treasury, and then a specific appropriation was made in the Estimates for research. You may say that these are only book entries and so they are, but if they are book entries, they should be so made as to give a clear view for the Parliament and the people of what is really happening. So I do not believe that clause 33 is a good one. I have already referred to clause 38 and I add this comment: The latter part of the clause sets out -

Where - the Commission is entitled to be reimbursed by the Commonwealth to the extent of the firstmentioned loss-

That is, the loss on special research - or to the extent of the second-mentioned loss-

That is an overall loss - whichever is the less-

The Commonwealth shall reimburse the laboratories in respect of whichever loss is the lesser.

To my mind, this only makes the financial operations of the commission somewhat obscure, and there is no need for obscurity except by reason of the provision in the earlier clause that I have just mentioned. Surely it would be better if the whole of the profits were paid to the Treasury and then the Parliament were to make an appropriation for research. By doing it in the way proposed in the bill, you get only a muddle and it will be difficult to see what has really happened. If we are to ensure that there is fair competition and that we can see exactly what is happening, we have to make matters as clear as possible and avoid the kind of muddle that will result from the two clauses I have mentioned.

So far, I have been speaking about the commercial functions of the organization and how they would be best carried out so that the Parliament would get a clear view of what is happening. I need say very little more about the non-commercial functions - that is, the special research which goes beyond research into products that are now being manufactured - because as I have said, provision has been made from the outset for an appropriation by the Parliament for this kind of work to be carried out and for any losses to be reimbursed. Provision is made for carrying stocks that would not be carried on a commercial basis and for the provision of stand-by equipment - that is, equipment necessary to produce some product which is necessary to meet an emergency such as an outbreak of small-pox or the imminence of war when we might suddenly need a large output of some particular type or types of products.

By and large, the bill achieves the purposes it sets out to achieve. I believe those purposes are reasonable and proper. I have indicated that I believe there could be an improvement in some clauses of the bill, and that it would be possible to clarify the operations of this commission in various respects, so that Parliament could exercise a closer scrutiny of the actual operations of the commission and see that the scales were held even. I ask for nothing more than that they should be held even between this enterprise and private enterprise carrying on the same sort of business and making the same type of product and that the public interest should be adequately safeguarded.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Usually, when a bill is introduced into the House, the Government advances valid reasons for the action it has taken; but so far in this debate no valid reasons have been advanced, either by the Minister for Health (Dr. Donald Cameron) or the two members on the Government side who have spoken, to explain why this bill should be introduced at all. It is true - and if this is advanced as a reason I do not accept it as valid - that two Government speakers have said that for the purposes of pounds, shillings and pence, we should have a new basis of control so that, actuarily the business can be run on different lines; but that merely typifies the attitude that the parties supporting the Government adopt on all matters, whether they affect the health of the people or anything else. It is always a question of pounds, shillings and pence. Whether it is good for the people or toad for them is something that the Government and its supporters could not care ‘Jess about so long as they can get up in real a la private enterprise style and produce some argument in favour of increased profits.

This contemptible piece of legislation has not been introduced for the good of Australia. It has not been introduced at the request of the medical profession or the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. It has not been introduced because anybody has been able to advance evidence to show that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are producing goods of inferior quality, or because anybody has been able to show, even from the aspect of pounds, shillings and pence, that the laboratories have been losing money. Indeed, the facts reveal that the laboratories have been making money. Nobody can show that any single person in the whole community has asked the Government to introduce this rotten piece of legislation - and “ rotten “ is the correct adjective. It is rotten, and everybody knows it is rotten.

We know that it is the first step towards a position where the private drug houses will be able to muscle in on the drug trade of Australia. We know it is the first step towards the sell-out of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to the private drug houses of Australia and to foreign drug houses as well, which is more important. Before I sit down, I shall produce evider.ee to show that the Government has already been tinkering with the idea of selling out this undertaking, not only to Australian enterprise but also to foreign-controlled enterprises in America and England. Clearly, this bill has been introduced for the benefit of private drug houses which want to exploit the people’s sickness by muscling in on the market that hitherto has been catered for by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories on a non-profitmaking basis. Nobody should be allowed to make profit out of the people’s sickness, and the laboratories have followed that rule. They have catered for the people’s sickness on a non-profit making basis.

Mr Luchetti:

– They have catered not only for the people but also have done work of value to animal husbandry by supplying veterinary needs.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is true. II will .produce evidence of the Government’s intention to sell out. I will show that negotiations have already taken place, that Cabinet considered them ‘in all seriousness -and was, in fact, evenly divided -on the proposal. The members of the Cabinet altered their opinion ‘later only as a consequence ©f intense public pressure from outside emanating .from the Australian Council of Trade .Unions, doctors in the various .States of the Commonwealth and the chief superintendents .of .the big hospitals. Then -and only then did Ministers retreat from .the move they had made. There is no doubt that if this bill becomes law - as it willi - and until such time as a Labour government can repeal the evil features of it, the people of Australia will be thrown on the tender mercies of the greedy Australian and foreign monopolies whose chief concern - one can almost say whose only concern - is to make profit out of sickness. For them, research will be purely a secondary consideration if this -plan is taken to fruition.

Before considering this contemptible piece of legislation, I think I should state for the record the history of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I am absolutely certain that there are many people, including the grazier from Hume, who is trying to interject, who do not know what has been the proud record of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. If honorable members opposite knew that record, not one of them would be willing to support the Government’s proposal, a proposal that has been brought forward without any request having been made by any person in the whole of the community who is prepared to stand up and be counted on the issue.

The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories was founded in .1916 by the Department of Trade and Commerce to produce essential biologicals, such as diphtheria, tetanus and gas gangrene anti-toxins. The organization introduced vaccines into its schedule in 1917, concentrating in this field, as in the field of anti-toxins, upon war-time needs, such as preparations for the treatment of diseases such as typhoid and dysentery. The organization did not come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health until 1921. Although it had been operating then for only five years, it had extended its activities to cover peace-time needs, and it was a good thing for Australia that it had done so. In 1921 it had what now seems to have been very little equipment, but, having regard to the fact that it had been in operation for only five years, it had already made tremendous forward strides. It had sixteen rooms, a few stables, and a staff of only 25. The record also reports that it had sixteen horses. By 1959 the staff had grown to 900, one-fifth of them being scientists. To-day the staff has increased to 1,000.

That is the record of this organization. That is how it started and that is the way it has progressed to its present position. The honorable member for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth) says that it has a capital asset of some £6,000,000. I wonder what will be declared as the capital asset of this undertaking when the bill becomes operative. The Minister for Health said in March of last year, in answer to a question by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) that the capital asset was a little over £3,000,000. It will be interesting to see what figure emerges when the actuaries and the other book workers get on the job.

I said I would produce proof that this Government has already considered selling the laboratories to drug houses in America and in England, and I will now proceed to read extracts from articles that have appeared in the “ Sydney Morning Herald “. Honorable members opposite are now trying to interject, but I must remind them that the “ Sydney Morning Herald “ cannot be said by any one to be pro-Labour. It is a newspaper that always rallies to the side of the Liberals, especially just before an election. It sometimes enjoys the luxury of a half-hearted attack on the Liberal Party, perhaps eighteen months before an election is due, but it can be relied upon, as can the other daily newspapers of Australia, to rally to the cause of this Government at the time that is most important to the Government - a few weeks before an election.

The “ Sydney Morning Herald “, on 28th January, 1960, reported a rumour that the Government intended to sell the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to a foreign drug company. It said that the laboratories now produced more than 7,000 separate products, some at great loss, because, although they are important, they are in small demand. In this connexion, let me make a few remarks for the benefit of the honorable member for Bradfield (Mr. Turner). He said that we must compete on a fair basis with private organizations. Does he think that those organizations would be prepared to produce goods that are in small demand and frequently are not called for at all? Would they keep large stocks of such preparations in case there was a national outbreak of a serious disease? Of course, they would not.

The newspaper article went on to say that it is recognized that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories produce the best vaccines and serums in the world. It said, further, that the American Drug Company, Abbotts Incorporated, Burroughs Wellcome and Company, and Glaxo Laboratories Proprietary Limited, had all asked the Government whether it would be prepared to sell the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) was questioned on this matter he said that he did not know a thing about it. “ It is the first I have heard of it “, he said. Let us unfold the story, however. We cannot say that the Prime Minister was telling lies. He has many things on his mind, and it is quite possible that somebody did offer him £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 for the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and that he forgot all about it, because he is a busy man. But we will unfold the story, and as we go along we will see how much truth there was in the statement that no offer to purchase had been made.

We are dealing with an undertaking that made a profit of £136,000 in 1957, £66,000 in 1958, and £212,000 in 1959. In view of these profits, it has suddenly become an undertaking that is very attractive to private enterprise. Private enterprise was not interested in it while it was in its formative stage and when it was not making profits. But as soon as it becomes a profitable undertaking, private enterprise evinces a sudden great interest in the health of the people of this country.

On 29th January, 1960, there was an interesting report in the newspapers to the effect that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health spent two hours inspecting the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories at Parkville. The Prime Minister noticed a few pressmen hanging around, and that among them was somebody with a television camera to take a photograph of him and the Minister as they were proceeding on their inspection. He must have suddenly remembered something about this offer of Abbotts Incorporated, about which he said he knew nothing earlier. Perhaps because his conscience pricked him, he rushed back from the official party to speak to the pressmen gathered behind the barbed wire. Incidentally, the newspapers reported that the pressmen were wired off from the inspection party and were not allowed to see what was going on. He went back to them, according to the press reports, and said, “Listen, you think I have come here to sell the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, but I made arrangements for this visit some time ago”. Of course he had made the arrangements some time before, because subsequent press reports revealed - and, in fact, the Minister admitted - that it was some eight months before that date that the first offer was made to the Government. Of course he made his arrangements some time before, and that only links the visit to the laboratories more closely with the offer made to the Government by the overseas drug combines.

In making the visit, the Prime Minister told the pressmen, he was concerned with technical staff and salaries. Then, in his own typical language, he said, “ Very humdrum matters “. Fancy describing as “ humdrum “ matters concerning technical staff and salaries! Of course, anything is humdrum to the Prime Minister that concerns the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories - so humdrum, in fact, that he would like to get rid of the whole show and to sell it to some overseas drug company.

I will say this for the Minister for Health, to his eternal credit if one can believe the same source of information from which I gathered the material about which I have already spoken: He did put up a fight in Cabinet against this proposal. I will quote some of his remarks in a few minutes, and I will ask him to try to reconcile those remarks with the statements he has made in introducing this bill into the Parliament.

When the Prime Minister adopted this changed attitude, rushing back to the pressmen to say that he had not come to sell the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, he did so for one reason only. By this time there was such a public outcry from every section of the community that had any interest in the welfare of the Australian people that he realized that it was political dynamite to sell the undertaking. That is why he backed away from the proposition. That is why the Cabinet, which, according to the press, was equally divided on the matter some time earlier, finally decided overwhelmingly in favour of retaining the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.

No wonder the Minister is smiling. He knows this is true. He thinks there has been a leak to which I have had access. I have not, but the press has. The Minister is smiling, and perhaps this is funny to him. The decision of Cabinet represented a victory for him, a victory that had previously seemed to be escaping him. The fact is that pressure was brought to bear by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The interstate executive of the A.C.T.U. carried unanimously a resolution condemning what was contemplated by the Government.

The Medical Superintendent of Prince Henry Hospital, Dr. L. C. Hickson, said that he believed the sale of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories would lead to dearer biological drugs, that the sale would be a retrograde step, and that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories had been a restraining influence on drug prices. It was not primarily concerned with profits, and we must remember that. The laboratories should not be concerned with profits when the welfare and the health of the people are at stake. The Chairman of the Hospitals and Charities Commission, Dr. J. H. Lindell, said that he hoped that the proposed take-over would not interfere with the high quality of service that they had come to take for granted from the laboratories.

We see how one authority after the other is coming to the defence of the laboratories and expressing fears about the quality and purity of drugs and vaccines that will be produced once private enterprise comes into the picture. The Assistant Medical Superintendent of St. Vincent’s Hospital, Dr.

  1. C. Stratford, said that it would be a tragedy if Australian medical science lost the benefit of important research work done at the laboratories. He pointed out that the laboratories had carried out 1,500 tests on golden staph virus, all without any fee whatever.

The honorable member for Bradfield spoke about clause 38. He said that it would still be possible for the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to carry on research. Nothing could be further from the truth. It cannot carry on research, under the bill, unless it obtains the approval of the Minister. It can carry on research without his approval only in dealing with prescribed products. It could not have carried out the 1,500 tests on golden staph virus, if this bill had already been enacted, unless it had first obtained the Minister’s approval.

Mr L R Johnson:

– He is not interested.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Minister is interested; but let us suppose we had a Minister for Health who was like the Prime Minister.

Mr Bryant:

– Or the Minister for National Development.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I will deal with the Prime Minister because we already know what he thinks about the laboratories. He said that he thinks the matter of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories is humdrum. Suppose we had a Minister for Health who regarded the laboratories as humdrum, as the Prime Minister does; what chance would the laboratories have of obtaining any finance or authority to carry out research projects? None at all! Let us consider what the A.C.T.U. had to say. This body represents 1,500,000 workers who, with their wives, constitute a voting force of some 3,000,000. So the Government cannot glibly cast aside the views of the A.C.T.U. These trade unionists are the people who provide the finance with which the Government pays for the drugs that are supplied by the drug houses of Australia and by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. These are the people who must pay extra taxes when the Government decides to allow overseas drug monopolies to muscle in on the market and to close down its own undertakings. The A.C.T.U. said that it viewed with alarm the reported take-over moves by overseas drug manufacturers of Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and added that it feared the reported action would lead to private exploitation of the nation’s sickness.

There is no denying the fact that an offer was made. Every one knew it was made. It was made and it caused a national stir politically, industrially and professionally. On 27th January, 1960, the “Age” stated that the Minister had confirmed that an offer had been made. Now the Minister comes into the picture, and that is why he is smiling all the time. He knows how he beat the Prime Minister and the others who wanted to sell the laboratories. The Minister cannot deny that the Prime Minister and the majority of Cabinet at one stage looked like overruling him. He can thank the public for the general outcry which beat the Government on this. Honorable members opposite who are interjecting do not like what I am saying; they are being hit with facts. The “Age” reported that the Minister had confirmed that overseas drug manufacturers were making take-over feelers for the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, but added that the matter was one for the full Cabinet to consider. Now the story begins to emerge. The Prime Minister denied that any offer had been made, but the Minister said that not only had feelers been put out but the matter would actually be given the consideration of Cabinet. The “Age” also reported that the matter of a sale was in fact discussed by the Cabinet and that the Cabinet was evenly divided on the issue. A further report from the “ Age “ said -

The Prime Minister is believed to favour a sale.

None of these statements has been denied, and their value lies in the fact that they have not been denied. If an inaccurate statement is published in the press, a Minister usually denies it with great alacrity. But not one of these statements was denied. The Sydney “ Telegraph “ of 27th January, 1960, reported the Minister as saying that if a firm bid was received the Government would consider it.

What appears to have happened is that eight months before the inspection took place, when this humdrum business of considering the technical problems and the question of the salaries of the staff was being looked into by the Prime Minister, the decision was held up momentarily because there was not a firm bid, but if a firm bid had been made, it would have been1 considered. The Minister said that and it is reported in the “Telegraph” of 27th January.

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I did not say anything like that.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– You did not deny it. You must take it as having been said.

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am denying it now.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– You are late in denying it. More than eighteen months have elapsed since the press report. Will the Minister deny that he said -

I think these inquiries are part of the general take-over atmosphere in the business world to-day.

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– No.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Minister agrees with that part, but not with the first part of the statement. Yet both parts are taken from the same paragraph in the newspaper report! I believe that in this matter the press acted as the public watchdogs. Much as I dislike the press generally and. much as I feel the press gives the Australian Labour Party shocking treatment in the way it slants the news against Labour, it is better to have the press, bad as it is in Australia, than to have no press at all or to have a press that is shackled as it is in some totalitarian countries. On this and on some other notable occasions, the press in Australia has acted as the watchdogs of the public interest and has stepped in and even been able to prevent what otherwise would have been a disaster to the nation. I say very definitely and emphatically that it was the intervention of the press that prevented the sell-out of this undertaking in 1960, when it was first mooted. The Government, fearing the consequences that could flow from the press alertness, shuffled away from what at one time looked as though it would be a fait accompli.

All this time the Prime Minister was denying that the Government was even considering selling the laboratories. But on 4th February, I960, the Prime Minister at: last, being jammed into a corner by the press, and being completely at bay, admitted that Cabinet had considered a take-over bid. So there must have been a bid. This answers at once any doubts as to whether there was in fact a bid. Of course there was! The Prime Minister said there was a bid, that the bid had been considered, but that the Government decided to reject it.

Mr L R Johnson:

– Did he say that in the House?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It was said at a press conference and plenty of pressmen in the gallery can testify to the fact that the Prime Minister made that statement.

Let me quote what the press is saying to-day, not about the sale of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories but about this bill. I shall quote from none other than the Sydney “ Sun “ of recent date. This is what was said about the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in a leading article -

Last year an attempt was made by three overseas drug companies te take over and turn it into a purely profit-making concern.

This was rejected, after some temporising-

What an understatement that is! by the Federal Government for the very sound reason that much of the most vital research done at the laboratories would simply not be undertaken at all if money alone were the motive.

The editorial continued -

It would be sheer madness to take a pinchpenny attitude to such instrumentalities as the C.S.L. or the C.S.I.R.O. which have proved their value a million times over to the people and to industry.

The next step will be to put the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization under some sort of business control, where the whole of its research will be subject to some business man sitting at a glass-topped desk in Collins-street, Melbourne. Nothing could be more absurd than the proposition enunciated in the hill. The article finishes in this strain -

If there is anything at all in Dr. Bazeley’s suspicion that some research in the future might be limited or neglected foc the sake of a more “ businesslike “ approach, the proposed bill should be squashed and squashed now by all thinking members of Parliament.

Of course it should be squashed! The “ Sun “ is completely right, and so is every other newspaper in Australia, because there is hardly one of them which has not editorially supported Dr. Bazeley in bis attitude and condemned the attitude of this Government.

I will deal now with a matter which was touched on by the honorable member for Bradfield (Mr. Turner). This measure could have serious implications to Australia’s defence in time of war. Is it believed that once we handed the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories over to private enterprise a private firm would be able or willing to keep up the research done by the laboratories? Failure to do so could be critical if Australia faced a Pacific tropical war when special drugs would be needed to deal with tropical complaints?

The Menzies Government has always favoured disposing of public assets to private enterprise. Trans-Australia Airlines and the Commonwealth shipping line are about the only two instrumentalities, apart from the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories which have so far escaped. That is only because the Government could not get a bid for the shipping line whilst the public outcry against the sale of T.A.A. - similar to the outcry now against the proposals in respect of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories - saved the airline from being disposed of. The Government has already got rid of Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited, the Glen Davis shale oil undertaking, which the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Luchetti) did so much to try to save at that time, and the assets of the Australian Whaling Commission, which was showing a magnificent profit. The Government sold the Bell Bay aluminium works, once it started to make a profit and sold Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, giving a foreign combine complete control over Australia’s oil supplies. It sold the ball-bearing factory, the Commonwealth Engineering Company Limited and the Commonwealth equipment handling pool. It sold to private enterprise everything that it could get its greedy, useless, stupid hands on. It sold those undertakings especially when they made some profit.

Mr. E. Risstrom, who is the assistant secretary of the Victorian Taxpayers Association - nobody can say he is a Fabian Socialist - said that the Commonwealth

Serum Laboratories was a national asset which must be preserved. He added -

Like its sister organization, C.S.LR..O., its contributions to national prosperity could not be expressed in terms of money.

I believe we would never have got the Salk vaccine when we did had it not been for the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, because Dr. Bazeley was with Dr. Salk in the United States of America at the very time when the Salk vaccine was discovered. In 1955 our Commonwealth Serum Laboratories was by far the most effective body producing Salk vaccine anywhere in the world. What happened in the case of the private drug houses of America which produced the vaccine there? Will anybody forget that it was they who produced the putrid vaccine which caused the death of 30 children who were being vaccinated against polio? Not one single life has ever been lost in Australia as the result of impure vaccines or serums supplied by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, yet this Government is concerned with pounds, shillings and pence and with handing over the people’s property to private enterprise.

I wish to get some information, but I will not ask the Minister for Health because he could not tell me, as he does not handle these things. I would like to know from the federal secretary of the Liberal Party how much the drug houses of Australia paid into the Liberal Party’s campaign funds. The Minister is smiling, so perhaps he does know. I would like to know how much Abbotts Incorporated paid into that fund. I can think of no other reason why the Government is doing this.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Motion (by Mr. L. R. Johnson) negatived -

That the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) be granted an extension of time.

Mr BANDIDT:
Wide Bay

.- We have heard a most remarkable outburst by the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron). He reminded me of that historical character who found it desirable to dlt at windmills and if there is any better windmill at which to tilt than that which the honorable member for Hindmarsh tilted at, I would like to know what it is. He directed his tilting at an Aunt Sally of his own choosing and then promptly threw various types of material at it. He tried to make out that, because there was apparently an approach by some overseas concern to the Government with regard to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the Government had done something wrong. Obviously the Government resisted any approach for the sale of the laboratories. The honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant) who chooses to laugh at that statement can continue to laugh. The honorable member for Hindmarsh is faced with the fact that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories have not been sold, and so all that he has done is to tilt at a windmill. The honorable member for Wills is finding this amusing, but I repeat that the laboratories have not been sold. They will continue in operation as a Commonwealth undertaking. That is the point which matters to this House and not the fact that the honorable member for Hindmarsh has chosen to set up an Aunt Sally of his own to shoot at.

What a remarkable statement he made! He apparently considered that somebody should ask for this legislation to be introduced. He said that it has not been introduced at the request of the medical profession or of any other body. Why should this Government introduce a bill to create a commission for the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories just because some member of the medical profession asked it to do so? Why should it fail to bring in such a bill when the medical profession does not ask for it? Surely the reason for bringing in this bill is that it is necessary. In fact, the Minister for Health (Dr. Donald Cameron) has made it clear that the bill is necessary. I will quote some of the words he uttered during his second-reading speech as reported in “ Hansard “ at page 1780. He said -

While the laboratories have reached their present high status in the Australian and overseas communities within the framework of departmental methods and administration, it has been felt that this form of administration is no longer the most effective for the purposes for which the laboratories exist.

The production and research activities undertaken by the laboratories now range over a much larger and more specialized field than in earlier years. The problems of marketing, research, administration and management have become increasingly complex. In fact, remarks made by members of the Opposition have made it clear that the work of the laboratories has become more complex. Some of them have referred to the fact that it is a concern worth over £6,000,000. One honorable member opposite thought that it was worth something over £3,000,000, and did not know what figure the Government would place on it. Whether it is a £3,000,000 or a £6,000,000 concern, it is still a big venture and in fact we were told that its turnover was £2,400,000. Surely that justifies any government’s deciding to appoint a commission so that the business side of the undertaking can be attended to properly. If any one is tempted to ask, “Why should it be done now? “, the answer is that there must always come a time in the life of any undertaking when it ceases to be small and must thereafter be regarded as big. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are in exactly the same position as any expanding business. Often a business is controlled by one man or a small partnership, but the time comes when it is necessary to turn it into a company. Surely such a time has come when the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, an undertaking which has an annual turnover of more than £2,000,000 in the sale of goods, must be run along businesslike lines.

The decision to appoint a commission to control the undertaking is no reflection on the present director. I should imagine that the director of this concern is appointed primarily to ensure that the research work done by it and the production of goods that it engages in are carried out in the proper manner. He is not appointed primarily - and certainly once this bill goes through he will not be appointed primarily - because he may be a good organizer. The reason why so many businesses in Australia are successful is that they have very capable people at the helm. In some cases people are appointed directors although they have no technical knowledge whatsoever.

I turn again to the Minister’s speech. The Minister said -

The Government has been conscious of the increasing growth and complexity of the laboratories’ activities and has very carefully examined ways and means to improve overall administration.

He went on -

I emphasize that this review was designed towards ensuring the continued progress and development of the laboratories as an integral part of the activities of the Commonwealth Government in the field of public health. Following this review, the Government has come to the conclusion that the establishment of a statutory commission comprising both business and medical men of wide experience would provide the most flexible, effective and therefore efficient form of administration.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.

Mr BANDIDT:

– Before the suspension of the sitting, I mentioned the unwarranted outburst by the honorable member for Hindmarsh. I pointed out that he spent a deal of his time attacking the Government for something that it had not done. I said that, in fact, the Government had not sold the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I also pointed out that, contrary to what the honorable member had said, the Government did have a valid reason for introducing this bill. I support the bill wholeheartedly with one suggestion for improvement. Clause 19 defines the functions of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission. It states that the functions are to produce and sell biological products of a kind used for such therapeutic purposes as are prescribed.

The Opposition drew attention to the fact that the word “ therapeutic “ has a limited meaning. On reference to the Oxford Dictionary I found that it means “ of or pertaining to the healing of disease “. It is clear from the bill that the Government did not mean merely to deal with the healing of disease. For instance, clause 19 states that the functions of the commission are exercisable for or in relation to any purpose of the Commonwealth, including, under paragraph (g), pharmaceutical, sickness or hospital benefits, or medical or dental services and, under paragraph (h) quarantine. Obviously, these paragraphs make it clear that the word “ therapeutic “ is intended to have a general meaning and to include prophylactic measures. I suggest, therefore, that the Minister for Health should put the meaning of the word “ therapeutic “ beyond doubt and widen the clause to include the obvious purposes for which the bill was designed.

In regard to clause 19, generally, I think it is quite clear that, because of the complexity of all the matters now handled by this vast and very good organization, it is essential that a proper scheme of administration should be instituted. That is precisely what the bill does. The fear has been expressed by some honorable members of the Opposition that research may be cut down. The honorable member for Hindmarsh said that the bill might mean the cancellation of all research work. Clause 19 makes it very clear that the cancellation of research work is not envisaged at all.

The clause does leave it within the discretion of the Minister to decide whether certain research should be undertaken. Up to the present time, all the research activities of the laboratories have been under the jurisdiction of the Minister. All that this bill does is to institute the means of administration. It is clear from the Minister’s second-reading speech that he has no intention at all of cutting out research. In fact, his speech indicated that the work being done by the laboratories is to be continued.

With regard to clause 32 I think it is worth while to point out that it is envisaged that money will be appropriated for the purposes of the commission, which include research. Among other things the clause provides that the capital of the commission shall include such amounts as have been paid to the commission by the Treasurer out of moneys appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of the commission.

Clause 33 deals with interest. I understood the honorable member for Bradfield (Mr. Turner) to say that the undertaking should return interest. I would suggest that, because of the nature of the work done by the laboratories, they are pardy in the nature of a business undertaking but that they are also essentially a national service. Because the laboratories do render a national service it is not necessary that that service should return interest on money lent. Therefore, I agree with the provision made in clause 33 that interest shall not be payable as such.

However, the clause does say that the commission shall pay the Commonwealth, out of the profits of the commission for a financial year, such amount as the Treasurer, after consulting the Minister, determines. Of course, that envisages that there will be profits. At the same time, it allows for the fact that if there are no profits no payment need be made. But if interest were to be paid it would have to be debited irrespective of whether profits were made. That is an important difference.

Clause 34 makes it clear that the commission may borrow money. Sub-clause (2.) provides that the Treasurer may, out of moneys appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of this act, make advances to the commission of such amounts and on such terms as he thinks fit. Sub-clause (3.) provides -

The commission may, with the consent of the Treasurer, borrow moneys, whether for a temporary purpose or not, otherwise than in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section.

Clause 38, I submit, also makes it clear that research will continue. It reads -

Where -

the Commission undertakes research, installs or maintains plant or equipment or produces or holds stocks of a biological product in accordance with the determination by the Minister under section nineteen of this Act;

Cb) the Commission satisfies the Minister that the operations (including the undertaking of research) carried on by the Commission in accordance with the determination have been so carried on at a loss in a financial year; and

a loss results in that financial year from the whole of the operations of the Commission, the Commission is entitled to be reimbursed by the Commonwealth to the extent of the firstmentioned loss or to the extent of the secondmentioned loss, whichever is the less.

Under clause 39, the amount of the profits of the commission for a financial year is the amount remaining after deducting from the revenue received or receivable in respect of that financial year the expenditure properly chargeable against that revenue. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is quite clear that this bill aims to set up an organization to deal with a vast undertaking. It contains all necessary provisions for this purpose. It provides that various activities shall be under the control of the Minister. Surely there is no one better qualified than the Minister for Health to decide what research should be undertaken in the future or what specifically should be done in the undertaking.

The bill provides that the organization shall make profits in order to cover its expenses if it can and also to return something to the Treasury, which will receive so much of the profits as is determined by the Treasurer. But, most important, this bill will enable this great organization to supply the Australian people with necessary drugs and to undertake necessary research. I have no doubt that the laboratories will continue to provide in the future the service that they have provided so satisfactorily in the past.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that Opposition members who have already spoken on this measure have perhaps been swayed too much by the unwarranted outburst of Dr. Bazeley.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What a shocking thing to say - and under privilege, too!

Mr SPEAKER (Hon John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Order! The honorable member for Hindmarsh is out of his place, and is also out of order.

Mr BANDIDT:

– Dr. Bazeley has misused his position. The Public Service of this country bears a very honorable name.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Fancy threatening him!

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member for Hindmarsh has already spoken, and he should not continue to interject.

Mr Cope:

– He is-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member for Watson, also, will remain silent.

Mr BANDIDT:

– The Commonwealth Public Service is entitled to very great credit, for it has performed very fine national service in the interests of Australia. Dr. Bazeley has done nothing to maintain the high opinion in which that worthy service is held.

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

.- Mr. Speaker, this measure is an amazing piece of work by the government which at present controls the destinies of this country. May I just touch lightly on the parish pump and say that I am somewhat directly interested in this measure and in the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. One of the properties of this organization happens to be at Broadmeadows in my constituency,, and another o£ some. 1,300 acres is at Woodend, my old home- town.

The property of 3-25: acres at Broadmeadows is- worth today not less-1 than £500;000: That is- not- an exaggeration. That is- ite value for residential purposes-, and: also for other purposes taking into’ consideration the- fact- that- » very valuable deposit of? porcelain- clay underlies it: Within, the- last couple of years, I have been approached- by people who- have- suggested that the.- property ought, to be sold for residential; purposes- or to enterprises in which they are interested, in. order that the clay, may be extracted for the manufacture of pipes- or. for. some.- other use. I have given- to.- such people- the- same answer that this Government should have- given when pressure was imposed- on it, either directly or indirectly, by the- powerful drug monopolies of the world and Drug Houses of Australia- Limited. V have said to the people who have approached me: “ The- city of Broadmeadows, has- grown, around this property’ of 325) acnes, which is eminently suited to. the- purpose for- which it is, used. Iri’ no. circumstances, would’ I. endeavour to influence, the. government of this, country in the interests, of a few people: when the. work undertaken on< the site; - which-, as- far as I know,, is. suited to- the purpose - is: of such great value: to the people of Australia..”

Let me follow up that line of thought and’ say that in my 24 years’ service in this Parliament! have never heard one statement made in criticism of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Honorable members on both sides of this House have been extremely voluble in saying, rightly or wrongly, a< great many, things in. criticism of almost every other public utility;, whether semi-government; or controlled directly- by a: government, but on. the contrary, so good has been the work of these great laboratories: which we- are discussing, so efficient has been, their management and so. satisfied have been the’ people: of Australia, and, indeed1,, of other countries; who. have had cause to- be grateful to this institution, that fi have never yet heard a voice raised in criticism- of. it.- Yet,, suddenly, almost from nowhere; we are given a bill which, as a careful) reading of it shows,, is designed deliberately to put a halter on the activities of the. Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Make no mistake about that!

What are the- facts? Generally speak ing;, the great men. who have benefited mankind by their research and. discoveries are invariably men who have put personal profit and. the: profit motive; - which- is not unrelated, to this bill - behind, them and have- given, to. mankind,, without fee. or. reward, all that they had.. Let me mention two> of. the. most recent examples of this - the discovery of penicillin by Howard Florey and. the. development of the Salk poliomyelitis vaccine by- Jonas Salk, with whom- was associated, the present director of the Commonwealth. Serum Laboratories. Because, of a threat that undeniably has been* held over this. Government,, this measure, has been- introduced with the deliberate purpose of harnessing, this, great instrumentality in order to keep its activities down to the bare minimum-. Nb’ argument can be advanced to refute that statement. That is the purpose of this Bill.

Why do honorable members think the great drug houses- of the- United, States- of America sent their agents to- this country? Are- not the1 Americans, always- looking for investment- iT Australia?- I do. not mind some- overseas investment in Australia, but are not these overseas investors always picking out the- most profitable fields for their investment? The- history of the great drug interests in the. United- States shows that the- manufacture of drugs is one: of the: most, profitable activities, if not the most profitable- activity, undertaken- by private- enterprise- in. that country. The same- statements apply, to- the activities of Drug Houses of Australia Limited in- this country. The introduction! of a measure such< as this in. the. dying, stages of- a sessional period, without members- of the Opposition and other honorable members - particularly members- of the. Australian Country Party - being, afforded time adequately, to absorb the details, is surely an. outrage..

Let us. have a look at the situation with respect to penicillin^ How is it that a Commonwealth instrumentality has practically a. monopoly of the manufacture of penicillin in this country, Mr. Speaker? How is. it that the people of Australia, who. suffer from- all sorts of illnesses such as> the. common, cold and influenza, are able to. get injections; of penicillin at a reasonable price, and have been able to. do. sosince, I think, about 1943. when, penicillin was first found to be satisfactory for the treatment of all sorts of human ills? This is the story: There was at that time in Australia a government directed by the late John Curtin. Immediately Howard Florey said, “This is a gift to mankind”, a number of private medical practitioners in Adelaide saw an opportunity for profit and determined that they would manufacture penicillin - for the benefit of mankind indirectly, perhaps! Do honorable members think that those medical practitioners were investing their capital for the benefit of the people of Australia? Rather, they were investing their money because they saw an opportunity to make profits by manufacturing and distributing penicillin in this country.

What did the Labour Government do? Immediately that was mooted, the Curtin Government determined that forthwith - and forever, so far as the Labour movement was concerned - penicillin would be manufactured by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in Melbourne. That is how the laboratories come to have almost a monopoly of the manufacture of penicillin in Australia. Had it not been for the Curtin Government’s decision, in 1943, the people of Australia would have paid out in the intervening years millions of pounds -more than they have paid for penicillin and all the benefits that it confers. That is one illustration. Now let us have a look at some other features of this business. Let us examine the practice of these drug houses. I am not suggesting that many of their products are not good, but I ask honorable members whether they have taken the opportunity to examine carefully the extravagant packaging of these products and the expensive advertising of them. I invite honorable members to work out for themselves the value the people are getting for the money they are paying for the products of the private drug houses in comparison with the value they get when they buy the worthwhile products of their own organization, the cost of which, in part, is borne by the Commonwealth Government. We have much to be thankful for. In view of those circumstances, why is it proposed to put this limitation upon the activities of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories? The Government says that it is merely appointing a new controlling authority. Sensing some opposition from the Labour movement, and at the suggestion of the Labour movement, the Government has circulated a proposed amendment to provide that the commissioners shall not have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in any company or associated institution engaged in the production of pharmaceutical products. That is only a sham concession which does not placate the Labour Party.

After all, what are the Government’s real intentions? First the Government inserts this provision in the bill, then it takes care to see that its nefarious desires shall be fulfilled by ensuring that the new commissioners will be men who will act according to its wishes. The whole history of this Government’s activities has been, as far as it has been practicable to do ‘so, to get out of commercial undertakings and pass them over to private enterprise.

Mr Peters:

– Often at the expense of the public.

Mr POLLARD:

– Exactly. Take TransAustralia Airlines as an example. Although T.A.A. has not been destroyed since this Government came to office, it has certainly been placed in shackles. The carriage of the people’s mail has been divided between private enterprise and T.A.A. In addition to that, purchases of aircraft by the private enterprise airlines have been backed by the Government. The net result has been that instead of continuing as a Government instrumentality returning ever-increasing benefits in the way of low fares to the people of this country and profits to the Treasury, T.A.A. has been placed in shackles.

Members of the Australian Country Party are interjecting. I invite them to consider the plight of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission which was appointed by this Government to take over a fleet of 44 coastal ships. This Government, by legislation, placed shackles on the commission, imposing limitations as to tonnage, freights and the business it would share with private enterprise, the exploiting private shipping companies. And so the sorry, sordid story goes on! Surrounding this measure is an odour that the people of Australia have sniffed well, and this Government will hear about it at election time.

The actions of the Government in these matters remind me of the actions of a man who wants to poison his wife. He goes about his task in a subtle manner. He gets the arsenic to work. If he is shrewd, he administers the poison in small doses so that his wife’s hair will not quickly fall out and so expose him. But the end result is the death of his victim. It would seem that the Government has decided that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are due for a slow death.

Nobody will challenge my statement that the organization has been run successfully, but what do we find in this bill which provides for the new form of control? Let me deal with the reflection cast upon the present director by the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Bandidt). The bill provides for the appointment of four commissioners and a director. The four commissioners are to be appointed by the Governor-General, or in other words, by the Government. The chairman of this new instrumentality will also be appointed by the Governor-General from the four commissioners. Clause 18 of the bill, provides, by implication, that the director shall not be the chairman of the commission. Neither in the Minister’s second-reading speech nor in the bill are we able to find one word as to what it is proposed to do with the man who has controlled this organization so successfully for so long. What has he done? What is wrong with him? Is it not reasonable to think that after the undertaking has been controlled so successfully for so long without any criticism from this Parliament, from the press or from any other source, other than from behind the doors of the big drug houses, upon whose preserves it is alleged the laboratories have encroached, would be given some consideration? The measure provides that if the present director remains director under the new set-up, he cannot be made chairman of the commission. The chairman must be one of the four commissioners appointed by the Governor-General. What sort of a hole and corner business is this? I am not one of those who would say that a man of science necessarily makes the best controller of any instrumentality. The Labour Party proposes that, because of its importance, this measure should be referred to a select committee of the Parliament for consideration instead of being rushed through the Parliament now.

Let us look at some more important features of the bill. This organization is a menace to the drug houses of Australia and of South-East Asia because it is becoming an exporting concern. But before dealing with that aspect, let me revert to the proposed new organization. If the present director is appointed as the new director, under the terms of the bill he will be a mere cipher working at the direction of the commission and its chairman. Perhaps he will be the chief executive officer. Fancy belittling a man of science, a man who has controlled this instrumentality so successfully, by putting him into an executive position to direct the organization subject to the supervision of the chairman and his fellow commissioners! This is an insult to a man to whom this country owes so much.

My time is running out, but let me say something of the good work done by this institution, and here I direct my remarks to the members of the Country Party in particular. Other honorable members have dealt extensively with the benefits conferred upon human beings by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Let me say something about the benefits conferred by them upon the primary producers of Australia. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are making vaccines, drenches and all sorts of other products to improve the efficiency of the livestock industry of Australia. In order to illustrate how little substance there is in all this talk about profits, control of funds and so on, I instance the value of the laboratories to a fat lamb raiser in the central districts of Victoria who has 500 breeding ewes. Unless he uses antipulpykidney vaccine produced by the laboratories, you can bet your life that he will lose 50 of his 500 lambs. At to-day’s prices 50 fat lambs would be worth £200. That expertence can be multiplied a thousandfold throughout Australia, so that as a result of the work done by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the income of primary producers engaged in fat lamb production throughout Australia has been increased by millions of pounds annually. The fat lamb producers obtain this product from the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories at a reasonable price. It is not packed in fancy packages, nor is it accompanied by a lot of urging material. This vaccine is probably the product of the joint efforts of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, and it has been of extreme benefit to the fat lamb raisers of Australia. Contrast that product with many of the proprietary lines that the primary producers have to buy. For instance, those primary producers who run sheep have to buy a proprietary product called phenovis, a drench given to sheep to remove internal parasites. There are some parasites in this place who could do with a good dose of it. This drug is produced by one of the greatest chemical trusts in the world. It is produced by private enterprise. The primary producers who buy the product have to pay up and smile. The matter is in the hands of one of the world’s greatest monopolies. At least when one buys something that has been produced by the C.S.I.R.O., one knows that it has been produced without any profit motive. It is the result of research by great men of science.

Let me deal now with the dairy industry. For, perhaps, over a century - for as long as there has been a dairy industry in Australia - cows have suffered from a complaint known as mastitis. This dreadful disease renders a cow practically worthless as a milk producer and she ends up with the butcher. Since the discovery of pencillin dairy-farmers have been able to use it to check this disease. Advanced mastititis, in its true form, is incurable even with penicillin, because the destroyed tissues can never be restored, but if penicillin is used in the early stages it usually cleans up mastitis. For the last fifteen or sixteen years, since the discovery of penicillin, the dairy-farmers of Australia have been able to produce, hygienically, greater quantities of dairy products than have been produced in our history. Penicillin has been produced by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I could mention many similar products that are used by the primary producers. From the moment that this instrumentality is destroyed the primary producers will be forced to pay more for these things.

Mr Turnbull:

– It will not be destroyed.

Mr POLLARD:

– Of course it will be destroyed! The honorable member for “Mallee (knows that the declared policy of this Government is to destroy institutions which compete with private enterprise, not only in this country but also in America and the United Kingdom. Private enterprise has applied the pressure. Who will deny that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) was interviewed? Who will deny that the Minister for Health (Dr. Donald Cameron) was pressurized?

Let me now turn to the clauses of the bill and deal with some aspects relating to the appointment of the commission. Apologies are being made for the so-called new functions of the commission and I shall illustrate to the honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull) how the new commission will be tied up. I believe, and so does every other intelligent person, that the existing institution has operated satisfactorily. Clause 19 states -

The functions of the Commission are -

to produce and sell such biological products of a kind used for therapeutic purposes as are prescribed and to undertake research in connexion with any such prescribed product . . .

Before the institution can get busy on the production of a substance it must submit a recommendation to Cabinet. The recommendation will be considered by Cabinet and then, by virtue of the issuance of an Executive Council order, which is an order assented to by His Excellency the GovernorGeneral, and by gazettal in the “ Commonwealth Gazette “, eventually the commission will become possessed of authority to produce this particular product.

Mr Turner:

– What is wrong with that?

Mr POLLARD:

– I shall tell you in a moment. How does that procedure compare with the existing research operations of the C.S.I.R.O. and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories? Do they have to fool around seeking out the Minister or bis staff, the Cabinet, the GovernorGeneral and then await gazettal? Of course they do not! What do they do? The C.S.I.R.O., without the consent of the Minister and without any request having been made to him, declares that it is essential to conduct research into a particular problem of Australian industry. Forfhwith, without any more messing about, it gets on with the job. is the work of the C.S.I.R.O. any more important than -the work of the serum laboratories, which deal with human life? The Government has trusted this instrumentality since 1916, and there is reason for suspicion when the Government ceases to trust it as soon as pressure is applied by the proprietary drug houses of Australia and the world. Answer that one!

Mr Turnbull:

– It is clap-trap.

Mr POLLARD:

– It is not clap-trap, it is fact. Is it clap-trap to say that a protracted procedure will have to be followed before the instrumentality can commence work? Of course not!

Having disposed of that aspect without need for further explanation, let me now turn to clause 1 9 (b), which is in these terms -

  1. The functions of the Commission are -

    1. if the Minister so determines -

The Minister, if you please. The Minister will have to get busy, use some imagination and make up his mind.

Mr Bandidt:

– Do you not think that he can make up his mind?

Mr POLLARD:

– I do not know what his personal feelings about this are, but if he is like you he does not have a mind to make up.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! If honorable members on both sides will cease interjecting the honorable member for Lalor will be able to continue his speech. He does not need any assistance.

Mr POLLARD:

– I do not mind the interjections. To get back to clause 19 (b), we find that the Minister must determine the matter. A new element has been introduced. At present the Minister does not have to determine anything. Dr. Bazeley determines matters. He may receive a request from the C.S.I.R.O., an agricultural department, a hospital or the B.M.A. and, with his trained and scientific mind, his knowledge and common sense, he goes to work and determines the matter with a full sense of responsibility. The Opposition does not mind the Government setting up a commission of an appropriate character. There could well be a commission comprising the present director as chairman and perhaps an officer of the Treasury and an officer of the Department of Health. But the present proposal for the Minister to determine matters is something new. If he so determines, the commission can undertake research. It cannot undertake research without having the Minister’s determination. Why all this circumlocution? Why all this nonsense? Clause 19 (b) states -

  1. The functions of the Commission are -

    1. if the Minister so determines -
    2. to undertake research towards the production of biological products of a kind used for therapeutic purposes, being products other than products prescribed for the purpose of the last preceding paragraph . . .

In other words, research into products other than those prescribed in the preceding paragraph can be undertaken only if the Minister so determines. Then there is a provision that the commission may install or maintain plant or equipment and so on. Later it is provided that the commission may do these things for purposes of defence, external affairs, trade and commerce, the provision of pharmaceutical benefits, quarantine and a Territory of the Commonwealth, I shall not go any further.

Government Members. - Hear, hear!

Mr POLLARD:

– I am glad that Government members have had enough. I have said enough at this stage. The committee stage is the appropriate time to discuss clauses relating to the organization, the point at which the Minister may interpose, and the point at which the functions of the commission will be brought under a form of control that hitherto has not been applied.

The clause relating to the financial aspect is one of the strangest in the bill. The Government tells the commission that it need not pay interest on money that is advanced to it, but if it has anything left at the end of the year the Treasurer may ask it to hand the money over. Then to placate private enterprise, which has always claimed that Government instrumentalities should pay income tax, the Government has inserted a clause in the bill providing for the payment of income tax by the laboratories. If it does not make any profit because it has been engaged on very interesting and valuable work for mankind, it will not be required to pay income tax. But if it reaches the position at which it would be liable for income tax I believe that it would be common sense to grant the laboratories an exemption. The Government should tell the laboratories to forget about it and to get on with some more of its valuable work. If, over a period, a considerable sum is accumulated, that will be the time to direct that something shall be paid back to the Treasury. Apparently the Treasury officials have been the bunnies. The big boys are the drug houses. The Government has looked for a weapon and has selected the Treasury officials to go out and find the most profitable business to attack. They would say: “ Have a look at this show and see how its finances are working. See if we can do anything to tie it up financially.” They would go over to it and say: “ There is some money in this outfit. We can get some money out of this. We will put the prices up and the people will suffer.” What they do not realize - because they are not trained to know it - is that the indirect loss of a concern of this nature will confer under a good government immeasurable financial benefits on the people of Australia.

Therefore, in the circumstances I am all in favour of a select committee. Indeed, the suggestion is a concession because in my opinion there is a pretty good case to toss the bill out lock, stock and barrel. However, we have to try to get a modification of the outrageous proposal that is before the House.

Mr DEAN:
Robertson

.- In the debate on the bill it has been made quite clear that all honorable members are aware of the great good that has been done by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and the contribution that they have made in many ways to the development of our life and its protection; but unfortunately, at that point, the agreement ceases. In a series of quite extraordinary speeches to-day, members of the Opposition have used this bill as a vehicle to attack the system of private enterprise and promote their own conception of socialism.

Mr Cope:

– It is a private monopoly.

Mr DEAN:

– Already I have drawn an interjection from the Opposition which shows that in the minds of honorable members opposite it is a sin to make any reasonable profit. To establish any form of private enterprise is even a greater sin in their eyes; whereas so many people know very well by experience that while it might have its deficiencies, the system of private enterprise is the best that the mind of man has been able to produce to allow us to develop our way of life and our country to the best advantage.

Therefore, honorable members opposite have got right away from the bill. They have been expounding their own political philosophy. In doing so, they have given very little thought to the welfare of the average citizen of Australia - the consumer - just as they did when another measure was before the House last week. Then, members of the Opposition, acting entirely under the instructions of a small pressure group, opposed the Stevedoring Industry Bill 1961. They gave no thought whatever to the average Australian. Once again, we have been listening to the socialist theories of the honorable gentlemen opposite. They have not been discussing the main points of the bill, but some particular clauses have been mentioned. Several members of the Opposition have discussed clause 22 relating to the prices to be determined by the Minister. The clause states -

The Minister shall, after consulting the Cornmission, determine the prices to be paid for products supplied by the Commission directly to the Commonwealth or a State or to a person on behalf of the Commonwealth or a State.

It is well known that this clause relates to a particular activity of the laboratories - the two substances Salk vaccine and triple antigen - which are provided by the Commonwealth free in the manner prescribed in clause 22. Therefore, it is entirely proper and right that the Minister, after consulting with the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission, should determine the price that should be charged by the laboratories to the Government for these services that are rendered free to the Australian community. The honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) in particular mentioned clause 33. That is the clause relating to payments to the Commonwealth by the commission. He regretted that the clause provides that interest is not to be payable by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission to the Commonwealth on the capital of the commission, but he forgot to mention the remainder of the clause, which states - but the Commission shall pay to the Commonwealth out of the profits of the Commission for a financial year, such amount as the Treasurer, after consulting the Minister, determines. (2.) The capital of the Commission is repayable to the Commonwealth at such times and in such amounts as the Treasurer, after consulting the Minister, determines. (3.) In the making of a determination under either of the last two preceding sub-sections, the Treasurer shall have regard to any advice that the Commission has furnished to the Minister in relation to the financial affairs of the Commission.

The point of that clause is that the moneys being made available to the laboratories from the Treasury are considered in the nature of an investment and not a loan. That is the point that the honorable member for Lalor overlooked. Clause 33 provides that what we might term a dividend from the investment will be repaid by the laboratories to the Treasury, but it also states - and quite rightly so - that in addition to the dividend, interest shall not be paid because the advance is not in the nature of a loan. Even one of the double-dyed socialists would not ask that two forms of repayment should be made.

The second point I want to make is that I believe we should keep in our minds the fact that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are not a straight-out commercial enterprise. As has been brought out in the debate to-day, they do engage in a great number of commercial activities. While these commercial activities have been well managed, we must realize that what I would like to call the public health activities are equally important. Because of the great development to which I shall refer in a few moments, it has become necessary, in the view of the Government, to change the form of management of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. The honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) and other honorable gentlemen have said that there is no good reason why this bill should be introduced. What I have explained is the first and paramount reason for the bill. The great development that has gone on in the two great activities within the laboratories has made it necessary for a new form of management to be installed so that they can continue to develop and can continue to be an efficient instrumentality.

I would like to give a quick summary of some of the evidence that was given to the Public Works Committee in relation to some new buildings which it is proposed to provide for the laboratories at Parkville. Although it will be a summary, I shall watch closely the evidence so that I shall give it correctly. The first point made in the evidence given by the production manager of the laboratories was in relation to its history. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories commenced operations in 1916, and by 1918 approximately 35 persons were employed. This number rose to 750 in 1953 and to 1,076 in 1960. I think it is interesting to relate at the same time the sales that were made by the laboratories and the amount of money paid by way of labour because these figures prove the point I was making about the great development that has taken place in the laboratories under its very distinguished directors. The relevant figures may be summarized as follows: -

Those figures in themselves substantiate my point that great development has taken place.

I would also like to direct the attention of the House to the evidence that was given with regard to marketing. Mr. McAllester the production manager, said in answer to one of my questions -

We do not think that the erection of the proposed building of itself will increase the sales of our products because the extent to which products are sold is influenced by public demand, the recommendations of the medical profession and the listing of products of this category as pharmaceutical benefits.

We are currently supplying B.C.G. vaccine and tuberculatives to Singapore and diphtheria prophylactic to Hong Kong. There would appear lo be good opportunities for our products in those areas provided we can maintain prices competitive with America, Britain and other countries exporting these products.

The net profit on trading for the financial year 1959/60 was £162,037. That is arrived at by deducting from the total sales revenue manufacturing costs, provision for depreciation and administrative and selling expenses. That net profit of £162,000 odd is required to cover expenditure on the development of the consultant service and on research. In the year in question, it was inadequate to cover those expenses. This meant that £192,000 had to be drawn from working capital to balance the entire books for the year. 1 should point out that we are different from commercial organizations in that we work On a trust account and there is no provision for overdraft.

I give that summary of the evidence to show the need that exists for this new form of management, having regard to the great development that has taken place in the activities of the laboratories and the way in which those activities have been expanded.

Several honorable gentlemen opposite have criticized the composition of the proposed commission. To my mind the suggested composition is quite reasonable, and this is the type of commission that one would have expected to be appointed. There will be two technical men amongst the five commissioners, the director himself being one of them. There will be at least one other person with a medical degree. Then there will be three other members who have had experience in the business world, and we know from the amendment that the Minister has circulated that it is the Government’s intention to ensure that none of those three other members of the commission will have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in any company engaged in the production of pharmaceutical products. Their decisions as members of the commission, therefore, will not be influenced by any such outside financial considerations.

The honorable member for Hindmash said it was a dreadful thing that the membership of the commission did not include a sufficient number of scientists. I point out to him that the comparable institution in Canada is managed by a committee of six members, none of whom holds any scientific or medical degree. As the House knows, and as I hope the honorable member for Hindmarsh knows, the Canadian laboratories are at least equal in efficiency to ours, and the products of those laboratories are as good as the ones produced in the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I under stand that they are even more widely known internationally than our own laboratories are. My point is that these laboratories are having signal success under the direction and management of the kind of committee that I have described.

It is important that we should divide the responsibilities and functions of the commission. The bill proposes that the director himself will be a member of the commission, which will engage in the efficient management of production programmes for the laboratories. The commission will study methods of improving efficiency. It will also explore the possibilities of obtaining new markets, not only within Australia and New Zealand, but also in countries to our near north. The possibility of opening up these markets was mentioned in the evidence of Mr. McAllester, portion of which I have read to the House. The director and his staff will be given opportunities to use their minds, their energy and their great ability in research work. I hope that the provision of the proposed new buildings, and also of additional opportunities to the director and his staff to engage in research, will tend to encourage young people to train as scientists. This will be of great assistance to Australia as a whole, because it is well known that during the past few years too few young people have entered the scientific professions.

For these reasons I support the bill. 1 have endeavoured to give the House the main reasons why the bill has been brought down. I have pointed out the two main functions of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I have explained that it is not a straight-out commercial enterprise, despite the fact that it has developed extensive trading activities during the last ten years. I have mentioned the valuable contribution it is making in the field of public health in Australia. I have spoken of the great benefits that will flow from our retention of these laboratories, competing as they should with private enterprise. I believe that this legislation puts the various aspects of the matter in clear perspective, and that it will give the laboratories opportunities to advance which will be of great advantage to the laboratories themselves and to the Australian public as a whole.

Mr MAKIN:
Bonython

.- Australian citizens, particularly those with some knowledge of the work done by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, will find it hard to understand why this change is being proposed by the Government at the present time. There have been no complaints about the operation of this institution. There has been no suggestion of mismanagement or of poor service being rendered to the Australian community. Nevertheless, the Government comes forward with a plan to hamstring this undertaking, which has had a wonderful record of service over a period of 45 years, and to harass it in the performance of its great research work.

One naturally asks why it is considered desirable to make these changes. It is not really difficult to understand the motives that underlie the presentation of this legislation. During the last twelve months the great drug companies of the United States and the United Kingdom have attempted on two occasions to purchase the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I have no doubt that those interests have influenced the Government to produce this legislation so that the laboratories will be restricted in their operations and will not be so capable of providing the strong competition that they have previously provided for private enterprise. It is a fact that while performing excellent service in providing the Australian community with vaccines and life-saving drugs, the laboratories have actively competed with private industry in markets nol only in Australia but also in countries that are our near neighbours in the north. I have no doubt that that is the reason for the bill having been introduced. For 45 years we have been able to undertake this work without any legal impediment being imposed on research through legislation of this character. The present director of the laboratories is one of the most outstanding scientists in his field in the world. We are extremely fortunate to have the services of a man so eminently equipped for the task.

The laboratories had been established for five or six years when I first came into the Parliament, and I have followed their progress through the years. I have had profound admiration and appreciation for the services they have rendered to the Australian community. What was the reason for the laboratories being established? During World War I., the supply of essential vaccines for our fighting services and for the community generally was in jeopardy. This prompted the Labour Government to establish the laboratories for the production, first, of vaccines to combat typhoid and smallpox. More recently, the laboratories have made poliomyelitis vaccines, and many mothers have reason to be thankful to the laboratories for the work they performed in the interests of infants. Dr. Salk, the eminent research worker, has said that the poliomyelitis vaccines produced by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are amongst the best in the world. In these circumstances, what justification has the Government for changing the management of the laboratories?

The laboratories have not only served the country well in the production of vaccines, but their achievements in the supply of penicillin have been outstanding. Dr. Bazeley has been in direct consultation with those who undertake research in this field, with the result that the laboratories provide the best possible penicillin. Honorable gentlemen opposite seem to measure the advantages of the laboratories according to the profits they make, but I empha- size that there is a more human aspect to their work. The Australian Labour Party is concerned with the life and health of the Australian people and the people in neighbouring countries to whom it can offer help in fighting epidemics. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories provide effective protection against epidemics and serious outbreaks threatening the health of our community by the prompt supply of essential vaccines. I feel a sense of grave disquiet, therefore, when I find that the Government is prepared to arrest the progress of the laboratories.

The best indication that the Government has not given the support to the laboratories that it should have given can be seen in the findings of the Public Works Committee, which has considered a proposal for the construction of a new building for the laboratories. The Parliament now has the opportunity to provide the laboratories with facilities to extend their operations, but they have been hampered in the past because they have not had the buildings in which to undertake the work that they wanted to undertake. The Government has been slow to provide the essentia] equipment and buildings for the laboratories, but now introduces a bill which will actually arrest their progress.

Under the bill the director will be placed in a secondary position. He will not be the chairman or vice-chairman of the commission and he will not count in constituting a quorum. I feel that this must be a humiliation for the director. Let me say further that three businessmen will form the majority of the commission and will be able to direct what work and services will bc performed by the laboratories. I have grave fears about the effectiveness of this arrangement and I believe that the Australian community must suffer as a result of it. The laboratories have done very good work for our animal population. Dr. Bazeley has been able to direct the work of the laboratories so that health-giving drugs have been available for Australia’s animal population. Surely members of the Australian Country Party must realize the value Of this work and of the future services that the laboratories can perform in this way. When a Labour Government takes office, as it will at the end of this year, the errors now being made will be corrected and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories will be given the power to do the work that they should be doing.

Considering the laboratories from the purely financial aspect is entirely wrong. Under this legislation the laboratories will be required to pay to the Treasury such amounts as may be determined and in addition their income from the sale of vaccines and so on will be taxed. I believe that everything that could be thought of to restrain this organization from giving useful service to the Australian community has been incorporated in the bill before us. The House would do well to defer any decision on this legislation and accept the Opposition’s suggestion that a select committee of both Houses of the Parliament should be appointed to investigate thoroughly every aspect of this question. A select committee appointed for that purpose could indicate whether this legislation is correctly related to the needs of an organization of this character and the service it gives to the people of Australia.

I think we have the right to expect the Government to give this matter more consideration than it has so far been given and to give us an assurance that the work which should be undertaken will not be stifled. I have a great respect for the Minister for Health (Dr. Donald Cameron), but if I had to choose between him and Dr. Bazeley in the selection of a person to determine the nature of the research to be undertaken by the laboratories in regard to any academic matter, my feeling would favour Dr. Bazeley. He is a scientist and is equipped with the knowledge and experience which [ am afraid the Minister, caught in the vortex of politics, cannot bring to bear on this question. I do not think he is capable, from his experience, of possessing the understanding that a man engaged in this kind of research needs for the work. I feel that it is wrong that Dr. Bazeley and his staff should be subject to direction and that no research can be undertaken by the laboratories unless it is initiated by the Minister himself. What an absurd situation it is when a man in charge of a research organization has to undergo a humiliating experience of that kind!

Dr. Bazeley is not without prestige, for he has had conferred upon him by the reigning Sovereign honours which are in recognition of the outstanding nature of the work he has performed. No man secures recognition of that kind unless he has earned it. Dr. Bazeley is an outstanding man and I do not think he should be subject to direction by a man who is, shall I say, an average physician, such as the Minister. I do not wish to be ungenerous to the Minister, who is a very likeable man in many respects, but I do not think he is fitted to undertake direction of this kind. I am not prepared or content to allow this legislation to give the Minister the right to decide what research shall be undertaken at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I feel that the man at the head of an organization doing research into cancer, tuberculosis or any other condition from which members of the community suffer should be clothed with authority to proceed immediately and undertake whatever work is necessary to meet the needs of the Australian community. Unfortunately, this legislation does not provide for that to be done. This is a situation which I think will bring down the wrath of the Australian people upon this Government, because they are acutely aware of the way in which their interests are being sacrificed and of how they are being denied the protection which should be afforded to them and their children. The health of the community stands above all considerations of pounds, shillings and pence or the right of private enterprise to make profits.

I feel that the one sphere which should be divorced from profits is medicine and the research that is necessary to deal with the various maladies and epidemics which might threaten the life and welfare of the community. Such knowledge and research are beyond price or profit and should never be placed in a position where they can be exploited by private individuals. If honorable members wish to know what has been done in the past I invite them to consult the records of this House and ask for the report of the royal commission which inquired into patent medicines. They will then see how the people of this continent are being robbed by acts of gangsterism on the part of those who are identified with certain profit-making monopolies in this field which, by sales of patent medicine lines, exploit people the world over. There are certain “ foundations “ which I exclude from this criticism.

I feel it is time that we in this House made some direct protest at the actions of the Government and exercised all the authority, power and influence of which we are capable to meet the outrageous action which the Government is seeking to perpetrate on the Australian community. I shall therefore seek every possible means of registering my protest at what the Government is doing and it will not be expressed in this House alone, but also on the platforms of this country. This is a great issue because, when all is said and done, whatever might be our fortunes in other respects, unless we have the means of sustaining good health and enjoying it, all else will be futile and without reality.

Members of this House have a definite responsibility to see that nothing is done that will in any way endanger the well-being and life of the Australian people. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories commenced with a staff of about 35 and now about 1,100 people are associated with its operations. That proves the extent of the work that is being undertaken and the great success that has attended all the efforts of the laboratories over the years. I therefore ask the Government to reconsider the action it is taking in this respect and give the question further reflection before it is too late. Once this organization has been denied its freedom and those who have carried out its work over the years have left it, it will be too late to reconsider the position. We will then be the poorer for this legislation, because there will be denied to us the services of the experienced people who are identified with these research laboratories. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories have a tremendous power for the good and the well-being of the Australian community, and I take the strongest possible objection to the proposals in this legislation. I certainly identify myself in the warmest way possible with the amendment moved by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro and with the statements made on this side of the chamber. The purpose of the amendment is to see that justice is done to the Australian people as a result of justice being done to those who have worked in these laboratories - in particular, to the director himself, who has given tremendous service to this country. I hope that the Opposition’s protests on this matter will encourage the people of Australia to take the correct action, when opportunity presents itself, in order to-

Mr Turnbull:

– Put a Labour government in.

Mr MAKIN:

– The honorable member for Mallee may preen his feathers, but when the general election comes round he will find that he will need some vaccine in order to give himself the power to get back to this Parliament. The honorable gentleman may try to pass the situation off with a jest, but that does not alter the seriousness of the Government’s proposals. I ask the Government to reconsider its attitude, and I ask members of the Country Party, whose votes are important in any division in this chamber, to vote for the Opposition’s amendment so that we may ensure that the legislation is not a mistake and that there will be no evil effects on this most essential organization which is rendering service to the nation and to our friends and neighbours who so urgently need many of the drugs and vaccines that we are capable of making in Australia. It is remarkable that we are importing penicillin in considerable quantities when we are capable of manufacturing it in our own laboratories in sufficient quantities to meet Australia’s requirements. The same thing applies to many other drugs and preparations that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories can provide.

The protests that have come from members of the Opposition will surely indicate the seriousness of our view of the effect of what is proposed, and, I hope, will cause the Government to have second thoughts about the legislation. After all, as has already been said, there is no urgency, such as the Government would have us believe, associated with this measure. Had the Parliament adjourned last week, this would have been one of the thwarted innocents. It would have been one of the items of legislation left on the notice-paper. What can justify the Government’s refusal to give added time for the consideration of the measure so that we can have a thorough examination of it, so that we can feel that the Parliament has completely reviewed it and that our decision will be of lasting advantage to this continent and its people?

Mr O’CONNOR:
Dalley

.- Mr. Speaker-

Motion (by Mr. McMahon) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 53

NOES: 34

Majority . . . .19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

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

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 53

NOES: 34

Majority . . 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 53

NOES: 34

Majority 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 4.

In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears - “ Commissioner “ means a member of the commission and includes an Acting Commissioner;

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- Mr. Temporary Chairman, I seek leave to move together the two amendments to this clause which the Opposition has circulated.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Chaney:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I move-

  1. Before the definition of “ Commissioner “ in sert the following definition: - “ ‘ biological products ‘ includes antibiotics, antigens, antitoxins, blood derivatives, insulin products, sera, toxoids and vaccines; “.

  2. At the end of the clause add the following definition: - “ ‘ therapeutic purposes ‘ means -

    1. preventing, diagnosing, curing or alleviating of a disease, ailment, defect or injury inpersons or animals;
    2. influencing, inhibiting or modifying of a physiological processin persons or animals; or
    3. testing of susceptibility to a disease or ailment in persons or animals.”.

The Minister has told me that he proposes to take the same attitude towards both these amendments. Their relevance is that they will ensure that henceforth the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories will be able to produce, sell and undertake research for the purpose of producing the same wide range of products that they have produced and sold and in respect of which they have undertaken research for some decades past. The definitions embodied in these amendments will apply to clause 19, which sets out that the functions of the proposed Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission are to produce and sell and, if the Minister so determines, to undertake research for the purpose of producing, biological products of the kind used for therapeutic purposes. The phrases “ biological products “ and “ therapeutic purposes “ are not defined in this bill. They are, however, defined in the therapeutic substances legislation. The two amendments that I have proposed will incorporate in the bill the same definitions that are incorporated in that cognate legislation. The inference is that if these definitions are not incorporated in this bill the meaning attached to these two phrases will be more restricted than is that given to them in the other legislation.

The definition of “ biological products “ first occurs in the Therapeutic Substances Regulations of 1956 in sub-regulation (3.) of regulation 20, and then in sub-regulation (4.) of regulation 21. The first of those regulations deals with the functions of the Biological Products Standards Committee and the second with the functions of the Therapeutic Substances Standards Committee. If it were clear what biological products are, it would have been sufficient to state in the sub-regulations which I have mentioned that the first committee was to inquire into biological products and the second was to inquire into therapeutic substances other than biological products. However, the Biological Products Standards Committee is required to inquire into the standards of antibiotics, antigens, antitoxins, blood derivatives, insulin products, sera, toxoids, vaccines and other biological products, and the Therapeutic Substances Standards Committee is required to inquire into therapeutic substances other than those just enumerated.

These regulations were amended as recently as 23rd March of this year. Regulation 21, however, was not amended with respect to this point. Regulation 20 was amended with respect to this point. Sub-regulation (3.) was repealed and a new sub-regulation (5.) was inserted. It is in these terms -

The functions of the Committee are to inquire into, and advise the Minister on, the standards, and matters relating to the standards, of antibiotics, antigens, antitoxins, blood derivatives, insulin products, sera, toxoids, vaccines and other biological products.

It is quite clear that the Department of Health, whose Minister authorized His Excellency the Administrator to gazette these amendments of the regulations on 23rd March last, and the Parliamentary Draftsman who implemented the Minister’s directions, both thought at the time that all these substances listed in the first amendment which I have proposed would not ordinarily be regarded as biological products. Now, eight weeks later, we find that the phrase “ biological products “ is not defined in this bill. The inference is clear: These substances which my amendment seeks to include in the definition of “ biological products “ will not be regarded as biological products unless the amendment is agreed to. As all of us know, Sir, a great many of the products made and sold, and into which research is undertaken, by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories fall within every one of the categories which I seek to include in this definition of “ biological products “.

The definition of the phrase “ therapeutic purposes “ is required, as was said at the second-reading stage, to ensure that the laboratories are enabled to continue to produce and investigate the whole range of substances that they have hitherto sold, produced and investigated. The word “ therapeutic “ ordinarily means “ healing “ or “ curative “. It does not ordinarily import the senses of “prevention” and diagnosis”. Accordingly, my second amendment is designed to make it plain that those wider meanings are intended where the phrase is used in this bill. The definition I have proposed is taken from the interpretation section of the Therapeutic Substances Act 1953. That section - section 4 - was amended in 1959, but the particular definition concerning therapeutics was not altered. It is plain, there, too, that, reading this cognate legislation together, it would be held that the word “ therapeutic “ had a more limited meaning than that given to it in the Therapeutic Substances Act. Here again we wish to ensure that the same meaning is given to this word in this bill as is given in the cognate legislation. It is only thus that we can be certain that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories will be able to undertake all the activities that they have undertaken hitherto.

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I understand quite well the purpose of the honorable gentleman’s amendments, and, of course, one can agree with a good deal of the substance of what he said. But I may tell him and the committee that this matter was given a great deal of consideration when the act was being framed. The fact is that the definition of a word in another act really has no bearing upon this act. In fact, the word “ therapeutic “ is always used to cover all prophylactic and preventive functions necessary for the practice of medicine and for public health purposes. It has always been construed in that sense by the laboratories and the management of the laboratories, and it will continue to be construed in that sense. The advice to me from my advisers is that that is the condition of affairs, and that in fact the proposed amendment is quite unnecessary. Therefore, I think it is hardly worth while incorporating it in the bill, and consequently I am not agreeable to its being so incorporated. I understand the honorable gentleman’s point, and he need have no fear that in fact the danger that he apprehends will occur.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

.- I can see no reasonable reason why this proposal ought not to be included in an act of this Parliament. As we have pointed out on many occasions, an act of this Parliament is only valid insofar as it expresses the intention of the expressions contained in it. The intention of the Minister for the time being has nothing to do with it. If it has been felt on other occasions that the term “ therapeutic “ ought to be defined, then it ought to be defined on this occasion. The dictionary definition of the word is much more restric ted than the Minister seems to indicate. In the long term, we can only regard the failure to define this word as one of the inhibiting factors which may creep into the administration of the institution.

As I look through the bill, I see that the general tenor of the clauses and the whole construction of the legislation is towards inhibiting the work of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I believe that is a fair assumption in the light of the doctrinaire approach by honorable members on the Government side to anything that interferes or competes with ordinary private enterprise.

The Minister admits that there is something in what we say. We say that when the Parliament is passing legislation it is a fair thing to do everything possible to embody in it the feeling of the Parliament in relation to it. In refusing to adopt the proposed amendments the Minister is being unduly restrictive in his approach. At least he ought to concede on this occasion that the arguments put forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are worthy of note and that the legislation would be improved by this wider definition.

Question put -

That the amendment be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. F. C. Ohaney.)

AYES: 34

NOES: 52

Majority . . 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 7 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 8. (1.) The Commission shallconsist of -

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.-I move -

Omit paragraph (a) of sub-clause (1.), insert the following paragraph: - “ (a) three Commissioners, of whom at. least one is a medical practitioner registered under a law of a State or a Territory of the Commonwealth providing for the registration of medical practitioners and another is a person possessing scientific qualifications, and all’ three of whom shall devote the whole of their time to the duties of their office; and “.

Clause 8(1.) sets up a commission which shall consist of five- commissioners - the director, a doctor and three businessmen. Our amendment seeks to set up a commission consisting of the director, a doctor, a scientist and one other person. The bill provides that only one of the five commissioners - the director - shall be engaged fulltime. Our amendment seeks to provide that all four commissioners shall be engaged fulltime.

This clause highlights the real difference between the Government’s attitude and our own on the management of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. The Government believes that in future the laboratories should be primarily a business enterprise. Our view is that they should continue tobe primarily a scientific and research enterprise. The Government’s motive in introducing the bill is to oblige the private drug companies. Every aspect of the bill demonstrates the Government’s view that the laboratories should be impeded in their operations where they compete with the private drug companies.

We do not object to the laboratories being required to carry on operations on a commercial basis where they compete with the private: drug companies, but the difference between them and the private drug companies is that they conduct basic research and the private drug companies do not. No private drug companies in this country spend money on fundamental research.It is true that there are drug companies which carry out. research on more attractive packaging, more enticing advertisements and perhaps on the application of various formulas to mass production for our climate or for our population. But. there is no drug company in this country which carries on in this country fundamental research such as the laboratories have pioneered and alone provide.

We do not mind the commercial activities of the laboratories being competitive with those of the private drug companies, but we think it is wrong that the laboratories should be tied in all their operations to the low standards of those companies. If they have to compete with the private drug companies in relation to taxation, capital repayment and the like, then inevitably their operations in research will’ be curtailed and gradually will vanish. By this- amendment we shall ensure that the laboratories remain primarily a research and scientific organization.

The words of the amendment are based on the constitution of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. In 1949 that organization was put under an executive consisting of a chairman and four other members. Three of the members had to be persons possessing scientific qualifications, and the chairman and two other members had to devote the whole of their time to the duties of their office. In 1959 the Parliament amended the act to provide that the executive should consist of a chairman and eight other members, that at least five members should be persons possessing scientific qualifications, and that the chairman and four other members should devote the whole of their time to the duties of their office.

We believe that the activities of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are much more comparable to those of the C.S.I.R.O. than to those of any of the private drug companies. We might as well put the C.S.I.R.O., the Australia Atomic Energy Commission, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Division of Agricultural Economics or the various scientific organizations of the Department of Supply under commissions obliged to carry on al) their activities on commercial lines because all those other scientific instrumentalities charge for some of their activities, some of their products and some of their processing for private companies. Of course, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories sell some products cheaper than do other companies in this country, and produce them with greater purity and in greater quantities than they do. But the significant thing is that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories carry out the basic research and more developmental research than does any other medical instrumentality in this country.

Mr Bury:

– Do you mean basic research or production research?

Mr WHITLAM:

– I thought that 1 had duplicated my remarks on that aspect. I regret that I shall have to repeat them a third time. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are the only medical organization in Australia, the only drug organization in Australia and the only biological therapeutic organization in Australia which carries out basic research. It is the organization in Australia which carries out most developmental research. It is primarily a scientific and research organization, and we hope that it will retain that characteristic as it has done so very satisfactorily for over 40 years. This amendment provides for that. We would have full-time scientific men as commissioners, just as most of the executive of the CS.I.R-0. are full-time members with scientific experience.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

.- The amendment that has been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) provides for the appointment of four commissioners comprising the director and three others. The relevant clause in the bill provides for the appointment of five commissioners comprising the director and four others. There is only one stipulation in the bill - one of the four commissioners appointed by the Governor-General shall be a medical practitioner. In our amendment we provide for a medical practitioner plus a person with scientific qualifications.

The Opposition amendment provides that each of the commissioners shall be engaged full time. The bill provides that the four commissioners shall be engaged on a parttime basis; that the commissioners shall meet at no greater interval than five weeks, and that the director shall be the executive officer. It is the prerogative of the chairman and a commissioner, who shall not be the director, to call meetings of the commission. Will the Minister for Health (Dr. Cameron) state who is to decide on the business to be transacted at the meetings of the commission? Is it not natural to assume that the chief executive officer, that is, the director, would be the person to place the agenda before the commissioners? Who will prepare the reports for discussion by the commission? These part-time commissioners, at least for a little while, will have a very slight knowledge of the activities of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Is it not natural that any director could hoodwink the commission if he cared to do so? As a chief executive officer he will answer the questions of the four part-time commissioners. He will prepare all the reports for them. The other officers of the laboratories will be under his direct control and they will prepare reports at his direction. The accountants will prepare the accounts at his direction.

So it is evident that the plans for the commission are not worth the paper they are written on. At this stage, the committee has no idea of the qualifications that might be required from the four part-time, commissioners except that one will be a medical practitioner. We do not know what knowledge they might have about the matters that will come before them. I think that the Opposition’s amendment would improve the bill materially, and I hope the Minister will consider its inclusion in the measure.

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

.- The Opposition, having started by saying that there should be no Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission at all, now wants to enlarge the commission and make it a full-time organization.

Mr Whitlam:

– We did not say that there should not be a commission.

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– You voted against it. I want to make it quite plain that no speaker for the Government has ever said that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are primarily a business enterprise or that their activities should be put on a commercial basis. The laboratories are not a straight-out commercial enterprise and have never been claimed to be such, but they do engage in great commercial activities. They also have what one might call public health activities. They have to be flexible enough to fit into the public health policy of the country. I want that to be clearly understood.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) talked about obliging the drug companies and being tied to their low standards. Really, I do not think he expects us to believe that sort of thing. That is just a little padding to make it sound a bit more effective. The honorable gentleman talked about the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. I want to make it quite clear that the C.S.I.R.O. and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are not comparable institutions. In fact, they have quite different functions. It is not convincing either to talk about the commissioners for the laboratories having to discharge functions exactly like those of the C.S.I.R.O. executive. The C.S.I.R.O. is governed by a full-time executive and not by an ordinary government department at all. It is a research institution.

When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are primarily a research organization, I must take a different view because the primary function of the laboratories is to produce biological and therapeutical substances. That is what it was first set up to do. It is - and there is nothing offensive about the term - a manufacturing organization. It manufactures specific and high quality products, and there is nothing offensive about that. Its other function is to do all the research that comes with the development of those products, and this bill gives it a charter to do so, which it did not have before. So the laboratories bear no comparison with the C.S.I.R.O., which is a research institution but does not manufacture any products whatever.

This amendment seems to me to be totally unnecessary. The Government is not willing to accept it. We believe the organization we are setting up under this bill will be most effective for managing the affairs of this institution, and will in fact improve the present management as the laboratories grow. It will ensure their development and be quite adequate to the task that is being entrusted to it.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

.- The Minister for Health left the main argument completely untouched. The whole theme of the debate from the Government side has been that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are an important organization with expanding commercial interests and with great capital assets at their disposal. What the organization needs is the full application of business principles to management. What do we find when we examine the bill? We will have a part-time commission. The bill provides that the commission must meet every five weeks; therefore it will meet perhaps eleven times a year, probably for two hours at a time. Let us say that it meets for two and a half to three hours. In a year, it might meet for only 30 hours which is less than one man’s working week; yet the proposition is that this machinery will make the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories much more efficient. There can be no justification for that attitude at all.

The chairman of the new Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission will be a part-time officer. The commissioners themselves will be part-time officers. As the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Stewart) has pointed out, this will mean that the whole agenda of the meetings will be drawn up by full-time officers so that the others will become rubber stamps for the part-time chairman. The arguments advanced by the Minister for the necessity or otherwise of the commission can be justified only if he adopts the attitude that full-time commissioners are needed. That is the first point. The second is the construction of the commission.

I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) that the major function of this organization is its research activities. These can be carried out only by persons who are intensely concerned with this field and are widely read and informed on it. This is not a job for part-time business people, and it can be done only by those who have the same charter, the same time at their disposal and the same resources as have those in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Therefore, on that point the Minister’* arguments are refuted.

The third point is the remarkable construction of the commission and the attitude to it. This is where the Labour Party and its political opponents part company. On the one hand we have the materialist concept of the Government parties - the idea that profit is the only god and the Liberal Party shall be its principal prophet. The Labour Party believes that this is a fundamental matter. We believe that the research facilities of the institution and its products going into the community on a non-profit basis are essential to the welfare of the community. We are reluctant to accept any of the arguments from the Government side when we see the financial provisions written into the bill. Here is an organization that should be expanded by the most competent full-time officers. It should have all the resources of the Government at its disposal. I am concerned at the Government’s attitude for I believe that in the past four or five years and in this measure, the Government has departed from its own pre cedents. In such an important organization as the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, we believe that the first duty of every person concerned with its management must be to public service. Those concerned cannot have two loyalties. They cannot be people whose principal concern is some outside business or professional activity. If the laboratories are as important as we say they are, the people concerned with their management must make their first duty - their only duty - the operation of the laboratories. The Government is displaying, in its proposal for the establishment of this commission, the attitude that is apparent throughout the whole of the bill. It wants to inhibit, if possible, the activities of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, in the interests of private enterprise - profit-making enterprise - on behalf of which honorable members opposite have said so much during this debate.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

.- I have often heard it said outside this chamber that Parliament is composed of too many solicitors, and, quite frankly, I think the amendments that have come forward give point to such remarks. The bill proposes that the commission shall consist of four commissioners, one of whom is a medical practitioner registered under a law of a State or a Territory of the Commonwealth providing for the registration of medical practitioners and the director. The amendment now before us proposes, amongst other things, that there shall be three fulltime commissioners. To the best of my knowledge the Australian National Airlines Commission is composed of part-time commissioners, and I understand that that commission is running Trans-Australia Airlines quite efficiently. It is a very large undertaking, and I think most people will concede that it is doing a very satisfactory job.

It appears to me that the Opposition is trying to make as much political capital as possible out of this legislation and the debate upon it. It is trying to put words into the mouths of members of the Government that they never used. It is trying to imply that the Government has certain intentions, although the Government has always denied having any such intentions. Furthermore, in my view, the Opposition is trying to prevent the Government from bringing increased efficiency in administration to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, as it obviously intends to do by introducing this measure. I have no doubt we will go on all night discussing these amendments, but I cannot see any purpose in the amendments that have been introduced so far, and I hope that any that follow will not be of the same low standard.

Mr JEFF BATE:
Macarthur

– The honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Whitlam) has made some statements to which I wish to reply. He has moved an amendment the purpose of which is to destroy the proposal to appoint businessmen to the commission. The municipality ot Liverpool lies partly in my electorate and partly in the Werriwa electorate, and that municipality has suffered greatly from the inefficiency of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, which are unable to carry out the supply and distribution of their products. In the municipality of Liverpool, in which Liverpool itself is represented in this Parliament by the honorable member for Werriwa, a programme of anti-poliomyelitis vaccination was embarked upon. The vaccination could be done only in the school holidays, and children were kept at school during the holidays to receive their injections. Arrangements for the supply of the vaccine broke down, and the children were unable to have their injections. This caused great consternation in the district, and steps had to be taken urgently to try to have the vaccine forwarded. Because of the breakdown in supply and distribution arrangements the position became chaotic.

The honorable member also said that no other biological research is being carried out in Australia. As I have already informed the committee, my electorate adjoins his, and I can tell him that the firm of Parke Davis and Company has established a research depot at Mittagong, which is not very far from Liverpool. At that depét veterinary research is being carried out. The firm chose Australia as the most suitable country in which to carry out this research. It has spent £30,000 there, and twenty persons are engaged in this veterinary research.

The honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant) said that the Government’s only goal is that of profit. T can tell him that the Government’s goal is to bring into Australia the know-how and the techniques, as well as the investments, of people in other arts of the world who are far ahead of us in this field of research. If we allow a situation to develop in which unfair competition can occur, we will kill any attraction there may have been for overseas investment. Some overseas firms are permitted by their taxation laws to put 10 per cent, of their total turnover into research.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! think the honorable member is straying a little wide of the clause we are discussing. I think he should direct his attention to matters expressly covered by this clause.

Mr JEFF BATE:

– I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. When the honorable member for Werriwa dealt with this amendment, he was advocating the appointment of three commissioners, as against the proposal in the bill for five commissioners, three of whom shall be businessmen. In support of his amendment the honorable member said that there is no other biological research in Australia. He used this statement in support of the proposal contained in the amendment, and I am asking the indulgence of the committee to state that his remark was absolutely untrue, and that there is a great deal of research going on in Australia.

Mr Haworth:

– There are at least a dozen other undertakings carrying out research.

Mr JEFF BATE:

– There are at least another dozen organizations known to the honorable member for Isaacs.

Mr Uren:

– Name a few.

Mr JEFF BATE:

– I named one before the honorable member woke up. The amendment would have the effect of reducing the membership of the proposed commission to three persons. The honorable member for Werriwa says that the clause in the bill might have the effect of inhibiting the research activities of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I suggest that the adoption of the honorable member’s amendment would damage the work that is being done in biological and veterinary research in Australia, and one should at least try to correct the inaccurate statements of the honorable member.

The amendment should be defeated. The arguments put up in support of it are false. If those arguments were allowed to go unchallenged, and if, as a result, a doubt was left as to whether fair competition prevailed in this field of activity, further investment in this country might be discouraged, and firms in other parts of the world might then withhold from us their techniques, their know-how, and the fruits of the fabulous research that they have been carrying out. I suggest that the committee should throw out this amendment, which has been put forward to the accompaniment of such misleading and uninformed statements as those of the honorable member for Werriwa.

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

.- We now know where the sympathies of the honorable member for Macarthur (Mr. Jeff Bate) lie. First of all he creates the impression that a recent breakdown in the supply of vaccine was due to some carelessness on the part of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.

Mr Jeff Bate:

– Who else could it have been?

Mr POLLARD:

– The plain fact is that it was caused by a lack of refrigeration facilities in chemists’ shops. That is the answer to that first misleading statement. The next misleading statement is that Parke Davis and Company came to the rescue. If private enterprise had provided the requisite refrigeration facilities, Parke Davis and Company would not have been required to come to the rescue. When the honorable member’s propaganda has sunk in deeply enough and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories have been pushed out, the dairy farmers in his electorate will pay through the nose for the products of Parke Davis and Company. That is the story, and it is as ancient as history. When an instrumentality belonging to the people - in this instance, a particularly efficient one - is destroyed, in will come private drug houses and the cockies will pay through the nose.

I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam). It provides that one of the commissioners shall be a medical practitioner and another shall be a scientist. The honorable member for Macarthur, with another misleading statement, made it appear that this would eliminate the appointment of a businessman as a member of the commission. But still the occupation of one man is not specified and he could well be a businessman. The point I make - it should appeal to members of the Australian Country Party - is that if the amendment is accepted, a veterinarian could be appointed to fill the post of a scientist. A man with a veterinary degree is a scientist. Let me say to the Australian Country Party that if any group has reaped great benefit from the work of this institution, it is the farming community. If Country Party members support the amendment, they will have the advantage of a veterinary officer being a member of the commission, if the Government sees fit to make the appointment. It will be required to appoint a scientist. What is wrong with that? Dr. Bazeley was first a qualified veterinary officer, then a medical man and finally the famous scientist that he is to-day.

Let me refer to some of the benefits that have accrued to the farming community through the work of this organization. To-day bovine tuberculosis is practically extinct. Why? It is practically extinct because of the activities of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, which have produced the tuberculin, I think it is called, for injection into the cow. The veterinary officers are able to tell by the reaction of the cow whether it would communicate bovine tuberculosis to the children of this country. This is one of the most fearful and wicked diseases known to man. The laboratories have provided this service to the community at cost price.

Now it is suggested that three businessmen should serve on the commission to control the laboratories. We want not only a medical man but also a scientist who could be a veterinarian. But I know that members of the Australian Country Party will vote against it. At the coming election, 1 will not be urging a second preference for any member of the Australian Country Party who votes against the amendment. I will let every one know what has happened. We can just as easily put Liberal Party members into this Parliament as Country Party members, and it is time we gave very earnest consideration to doing so.

The Australian Country Party is doing nothing but betraying the farming community when it refuses to support the amendment, and it is also betraying the children in the community. I have seen children with crippled legs, and when I have asked what was the trouble, I have been told that it was bovine tuberculosis communicated through cow’s milk. This disease has now been practically eliminated. At one time I had a herd of 40 cows. Every beast was tested at a cost of about 6d. a head, but if Parke Davis and Company had been selling the preparation, it would have cost nearer 6s. a head. It is time members of the Australian Country Party woke up. I leave it at that. I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr ANDERSON:
Hume

.- I do not see any provision for the appointment of cows to the commission, and this clause relates to the composition of the commission. The honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant) supported the argument that three full-time members of the commission should be appointed. He said that part-time members would not be able to do the work. Company directors are not full-time directors, even though they may be the best in the world. The New South Wales Labour Government, finding that very indifferent service was being given by the Rural Bank of New South Wales, appointed two part-time members of the board from outside the bank’s staff. As the honorable member for La Trobe (Mr. Jess) said, a board of part-time members controls TransAustralia Airlines, and these men are not all pilots.

None of the arguments so far produced by the Opposition have convinced me that the Government is wrong. The Government’s proposal is to appoint four commissioners, because this is an administrative task. On examination, all the arguments produced to support the Opposition’s amendment fall to the ground. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) said that the purpose of the amendment was to ensure that this remained primarily a scientific and research organization. Yet every Opposition member who spoke during the second-reading debate quite justifiably lauded the efforts of the organization in supplying the best quality vaccines, sera and drugs. I cannot see that any grounds have been ad vanced to support the amendment. The amendment appears to be a political stunt produced in an effort to insinuate that the Government has ulterior motives.

I support the clause as originally drafted. It will ensure that administrative matters are placed in the hands of those who are qualified in administration. It is very seldom that a scientist has administrative ability. I think the Opposition has wasted our time with a lot of nonsense.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

.- The honorable member for Hume (Mr. Anderson) did not touch on the main point, and so far no honorable member opposite has answered it. The amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) requires that there shall be a scientist and a medical man on the commission. The Australian Labour Party, of course, opposes the idea of transferring control of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to a commission, but as the Government is adamant on this point, it is obviously the duty of the Opposition to ensure that the commission shall be of as high a quality as possible. Government supporters have not justified in any way the rejection of the Opposition’s idea that a commission to control a scientific institution should comprise scientific personnel. We would like to hear the answer to this point.

Mr BURY:
Wentworth

.- I should like to deal first with the remarks of the honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant). As usual, he entirely missed the point. The fact is that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are now subject to the departmental control of the Department of Health. The bill elevates the laboratories to the status of a separate entity. Surely this enhances rather than detracts from their value. Listening to the remarks of Opposition members, one would think we do not greatly admire the work done by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. However, I can assure honorable members opposite that we do. This bill gives the laboratories independent and respectable status in their own right. In respect of research activities it seems that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) confuses basic research with research related to specific productive problems. Both are highly important. Production problems in all these things are very important and they are conducted successfully by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, but this is not basic research. I am open to correction on this, because perhaps there are some activities of which I do not know, but all those of which I do know are directed towards the production of products which are already known and which serve a very useful purpose. The fact is that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are a hybrid organization. To say that it is just a matter of research and of doing things which other organizations would do does not complete the truth.

This organization also engages in largescale commerce, with sales of its products amounting to something like £2,000,000 per annum. It is concerned with prices policy and, if you like, restrictive practices in the supply of drugs. It is part and parcel of the drug set-up of Australia and for this reason it is eminently sensible that at this stage it should be removed from the aegis of the Department of Health and control by the officers of the department and placed in the charge of a commission among whose members will be a number who understand largescale business and marketing practices.

Mr. BIRD (Batman) 1 10.41].- I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) because I think the Opposition’s move is actuated by a motive which is to get the most efficient results from the contemplated new organization. I deeply resent the remarks of the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Anderson), who says that the Labour Party is engaging in a political stunt. In his view, unless we agree with everything the Government suggests in every bill, we are engaged in a political stunt. It is no use the honorable member shaking his head, because if the Labour Party opposes any bill which the Government introduces into this Parliament the honorable member gets up, in his inimitable style and says without any variation of his tune, that the Labour Party is indulging in a political stunt. Apparently we on this side are not credited with any sincerity. Apparently we are blatant opportunists who seize every opportunity to attack the Government by means of some political stunt.

I can assure the honorable member for Hume that members on this side are just as conscientious in carrying out their duties as he is in carrying out his duties. I suggest that he should get a different tune in the future. After all, he might be judging other people by his own motives. The purpose of the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is to make this organization as effective as possible. What do we of the Opposition suggest? We do not suggest anything of a revolutionary nature. We suggest a board of three commissioners, as against a board of five, such as is contemplated by this legislation. The improvements to the bill which we suggest are calculated to be in the best interests of the organization and of the people of Australia. Under the Government’s proposal we are to have three businessmen on the board. I can appreciate the virtues of businessmen, but I am inclined to think that members of this Government tend on very many occasions to overrate the virtues of businessmen in carrying out any activity for the common good.

Members of the Government hate any semblance of successful public enterprise at all. They detest it, and the mere fact that any public organization is successful is, to them, a prime reason why it should be opposed. I am satisfied that last year the Government had it in mind to dispose of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, but the public protest was so sustained and over such a wide area in Australia that the Government was forced to change its plan and is now trying to achieve its ends by means of this legislation. In other words, the Government is adopting Trojan horse tactics. Whereas it was not game to destroy this organization by legislation, it is now going to put in a board on which there will be a majority of businessmen, who will be actuated solely by sordid considerations of sordid pounds, shillings and pence.

Surely members of the Government can raise their minds above the level of the question of whether the organization shows a profit of 10 per cent, or of 20 per cent.! What has profit to do with the health of the Australian people? That is the question to be considered in dealing with an organization such as this. The honorable member for Hume, in a pathetic endeavour to justify the Government’s intentions, said that many ordinary government activities have part-time boards. That may be so, but we are now considering an extraordinary government activity. It is one out of the box - an unusual activity - and the specialized nature of the duties involved warrants the appointment of a full-time board. This is not a job for a member of a part-time board who attends for an hour or so once a fortnight and then tells the director or other public servants what to do. It is a job which should occupy the whole time of members of the board because the duties are so onerous and so specialized. They are of such an important nature that any suggestion that this is a part-time job is merely begging the question.

In putting forward its suggestion the Labour Party is actuated solely by motives of public interest. The Government’s legislation springs from the idea that this might be a way of ultimately getting rid of this public body which has produced so many beneficial results in the past. The real trouble is that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories have been too successful and have shown all the efficacy of public enterprise when it is in the right administrative hands. The Government proposes to undermine the present foundations of this eminently public enterprise, with the result that it will ultimately come to the Parliament - if it is in office for another three years, which heaven forbid - in two or three years and say: “ We regret to say that this organization is making a loss. Our part-time board of three businessmen and two others has reported that they made a loss of £5,000 last year. It is quite apparent that we cannot compete with private enterprise and therefore we will have to sell this organization.”

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member is developing his remarks in the committee stage to such a degree that he is almost making a second-reading speech. I ask the honorable member again to relate his remarks more closely to the clause.

Mr BIRD:

– I shall certainly do so. We have to ask ourselves what are the merits and demerits of a five-man board consisting of three part-time members and two others or a board consisting of three full-time members, and which of the two can produce the best results in the interests of the Australian people.

I am not concerned about a £5,000 or £10,000 per year profit, but about the over all effects of the administration. I am satisfied that three conscientious members of a board devoting, all their time to it must produce better business results than a board consisting of three part-time members who are businessmen, no doubt engaged in other business activities entirely foreign to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and who, because of that, will not be able to give of their best. A board of three fulltime commissioners dedicated to the job would produce evidence that the Opposition’s suggestion is the correct one. I say that, in the interests of the Australian people and to ensure that the drug companies of Australia are not allowed to dominate the position where drugs are concerned, the suggestion of the Opposition should be agreed to. It is entirely a commonsense proposition which should commend itself to members of this House.

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I want to say a few words about the Opposition’s proposal that there be a scientist on the commission, and the objections that have been raised to there being business people on that body.

Mr Whitlam:

– A predominance of business people - that is the point.

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– All right, a predominance of business people. As I have already pointed out, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories have great commercial activities, and it is entirely proper that these should be efficiently managed. I want to go a little further on this occasion and say that it is not essential to have a scientist on the commission. In fact, the commission will have at least one doctor on it. I want to remind the mover of the amendment of something that was said earlier in the House to-day. The Connaught Laboratories, which are among the most famous of this type of establishment in the world, are managed by a committee of six, not one of whom has any scientific qualifications. So there could be no question that efficiency, and very good efficiency, can be secured in the way that the Government proposes.

We believe that what the laboratories need is a section of the management with business and administrative experience. These laboratories are a great and growing institution, and it is eminently sensible that people with extensive administrative experience should have a very considerable influence on the commission.

Having said that, I want to make two things perfectly clear. The first is that the present high standards of production and the facilities for research at the laboratories will not be affected in any way by the Government’s proposals. In fact, if anything, they will be improved. The second thing that I want to make clear is that while reasonable economies will be made, and business methods improved, that will, of course, not be allowed to interfere in any way with the scientific work of the laboratories. I think it is our experience that if any section of the community is more keen in promoting research than any other section is, it is the people engaged in business activities.

Having said those things and having, I hope, made it quite plain that the Government’s firm belief is that its proposals for a commission to consist of three businessmen, the director and a doctor - five commissioners in all - are for the best, I add that these proposals have been given a great deal of very careful attention. It is not true that this is a new arrangement. It is not true that this is a matter that has only recently been considered.It has had long and very careful consideration.

Mr Ward:

– Then why have you kept it tucked away?

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It has had long and very careful consideration. Let me say, in reply to the interjection that the officers of the department, including the director, have been thoroughly informed of all the proposals and have had an opportunity to express their views. So the Government will not accept this amendment. It believes that the form of organization that it has proposed will be greatly to the advantage of the laboratories.It believes that it will assist the laboratories to carry out not only their commercial activities but, above all and of paramount importance, their health functions, and will enable them to enlarge the scope of their services to the people and play an increasing part in the health services of this country. In fact, the Government believes this is a very good arrangement indeed, and that it will reconcile the conflicting interests, if one may call them that, or the varied interests that exist in the laboratories. I repeat, therefore, that the Government will not accept the amendment.

Motion (by Dr. Donald Cameron) agreed to -

That the question be now put.

Question put -

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

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

AYES: 51

NOES: 34

Majority 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I move -

After sub-clause (7.), insert the following subclause: - “ (7a.) A person who -

has a financial interest, whether direct or indirect, in a company that is engaged in, or a business enterprise that is carried on wholly or partly for the purpose of, the production or wholesale distribution of pharmaceutical products (including biological products of a kind used for therapeutic purposes); or

is a director of a company that is so engaged, shall not be appointed under this section as a Commissioner.”.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- I move -

That the amendment be amended by omitting paragraph (b) and inserting the following paragraph: - “ (b) is a director, officer or employee of a company that is so engaged,”.

If the Minister accepts the amendment it will, in fact, incorporate in the bill the amendment which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) sought in conversation with him, and about which I asked him a question yesterday. The Minister will not mind my referring to the question because he said in reply that he had given the Leader of the Opposition an undertaking when he discussed the bill with him the other night that he would introduce such an amendment at the appropriate time. The Leader of the Opposition has told me that, in fact, the Minister said that he would seek the amendment and that if the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) approved he would move it. It is only a small point but at the time that I asked my question the Minister had not told the Leader of the Opposition that he had secured approval to move the amendment. The substantial thing is that the amendment, if the Minister agrees to the further two words which I have suggested, will incorporate in respect of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission the provision which the Government sought and which the House approved in respect of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation Board.

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, this is an entirely trivial point. What I said to the Leader of the Opposition at question time yesterday was that I would consult the Prime Minister about the question of a select committee. Last night 1 saw the Leader of the Opposition and told him that we would not agree to the appointment of a select committee but that I would undertake to move the amendment. So, in fact, 1 did give him an undertaking. However, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said, that is a triviality. I will accept the amendment which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has proposed to my amendment.

Amendment upon amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 14 - by leave - taken together.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

.- Clause 12 reads -

A Commissioner appointed by the GovernorGeneral shall be paid such remuneration (if any) and such allowances (if any) as the GovernorGeneral determines.

Surely this is an indication that this bill has not received the consideration that the Minister says it has. Surely, if it had received sufficient consideration the Government would be in a position, at this stage, to say whether remuneration and allowances would be paid and how much the remuneration and allowances would be. I cannot help but think that the reason for the wording of the clause in this way is that, at this stage, the Government has no idea how active this commission will be. It seems to me that the Government has no idea whether the members of the commission will meet weekly or whether they will allow the maximum period of five weeks to elapse between meetings.

I ask the Minister to tell the committee whether he has any idea of what remuneration and allowances will be paid to the commissioners. Does he envisage that the commissioners should meet at a more fre- quent interval than five weeks or will they meet only at five-weekly intervals?

I notice that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon), who is in charge of the chamber, is present. I should like to point out to him that because there is to be no suspension of the sitting for supper, the officials of this chamber, attendants, and members of the “ Hansard “ staff, will not be able to have a cup of tea, whereas all honorable members will have a chance to do so. When we have these late sittings it is imperative that the Government should bear in mind the fact that employees are working in this building.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! This has nothing to do with the bill.

Mr STEWART:

– I ask the Minister to consider doing something about this.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 15. (1.) If a Commissioner appointed by the Governor-General -

  1. becomes bankrupt, applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounds with his creditors or makes an assignment of his remuneration for their benefit;
Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I move -

After paragraph (a) of sub-clause (1.), insert the following paragraph: - “ (aa) becomes a person referred to in subsection (7a.) of section eight of this Act; “.

This is merely a consequential amend? ment to the amendment that we have just passed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16. (1.) Subject to this section, the Chairman shall convene such meetings of the Commission as, in his opinion, are necessary for the efficient conduct of its affairs. (8.) At a meeting of the Commission, three Commisioners other than the Director constitute a quorum.

Mr. WHITLAM (Werriwa) (11. 7]. - I move -

In sub-clause (8.), omit “ other than “, insert “ including “.

The consequence of the amendment proposed would be that a quorum at a meeting of the commission would be constituted by three commissioners. The clause as it stands is an altogether invidious and offensive provision because, in calculating a quorum at the moment, the director cannot be counted.

Mr Osborne:

– He need not be counted.

Mr WHITLAM:

– He cannot be. If the intention were that he need not be counted there would be no need to make any reference to him. If the provision read, “ At a meeting of the commission three commissioners shall constitute a quorum “. the Opposition would not cavil at it but it reads “ Three commissioners other than the director constitute a quorum,” and we regard it as invidious and offensive. We regard this provision as typical of the bill, its f reparation, and the method of its consideration. It would appear that the director does not count. It is alleged that he was not directly consulted, nor were his staff directly consulted, when the bill was being prepared. Still more extraordinary, he is not among the consultants in the officials’ enclosure.

Mr Hulme:

– To whom are you referring?

Mr WHITLAM:

– The director.

Mr Hulme:

– Who is he?

Mr WHITLAM:

– He is a famous Australian. I thought you would be aware of him. Only one director is mentioned in the bill. In other passages of the bill as well the director is singled out for exclusion. Under ‘clause 8, sub-clause 3, the director cannot be appointed Chairman or ViceChairman. In clause 11, sub-clause 2, it is provided that, in the absence of the chairman, the vice-chairman shall act as chairman and in sub-clause 3 it is provided that a commissioner other than the director or an acting commissioner may be appointed as vice-chairman. That is, the director can never be appointed chairman or vicechairman; he can never act as either in the absence of either. In no other act concerning a Commonwealth commission or board is the chief public servant involved or the permanent head of the organization excluded from these offices. It occurs in this bill and in this bill alone. I cannot understand it. Unless the Minister agrees to omit the words “ other than the director “ we must proceed with this amendment.

I concede that the fact that the director must be included in the quorum, under our proposed amendment, might be inconvenient if the director were overseas as he was, of course, during the Salk investigation. Why he is the only person who will not count in the chair or as one of a quorum is beyond comprehension. Bearing in mind the manner in which the Director has been excluded from the preparation and consideration of this bill I believe that the Government’s attitude as exhibited in this clause is indivi.ous and offensive and must be resisted.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

.- Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments that have been expressed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam), and I support the amendment, although I agree with my Deputy Leader that perhaps it is not the best that could be suggested. The wording of this bill makes obvious the fact that the Government had only one thing in mind - to take away from the present director of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories as much authority as possible. Undoubtedly, at the time when the bill was drafted, the Government intended to allow him to remain as director. Whether he will still be allowed to remain as director is a matter to be determined in the future, but some of the comments that have been made by Ministers and Government supporters indicate that the days of the present director are numbered. If they are, that will be most unfortunate.

Two or three of the clauses in this bill set out deliberately to restrict the activities of the director. Apparently, one of the reasons for the constitution of the proposed commission is that the Government believes that the present director was labouring under greater hardships and more responsibilities than should be his. However, the Government does not relieve him of any responsibilities. It intends to appoint him now to the proposed commission, and he will therefore have more responsibilities than he had before. He will still have the same administrative work to carry out. He will still be labelled as the chief executive officer of the laboratories. This situation will not improve the efficiency of the present director, because he will be given additional responsibilities at the same time that he is deprived of rights which he could properly expect to have - the right to be counted in a quorum and the right to sit as chairman or vice-chairman of the commission and to take a full part in its discussions. Sub-clause (10.) provides -

The Commissioner presiding at a’ meeting of the Commission has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, also has a casting vote.

There will be five commissioners. Normally, most of them would attend, because there is in the bill a provision that if a member of the commission is absent from three consecutive meetings his position shall be declared vacant. In view of that provision, the commissioners will doubtless be present at most of the commission meetings if they take any interest in its affairs.

Mr Bandidt:

– If they all are there, a casting vote will not be necessary.

Mr STEWART:

– That is so, but when only the director and three other commissioners are present, a casting vote on the part of the commissioner acting as chairman of the meeting may be needed. I feel that the Government’s purpose is to see that the director has no greater say in the decisions of the commission than is absolutely essential. I cannot help feeling that certain provisions in this bill are deliberately aimed at the present director of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, and I am thoroughly ashamed at the thought that any government would act in this fashion.

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

.- Mr. Chairman, I think that the Opposition is making a mountain out of a mole-hill. There is nothing invidious or offensive about this clause. Under these arrangements, the director of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories will be the chief executive officer of the laboratories - a very important officer. The provisions in question refer not to a person, but to an officer, and the Government’s view is that the chief executive officer should not properly be counted in a quorum and should not be chairman of the commission. That is why these provisions have been included in the bill and why the Government intends to keep them there.

Mr McCOLM:
Bowman

– Mr. Chairman, in the first place, I had not intended to speak to any of the clauses of this bill. I had intended only to speak briefly at the second-reading stage and to explain why T proposed to abstain from taking part in all the votes taken on this bill. However, my absence from the House for a period, and the application of the gag deprived me of an opportunity to do so earlier. What I have to say about sub-clauses (7.) and (8.) of this clause largely sums up my attitude towards the whole bill. Sub-clause <7.) provides -

In the event of the absence of both the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman from a meeting of the Commission, the Commissioners present shall appoint one of their number to preside at that meeting.

That provision clearly indicates that those who framed the bill envisaged the possibility of meetings of the commission being held in the absence of the chairman and the vicechairman. I think that that is implicit in this sub-clause. Then we come to subclause (8.). If both the chairman and the vice-chairman are absent, only three commissioners are left, and sub-clause (8.) clearly states that one of the remaining three commissioners may not be counted in a quorum even if he is present.

As I have said, my attitude towards these provisions sums up in very broad terms my attitude to the whole bill. I should like to point out that in the last few days I have twice brought this point to the Minister’s attention and asked that we be told more of the background which has caused the Government to decide on this change with respect to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and their administration. I do not believe that an organization which has worked well for 45 years without any criticism or allegations of inefficiency being levelled at it should be dealt with in this fashion. I have no objection to the consideration of a change and to a review of the activities of the laboratories with the object of seeing whether or not the administrative arrangements should be altered. The Minister has told us that a review was held and that as a result the Government decided on these changes which are proposed, but the Government has not told either the members of the Government parties or honorable members generally in detail what that review revealed or what are the specific reasons why these changes are being made. We have been given to understand some of these things in terms of broad generality, but I do not think that fundamental changes in the structure of an organization which has worked successfully for 45 years should be proposed without the Parliament being given specific reasons for the changes, proposed.

For these reasons, as I have already said, I propose to abstain from voting on this measure at any stage, and I did abstain from voting on the motion that it be read a second time.

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Mr. Chairman, the sub-clauses to which the honorable member for Bowman (Mr. McColm) referred are not so silly as they may sound. The bill provides for the appointment of acting commissioners, and sub-clause (8.) is included because acting commissioners may be present at meetings of the commission.

Mr BANDIDT:
Wide Bay

.- I should like to point out that the amendment proposed by the Opposition is scarcely in order. Clause 8 provides that the commission shall consist of four commissioners and the director. Then clause 16 (8.) provides -

At a meeting of the Commission, three Commissioners other than the Director shall constitute a quorum.

The proposed amendment seeks to have this sub-clause read -

At a meeting of the Commission, three Commissioners including the Director shall constitute a quorum.

As clause 8 refers to commissioners as distinct from the director, the commissioners cannot include the director. Therefore, the amendment proposed by the Opposition is out of order.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Repatriation · Evans · LP

– The honorable member for Bowman (Mr. McColm) has said that he does not understand the background against which this bill has been introduced or why the Government wishes to bring in this change in the administration of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I cannot understand his attitude of mind because the Minister’s second-reading speech made the Government’s reasons for introducing this bill amply clear.

Mr Pollard:

– Rubbish.

Mr OSBORNE:

– To my mind they are completely clear, and I cannot understand why the honorable member should seek to find mystery about them when there is no mystery. I repeat that the Minister’s second-reading speech contains completely adequate reasons for the introduction of the measure.

Question put -

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

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

AYES: 51

NOES: 34

Majority

17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 17 and 18 - by leave gether, and agreed to. -taken to-

Clause 19.

The functions of the Commission are -

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- I move -

Omit paragraph (b), insert the following paragraphs: - “ (b) to recommend to the Minister and, if he so determines, to undertake research towards the production of biological products of a kind used for therapeutic purposes, being products other than products prescribed for the purpose of the last preceding paragraph, in accordance with the determination; (ba) to install or maintain plant or equipment capable of being used for the production of biological products, and to produce and hold stocks of biological products, for purposes other than the immediate sale or those products, in accordance with a determination made under the last preceding paragraph; and “.

The net result of the proposal is that, among the functions of the commission, will be recommendations to the Minister on the research which the commission should undertake towards producing its products. 1 can understand that the Minister wants to ensure that the commission shall not undertake research unless he permits it to do so. But up till now the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories have never been required to secure the Minister’s permission before undertaking research; the initiative has been with the laboratories. Now, the initiative, or the permission, will be with the Minister, and the Minister alone.

It may be that in practice the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories would make the recommendations to the Minister, but we would never know. We therefore move this amendment to ensure that, while the Minister will still be able to say whether the research shall be undertaken, it shall be the duty of the commission to make recommendations for such research where the commissioners see fit.

Dr Donald Cameron:
The purpose of this clause is to give to the laboratories what they have never had before - a charter for doing their research. I pointed out earlier in the debate that the research done by the laboratories is in fact research connected with all the products which they make. That is set out in paragraph (a · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

of the clause, which provides that the functions of the commission are -

  1. to produce and sell biological products of a kind used for therapeutic purposes as are prescribed and to undertake research in connexion with any such prescribed product.

The prescribed products will be all those things that the laboratories are producing at present. They will be prescribed by regulation under the act.

Mr Pollard:

– Will the list of products bc added to from time to time and, if so, on whose recommendation and initiative?

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is quite misleading to say that all the initiative will be with the Minister. I cannot imagine such a state of affairs because as the laboratories expand, as they will, and as they commence making new products, they will be involved automatically in research. It is inconceivable that any manager, director or commissioner, severally or together, could possibly fail to recommend that research be carried out. No one would want to or could prevent the laboratories from carrying out such research.

In effect, paragraph (b) of this clause provides that in addition to the research that is being done now by the laboratories any other particular research which the Minister who, in this case, represents the Government, may decide should be conducted. For instance, in the national interest the Minister may direct the laboratories to do some research into a disease for which they are not making a product which has any application. Not only does this portion of the bill allow the Minister to do that, but also another clause makes it incumbent on him to find the finance to enable the laboratories to carry out the research.

This is really a very broad clause. It is important to realize two things. The first is that the bill gives a much wider charter to the laboratories than they now have. It sets out in a form which the Parliament can see from time to time - and alter if necessary - the research that is to be done. Secondly, it makes provision for the Minister to request the laboratories to conduct research over and above what they are doing now. So the bill really widens the functions of the laboratories. This is not a restrictive clause. The proposed amendment is unnecessary and there appears to be no reason why the Government should accept it.

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

.- The explanation which the Minister for Health (Dr. Donald Cameron) has given does not satisfy me. He states that the clause gives power to widen the research that is at present being carried out by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. But the clause only gives that power if this commission of businessmen which the Government proposes to set up sees fit to recommend to the Government that work be done in regard to certain prescribed functions. If the commission reflects the mind of the Government, as I expect it will, it will not wish to recommend that anything additional to the work already being done should be undertaken. That is the basis of the Opposition’s objection.

At present the laboratories, on their own initiative, get to work, carry out research and make certain products. No doubt from time to time the Minister for Health may make suggestions to the institution, meet its representatives in conference and so on. As far as I know, there is nothing except perhaps a scarcity of finance to prevent the laboratories at any time from making something over and above those products which already are being made. The Minister stated that they will continue to make all those things that they are making at present, but the catch is this: What will this new commission of businessmen do - this commission which undoubtedly will reflect the philosophy of the Government which objects to the intrusion of this undertaking into the exclusive sphere of private enterprise? Will these businessmen rush to the Minister with suggestions that the laboratories should get busy on some new project? Not likely! That is the very essence of the Opposition’s objective.

Do not make any mistake about it. One has only to hear the honorable member for Macarthur (Mr. Jeff Bate) singing the virtues of Parke Davis and Company because it happened to be on hand and made some product when a breakdown occurred due to no fault on the part of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories although the honorable member tried to fasten it on the institution. Those are the facts.

The next point is that the Minister can determine that certain research shall be undertaken. But he is a member of a government which has been fiddling around with the sale of this outfit.

Mr McMahon:

– Oh, Reggie!

Mr POLLARD:

– Of course it has! I do not know the Minister’s private views on this but it is well known that this proposal in relation to the laboratories came out of the blue following pressure by private enterprise, national and international. Candidly, we do not trust the Minister and we do not accept his statement regarding this matter. We have no faith in him, and we believe, as we have stated before, that the whole purpose of the bill is to destroy gradually this great instrumentality that now operates for the benefit of the people of this Commonwealth.

Question put -

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

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. F. C. Chaney.)

AYES: 51

NOES: 34

Majority 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clause 21.

The Commission shall, in relation to biological products prescribed for the purpose of paragraph (a) of section nineteen of this Act, pursue a policy directed towards securing revenue from the sale of those products sufficient to meet all its expenditure (including expenditure in undertaking research) in connexion with those products that is properly chargeable to revenue, and to permit the payment to the Commonwealth of a reasonable return on the capital of the Commission.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- I move -

Omit “, and to permit the payment to the Commonwealth of a reasonable return on the capital of the Commission “.

The committee will observe that the Opposition does not object to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission being required to pursue a policy which will bring in enough revenue to pay for its expenses in connexion with its normal commercial activities. But the Opposition does object to the commission being required to provide sufficient revenue from those sales to permit the payment to the Commonwealth of a return on the capital of the commission. The capital of the commission is defined in clause 32 and most of the elements of the capital are set out in clause 31.

The worst thing about the capital is that it includes such amounts as have been paid to the commission by the Treasury out of moneys provided by Parliament for the purposes of the commission. The Parliament, in fact, has appropriated over the years some millions of pounds for the purposes of the commission. Most of the money was appropriated for research. We think it is unreasonable to expect the commission to charge so much for its products that it will be required to pay for its basic, research. The idea of the Government has been that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories should be made competitive with the private drug companies, but those companies in Australia do not conduct basic research in the sense that the laboratories have done and are still doing. The most the private drug companies do is to carry out developmental research in applying formulae to local conditions. Most of them are subsidiaries of foreign companies, and the research has been carried out overseas. It is not a charge on their sales locally.

We feel it is not a just comparison to compare the activities of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories as a whole with the activities of any drug company as a whole because the activities of the laboratories are much more various, much more basic and, like all research, much more expensive. One might as well say that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission should charge the people for whom they do services the full cost of their activities.

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Clause 21 that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) is seeking to amend is really a very reasonable clause. It states -

The Commission shall, in relation to biological products prescribed for the purpose of paragraph (a) of section nineteen of this Act, pursue a policy directed towards securing revenue from the sale of those products sufficient to meet all its expenditure (including expenditure in undertaking research) in connexion with those products that is properly chargeable to revenue, and to permit the payment to the Commonwealth of a reasonable return on the capital of the Commission.

That is, in fact, what the laboratories do now. There is nothing .new about the clause. It would be wrong if we were to set up an organization and so favour it with Government arrangements that it could compete unfairly against private enterprise and could be used to put private enterprise out of business.

Mr Cope:

– Rubbish!

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– This is not a socialist government. This Government believes that when it engages in trading activities it should do so fairly. It is all very well for the Opposition to cry out about private enterprise. The fact is that all of us - or nearly all of us - agree with private enterprise. This is not just a mere commercial undertaking, as I have said before. It is important that when a government engages in commerce and trading activities, it should do so on a proper basis. This puts it on a proper basis. It permits the payment to the Commonwealth Government of a reasonable return on the capita] of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission. After all, the Commonwealth - that is to say, the taxpayer - is the shareholder in this business and is entitled to a return on the business just as everybody else is in similar circumstances. This is a perfectly reasonable clause. The Government intends to keep it as it is.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– What the Minister for Health has said contrasts rather strangely with what he said earlier. His previous statements, which I noted, were that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories were not a straight-out commercial enterprise. He said they had a great many public health aspects and needed a certain amount of flexibility. Clause 21 applies to this public enterprise a private enterprise test. The Minister has said that there is nothing new in the clause, but it is new. It is part of the philosophy that is being enunciated by this Government. We had an example of this recently in the Post Office report. It was interesting to note this statement in paragraph 12 of the majority report -

Whereas private businesses are primarily concerned with the achievement of a satisfactory level of profit, Government businesses usually have to take wider considerations of national interest into account.

I submit that what has been done in clause 21 eliminates the wider aspect of the national interest in the name of a doctrine that is very silly indeed. Where do you get to when you decide that the people are entitled to a return on their money7 What does that mean in this case? It means a piece of book-keeping and duck-shoving, taking from one pocket to put into another, charging too much for the drugs and collecting less in taxation in the end. That is the process that is involved here. Over a period of years, the amount sunk in this enterprise amounts to something like £6,000,000. The major part of that amount has come from the revenues of the Commonwealth, or from the accumulations of earnings of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories itself.

The Government is repeating in this bill a doctrine that we have heard many times before. It is a doctrine that is being foisted on the public enterprises of this country by anonymous gentlemen in the Treasury. As T said on another occasion, it represents the triumph of the Treasury over common sense. In this case we are dealing with a public enterprise pure and simple, which is basically non-competitive but which is providing a service that no private organization will provide. We have heard a lot of poppycock this evening about this Government enterprise competing with the poor old drug houses. Other honorable members have told us this evening the financial history of these drug houses. I have before me at the moment a copy of the new financial journal, the “Australian Financial Times “, an article in which is headed, “Drug Houses’ Profits Soar”. It deals with an undertaking established in 1949 with a paid-up capital of about £6,000,000, and which, in the intervening twelve years, has accumulated further reserves of £600,000. I estimate that the turnover per annum of Drug Houses of Australia Limited is comparable with that of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. The difference between the two organizations, however, is that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories has been regarded as a public enterprise not required to make a profit on its capital, and the taxpayers of Australia, the users of the services of the laboratories, have thus been saved between £400,000 and £500,000 a year.

The major part of the output of the drug industry to-day is used in filling prescriptions under what is supposed to be a free medicine scheme, although we have a situation now, because of legislation recently passed in this Parliament, in which people have to pay 5s. for every prescription that is made up, which prescriptions formerly were dispensed free. The Minister himself has said that this institution cannot properly be treated as a business enterprise, and that it is primarily a public service. The Treasury doctrine that is now being applied to the undertaking has no concern for services that are provided for the public. We on this side of the House maintain that if you decide to use a certain amount of your resources for a public undertaking, whether a school, a hospital or a serum laboratory, and you allocate the necessary capital out of Commonwealth revenue, it is absurd then to say, “ If we had to go on the market and raise the money in the form of shares we would have to ensure a return on the capital invested “. This is one way in which it can be shown that public enterprise is sometimes cheaper than private enterprise.

Public health should not become the plaything of private profiteers. As the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) said this afternoon, these laboratories are turning out abundant supplies of many commodities which are being stored here. We should keep this in mind at a time when we are facing a balanceofpayments crisis. In fact, another clause of the bill provides that the commission should have regard to considerations of this kind.

I suggest to some honorable members occupying the Government’s back-benches that this is only the first of the community’s public enterprises to which the new doctrine is being applied. If you read the two reports that were submitted about the Post Office you will find that there was no unanimity about this doctrine that interest should be provided on moneys out of Commonwealth revenue. We contend that if this kind of public service is needed it should be provided without any thought of private profit or a return on capital. That is why we are opposing this clause and also two or three -if the other financial clauses that will come before us later. We believe that these laboratories provide a public service. We believe that the public health of the community is of paramount importance and that it should take priority over profit.

No one has told us what is to be regarded as a reasonable rate of profit. Will it be the kind of profit that the drug houses get, about 20 per cent, gross on their earnings? Is that to be a reasonable rate, or is a reasonable rate to be the 8 per cent, that is offered by hire-purchase companies, or the 5i per cent, that is offered on Government bonds? If the members of the Government want a reasonable rate of profit they should at least have enough courage to tell us what is regarded as a minimum rate. But they do nothing about that. The Government says, in another clause of the bill, “ We will not charge interest on capital but we will get a reasonable return “. I will ask the Minister, or the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt), who is in the chamber at the moment, to tell us what is considered a reasonable rate. Even if a rate of only 5 per cent, is applied to a capital of £6,000,000, this means a further charge of £300,000 for the drugs and services provided by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. If you think the rate of profit should be 20 per cent, gross, you will have to charge the people of Australia another £1 ,000,000.

We are entitled to an answer to this question, particularly at a time when large sections of the community are facing destitution economically. I would like the Minister to say what is considered reasonable. He used the word “ reasonable “ in another context this evening, when he was replying to certain arguments. I would like to know what is considered reasonable in terms of a return on capital.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Chaney:

– Order The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr ANDERSON:
Hume

– I wish to make only one comment with regard to the speech made by the ill-informed member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean). The making of a profit shows efficiency. If there is no yardstick of efficiency, then inefficiency will follow, and the public must pay more. When all costs are assessed correctly and a profit is shown, the business involved is efficient, and the services provided for the community are cheaper.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

.- Do not be so upset, Mr. Temporary Chairman, at having to call me, because it is the first time I have spoken in the debate.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! I ask the honorable member to proceed with his discussion of the bill.

Mr DUTHIE:

– This is one of the many obnoxious clauses of one of the most obnoxious pieces of legislation that have come before the Parliament in this Government’s sad history. The Minister, in his short statement on this clause, said that there would be unfair competition if the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories did not make a profit and diverted those profits into the Treasury. He said, “We are not a socialist government “. I interjected and said, “ No, your government is the greatest arsenal of private enterprise that this country has ever seen “. The Government has been tearing down, closing down and slowing down every public enterprise in the Commonwealth. Only one public enterprise is left and that is the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. The Government will probably create a private postal department so that there will not be unfair competition. I have never heard such rot! The Government’s idea seems to be to bolster up the poverty-stricken drug houses of Australia. This was dealt with by my colleague, the honorable member for Melbourne ports (Mr. Crean). If the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are allowed to charge lower prices to the public, there is a chance that the drug houses will be forced to reduce their prices. The provision we are now considering will jack up prices to a level higher than the present level and will keep them.

Mr Pollard:

– The Minister said that competition must be fair.

Mr DUTHIE:

– Yes, but this jacking-up of prices is not fair to the public. By this type of legislation, the Government is introducing business inflexibility into an organization which for more than 40 years has carried out its work with great honour and distinction and with tremendous benefit to the people. Once again we have had Treasury interference and infiltration in a massive way into a public-owned utility. The Treasury’s hand is on another publicowned industry, just as it is on the Postal Department and other departments, compelling them to make a profit or else. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are now coming within the shadow of the Almighty, and that is the Treasury which is running the country, lock, stock and barrel, and dictating to Ministers who have become merely the vassals of the Treasury. We will see the results of this in a few months time in a massive way. The Government is deliberately jacking up the prices of drugs produced by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories instead of trying to keep prices down. The drug houses must have not their pound of flesh but their ton of flesh.

It is scandalous that this Government should fall not only under the influence of the Treasury but also under the influence of the massive profit-making drug houses. This great colossus is bearing down on the sick people; the drug houses must be boosted and bolstered by the Government. As I said at the beginning, this Government is the greatest arsenal of private enterprise that this country has ever seen. I have voiced my protest. Probably I will not speak again on this bill, and that should please honorable members opposite. I hope that all my colleagues between now and December will tell the voters in their electorates exactly what the Government has done to this wonderful organization.

Thursday, 18 May 1961

Motion (by Mr. McMahon) agreed to -

That the question be now put.

Question put -

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

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. F. C. Chaney.)

AYES: 48

NOES: 32

Majority . . 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23. (1.) The Governor-General shall appoint a person to be the Director of the undertaking known as the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. (3.) The Director shall hold office on such terms and conditions as the Governor-General determines.

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I move -

After sub-clause (3.), insert the following subclauses: - “ (3a.) A person referred to in sub-section (7a.) of section eight of this Act shall not be appointed as the Director. “ (3b.) The provisions of sub-section (1.) of section fifteen of this Act apply to the Director and the office of the Director in like manner as they apply to a Commissioner referred to in that subsection and the office of such a Commissioner.”.

This amendment is consequential on the amendment to clause 8.

Mr WHITLAM:
Deputy Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I wish only to express some misgivings on this clause. Because the director is to be appointed for such period, not exceeding five years, as the Government specifies in his instrument of appointment, there is a very real fear that an outside person of the requisite standing would not accept an appointment so limited. He is eligible for reappointment, but he naturally has no right to reappointment. Admittedly, there are specified terms in respect of some statutory offices. The Commissioner of Taxation is a clear case, but obviously the only persons ever appointed Commissioner of Taxation are skilled members of the Public Service and, if not reappointed, they have all the amenities and security which go with the Public Service.

Another instance is the Tariff Board. There is now a real difficulty in securing persons outside the Public Service for appointment to the Tariff Board, because the appointment is for a maximum term of years and there is no guarantee of reappointment. In fact, some members have not been reappointed. The same difficulty would apply to the director of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. An outside man of the requisite standing would not accept an appointment which might be for no more than five years, because it would mean that he would cut off all his associations with members of the professions which referred matters to him.

If appointments are only to be from the Public Service, as they have been hitherto, there is no difficulty. Although we are not voting against the clause we feel it appropriate to express some misgiving that any limit has been put to the term. If a director proves unsatisfactory and is a member of the Public Service, as the present director and his two predecessors have been in the last 40 years, he can, of course, be transferred or dismissed, but if he is transferred he has the rights of equal emoluments and status.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 24 to 32 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 33. (1.) Interest is not payable to the Commonwealth on the capital of the Commission but the Commission shall pay to the Commonwealth, out’ of the profits of the Commission for a financial year, such amount as the Treasurer, after consulting the Minister, determines.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

– I move -

In sub-clause (1.), omit “ but the Commission shall pay to the Commonwealth, out of the profits cf the Commission for a financial year, such amount as the Treasurer, after consulting (he Minister, determines”.

This amendment will remove the requirement that the commission shall pay profits to the Treasury. Our opposition here is in keeping with our opposition to clause 21 and clause 42. We believe there is not a true comparison between the activities of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and those of the drug companies whose interests are being served by this legislation. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories have, in fact, always made considerable profit. The whole of the profits have been spent on research. They have not been spent in unfair competition with the drug companies. The prices of all the products of the laboratories which are sold are determined by the Minister for Health under the existing practice, and they will be fixed by the Minister hereafter, as the result of clause 22, which has been agreed to by the committee.

The Commonwealth, in fact, gets very good value from the operations of the

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I quote now from evidence given before the Public Works Committee by the director of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories on 18th of last month. He said -

By and large with our average standard of ceiling price we break better than even on general world prices. In fact we feel that we are a little better. In some cases we cannot produce in the low price field as we should like to, but that is a problem of scale of production.

In actual fact there is no case where the cost of production of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories exceeds that of its competitors and the prices at which it sells are fixed by the Minister. There is no unfair competition with the competitors. The profits that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories already make are spent on its existing public purposes. We feel it is inappropriate to require it to pay its profits to the Treasury. The community is already receiving and has for over 40 years received the benefits of the operations of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. The country gets the whole of the profits instead of, as under this provision, receiving soma artificial amount. The fear is that the price of its products will be increased in order to increase the amount of its profit and to enable its competitors to increase their profits.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

.I wish to support the amendment. In doing

Motion (by Mr. McMahon) agreed to -

That the question be now put.

Question put -

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

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. F. C. Chaney.)

AYES: 49

NOES: 32

Majority . . . . 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 34 to 41 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 42 (Liability to taxation).

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– As stated earlier, the Opposition will oppose this clause. One of the strange doctrines that it is very hard to find any logical explanation for is that a purely Commonwealth undertaking has to go through the fiction of being taxed as though it were not a Commonwealth undertaking, the net result in this case being that the tax assessed will be money taken out of the hands of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and placed in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The only other example

I know of this peculiar device was contained in the recent amendments to the Commonwealth Bank Act. There we had this same peculiar position. Whereas the profits of the Commonwealth Bank had formerly been paid into the National Debt Sinking Fund they were channelled instead into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and the net position was really as it was before.

As we said earlier, we believe that the aim of Commonwealth undertakings should simply be to charge enough for their services to cover the expenditure incurred in providing those services. We object to the concept of profit in these undertakings, and we therefore oppose the imposition of tax on them, because if there is no profit there is nothing to tax in any event.

I think it is time that somebody on the Government side gave us a logical explanation of what is achieved by going through the fiction of taxing what is purely a Commonwealth undertaking in order merely to pay a notional sum into the revenue. We oppose the clause because we think that it is based on an absurdity and shall show our objection to it by our voting against it.

Question put -

That the clause be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. F. C. Chaney.)

AYES: 51

NOES: 31

Majority

20

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 43 to 45 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new clause.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

– I move

That the following new clause be inserted in the bill:- “ 20a. The Commission shall not enter into or be in any way concerned in or a party to or act in concert with any commercial trust or combine but shall always be and remain an independent Australian undertaking.”.

The proposed new clause provides that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories will remain an independent Australian undertaking. The clause is in identical terms to one in the Aluminium Industry Act 1944 which validated an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Tasmania. It is in similar terms to one of the clauses in the agreement, approved by the Oil Agreement Act 1920, between the Commonwealth and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company which was forming a refinery company in Australia. Events of the last few years have made it particularly appropriate in this case.

As the new “ Australian Financial Times “ which was quoted by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean), pointed out in an article in its initial issue of last Monday, there has been, following on the national health scheme, a very great increase by American pharmaceutical companies of their investments in Australian drug houses and an extension of manufacturing agreements with them. There was the same increase of American investment in the United Kingdom following the introduction of the national health scheme there. The very great increase in the cost of the United Kingdom scheme and the still greater increase in the cost of the Australian scheme in recent years was pointed out by the writer of the article to which I have referred. The lesson that he drew was not the cost to the community, but the benefits to the investors. The greatest drug company in Australia - Drug Houses of Australia Ltd. - was the particular subject of his comment. He pointed out that one of the things which made this company particularly profitable for the investor was its link with a substantial United States pharmaceutical company. But this is not the only company in which American interests have invested in recent years.

I draw the attention of honorable members to the Minister’s latest determination under the National Health Act which appears in the Commonwealth “ Gazette “ of 1 1th May. In this determination are listed all the companies whose products may be prescribed as pharmaceutical benefits. I will give the committee the names of companies in which United States and British companies hold financial interests. For the fact that United States and British companies hold financial interests in these companies I will rely on information given in the latest annual booklet of the Department of Trade on such investments. The Australian companies which are linked with American companies financially are -

Abbot Laboratories Proprietary Limited.

Ayerst Laboratories Proprietary Limited.

Bayer Pharma Proprietary Limited.

Drug Houses of Australia Limited.

Eli Lilly (Australia) Proprietary Limited.

Merck, Sharp and Dohme (Australia) Proprietary Limited.

Parke, Davis and Company Limited.

Chas. Pfizer Overseas Incorporated.

Riker Laboratories Australia Proprietary Limited.

Schering Corporation United States of America.

The Upjohn Company Limited.

William R. Warner and Company Proprietary Limited.

Those in which British companies have a financial interest are -

British Drug Houses (Australia) Proprietary Limited.

Burroughs Wellcome and Company (Australia) Limited.

The Crookes Laboratories Limited.

Glaxo-Allenburys (Australia) Proprietary Limited.

Imperial Chemical Industries of Australia and New Zealand Limited.

Reckitt and Colman (Australia) Limited.

Smith, Kline and French Laboratories (Australia) Limited.

Three-quarters of the production of pharmaceutical benefits now comes from companies in which United States or British companies have interests. It is quite plain that in this field more and more Australian companies are being dominated by foreign interests. I direct the attention of the committee, also, to an article in the “ Economic Record “ of last March on restrictive practices and monopolies. In an appendix to that article instances are given of Australia-wide restrictive arrangements.

Mr Hasluck:

– Who is the author?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Another academic, Professor Hunter. In the appendix the following statement appears: -

In the retailing of pharmaceutical products the various pharmaceutical guilds in each State negotiate with the manufacturers, singly or in groups, the prices and retail margins of all pharmaceutical goods. The retail price is thus fixed and then made known to members through the distribution of price-lists. There is practically a 100 per cent. membership in each State, and examples of price cutting are almost unknown.

It is quite plain from all the information which is available on the subject that foreign investment in Australian drug companies is increasing, that prices are being raised and that the community, both as individuals and through the Commonwealth Government, is paying more and more for these products every year. Of course, the Commonwealth Government pays the greatest amount - even more than is paid by the State Governments with their hospitals.

The only way in which this practice could be curbed is through public competition. In the Commonwealth Serum

Laboratories we have an instrument of competition. A very great argument in this country in the last decade for public enterprise has been that public enterprise is the only indigenous or patriotic enterprise. In all the great fields in which there has been expansion since the war, foreign investment has predominated.

Mr McMahon:

– Not in drug houses.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The information from the Department of Trade, the article in the “ Australian Financial Times “ and the article by the academic author whom I have quoted indicate that there has been increasing and continuing overseas investment in Australian drug houses as in other chemical industries, the oil industry, and the motor car industry. The State Governments, the Commonwealth Government and the community as individuals are all paying the cost of this investment in general and in drug houses in particular. The principal argument in favour of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories is that it is an Australian owned enterprise. It is the only really significant undertaking in this field which is now controlled in our own country.

Mr Hasluck:

– Do the laboratories make pharmaceutical preparations?

Mr WHITLAM:

– They can make any pharmaceutical preparation, and they make all the pharmaceutical preparations which the Government allows them to make. This organization is the only manufacturer in Australia of some preparations. It is the only manufacturer in Australia of insulin, and its product is said to be the purest in the world. These laboratories and GlaxoAllenburys (Australia) Proprietary Limited are the only manufacturers of penicillin in Australia and between them they make enough to satisfy the whole of the Australian demand. These two manufacturers have large stocks of unused penicillin because two-thirds of the penicillin being used in Australia, all of which is subsidized by this Government, is imported.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! The honorable gentleman’s time has expired.

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

.- Mr. Temporary Chairman, first of all, let me tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) that he need have no fear about the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories not remaining an independent organization. The mere fact of the establishment of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission will ensure that the laboratories remain independent.

I want to say only a few words about the truly remarkable proposition that has been advanced by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition with respect to the drugs produced and the drug houses that are producing them. Does he really propose that the import of all these drugs should be banned and that they should be manufactured at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories? That would be quite impossible. Perhaps the honorable gentleman does not understand what the laboratories are. They make biological products and are not equipped to make the great range of substances that he has just mentioned. They would not be able to do so.

Mr Whitlam:

– Does the Minister really mean that there is any pharmaceutical product that the laboratories cannot make?

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Of course there are pharmaceutical products that they cannot make.

Mr Whitlam:

– I am talking of products included in the list of pharmaceutical benefits.

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– There are hundreds of pharmaceutical products that the laboratories could not manufacture without establishing a whole new series of laboratories, engaging staff and spending millions of pounds on getting patents and obtaining details of processes. To talk about this organization doing these things is to talk nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that the only patriotic operators, companies or enterprises - I am not quite sure of the exact term which he used - of this kind in Australia are government enterprises. At least, that is what I understood him to say. If he did say that, he uttered a sweeping indictment of his fellow citizens.

In conclusion, let me say that if the proposed new clause were inserted in the bill it could prevent the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories from entering into contracts to obtain from drug firms knowledge of manufacturing processes by which products are made - what is commonly known as knowhow. At present, the laboratories have to buy their raw materials from drug companies and manufacturers and they have to sell their bulk products, and, in fact, many of their packaged products, to the trade. The effect of the amendment would be to stultify many of the activities for which the laboratories exist.

Mr Whitlam:

– Provisions such as those contained in the proposed new clause did not prevent the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization or the aluminium plant at Bell Bay from getting all the know-how they needed, but merely prevented those organizations from being placed under foreign control.

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The proposed new clause would prevent the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories from obtaining know-how.

On all counts, Mr. Temporary Chairman, the Government finds that acceptance of the proposed new clause is impossible.

Question put -

That the new clause proposed to be inserted (Mr. Whitlam’s amendment) be so inserted.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. F. C. Chaney.)

AYES: 32

NOES: 50

Majority . . . . 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report - by leave - adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Dr. Donald Cameron) - by leave - put -

That the bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 53

NOES: 32

Majority . . . . 21

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2055

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr. McMahon) proposed -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until a date and hour to be fixed by Mr. Speaker, which time of meeting shall be notified by Mr. Speaker to each member by telegram or letter.

Mr CALWELL:
Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne

– What does that mysterious motion mean? Will the House be called together again if the Senate amends legislation sent to it for consideration?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– Yes.

Mr CALWELL:

– And if not, when will the House meet again?

Mr Harold Holt:

– On 15th August. That is a tentative, but probable date.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2055

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL MEMBERS

Motion (by (Mr. McMahon) agreed to -

That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.

page 2055

ADJOURNMENT

Unemployment

Motion (by Mr. Hulme) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr CALWELL:
Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne

– There are very few opportunities afforded in this Parliament these days for debates on the motion for the adjournment at night. In fact, as honorable members opposite become more and more neurotically critical of their own Government, the inclination on the part of the Ministry to curtail debate grows more pronounced.

I want to say something about the figures which the Government releases from time to time in connexion with unemployment. There are two sets of figures released. There are those released by the Commonwealth Statistician and those released by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon). We were told by the Minister for Labour and National Service that in March the number of unemployed rose by something like 9,000, and in April by 7,000. On 12th May, the Commonwealth Statistician released figures relating to February and March of this year and gave a comparison with the figures for February and March of last year. These figures differ very considerably from those issued by the Department of Labour and National Service. Whereas the Minister stated that the army of unemployed grew by 9,000 in March, the Commonwealth Statistician indicates that total civilian employment dropped from 3,077,200 to 3,063,800. In other words, 13,400 fewer people were employed. There is a difference of 4,000 between the figures cited by the Minister and those cited by the Statistician. Incidentally, in the same period last year the number of persons in employment rose by 13,100.

Mr Hulme:

– But that is not the full story.

MR CALWELL:

– It is the full story as told in the document that I have. I would like to get the full story because we have been given certain figures which are not very conclusive. In fact, they are mystifying. For instance, in his latest statement the Minister indicates that 2,700 larger private factories regularly surveyed by the Department and employing some 550,000 persons showed a drop in employment by 9,960 or 1.8 per cent. But the Statistician gives the total number of persons in civilian employment as 3,063,800.

Mr McMahon:

– In civilian employment.

Mr CALWELL:

– Yes.

Mr McMahon:

– But exclusive of country people and females.

Mr CALWELL:

– You can exclude whom you like but, according to the Statistician, the number of persons engaged in manufacturing industries in March this year was 1,169,000, whereas the number surveyed by the Department of Labour and National Service was 550,000 and the drop in the number of people engaged in the factories was shown as 9,960. So on that basis there must have been a reduction in employment of 1 8,000 which is twice the number which a department cites. That would be a reasonable deduction to make from the figures. We were hoping that the Parliament would meet to-morrow so that we could direct the attention, not only of the Parliament but also of the people, to this very unsatisfactory state of affairs.

To show the cursory nature of this survey one has only to read the Minister’s statement, which is in these terms -

In factories covered by the survey which produce bricks and tiles; lime, plaster, cement and their products; paints; and metal building fittings, or which are engaged in sawmilling and other woodworking, employment declined by 715.

Why, employment in some of these industries alone declined by that figure. Apparently only a section of the industries was surveyed.

Let me deal now with the position in Queensland. Of 1,600 people employed in the plywood industry in that State, 600 have been dismissed. In other words, onethird of the people employed have lost their jobs. Of those who are still employed, at least 25 per cent, are working short time. But when one tries to ascertain from the Minister’s survey just how many people are working short time, one finds that the relevant figures are not available. The survey states -

Short time was reported in 2.1 per cent, of factories and among 1.1 per cent, of all employees.

If over 3,000,000 people are employed, 1.1 per cent, represents a considerable figure.

If they are working a four-day week instead of a five-day week, they are working at 20 per cent, below full employment. Therefore, one is entitled to add to the unemployment figure one-fifth of the total civilian employees. In many cases employers, instead of dismissing staff, have spread the work over a number of their employees. That is a humane and proper approach to the problem.

The Minister is not giving the Parliament and the people of Australia a factual story. He is giving us a cooked-up story. Whoever has cooked it up has done so with the idea of misrepresenting the true position. The Minister is carrying on now what has been done for the last few years. I am not accusing him of doing anything in this instance-

Mr McMahon:

– Not for the last few years only. It was done also when Labour was in government.

Mr CALWELL:

– At that time we did not issue these statements. The survey then states -

The 77 factories surveyed engaged in motor vehicle construction and assembly, motor body building and the manufacture of motor accessories, reported an increase of 28.

Many thousands of workers would be involved in those industries and the department states that there was an increase of 28 in the number employed. Who does the department think it is fooling with figures like those? Either the number increased by some hundreds or it decreased by some hundreds. It did not balance out evenly at a figure of 28.

Mr Bandidt:

– How do you know?

Mr CALWELL:

– Because I use common sense, and I wish the honorable gentleman also would use it occasionally in his consideration of questions of this kind. In April last, the Minister stated that the deployment of workers who had lost their jobs in private factories and had been found employment in the railways, tramways and other government undertakings had finished. We now reach a hard core of unemployed of something like 90,000. That is the Minister’s admitted figure, but the actual figure could be twice that. However, even if the Minister’s figure is correct, we believe that the unemployment benefit should be increased substantially because it is impossible for people to live on the amount that was fixed in 1957. It is wrong for the Government to close the Parliament without doing something about this problem.

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Lowe · LP

– I should like to direct attention first to the comparison that was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell). He dealt with what are called wage and salary earners in civilian employment, but he failed to point out that the Commonwealth Statisticion makes it clear that his figures relate to civilian wage and salary earners except those engaged in rural industries and females in private domestic service. The Statistician’s document is different from the monthly news release of the Department of Labour and National Service relating to the employment situation. That statement deals with a total Australian work force of something like 4,200,000 people, and the characteristics of the people concerned are those referred to for census purposes. In other words, it includes all people who are in fact employed. So one cannot draw any useful comparison between the figures contained in the document issued by the Commonwealth Statistician and those contained in the department’s document.

The department’s monthly review is a comprehensive statement relating to registrations for employment, job vacancies, recipients of unemployment benefits and also to day work, overtime and short time. I do not know of any review published anywhere in the world which is better than the document published by my department. If you study it, and particularly if you study the trend in this document, I am sure you will know more about what has happened in the employment field in Australia than you could gather from any other source. I believe also that if you read these statistics intelligently, you get an idea of the employment position from them fairly effectively. It is a good guide to the Government in determining what future policy should be.

So I repeat that I believe that statistics are effective. From my point of view, I believe they are an effective reflection of what is set out in them. We know the registrations for employment and we can compare them with the number of job vacancies.

The next thing the honorable gentleman talked about was the short time worked. From that he drew certain conclusions which I believe were totally invalid. If he had wanted to make any useful comparison - and I do not think you can make a logical comparison although you can make a useful one - he should have compared the position in which short time was worked in 2.1 per cent, of the factories and by 1.1 per cent, of the employees with the position in which overtime was worked by 25.7 per cent, of the employees in 59.4 per cent, of the factories. In other words, nearly 60 per cent, of the factories had overtime and only 2.1 per cent, of the factories had short time; so again the honorable gentleman’s comparison is totally invalid.

The only real objection I raise to what the honorable gentleman has said is based on his statement that the figures are cooked up. I regard that statement with some resentment. The figures are prepared by the Department of Labour and National Service - by officers whom I trust, as also do my colleagues. I think it is to be deeply regretted when the Leader of the Opposition says, in effect, that he would not trust Commonwealth officials.

My only other comment is that I did refer to a large-scale transition period in employment. I do believe that that period has ended; but that does not mean to say that the normal transfers from job to job are not taking place. They are, in fact, taking place. Only yesterday morning I read in one of the newspapers that General Motors-Holden’s Limited in Sydney was re-engaging all its employees.

Mr Calwell:

– That is untrue; it is engaging 200 out of 2,000 dismissed.

Mr McMAHON:

– You have referred to the figures I have here. You did not complete your statement with the announcement by General Motors-Holden’s Limited in Sydney this morning. In other words, you wanted to give a partial figure to create the wrong impression. You were not prepared to put all the facts before the House.

That is all I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, in reply to the statement of the Leader of the Opposition. We have allowed the

House to sit fairly late because we thought that if the honorable gentleman wanted to speak at this hour, he had a contribution to make. I do not think he did make a useful contribution.

My final word is that the Government regards the employment position as something to which it must give constant attention. We look at it from the point of view of the people involved and not to make politics out of the situation. We regard this as a social problem. For that reason, all the attention and all the intelligence we can put to a study of this problem are given. As we can apply remedial measures, of course we do so. We will do our best to see that the level of employment is raised and that employment is retained at the highest level to which we can get it. That is the reply I wish to make to the Leader of the Opposition, and I now move -

That the question be now put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the House do now adjourn.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 51

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 28

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 1.20 a.m. (Thursday) to a date and hour to be fixed by Mr. Speaker.

page 2058

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Surgical Aids

Mr Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

s asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice -

  1. Are artificial limbs, glass eyes and similar surgical aids subject to (a) import duties and(b) sales tax?
  2. On what items of this nature are these charges levied?
  3. What are the rates of duty and sales tax imposed on each of these items?
  4. How much is collected annually by way of import duties and sales tax on these items?
Mr Osborne:
LP

– The Minister for Customs and Excise has furnished the following answers to the honorable member’s questions: - 1 and 2. Artificial arms and artificial feet with cushion heels are free of duty from all countries. Other artificial limbs and artificial eyes are free of duty underthe British preferential tariff and subject to7½ per cent. ad valorem otherwise. Also dutiable at the same rates are appliances (for example, knives, forks and spoons) for insertion into artificial arms to enable the wearer to perform a wide range of useful operations. Among other surgical aids it is advised that artificial teeth, colostomy and ileostomy appliances, artificial bones of acrylic composition, of stainless steel, of tantalum, diabetics’ sugar estimation kits, and eye guards are also accorded free admissionunder the British preferential tariff but subject to 7½ per cent. ad valorem otherwise. Aids such as crutches, belts, trusses and pads are subject to customs and primage duties amounting to 171 per cent. British preferential tariff and 42i per cent otherwise.

  1. It may be stated as a general rule that all surgical appliances which are of a class or kind for which suitable equivalents are not reasonably available from Australian manufacture would, upon application to the Department of Customs and Excise, be accorded free admission under the British preferential tariff and subject to 7i per cent, ad valorem otherwise. In the event that these goods were additionally not available from United Kingdom manufacturers, free admission from all countries could be obtained on application and following inquiries. Sales tax is a matter coming within the jurisdiction of the right honorable the Treasurer but it may be noted that the following articles are listed as exempt from sales tax under the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act - Item 42 (1), abdominal belts; item 42 (5), artificial eyes; item 42(6), artificial limbs; item 42 (7b), colostomy, ileostomy and supra-pubic appliances; item 42 (8), crutches; item 42 (12), surgical boots, braces and irons; item 42 (14), trusses.
  2. The following information is available in respect of import duties paid for the year ended 30th June, I960:-

No separate statistical information is available in respect of the other appliances mentioned.

Repatriation

Mr Clay:

y asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

  1. Would there be more than a score of Boer War veterans in Australia who because they enlisted from England or some other country of the British Commonwealth and came to Australia as settlers at the end of the Boer War are denied the medical and hospital rights recently granted to Boer War veterans who enlisted from Australia?
  2. Will he take steps to have the appropriate Act amended so that there will be no discrimination between any of these now elder comradesinarms?
Mr Osborne:
LP

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

  1. The number of Boer War veterans who enlisted in the United Kingdom or other Commonwealth countries and who are now living in Australia is not known, but they would not be numerous.
  2. The Repatriation Act provides benefits for former members of the Australian forces. Former members of the armed forces of the

United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries are provided for by similar legislation in those countries. It is not intended to amend the Repatriation Act as suggested by the honorable member.

Hercules Aircraft

Mr Chaney:

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

  1. Has trouble been experienced with the fuel tanks on the C130 Hercules aircraft; if so, what is the cause of the trouble?
  2. Has any remedy been found to prevent the trouble occurring again?
Mr Osborne:
LP

– The Minister for Air has furnished the following information: -

  1. Yes. Corrosion has been discovered, during routine servicing examination, on the inner surfaces of the tanks. The corrosion appears to have been caused by contaminated water in the fuel. Although the underlying reasons for the corrosion are still under investigation, evidence suggests that operation of the Hercules in the tropics increases its severity.
  2. Precautionary measures have been taken. As similar corrosion has occured in CI 30 Hercules of the United States Air Force, extensive investigations are now being undertaken into the fundamental cause of the corrosion and it can be expected that suitable remedial action will be developed.

Canberra Rentals

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

ser asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. On what head of power does the Commonwealth rely for its action in deducting from the salaries of its officers the rent payable for governmentowned dwellings which they occupy in Canberra and for refusing to accept instruction from these officers that the deductions are to be discontinued?
  2. Is it accepted that section 89 of the Public Service Act, which provides for deduction for rent for quarters provided, should not apply to dwellings in Canberra which are not provided as a condition of employment?
  3. If the Government is relying on a Treasury order will he state what legislative backing there is for this order?
  4. Will he make a statement on this matter at the earliest opportunity?
Mr Harold Holt:
LP

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

As the honorable member knows it is not the practice for Ministers to provide legal opinions. However, I am able to inform the honorable member that the Government has continued the practice decided upon by the Cabinet to operate from 19th September, 1930, namely, that amounts due for rent and rates in Canberra in respect of houses leased from the Commonwealth are to be deducted from the salaries of the officers concerned. I understand that the Government decided upon this in the knowledge that the practice saved time and money, had been a convenience both to the employee and to the administration and accorded with the practice that where there are mutual debts existing between two parties, those debts can be set off against each other and only the balance then remaining due would be legally recoverable by the person in whose favour the balance lies.

Australian Delegation to United Nations

Mr Ward:

d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the honorable member for Mackellar, whilst in New York as an alternate delegate to the United Nations, was, as a result of action taken by the Commonwealth Government or its representatives, prevented from appearing on television and expressing his views?
  2. Has his attention been drawn to the answer given by the honorable member for Mackellar when questioned on this happening during a Melbourne television session when he gave an affirmative reply to an inquiry as to whether his views had been censored?
  3. If the position is as stated, why did the Government take the action referred to?
Mr Menzies:
LP

– The answers to the honorable members questions are as follows: -

  1. There was, I understand, one occasion in New York last year when the honorable member for Mackellar was invited to appear on television in a question-and-answer session. Before giving an answer, he very properly consulted the leader of the delegation who was of opinion that, in the light of the rather delicate state of General Assembly business on matters of very great direct importance to Australia, it would be better for the honorable member not to appear at that time. This view was taken, not in relation to any particular view the honorable member might have wished to express, but to the stage reached in the work of the United Nations General Assembly. It was an assessment applicable to all members of the delegation and not only to the honorable member for Mackellar. I understand that the honorable member readily fitted in by declining the invitation.
  2. Yes.
  3. It will be appreciated that even when views are being expressed outside a conference by someone representing the Australian Government, including views on matters that might not be directly the subject of the conference, due care has to be taken to avoid anything being said that would create complications or adversely affect the atmosphere of the conference for Australia.

Railways Finance

Mr Costa:

a asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

Is he able to furnish the following information: -

What is the capital indebtedness of each of the State railway systems?

What is the annual amount of interest payable on loan money in respect of each of these systems?

What percentage of total railway earnings does this interest represent?

What is the capital indebtedness of the Commonwealth railway system?

What is the annual amount of interest payable on loan money in respect of this system?

Mr Harold Holt:
LP

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

  1. Figures of the capital indebtedness of the State railway systems are not available on a uniform basis for all States. The aggregate net loan expenditure on railways by each State to 30th June, 1960. was-
  1. and (c). The answers to (b) and (c) are given in the following table: -
  1. At 30th June, 1960, government securities on issue amounting to £15,668,000 were allocated to Commonwealth Railways. Capital expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the same date was £30,042,000 and a further amount of £780,000 had been advanced to a trust account for the purchase of railway plant and stores. The total of these figures is £46,490,000.
  2. The amount of debt charges allocated to Commonwealth Railways in 1959-60 was £579,000, including £371,000 in respect of interest and’ £208,000 in respect of contributions to the National’ Debt Sinking Fund.

Post Office, Kingsgrove

Mr Clay:

y asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. Has the decrepit condition of the post office in Kingsgrove, Sydney, been brought to his notice?
  2. Will he make provision in the 1961-62 Estimates for a new or remodelled building suited to the needs of his department and more in keeping with the palatial business premises in the vicinity of the existing post office?
Mr Davidson:
CP

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

  1. I do not agree that the Kingsgrove post office is in a decrepit condition. The building is structurally sound and is adequately meeting postal requirements in the area. Maintenance work on the building, including painting, is programmed to be carried out during the 1961-1962 financial year.
  2. A new post office will be provided at Kingsgrove when the need arises and opportunity permits.

Local Government Rates: Concessions

Mr Daly:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

y asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is he able to say whether the New South Wales Government subsidizes, on a £1 for £1 basis, the rebate of rates made by local government bodies to age and invalid pensioners?
  2. Will he give consideration to making a grant on a similar basis to local government authorities in order to provide a similar concession to totally and permanently incapacitated exservicemen?
Mr Harold Holt:
LP

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

  1. Section 160b of the New South Wales Local Government Act 1919 (Consolidated) provides “ the Council may write off or reduce rates and extra charges on overdue rates due by any person who is in receipt of a pension under Part III of the Social Services Consolidation Act 1947 as amended by Subsequent Acts of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia “. If a council decides to exercise the power to write off or reduce rates of pensioners, it is eligible to participate in a subsidy paid by the State Government on a £i for £1 basis up to a maximum of half the rates written off. 1 understand that not all councils have exercised this power.
  2. The proposal that the Commonwealth should provide a similar subsidy to local government authorities in respect of totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen would assist only those totally and permanently incapacitated exservicemen who own their homes or properties. Further, it would apply only to those incapacitated exservicemen whose homes or properties arc in areas where the councils are prepared to write off or reduce rates. However, an increase in the special rate war pension, as was granted in the 1960-1961 Budget, benefits all totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen. It is therefore preferable generally to allocate whatever funds are available for assistance to these ex-servicemen to such an increase - and this policy has been followed by successive Commonwealth governments.

Decimal Currency

Mr Daly:

y asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

What was the cost of carrying out the investigations and publishing the report of the Decimal Currency Committee?

Mr Harold Holt:
LP

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

The total cost of the investigation was £18,736 including £1,272 for publishing the report. These expenses have been appropriated under a special item of the Estimates, Division 629, item 12, in the years 1958-59 to 1960-61. A Treasury officer was made available to act as secretary of the Decimal Currency Committee. His salary has not been included.

Commonwealth Property

Mr Reynolds:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

s asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

  1. Have mutually desirable exchanges of building sites between Commonwealth departments and other bodies such as municipal councils and churches been inhibited by a statutory provision that requires a department to sell its site, pay the proceeds into Consolidated Revenue, and then seek a budgetary allocation to purchase the alternative site?
  2. Is there any immediate possibility of a means being devised to permit a direct exchange of ownership of sites in these circumstances?
Mr Freeth:
Minister for the Interior · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. No.
  2. Means are available to effect a direct exchange of land between the Commonwealth and other bodies provided a satisfactory basis of exchange is reached. However, in these cases certain Commonwealth accounting procedures deriving from the requirements of the Constitution have to be complied with.

West New Guinea

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

What is the latest view known to have been expressed on the question of West New Guinea by the Head of State, Prime Minister or Foreign Minister of (a) parties to the South-East Asia Collective Defence Treaty and (b) states or territories designated under the treaty?

Mr Menzies:
LP

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

The Government does not propose to define the attitude of its Manila Treaty allies, or of the states designated under the treaty on this matter.

Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

Will he state what nations have expressed support for the Indonesian claim to West New Guinea and what nations have declared themselves as being opposed to the claim?

Mr Menzies:
LP

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

The Government does not propose to place on record its interpretation of the attitudes of particular states to the Netherlands New Guinea issue. In a number of instances individual positions have been specifically qualified and in many other instances stated positions have not been directly related to the Indonesian claim as such.

Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that Pakistan, Thailand and the Philippines partners with Australia in the SouthEast Asia Treaty Organization, have declared support for Indonesia’s claim to West New Guinea?
  2. If such declarations were made without prior consultation with other South-East Asia Treaty Organization nations, was this ‘action inconsistent with the obligations of those nations under the pact?
  3. Has the question of Indonesia’s claim ever been raised at a meeting of the South-East Asia Treaty Organization nations; if so, what was the result of the discussion?
Mr Menzies:
LP

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

  1. The Government does not propose to define the attitudes of the governments of Pakistan, the Philippines and Thailand on this matter.
  2. Declarations on this matter would not be inconsistent with the obligations of these nations under the Manila Pact.
  3. There has been no substantive discussion of the Indonesian claim.
Mr Ward:

d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has his attention been directed to a statement by Dr. Soekarno, President of the Indonesian Republic, that before the cock crows next year, West Irian will have returned to Indonesian authority?
  2. Does he interpret this statement as a prediction that such a result will be obtained by peaceful negotiation, and failing the success of such methods, by a resort to force of arms?
  3. If the Government regards the use of armed force as a possibility, has it taken action to report the matter to the United Nations?
  4. If not, does it propose to await the outbreak of hostilities before doing so?
Mr Menzies:
LP

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

  1. Yes. 2, 3 and 4. The policy of the Government was stated fully to the House on 27th April, 1961.

International Treaties and Conventions

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Does Australia yet propose to accede to (a) the 1950 Agreement on the Importation of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials, (b) the 1950 Convention on the Declaration of Death of Missing Persons, (c) the 1952 Convention on the International Right of Correction, (d) the 1952 Convention on the Political Rights of Women, (e) the 1953 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, and (f) the 1957 Convention on the Nationality of Married Women? (2). Which countries have (a) ratified, or (b) acceded to these treaties?
Mr Menzies:
LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: - 1. (a) The question of Australia’s accession to the 1950 Agreement of the Importation of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Material is still under consideration, (b) It is not intended that Australia should accede to the 1950 Convention on the Declaration of Death of Missing Persons, (c) It is not intended that Australia should accede to the Convention on the International Right of Correction, (d) The question of Australia’s accession to the 1952 Convention of the Political Rights of Women is still under consideration. As the honorable member was informed in reply to a similar question on the 21st April, 1959, some amendments to Australian law would be required before full effect could be given to the convention in Australia, (e) The question of Australia’s accession to the 1952 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards is still under consideration. (f) Australia’s Instrument of Accession to the 1957 Convention on the Nationality of Married Women was deposited on 14th March, 1961. (2). According to the latest available information the countries listed hereunder have either ratified or acceded to these treaties: -

  1. Afghanistan, Austria, Belgium, Cambodia,

Ceylon, Cuba, Denmark, El Salvador, Federal Republic of Germany. Federation of Malaya, Finland, France, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Jordan, Israel, Laos, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, United Arab Republic (Egypt), United Kingdom, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.

  1. Belgium, China, Federal Republic ot

Germany, Guatemala, Israel, Italy, Pakistan.

  1. Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, United

Arab Republic (Egypt), Yugoslavia.

  1. Albania, Argentina, Bulgaria, Byelorussia,

Canada, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Korea, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan,

Philippines, Poland, Rumania, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Yugoslavia.

  1. Byelorussia, Cambodia, Czechoslovakia,

France, India. Israel, Morocco, Norway, Thailand, Ukraine, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Republic.

  1. Albania, Australia, Bulgaria, Byelorussia,

Canada, Ceylon, China, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Federation of Malaya, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Rumania, Sweden, Ukraine, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

Australian Military Forces: Rates on Dwellings.

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice -

In what circumstances and on what basis does his department make ex gratia payments in lieu of rates in respect of dwellings let to serving members of the forces under the 1956 Housing Agreement?

Mr Freeth:
LP

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

Except in South Australia where houses are let direct to members of the forces by the housing authority the dwellings for serving members are rented to the Commonwealth. It is understood that the rent payable in respect of these premises includes a component to cover rates. The Commonwealth would not make any direct ex gratia payments in lieu of rates in these cases.

Australian Development

Mr Ward:

d asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Did he earlier this year state that the 1950’s were a remarkable period for this country in terms of national growth, but that nobody imagines we can repeat that rate of growth in the 1960’s, and did the Prime Minister, at about the same time, make a speech in which he said that the decade from 1960 to 1970 will almost inevitably be a greater period of development in Australia than the decade from 1950 to 1960?
  2. If so, which of these statements accurately expresses the Government’s attitude?
Mr Harold Holt:
LP

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

  1. What I actually said to this House on 14th March was that although the 1960’s would be a decade of even greater achievement than the 1950’s for the nation, we could not repeat, without endangering the balance of our economy, the rate of concentrated urban growth which occurred in the 1950’s, but would need to seek a better distribution of development.
  2. Both statements accurately express the Government’s attitude.

Australian Economy

Mr Ward:

d asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Did he, in announcing the economic proposals of the Government last year, state that the Government had been obliged to use indirect means to control what he described as “ fringe financial institutions “ because it lacked constitutional power to adopt more direct methods?
  2. Does the Government propose to seek an extension of Commonwealth constitutional powers to enable fringe financial institutions to be controlled in the same way as banking organizations are regulated to-day?
  3. If not, why not?
Mr Harold Holt:
LP

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

  1. What I said was -

There is a great problem of how to regulate the activities of these bodies and it is not made any easier for us by the limitations upon our constitutional powers in this field. I should perhaps observe that in the United Kingdom, the United States of America and other countries in which a similar problem exists, but which possess wider constitutional powers, it does not appear that any satisfactory system of control has yet been worked out either. 2 and 3. No such decision has been made.

Mr Ward:

d asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Did he in May, 1960, when addressing the Export Convention say that Australians were per head of population amongst the greatest savers in the world?
  2. Did he later in the year, when announcing the Government’s plans to deal with the economic crisis, say that one of the objectives of the Government was to check excessive spending and thus reduce the demand for imports?
  3. If so, is there any inconsistency between these two statements?
  4. Is it to be taken from1 his statements that Australians are to be regarded as “ great savers “ or “ excessive spenders “7
Mr Harold Holt:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. No.
  4. Australians are to be regarded as “ great savers “ but it is quite evident that last year expenditure on consumption and investment combined was excessive in relation to our then current capacity to produce without generating inflationary pressures or to import without depleting our external reserves.

Overseas Loans

Mr Ward:

d asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Was a £20,000,000 Australian Government loan conversion transaction, negotiated in London earlier this year, undertaken in two sections each of £10,000,000?
  2. Did approximately 82 per cent, of securities maturing in 1983 remain in the hands of the underwriters?
  3. Did Treasury officials in referring to these transactions declare that Australia had come out of it very well?
  4. If so, will he amplify the departmental statement and, in particular, state by what percentage a loan must be undersubscribed before it is classified as a failure?
Mr Harold Holt:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. 3 and 4. I am not aware of any reference made to the loan by Treasury officials. However, in commenting on the loan on 20th January, I remarked that it was satisfying to have been able to secure underwriting for such a large proportion of the maturing debt of £Stg.20.6 million, which had presented the biggest conversion problem Australia had faced in London for several years. The terms of the loan were settled after full consultation wilh the underwriters. The new securities maturing in 1975 were heavily over-subscribed and, as indicated in the answer to question 2, the new securities maturing 1983 were under-subscribed by 82 per cent. Whether the result of the issue was satisfactory to the underwriters would be for them to say, but the disposal on the market of the amount of £Stg.8.2 million was apparently achieved without any undue inconvenience, as evidenced by the fact that after trading for some weeks at a small discount, the 1983 securities have recently been trading at their issue price. It is interesting to note that the result of the Australian loan appears to have set a pattern for the maturity dates selected for all three British municipal loans offered in London since then. The single security offered in each of these loans carried interest at 6 per cent, and finally matured in either 1975 or 1976.
Mr Ward:

d asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Has action been taken by the Government to convert an Australian loan falling due in the United Kingdom in June next?
  2. Is the rate of interest on the conversion loan 6 per cent, and could stock of a face value of £100 be purchased for £97 10s.?
  3. If so does this mean that the effective rate of interest on the new loan is 6.154 per cent, compared with 3i per cent, charged on the maturing loan?
  4. As the amount received from the original loan has already been expended will a loan floata tion, regarded as successful, merely result in the Government avoiding repayment of the loan falling due by entering into an arrangement whereby Australian taxpayers will now have to meet an annual interest payment approximately 90 per cent, higher than the amount previously payable each year on the maturing loan?
Mr Harold Holt:
LP

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

  1. Yes
  2. Yes.
  3. The yield to maturity offered by the stock maturing in December, 1975, was £6 5s. 2d. per cent, and that offered by the stock finally maturing in December, 1983 was £6 4s. Id. per cent., compared with the interest rate of £3 5s. Od. per cent, on the maturing stock.
  4. As a result of the £stg.20 million conversion loan, only £stg578,000 of the maturing loan will have to be repaid from the National Debt Sinking Fund on 1st June, 1961. Had the conversion not been arranged, it would have been necessary to repay the full amount of £stg.20,578,00O on maturity. The rates of interest payable on the amount converted are as stated in answer to question 3.

Postal Charges

Mr Reynolds:

s asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that a substantial number of articles are posted for which an inadequate postage rate has been paid?
  2. Will he consider using the space in postage stamp booklets, presently containing commercial advertisements, to provide up-to-date information regarding postage rates?
Mr Davidson:
CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Arrangements have already been made for information regarding postal rates to be included in future editions of stamp booklets.

Poliomyelitis Vaccine

Mr Chaney:

y asked the Minister for Health, upon notice -

  1. Were two batches of anti-polio vaccine, produced by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories recently, found to be faulty?
  2. If so, what was the cost of producing these batches of vaccine?
Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

Recently production of poliomyelitis vaccine at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories has been delayed by the failure of samples of viral suspensions during inactivation to pass one or other of the several tests to which the vaccine is submitted before release. It is understood that similar difficulties are being experienced by laboratories overseas. Until the final product is packed and ready for sale the total cost cannot be determined.

Housing Finance

Mr Ward:

d asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Did all trading banks early this year increase the interest rate on housing loans and overdrafts by one-half per cent.?
  2. Was this action taken at the direction, or with the approval of, the Reserve Bank?
  3. Did the higher rate automatically apply to all housing loans in existence when the new rates were introduced?
  4. If so, what is the justification for the addition of, say, £15 per annum to the interest bill of a worker holding a £3,000 housing loan during a period when the Government has opposed the unions’ application to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court for the quarterly adjustment of the basic wage in accordance with the increased cost of living?
Mr Harold Holt:
LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: - 1, 2 and 3. When trading bank interest rate changes were introduced on 17th November, 1960, the Reserve Bank informed the trading banks that rates not exceeding the average overdraft rate of 6 per cent, per annum should apply to advances where, for reasons of social policy - which would generally include overdrafts for housing - rates not exceeding the previous average overdraft rate of 51 per cent, per annum were being charged at that time. Within this limit it was for each trading bank to decide the extent and the timing of any increases in individual cases. I understand from the Reserve Bank that, on the information available to it, the average interest rate charged by trading banks over all their housing loans as at December, 1960, had increased to something less than 6 per cent, per annum.

  1. The increase in the average trading bank overdraft rate was permitted to help restrain inflationary pressures on the economy and hence to restrain the tendency for living costs to rise.

Safety Belts

Mr Cairns:

s asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is he able to say whether the New South Wales Commercial Travellers’ Guild has asked insurance companies to grant rebates to insurers who install safety belts in cars?
  2. What is the rate of sales tax on motor car safety belts?
  3. When framing the next Budget will he consider removing or lowering the rates of sales tax on motor car safety belts?
Mr Harold Holt:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. 16) per cent.
  3. This matter will be considered in the review of taxation for the purposes of the Budget.

Financing of Wheat Sales

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

On what occasions has the Rural Credits Department of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and of the Reserve Bank of Australia made advances to, or discounted bills for, the Australian Wheat Board in respect of overseas sales on deferred terms in the last ten years?

Mr Harold Holt:
LP

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

I am advised by the Reserve Bank that the Rural Credits Department has not at any time made advances or discounted export bills for the purpose of financing sales of wheat on deferred payment terms.

Australian Economy

Mr Ward:

d asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Has his attention been drawn to statements by Mr. H. C. Marshall, general manager of the Bank of New South Wales, describing the present national situation as an economic muddle and declaring that the Commonwealth Government had sought to make the trading banks the scapegoat for the Government’s failure to take effective measures to contain inflation?
  2. Is this a well-informed statement of the position or is Mr. Marshall regarded as an unqualified and irresponsible critic?
Mr Harold Holt:
LP

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows: - 1 and 2. If such a statement was made, it was certainly not well-informed.

Industrial Expansion

Mr Ward:

d asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that a great deal of industrial expansion in Australia is financed from the proceeds of price increases on the commodity produced, such prices being in excess of what is required to meet the cost of production plus a reasonable return on the capital invested?
  2. Does this process result in a return in perpetuity to private interests upon capital provided not by them, but by the consuming public of Australia?
  3. If so, does the Government propose to take any action to protect the Australian community from this type of exploitation?
Mr Harold Holt:
LP

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

  1. It is normal business practice for industrial firms to retain some part of profits earned for re-investment. 2 and 3. This is a form of saving which assists industrial expansion and does not necessarily involve excessive charges to consumers. Insofar as the question might refer to the present position relating to the examination of monopolistic or restrictive trade practices, see answers recently given by the Attorney-General (“ Hansard “, 9th March, 1961, page 87; 14th March, 1961, page 149; and 13th April, 1961, page 801).

Contest Conducted by Television Station.

Mr Haylen:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

n asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Is the Australian Broadcasting Commission sponsoring a football contest in Victoria being run by television station GTV9?
  2. Has his attention been drawn to the editorial matter on page 3 and the back cover of the Australian Broadcasting Commission journal “TV Times “ in connexion with the matter?
  3. As station GTV9 is a commercial television station, why is the Australian Broadcasting Commission participating in this competition and asking competitors to lodge their entries at Broadcast House, the head-quarters of the commission in Melbourne?
  4. Is the “ TV Times “ published for the express purpose of promoting interest in Channel 2 programmes or, apart from ordinary comment and programmes, does it seek to promote the commercial stations?
  5. Did the Australian Broadcasting Control Board approve of this tie-up with a commercial station?
  6. For the encouragement of football, can the Australian Broadcasting Commission run its own talent quest in connexion with this most popular sport?
Mr Davidson:
CP

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

  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. The circulation of “TV Times” an A.B.C. journal, is expected to increase as a result of the competition.
  4. The main purpose of “TV Times” is to ensure publicity for A.B.C. programmes. However, “ TV Times “ covers the activities of all stations and fosters interest in television generally.
  5. This is not a matter for the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.
  6. The A.B.C. could run a talent quest, but it is not the commission’s policy to provide money prizes for such activities.

Australian Industries: Take-over Bids by Overseas Interests.

Mr Ward:

d asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that there has been an extraordinarily high turnover of shares of Broken Hill Pty. Company Ltd. in recent months?
  2. Is he able to say whether the United States Steel Corporation has been acquiring a substantial interest in this important Australian industry?
  3. Does the action of overseas interests in extending their holdings in existing Australian industries have any serious implications for the Australian nation?
  4. Can he say whether the Canadian Government was obliged to take action to protect the national interests of that country from acquisition by other countries?
  5. If so, does the Government propose to do anything to arrest these developments in this country before Australia finds itself in a position similar to that of Canada?
Mr Harold Holt:
LP

– The answers to the honorable members questions are as follows: -

  1. I understand that sustained market activity in B.H.P. shares has been evident in recent months.
  2. I have no evidence of this.
  3. No such implications have become apparent.
  4. I understand that the encouragement of a greater participation by Canadians in the ownership and control of industry and resources in Canada has engaged the attention of the Canadian Government.
  5. See answer to 3.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 17 May 1961, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1961/19610517_reps_23_hor31/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant