Senate
27 November 1951

20th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers. ‘

page 2710

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported : -

States Grants Bill 1951.

States Grants (Administration of Controls Reimbursement) Bill 1951.

States Grants (Special Financial Assistance) Bill (No. 2) 1951.

Loan (War Service Land Settlement) Bill 1951.

page 2710

QUESTION

WAR NEUROSIS

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– On the 17th October, Senator Critchley asked me the following question: -

Oan the Minister make available to the Senate a report on the progress made in the introduction of new methods of treatment of ox -servicemen suffering from war neurosis, and also inform the Senate what action has been taken to .transfer ex-servicemen who are patients in civil mental institutions to special repatriation hospitals? I need hardly remind the Minister that that is a matter in which I have been keenly interested for some time. : At the time, I informed the honorable senator that I would inquire into the matter and supply an answer to him later. I now desire to state that there are two’ phases of the honorable senator’s question. The first is related to the progress made in the introduction of what the honorable senator refers to as new methods of treatment of ex-servicemen suffering from war neurosis. All estab lished world-wide methods of treatment are being applied to Repatriation Commission psychiatric patients. These include physical therapies, such as the various forms of shock therapy, and prefrontal leucotomy, which is a surgical operation for the relief of more serious types of mental disturbance. Various analytical procedures are also used, with or without the aid of special drugs, and hypnosis is also applied where indicated. Occupational therapy is employed and a scheme of educational therapy, designed to fit the patient for a more useful role in life, is also in operation. A social work department is available to help to ameliorate these pressures in the outside world which either mitigate against the patient’s recovery or help to produce relapses. A follow-up system for handling psychiatric patients on discharge is available through out-patient clinics, which exist in every capita! city. The Repatriation Commission has encouraged the post-graduate training of doctors employed in a fulltime capacity within the repatriation medical service. The second phase is the action taken to transfer ex-servicemen who are patients in civil mental institutions, to special repatriation hospitals. The housing and treatment of all cases of certifiable neurosis not accepted as due to war service is the responsibility of the -State governments, and the Repatriation Commission has no say in or control of their treatment. Therefore, it is not proposed that the Australian Government should secure premises for their housing and treatment. This brings me to the housing and treatment of those men who are cared for by the Repatriation Commission because their incapacity is regarded as war-related. Most of the repatriation patients who are not now in repatriation blocks are housed in their present locations because their relative? desire them to be within reach so that they may visit them, or need closer restraint because of the nature of their’ disabilities. However, there is a need fo: some additional accommodation which 1 should be glad to see provided, but this is a difficult .problem because of the necessity for the Government to restrict structural works seeing that the emphasis must, of necessity, be on domestic housing and defence undertakings.

page 2711

QUESTION

INFLATION

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– Press reports published last Thursday attribute to the Chief Judge of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, Judge Kelly, a proposal that employers and union representatives should influence parliamentarians to devise a scheme for the stabilization of prices and wages. Has the Attorney-General received any communication from the Associate of the Chief Judge, or from representatives of employers or the trade unions, suggesting such a scheme?

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– The answer is in the negative.

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– In view of the serious disabilities that are confronting the people of Australia, particularly pensioners and other persons on fixed incomes, as the result of the continuing fall of the purchasing power of the £1, will the Minister for Trade and Customs give favorable consideration to the appointment of a royal commission to ascertain the cause of inflation in Australia and to report upon the best means to be adopted to restore the value of the Australian currency?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

-I do not think that any good purpose could be served by the appointment of such a royal commission.

page 2711

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Oan you say, Mr. President, whether the “ foreign company “ referred to in a motion of which notice has been given in this chamber to-day by Senator Gorton is in fact a British company?

The PRESIDENT:

– It is not permissible to debate a notice of motion.

page 2711

QUESTION

PRIMARY PRODUCTION

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– The question that I shall address to the Minister for Trade and Customs relates to the critical situation that has arisen in connexion with the balance of trade between the United Kingdom and Australia. To a degree, this has been due to the reduced volume, and decline of value, of our exports of primary produce. The coming critical, internal, economic and food crisis will be the result of the Govern ment’s failure to put value back in to the £1. Will the Minister undertake that the Government shall direct its most vigorous and earnest attention to the launching of a call to the primary producers to put value into the ground?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I think that the primary producers of this country are putting value into the ground. If there is any lack of prosperity, it is not due to the people who are engaged in primary industry.

page 2711

QUESTION

KOREA

Senator VINCENT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I preface a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate by pointing out that, from time to time, certain members of the Opposition in this chamber have specifically and vehemently denied that Australia is participating in a war in Korea. Will the Minister extend to those honorable senators an express invitation to be present this evening in the Senate club room to hear an address by LieutenantGeneral Sir Horace Robertson on Australia’s participation in the Korean war ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I trust that all honorable senators will avail themselves of the opportunity to hear the address to be given this evening by LieutenantGeneral Sir Horace Robertson.

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Trade and Customs inform the .Senate whether it is a fact that LieutenantGeneral Sir Horace Robertson will address members of the Parliament in the Senate club room to-night as the result of representations that were made by the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) to the effect that members of Parliament have received serious complaints from members of the forces in Korea? Can the Minister say whether those complaints have been based on the fact that the forces in Korea are . not being supplied with sufficient material with which to carry out the war effort that is necessary to defeat the Communists in that area?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I am not aware of the precise circumstances in which arrangements were made to bring Lieutenant-General Sir Horace Robertson here.

page 2712

QUESTION

TRACTORS

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Trade and Customs inform me of the reason for retrenchment of staff at the Chamberlain Industries Limited tra? tor factory in Western Australia? Is it dap to a decrease of the bounty payable to that company, or to the fact that tractors have been imported from overseas? Cnn the Minister also state whether he has investigated the causes of such retrenchment ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– An inquiry is being made into the precise reasons for the retrenchment to which the honorable senator has referred. I can assure him that it is not due to reduction of the rate of bounty. He will remember that this year the Government introduced legislation to increase the bounty on locally made tractors. If I am able to obtain the necessary information, I shall do so and furnish it to the honorable senator.

page 2712

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator WRIGHT:

– I address a question to the Attorney-General relating to the very voluminous state of sales tax legislation. The honorable senator will be aware that each time sales tax legislation is passed it covers no less than eight or nine statutes. In addition, there have been many amendments of such legislation during past years. Will the Minister give early consideration to the possibility of issuing consolidated sales tax legislation ?

Senator SPICER:
LP

– I am familiar with the great complexity of sales tax legislation, which, unfortunately, is unavoidable under the terms of the Constitution, if we wish to ensure that each piece of legislation which is passed by the Parliament is constitutionally sound. T shall bear in mind the suggestion made by the honorable senator and ascertain what can be done in the direction he has indicated.

page 2712

QUESTION

COAL

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the announcement by the Government that it intends to sell coal-mining equipment, will the Minister for National Development inform me what value the Government places on such equipment? Is it to be sold at book value less dep.vecin.tion, or i3 it to be revalued, in the light of the increased cost of equipment to-day, and sold at its present valuation?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I do not think that tie question usm be answered in general terms. As the honorable senator knows, the total amount involved is between £9,000,000 and £10,000,000, which covers a great number of separate items of equipment. In my opinion, it would not be possible to lay down a general rule concerning valuation, because a great deal turns upon the condition of the particular item of plant and the amount of use which it has had. I have discussed the matter with the Joint Coal Board, which is confident that, by and large, the items of plant to be sold will realize more than they originally cost the Government. Appreciation of values has occurred, and much of the plant which has been bought is difficult to replace. Cabinet has decided to appoint a committee, consisting of representatives of the Joint Coal Board, the Department of National Development and of the Treasury, to lay down principles to govern the sales. The committee will keep in touch with the sales, and make such adjustment as are found necessary. It should be remembered that there will be a great number of . transactions, which will necessarily be spread over a period of a year or so. It is not practicable merely to ring a gong, and sell plant to the value of £9,000,000 or £10,000,000. There will be a whole series of transactions which will cover many items, some of them of considerable value. Each transaction will have to be carefully considered, bearing in mind the scarcity of such plant in this country, its availability from other sources, and the best place in which to use it in the national interest. Above all, it has to be borne in mind that the plant must be retained in the coal-mining industry, and used in the industry to the best advantage.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Seeing that the Government of New South Wales in conjunction with the Joint Goal Board, is responsible for the production of most of the coal won in Australia, will that Government be consulted in regard to the disposal of machinery for open-cut mining ?

Senator SPOONER:

– In addition to plant for open-cut mining, some of the plant purchased for underground mining may be sold. I am sure that the Joint Coal Board will be glad to receive any advice and help which the Government of New South Wales may care to offer. It is not fair criticism to say that the State Government has not been consulted in tbis matter. It was not consulted when the plant was purchased. The Joint Coal Board decided what plant was wanted., and approached the Commonwealth Government for the necessary finance. Now, the procedure is being reversed. The Joint Coal Board believes that the time has come when contractors and proprietors may reasonably be expected to relieve the Commonwealth of its responsibility, and we are retracing our steps. Any assistance which the State Government or any one else can give to the Joint Coal Board will be appreciated, but the circumstances do not especially call for consultation with the State Government.

page 2713

QUESTION

NATIONAL OPERA

Senator ARMSTRONG:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Will the Minister for Trade and Customs consult with the Prime Minister with a view to granting a subsidy to the national opera ? Is the Minister aware of the splendid work that the national opera is doing in the matter of cultural and musical education for the people of Australia? Is he aware that the opera performed for a season last year, and that the cost, amounting to £50,000, was subscribed by persons interested in the establishment and maintenance of this undertaking? Will the Commonwealth assist the national opera by granting a subsidy of £5,000, the same as that already given by the Government of New South Wales ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I agree that it is a matter of prime importance to foster cultural development, and I shall be pleased to bring the honorable senator’s representations to the notice of the Prime Minister..

page 2713

QUESTION

RAIL TRANSPORT

Senator SEWARD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Shipping and Transport aware that more than 50 intending passengers on the west-east express, which is due to leave

Perth on the 21st December, queued up before 9 p.m. on the 22nd November at the Perth booking office, which opened at 9 a.m. on the following morning? Is he aware that only 34 berths were available on that train? Is he further aware that accommodation on trans-Australian trains is always booked out within an hour of the opening of the booking 21 days before the trains are due to leave ? Is he aware that sufficient patronage is available to warrant the running of a daily train, and that very many would-be travellers are forced to travel by air because of their inability to obtain berths on the train? In view of the fact that the Department of Transport has arranged for additional trains to be run during the holiday period, will the Minister arrange for such additional trains to be run permanently, and so satisfy the patronage that is offering?

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I know that it is the objective of the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner to do what the honorable senator has suggested. I shall bring the questions to the notice of the Commissioner to-morrow in order to obtain considered replies to them. Some of the new carriages that are to be used on the trans-Australia line will not arrive in Australia until the middle of next year. The objective of the Commonwealth railways is to provide as soon as practicable a daily train in the interests of persona who wish to travel east and west.

page 2713

QUESTION

TEXTILES

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Supply state whether it is a fact that the Allied Clothing Trades Union is perturbed because the falling away of orders for clothing and other manufactured fabrics has resulted in retrenchment in the clothing industry? Is it also a fact that employees are being dismissed from textile factories in Tasmania and Victoria because of the lack of orders? Is it a fact that large quantities of khaki drill for the armed forces are being supplied by the Japanese textile manufacturing trade? Will the Minister give an assurance that Australian manufactures of cloths and fabrics will be given preference over Japanese goods?’

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I shall be pleased to bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Minister for Supply and to obtain the desired information as soon as possible.

page 2714

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT LOANS AND FINANCE

Senator ASHLEY:

– Will the Minister representing the Treasurer inform the Senate of the number of States, towns and country centres that failed to provide their quota for the recent £40,000,000 loan? Is it a fact that the quotas allotted to the various centres were under-subscribed by more than 50 per cent? Did the Government have to appeal to the insurance companies to fill the loan, or is a portion of the Government’s expected surplus as provided in the budget to be used for that purpose, despite the fact that of the whole of the proceeds of the loan £27,000,000 is intended to be used for redemption purposes, leaving only £13,000,000 in new money? Is the instruction by the Government to the loan organization not to furnish information to members of the Parliament in regard to the loan, indicative of the Government’s desire to cover up its loss of prestige and of the confidence of the people made apparent by the failure of the people to subscribe to the loan? Is the Government aware that the failure of the people to invest in the loan, and the provision of the major portion of the loan by financial institutions, will make a further contribution to the inflationary spiral that is destroying the Australian economy ?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I can well understand the honorable senator’s desire to criticize the Government; I can well understand his desire to defeat it; but 1 confess that I cannot understand the honorable senator, in his desire to defeat the Government, being prepared to discredit Australia.

Senator Ashley:

– Answer the question.

Senator SPOONER:

– The net result of the honorable senator’s question is to do harm to the bond market. The great majority of Australian citizens have their savings invested in the bond market and there is no better place for them. I shall make no attempt to provide the honorable senator with an answer to his question.

page 2714

QUESTION

VEGETABLE SEEDS

Senator SHEEHAN:
through Senator Hendrickson

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. From what overseas country is bean seed imported?
  2. Is it a fact that there is at present a surplus of good quality bean seed produced in Australia, apart from stringless varieties for canning?
  3. Is it a fact that a serious disease has been recently discovered in Victorian seed crops produced from imported seed which was admitted to the country without proper precautions having been taken to ensure that it was free from disease?
  4. Is the set-up of the Australian bean seed industry being seriously affected because of the failure to ensure that imported seed is free from disease. Will not laxity in this respect inevitably result in the introduction into Australia of many of the serious disease; which afflict bean seed in other parts of the world ?
  5. Is it a fact that as a result of pressure from seed importers eager to obtain cheap seed from overseas, regulations ‘with respect to the importation of bean seed have been suspended until the 1952-53 sowing season; that is, until next season’s Australian crop has been harvested ?
Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– .The following are the answers to the honorable senator’s questions : -

  1. Norfolk Island, United States of America, New Zealand, Tanganyika, Kenya and the United Kingdom.
  2. During last summer, bean seed was scarce in Australia and prices rose to such high levels that some bean-growers in Victoria elected to save their crops for seed rather than to sell them as green beans. The season was favorable and hence a good crop was obtained. One firm bought approximately 5,000 bushels at a price which proved higher than the current market value and this firm’s inability to sell at a profit has created the illusion that there is a surplus. As the demand for bean seed for autumn 1052 sowing in Queensland and northern New South Wales becomes felt, this apparent surplus will disappear and withintwelve months beans seed will once more’ ba in short supply.
  3. It is a fact that there has been an outbreak of disease in bean crops in Victoria.. However, the disease has been present in Australia for many years and can be controlled by a process of seed selection from healthy crops.
  4. Every endeavour is being made to prevent the introduction from overseas of diseases with imported seed but as some diseases are carried inside the seed, there is a risk while importations occur.
  5. It is unlikely that Australian beangrowers can guarantee to produce in the 1951-52 season sufficient bean seed to meet Australia’s requirements for the 1952-53 sowing season and arrangements have to be made well in advance if seed is to be grown overseas. In consequence importations of bean seed will be permitted to guarantee Australia’s requirements for the 1952-53 season. The imported seed will be grown from mother seed exported from Australia for the particular purpose.

page 2715

SENATOR GEORGE RANKIN

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon Edward Mattner:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I wish to inform honorable senators that the condition of Senator George Rankin is showing improvement. To-morrow morning I hope to visit him in the Canberra Community Hospital and if honorable senators care to accompany me, I shall make the necessary arrangements.

page 2715

INTERNATIONAL SUGAR AGREEMENT

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I lay on the table the following paper: -

Sugar - International Agreement - Protocol, dated 31st August, 1951, signed in London.

This protocol has been signed in London by representatives of the Governments of the Union of South ‘Africa, Commonwealth of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Hayti, Republic of the United States of Indonesia, Mexico, Netherlands, Peru, Republic of the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, United States of America, and the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia. This protocol is similar to that signed on the 31st August, 1950, and extends the International Sugar Agreement, which initially operated for five years from the 1st September, 1937, for a further period of one year to the 31st August, 1952. The protocol provides that certain articles of the original agreement, particularly those relating to export quotas, shall be inoperative. An important feature of the protocol is that countries signing it agree that revision of the original agreement is necessary, and should be undertaken as soon as the time appears opportune. The original agreement is to be taken as the starting point in any discussions of such revision. Discussions have been taking place between representatives of countries interested in recent months regarding the terms of a new agreement and further meetings are scheduled for the near future.

page 2715

RE-ESTABLISHMENT AND EMPLOYMENT BILL 1951

Motion (by Senator Cooper) agreed to-

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an Act to amend the Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945, as amended by certain acts and regulations, and for other purposes.

page 2715

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL (No. 2) 1951

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan ) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Apart from amendments made in 1945 which provided a new system of promotions appeals and introduced employee representation at certain points in service administration, no substantial changes have been effected since 1922 in the machinery of control provided under the Public Service Act. Changed conditions, and especially the increased size and complexity of the Service, have confronted the Public Service Board with problems which cannot be handled satisfactorily under existing legislation. Pending the completion of a comprehensive review of the act, which will take some time, certain immediate amendments are necessary. Those amendments have the general purpose of better equipping the board to discharge its managerial functions.

The most importantamendments proposed are those relating to section 29, which deals with the creation and abolition of offices and the determination of salary classifications for those offices. Thebill does not change the present procedure for the creation and abolition of offices which are approved by the Governor-General, but will permit the board, after obtaining a report from the permanent head of the department concerned, to vary the salary classifications of offices as required. This will relieve the Executive Councilofa considerable volume of purely formal business and will place the board in the same position as other wage-fixing authorities in the Commonwealth. Thesecond amendment to this section will enable all positions of similar designation and classification , to be reclassified without requiring the positions to be declared vacant and the occupants to he individually promoted to them. The sections of the Public Service Act relating to payment of salaries ‘have been simplified and consolidated. A new section is proposed to permit the board to determine, by notice published in the Gazette, the conditions of advancement in certain categories of employment. At present those conditions are prescribed in a schedule to the Public Service Regulations, but as they require frequent amendment and. affect only those officers in the positions concerned, it is considered that a more simple procedure is desirable. A similar change is proposed in the section dealing with advancement examinations.

Amendments proposed to the sections of the act dealing with leave of absence, other than annual recreation leave, will give the hoard more adequate powers in those matters. The provisions for leave of absence for defence service have been extended. A concession on furlough is proposed forofficers who are retiring with at least twenty years service. At present, furlough is granted only in respect of completed periods of five years’ service but the new provision will enable service of more than twenty years to be calculated on an annual basis instead of on the five-yearly basis. A further amendment will permit the granting of recreation leave according to the period of actual service rendered during the year or years when furlough is taken.

Thebill proposes an amendment to section 84 to enable theboard to make permanent appointmentsof ex-servicemen so long as it is satisfied, after medical examination, as to their state ofhealth. At presentthe decision as to appointment restsonthecertificateofthe medical practitioner and the amendmentwill give the board the same discretion italreadyhas in regard to entrants to the Service who are not ex-servicemen. All other suggestedamendments are intended to promote administrative efficiency in the managementof the Service. They will have no adverse effects on officers rights, but are found necessary in the course ofdealing with particular problems. Section 8a,for instance, will clarify , the board’s power to exempt staff from the provisions of the Public Service Act, and to determineconditionsof employment for exempted staff. An amendment of section 21 will relieve the board of its impossible task of publishing a comprehensive staff list every year; instead, the board will publish lists as it thinks necessary, or whenever directed by the Prime Minister to do so. Provision is also made for additional promotions appeal committees to be created as need arises. A full explanation of all the amendments will be given at the committee stage.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKennA) adjourned.

page 2716

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES’ FURLOUGH BILL 1951

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

StandingOrders suspended.

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

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to remove certain anomalies which arise in the grantingof furlough to Commonwealth employees who have completed at least twenty years’ continuous service and who are not covered by the Public Service Act. A corresponding provision, relating to permanent officers of the Public Service is included in the Public Service Bill which has just been introduced into the Senate. Under existing conditions, a Commonwealth employee who has been employed continuously for at least twenty years may be granted furlough only in respect of each completed period of five years’ .service. Thus an employee who has completed, say 24 years’ service receives no greater benefit in furlough than -an employee who has completed only twenty years. The bill is designed to overcome these anomalies by providing instead for the grant of furlough in respect of each completed year of service, where the service exceeds twenty years. This “will ensure that the employee with service in excess of twenty years will receive a furlough benefit more appropriate to his length o’f service. The maximum entitlement of twelve months’ furlough on full salary or its equivalent as provided in the act will still he maintained. The matter lias been under consideration for some time and it has been decided that -the new basis will have effect from the 1st January, 1951. The proposal is most reasonable and 1 commend the “bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 2717

CUSTOMS BILL 1951

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator O’sullivan) read a first time.

SECOND Reading.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Queensland · LP

T3.49].- I move-

That the bill be now read a second tune.

This bill will amend the Customs Act L9O1-1950 so as to remove doubts of the validity of certain sections .and the regulations issued thereunder.

Section 5 of -the act provides -that penalties referred to at the foot of sections indicate that any contravention of the section shall be an offence against the act. Since the legislation was enacted, references ‘to penalties have “been included, in certain instances, at the f oot of sub-sections. As there is a doubt whether section 5 is ‘applicable to these cases, it is proposed to amend the .section to provide for its application also to penalties -at the foot ‘©f Bulb-sections. This will ‘bring -the section into line with section 41 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1950.

The form of seal to be used by tile customs is specified in section 13 of the act, and was included in the original legislation of 1901. At that time -the seat of government was located in Melbourne. The seat of government was subsequently transferred to -Canberra, but the act makes no provision for a seal for use by the Comptroller-General of Customs at Canberra. The proposed amendment provides for a seal for the Comptroller-General. Consideration ‘has been given to the advisability -of replacing the Royal arms on the seal by the Australian coat-of-arms, -which was proclaimed and gazetted in 1913. In view of the fact that the Australian Boatofarms w.as instituted foi- use on .all official occasions calling for the use of such a symbol, and that the Royal arms is changed on the accession of a new sovereign, thus rendering invalid all seals in use by the Department of Trade and Customs, it is appropriate -that the Australian coat-.of-arms should appear on all seals used ,by that department.

An important amendment proposed in the bill relates to section 112, which authorizes the prohibition of exportation of goods from Australia. Certain regulations which provide for exportation contingent on the approval of either the Minister or a department were based on sub-sections of section 112, which at present require the exercise of an opinion expressed by the Governor-General. The Crown Law authorities feel that some regulations made under the section, as at present constituted, may be invalid. It is essential that the exportation of goods vital to the Australian economy should not be permitted to the detriment of our defence requirements and national economy. It is advisable, therefore, that the exportation of such .goods should be subject to either ministerial or departmental approval, as the case may be.

Accordingly, it is proposed to amend section 112 to provide for the prohibition by regulation of the exportation of goods. This is parallel with the provision which already exists in section 52 in relation to imported goods. As some time would elapse before new regulations could be prescribed under the proposed amendment, a clause has been included in the bill rendering valid all existing regulations which prohibit the exportation of goods from Australia.

Section 112a imposes restrictions on the movement interstate of goods which are prohibited exports. The Crown Law authorities doubt whether regulations made under this section could be enforced, in view of the possible infringement of Section 92 of the Constitution. As regulations under section 112a have not, and will not be made, it is desirable that the section be repealed. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 2718

DEFENCE (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1951

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to give the force of law for a further year to a small number of surviving National Security Regulations and Orders, the operation of which, by virtue of the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act 1946-50, would otherwise cease on the 31st December, 1951. While most of these regulations would no longer be needed except for transitional or winding-up purposes, the new exigencies of this period in connexion with the “ cold war “ and rearmament will, in some instances, make it undesirable to dispense at present with the surviving war-time provisions. This aspect of the bill finds expression in the third recital in the preamble. The majority of the regulations and orders that will be continued in force under this bill must eventually be placed permanently on the statute-book, and it is the intention of the Government to proceed progressively with this task. Some have been already dealt with during this year. It is hoped that certain bills which have been, or will be introduced during the present sessional period will remove the necessity for the continuance of other regulations and orders, which will thenbe repealed by Executive action.

The substance of the National Security (Industrial Property) Regulations will be incorporated in the revised Patents and Trade Marks legislation, on which the committee that was appointed by the Government is still working. It is essential, however, until permanent legislation is enacted to replace the regulations in this first category, that they should be continued in force so as to maintain the efficacy of action that was taken under them during the war period. For example, the National Security (War Deaths) Regulations provided a special procedure for presuming the death of a person who was missing as a result of enemy action. Those regulations will be continued, so that certificates that have been given under them in the past shall remain in full force and effect. Some other regulations will be continued for precisely the same reason.

As honorable senators know, the degree of control that was exercised over the civilian community during the war was extensive. There is still a residue of administrative business to be completed in connexion with some of those controls. Some regulations are being continued to enable small caretaker staffs to continue to dispose of matters which still arise as the result of war-time activities. For some years, the National Security (Apple and Pear Acquisition) Regulations have not permitted any new acquisition of fruit. However, until every claim in respect of the war-time acquisitions for compensation by fruit-growers in each of the six States has been determined, it will be necessary to continue the regulations in force. Only a small residue of claims still requires any administrative action, but the regulations must be continued in force so that those claims may be properly dealt with. The continuance of the activities of the Apple and Pear Board in relation to war-time marketing will also require the National Security (Staff of War-time Authorities) Regulations to be kept in force, as some of the small staff that is still employed on the administrative work of the board are employed in accordance with those regulations.

I should like to mention especially the National Security (Economic Organization) Regulations, which relate to interest rates. Our expanding defence programme makes the control of interest rates essential, and those regulations are being continued in force not so much for the purpose of winding up affairs connected with the war, as for the purpose of dealing with a new and ever-increasing emergency. lL have mentioned certain regulations specifically, because they are exceptional. Perhaps in the same class could be placed the Jute Goods Order. On the whole, and subject to the exceptions to which I have referred, the regulations are being kept in force solely for the purpose of maintaining the force and effect of acts done during the war, and to regularize the residue of administrative work still to be done in connexion with the winding up of intense war-time activities. No new powers or provisions are sought, or are in issue. Insofar as the regulations and orders continued in force require to be embodied in permanent statutory form, the Government will push on with its task as quickly as possible.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 2719

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE BILL 1951

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Public Works Committee Act 1913-1947 to provide that members of the committee shall receive such allowances as are prescribed. At present the emoluments payable are fixed under the act. The disadvantage of this procedure is that when changing circumstances warrant an adjustment of the rate of allowance it is necessary to amend the act. In view of the difficulty in obtaining the passage of an amending bill on every occasion when an adjustment of the rates becomes necessary, the Government considers that the act should be amended to provide for payment of allowances at rates to be prescribed.

As it is expected that increases will be effected in the rates currently payable, it will be necessary to increase the annual appropriation. The limit of expenditure in any one year has, therefore, been increased from £3,500 to £5,000. I am sure that honorable senators will agree that prevailing conditions make the amendment necessary, and I commend the measure for their favorable consideration.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 2719

INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT BILL 1951

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The more important income tax proposals of the Government have already been discussed in this chamber in connexion with the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Bill which passed the secondreading stage a couple of weeks ago. That bill imposed the rates of tax and determined the general level of taxation for the current financial year 1951-52. The bill which I now present also deals with income tax, but is concerned with the basis of assessing the amount of income subject, to tax rather than with the’ amount of tax payable on that income-. Ma’ny of the- provisions of the bill are complementary to the rates bill previously considered. Other provisions affect the basis of taxation of income derived from certain industries.

One important series of amendments is concerned with the basis of taxation of the mining industries in this country, particularly coal-mining. For many years, mining industries have been allowed deductions for capital’ expended on necessary mining, plant and’ the development of mining properties. Such allowances’ are justified by the special circumstances s ut rmm ding the industries. The broad objective1 of this arrangement is to levy taxation, in the ultimate,- only on profits which are earned’ over- and above thecapital invested and the working expenses. Although this objective has always been accepted as sound in principle, in actual practice it has been found’ that in many instances the taxation machinery has not achieved’ the desired ends..

In order that an equitable basis of taxation of the mining industries might be designed, this subject was referred for examination by the Commonwealth Committee on- Taxation. In a valuable report which the committee has submitted and which was recently tabled in the House of Representatives, the committee has recommended several adjustments of the basis of taxation of mining industries. I do not propose, at this stage, to deal with all of the committee’s recommendations, but there are two or three that I should specially mention.

Perhaps the most important of the committee’s recommendations is that the coal-mining industry should be entitled to the same deductions- for capital expenditure as are other branches of the mining industries-. It’ is an unexplained feature of our income tax law that capital invested in coal-mining has not been accorded the same treatment as is capital invested in- other forms1 of mining activity rn’ this- country. Until the last year or so-, coal-owners have not pressed for this allowance but, in more recent times, projects for modernization of methods and for expansion of production, involving heavy expenditure of capital, have stressed, the need for an appropriate income tax deduction.. Honorable senators will appreciate,, on reading the reports, that the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation exhaustively examined this matter before coming to the conclusion: that there should be no discriminatory taxation treatment between, coalmining and other forms of mining.

These amendments will implement a recommendation made by the committee that the income tax deductions should be extended to capital expended on necessary plant and tm development of coal-mining properties.. This deduction, will not apply to past expenditure of capital in coal mining. It will commence to apply te capital expended in the current income year 1951-52.

Another important recommendation made by the committee relates to- capital expended on housing and) welfare of employees in the mining industries, and foi their dependants. The committee has- recognized,, amd I. am sure’ that honorable senators; will agree, that, as a general rule’, capital expenditure on housing and amenities on. or adjacent, to mining areas is lost when the’ mineral deposit is> exhausted. Far the moat part, mining areas are remote from the1 cities and major towns-. If labour is to be. attracted to and retained in the mining industries, adequate accommodation and amenities must be provided for employees and their families. On- modern- standards, expenditure- of this nature is an inescapable commitment if the mining industries, including the coalmining industry, are to be conducted efficiently and if production is to be expanded. The deduction for this type of capital expenditure will be allowed in annual instalments over the estimated life of the mine’.. If, however, the estimated life of a mine is longer than 25 years,, the expenditure deduction will, be based on a maximum life of 25 years.

Several other adjustments of the basis of taxation of the mining industries arc being made, but- they are- essentially of a technical character and involve no alteration of taxation principles.

Associated with the provisions relating to the taxation of the mining industry is a proposal -to exempt from taxation income derived by Australian gold producers from sales of gold on overseas markets for industrial purposes. This decision follows an announcement by the International Monetary Fund of a new policy which, in effect, gave members freedom to determine their own policy in relation to these sales. Since the announcement, a number of countries which had not previously permitted such sales have announced that their producers will in future be permitted to sell gold for industrial use on markets where premium prices are obtainable. The countries concerned include Canada, South Rhodesia and the gold-producing British colonies. South African gold producers had for some time previously been selling a portion of their output on premium markets.

Under the existing provisions of the income tax law, income derived from the working of a mining property in Australia or the Territory of New Guinea principally for the purpose of obtaining gold is exempt from income tax and social services contribution. The exemption also applies in some circumstances where both gold and copper are produced. A taxpayer entitled to this exemption would not be liable to taxation on income derived from sales of gold made on a premium market.

However, the amount of gold which will he saleable at a premium on overseas markets during any given period cannot be accurately foreseen, and the proposal of the industry, which the Government has approved, is to form an association open to all producers for the purpose of arranging sales of gold overseas. The procedure proposed is that individual producers should as at present sell their output to the Commonwealth Bank at the official price. The Producers’ Association will then purchase gold from the bank from time to time, and arrange for its sale abroad in an approved form. The income derived from these premium sales will be distributed periodically among the association members in such a way as to ensure that all producers receive an equitable share of the proceeds. As the. association would not itself be engaged in the working of a mining property the income derived from premium sales would, under the existing law, be liable to taxation.

It is considered appropriate to grant to gold producers who derive income as a result of sales made by the association on premium markets, the same exemption as they would have enjoyed if the gold had been sold directly by them on those markets. The amendment now proposed will give effect to this principle, and will also extend to shareholders of gold-mining companies the exemption which would have applied in respect of dividends received -by them had the gold-mining companies sold the gold on a premium market. No extension of the principle underlying the existing exemptions is proposed. These amendments will apply for the income year ending on the 30th June, 1952, and subsequent years.

I wish now to refer to amendments which are complementary to the modification of the averaging system applicable to the assessments of primary producers. The operation of that system and of the proposed modifications has already been explained in connexion with the rates bill, and need not be repeated here. It is proposed, in the first place, to grant primary producers the right to withdraw from the averaging system. Any primary producer, by making an election to this effect, may ensure that he will pay no more income tax, in a year of reduced income, than any other taxpayer in receipt of an equivalent income.

In proposing this amendment, the Government has given consideration to representations by some primary producers’ organizations that the averaging system should not apply in periods of declining incomes. The right to withdraw from the averaging system may be exercised in regard to income derived during the current income year which commenced on the 1st July, 1951, or in regard to the income of any later year. Once such an election is made, it will be irrevocable.

The other amendment associated with the modification of the averaging provisions relates to the taxation of the proceeds of the sale of live-stock disposed of at walk-in-walk-out or -clearing sales, when a primary producer is going out of business. When these sales are made, the primary producer is faced with an income tax liability, not only on the normal income of the year, but also on the additional profit from the clearing sale. This combined normal income and realization profit falling into one income year attracts an abnormally high rate to the whole of the taxable income. Particularly in cases where the primary producer has valued the natural increase of his live-stock at cost price, and has selected the minimum price per head permitted for such valuation, the income which is subject to tax in consequence of such abnormal sales may be very high.

Up to the present time, the averaging provisions have cushioned the taxation burden of a primary producer who disposes of his business. However, under the modified averaging provisions, the benefits derived by some primary producers from the averaging system will be wholly or partly withdrawn. By the amendment, it is proposed to preserve the benefits of the former averaging provisions, in so far as income from walkinwalkout or clearing sales of live-stock is concerned. The proposed relief takes the form of a rebate of tax, equal in amount to the difference between the tax calculated on a concessional basis and the tax which would otherwise be payable.

In effect, the net tax payable by a primary producer who received abnormal income from the disposal sale of livestock will be the sum of the following amounts : -

  1. Tax on the abnormal income, calculated by applying to that income the rate ascertained by reference to the taxpayer’s actual average income, according to the procedure adopted prior to the modified averaging provisions; and
  2. Tax on the normal income, calculated on the basis that that income is the taxpayer’s only taxable income, and that the rate of tax is ascertained, subject to the modified averaging provisions, by reference to his actual average income.

I remind honorable senators that, where the primary producer’s taxable income and average income are both below £4,000, the averaging provisions will continue to apply to his income unless he exercises the right I have mentioned to withdraw permanently from averaging. In the cases under £4,000, therefore, there is no necessity to make special provision for the continuance of averaging in the event of a clearing sale. In other cases, the rebate of tax will apply where the clearing sale took place during the year ended the 30th June, 1951, and will continue to apply to those sales in future years, thus coinciding with the application of the modified averaging provisions.

Another group of amendments in the present bill relates to the taxation of private companies. These amendments give effect to recommendations of the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation in regard to this particularly complicated part of our taxation laws. The amendments concerning private companies have the immediate objective of frustrating schemes for tax avoidance. Honorable senators will find a detailed explanation of these proposals, and of other provisions in the bill, in the memorandum which has been supplied by the Treasurer. For the present, it is sufficient to indicate that the private company amendments are designed to defeat efforts which have been made in recent years to avoid the equitable taxation of such companies and their shareholders.

The bill contains other provisions of less importance, and I suggest that they may be more appropriately explained and discussed in committee. I invite attention, however, to those provisions which confer complete freedom from taxation upon certain classes of income. I refer particularly to the proposed exemption of the pay and allowances of servicemen in and around Korea and Malaya. Another provision will exempt, as from the 1st July, 1951, scholarships received by full-time students.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 2722

BROADCASTING BILL 1951

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 23rd November (vide page 2348), on motion by Senator Cooper -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator AMOUR:
New South Wales

– When the debate on this measure was adjourned on Friday last, I had explained that under the provisions of this bill a person who resides in zone 1 may operate two or more broadcast receiving sets - he may have twenty - for the single licence-fee of £2, but that the worker who owns only one receiving get and who formerly paid £1 a year for a listener’s licence to operate it is called upon to pay £2. This bill proposes to confer a benefit on the wealthy sections of the community at the expense of .the workers. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) in his second-reading speech said -

The reason for the proposed increase is that revenue from listeners’ licences now falls far short of the amount required to meet the cost of the national broadcasting service. In the early years of the service, the revenue derived from licence-fees was sufficient to cover the cost, but with the progressive development of the service, involving the establishment of new stations, the extension of hours of transmission and the provision of more comprehensive programmes, a stage was reached some time ago when expenditure commenced to exceed the income from licence-fees.

I regret that the Minister is not present in the chamber because I should like him to indicate what new stations have been established. Does he contend that it is the function of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to finance the establishment of new stations from the proceeds of listeners’ licences? New stations should be built with funds provided by the Treasury. I should also like the Minister to explain what he means by his statement about the provision of “more comprehensive programmes “. The programmes how broadcast over the national stations are substantially the same as those to which we have become accustomed to listen for many years. Very little improvement has been made in programme matter or the quality of the programmes. In a later part of his speech, the Minister said -

Id order that honorable senators may be aware of the developments which have taken place it is appropriate to mention that in 1935 there were only 12 national stations, operating for a total of 53,927 hours per annum. To-day, there are 51 stations whose hours of operation aggregate 286,045 per annum.

To whom does the Minister think he is telling a story of that kind? As far as

I am aware, all but one of the additional stations to which he has referred are regional stations which transmit programmes broadcast initially from a national station. The only new national station that has been built in recent years was provided at Port Moresby. In New South Wales, programmes originating from national stations 2FC and 2BL are relayed through a network of regional stations. The Minister’s statement about the increase of the number of hours of operation of the national stations is therefore completely misleading. Obviously, it was made with a view to covering up the Government’s intention to impose an added burden on the working people of the community to enable wealthy people to operate a number of wireless broadcast receivers, in their motor cars and in their homes, without having to pay additional fees. This change is not in the interests of the people and will not help to promote contentment among the workers which is so desirable to-day.

The Government has ignored the rights of the people in this bill as it has in other respects in relation to broadcasting. Section 72 of the Australian Broadcasting Act reads as follows: - (1.) As soon as conveniently practicable after the commencement of this Act, and thereafter at the commencement of the first session of every Parliament, a Joint Committee of nine members of the Parliament, to be called the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting (in this Part referred to as “the Committee”), shall be appointed according to the practice of the Parliament with reference to the appointment of member? to serve on Joint Select Committees of both Houses of the Parliament. (2.) Three of the members of the Committee shall be members of and appointed by the Senate, and six of the members of the Committee shall be members of and appointed by the House of Representatives.

Although the provisions of that section are still in force the Government has not attempted to give effect to them. It has steadfastly refused to reconstitute the Parliamentary^ Standing Committee on Broadcasting. The committee should be reconstituted and proposals to vary listeners’ licence-fees should be referred to it for examination and report.

The Government has also failed to meet the demand of the people for frequency modulation broadcasts. The Australian Broadcasting Commission, with the assistance of the technical officers of the Postmaster-General’s Department, has erected antennae for frequency modulation broadcasts at Jolimont, in Victoria ; Mount Lofty, in South Australia; and Worth Sydney, in New South Wales. I understand that frequency modulation broadcasts are being made on an experimental basis for quite a. number of hours each day but the service has not yet been made available to the people. What action has the Australian. Broadcasting Control Board taken to make frequency modulation broadcasts available to the listeners of Australia? What is the position in relation to television? If the people were getting television or broadcasting by frequency modulation there would be no quibble from honorable senators on this side of the chamber or from the trade unions, but nothing has been done. In radio broadcasting, Australia has gone backwards. Progress would’ have been better with a standing committee of the Parliament.

Frequency .modulation and television ure playing an important part in the lives of the people of the world. Television is vital in defence and when the Government fails to include television in its defence plans it is falling below the standards- of other countries. When the British submarine Affray was lost, it was found at a depth too great for human divers by a television camera drawn across the bed of the sea. Many countries have progressed with television, but Australians have been denied that branch of broadcasting. I wonder what considerations prevent the introduction of television? The talking motion picture was an accomplished fact thirteen or fourteen years before it was shown to the public. It was delayed by silent picture interests. Are the theatrical entrepreneurs or the commercial broadcasting’ interests preventing television from being introduced for selfish reasons ? Some sinister influence must be at work or television would have been introduced into Australia long ago. Broadcasting is so important in the life of the nation that there should be a director of broadcasting, because the only authority with power to introduce television successfully is- the Australian Government.

I wish to make a plea on behalf of the composers of music who are so poorly paid by the national and commercial radio stations that they are able only to eke out an existence. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board should give this question some attention with a view to increasing the remuneration that those people receive. I suggest that the board should discuss the question with the national and commercial stations and the Australasian Performing Right Association Limited. The commercial stations have increased their rates for advertising and they should be able to pay more to the composers of music. Broadcasting is too important and has- too many aspects to make it worthwhile to bring down legislation merely to increase the price for the licences without providing for any improvement in the- programmes-. Moreover, the increased licence-fee will benefit those who can best bear the cost but will hit the workers at a time when the spiralling cost of living is taking food off their tables. I ask honorable senators on the Government side to join with the Opposition, in opposing this bill until there has been a thorough investigation of all aspects of radio broadcasting.

Senator McCALLUM:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Honorable senators have listened to a speech full of sound and’ fury signifying nothing. I cannot understand the querulous complaints of Senator Amour. This bill proposes to increase the licence-fee to £2 with certain exceptions. At that price radio broadcasting is still the cheapest form of entertainment in Australia.

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It is an increase of 100 per cent.

Senator McCALLUM:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– If it were increased ten times it would still be cheap entertainment. If the Opposition is speaking through Senator Amour, it is taking the occasion to snipe at the Government with class hatred, its chief, material for winning elections. Senator Amour’sspeech reeked with it. I think that the arrangement for a household to pay £2 a year for a radio licence, even if there is- more than one radio in the house, is quite reasonable. The argument that the provision will benefit the rich and not the poor has no substance. The comparatively poor man, for there are no really poor In Australia, will feel the most benefit. In a small household this arrangement will be quite satisfactory when the boy or girl of the family wants to take his or her personal radio into another room away from the rest of the family.

I am not saying that this hill is better than others or that it is worse. I am dealing with its main provision and justifying the increase in licence-fees. In doing so, I wish to defend the broadcasting services and particularly those of the Australian Broadcasting Commission against the completely baseless attacks by Senator Amour. For many years the system of broadcasting in Australia has given a good service to the public and has shown that it is superior to the services provided in Great Britain and the United States of America. The British Government has insisted that there shall be nothing but a national programme. It has not permitted commercial broadcasting. The Americans have not permitted any kind of national broadcasting. Australia has done both and I think that it was wise to do so. The functions of the two services are not identical. The main function of the Australian Broadcasting Commission is to set a high standard in education and entertainment. The purpose of the commercial stations is to give the people what they want. I do not believe that it is the function of the Government to tell the public generally what they should listen to, but rather that its function is to set high standards so that the people will want to listen to what is good. For that purpose, I believe that the Australian Broadcasting Commission should continue. Over the years it has carried out that function very well. I am not necessarily agreeing with everything that has been said by honorable senators on this side of the chamber. 1 have heard criticism of the Australian Broadcasting Commission from all quarters. It is good that there should be criticism and that the commission should take notice of it and amend any faults that may be revealed, but few interests in this country have given better service to the public on the whole. In the first place the commission has provided good music and has raised the standard of musical taste. Anybody who listens intelligently and regularly to the radio programmes will know that good music may be heard every day from one or all of the national stations. In addition to that daily service, the commission has maintained a symphony orchestra which has raised the music appreciation of all who care to listen. It has brought to Australia a large number of artists, including some of the greatest in the world. In addition to broadcasting over the air, they have given performances in concert halls which the public has been able to attend. The Australian Broadcasting Commission has provided lectures on almost every subject on which instruction could be desired. Some of the lectures on literature are among the best that I have ever heard. It has provided lectures on all the arts, and we have had lectures on popular science, which, I believe, have been of inestimable value. Technical services, too, have been provided. I have heard from farmers that broadcast talks on rural topics are well worth listening to and have a real practical value.

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The commercial stations provide those services.

Senator McCALLUM:

– I hope that I shall be allowed to continue my speech in my own way. I am speaking now of the Australian Broadcasting Commission ; I shall deal with the private stations later. I believe that the commission’s news service is open to a degree of criticism, but such criticism as I have to make I shall write in a letter to the commission. I have always found members and officials of the commission open to receive suggestions aimed at improving the national broadcasting service. Whilst I consider that the news service is open to some criticism, over the years it has served the purpose for which it is intended. I can speak on news reviews with a degree of authority. I consider that they have helped the listening public to follow and to interpret the news. In the main, they have been objective and impartial. Impartiality is not easy to achieve. Commentators have opinions of their own, but they must endeavour to interpret the news without laying themselves open to the accusations of impartiality and partisanship. I have been accused of every kind of partiality and partisanship. I have been accused of attempting, at various times, to further completely opposite political ideologies. Sometimes the Australian Broadcasting Commission is unjustly criticized by a person who has heard put forward in a news commentary a particular point of view with which he disagrees, whereas, had he listened carefully to other commentaries, he probably would have heard that point of view contradicted by other analysts. I believe that, considering the limited number of people available to provide this service, the commission has done its best to provide objective and impartial guidance. I say most emphatically - and I say it because the opposite view has been put forward in the House of Representatives - that control of our national broadcasting service by a commission should be- retained. I should oppose any attempt to bring the service under the control of a Minister or a single director. The commission system has been tried and is working very well.

Senator Vincent:

– It is like the Commonwealth Bank Board.

Senator McCALLUM:

– Yes, it is a similar authority. Members of the Australian Broadcasting Commission are not all of the same persuasion, politically, or on any other controversial matter. At least one member of the commission was formerly a member of the Australian Labour party and, I believe, a member of the South Australian Parliament. Others may have been Liberals. I do not know; but, so far as I am aware, most of them have had no political affiliations whatever. If an impartial service is to be provided, and partisanship avoided in political or other comments, it is essential that the national broadcasting service should be controlled by a commission which is ultimately responsible to the Parliament, and not to the Executive.

Opposition senators interjecting,

Senator McCALLUM:

– If honorable senators opposite would only keep quiet, they might hear something that would be beneficial to them. I am not discussing this matter in a partisan manner. J am putting the point of view of the community. I say deliberately that there have been occasions on which persons purporting to speak for the government of the day have endeavoured to influence or restrain commentators and other broadcasters. Such interference would be intensified if those controlling the national broadcasting service felt that the government of the day was behind attempts to force or persuade commentators to take a partisan attitude.

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Why not name tinpersons who have attempted to influence commentators ?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reid). - Order! Senator McCallum has a right to be heard in silence. Interjections must cease.

Senator McCALLUM:

– If the partisan intention foreshadowed in the House of Representatives were given effect, and the Australian Broadcasting Commission were placed under the control of the Ministry, the way would be open for the domination of public opinion by the government of the day. In almost every country where a democracy has been replaced by a dictatorship, the radio has been one of the chief instruments by which the dictator has retained power. In contrast to that, I place the record of the Australian Broadcasting Commission during that long period when the night of tyranny seemed to be descending on the democracies. The commission stood firmly on the principle that political influence should not be permitted to compel a broadcaster to say what he did noi want to . say, or to restrain him from expressing his true opinions. A staunch stand on that matter was taken by both Mr. Cleary and Mr. Boyer as successive chairmen of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

The commercial stations, too, give a good service ot the people of this country. I listen only to a limited number of commercial broadcasts, but I know that some sessions are worth hearing, and I do in fact listen to them. The commercial stations broadcast programmes which I do not think it would be right for the Australian Broadcasting Commission to provide, but which, nevertheless, are demanded by the public. The Australian Broadcasting Commission can attempt to raise the cultural taste of the community, but obviously all broadcasting cannot be devoted to those whose taste is already high. There is a demand for certain forms of entertainment which some of us find boring, but which some of our fellow citizens appreciate. It is a good thing, therefore, that we have stations which, in order to make money, will provide the cheaper form of entertainment, and thus leave the Australian Broadcasting Commission to cater for other tastes. Some time ago, it was stated that more people listen to the commercial stations than to the national stations. I do not know whether that is true of the listening public to-day, but even if it were true, it would not be a reflection on the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The aim of the commission is to raise the cultural standard of the community, and therefore, even though its programmes appeal only to a limited section of the public, the taste of those people is improving, and they in turn are raising the standard of others. It is no reflection on a great artist that his art does not appeal to everybody. It is no reflection on a great painting that it is not appreciated by everybody; and it is no reflection on the Australian Broadcasting Commission that some of its programmes have not a large listening audience. I should like to see the Australian Broadcasting Commission provide a third programme similar to that provided by the British Broadcasting Corporation, although I am afraid that, in view of defence exigencies, such a service could not be provided at this juncture. The British Broadcasting Corporation’s third programme, which appeals only to a very limited audience, is criticized by some people who consider that money should not be provided for broadcasts of that type, but I do not agree with that criticism. The community as a whole reaps the benefit from that service in indirect ways, and I believe, therefore, that the service should be maintained. The increase of the licence-fee proposed in this measure is fully justified in view of the rising costs.

The proposed concessions, too, are justified. Therefore there can be little objection to the bill and I hope that it will be passed.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– The main purpose of this bill is to increase the listeners’ fee from £1 to £2 a year. The reason given by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) for the increase is that rising price levels in recent years have increased the cost of the commission’s activities and that the deficit in its finances will probably exceed £2,000,000 in’ the current year. That is only a half truth. It is true that prices have risen, but it is equally true that rising prices are attributable mainly to the inaction of this Government, which promised in 1949 to put value back into the £1. The restoration of the purchasing power of our currency would, of course, have the effect of reducing prices. That is well within the bounds of practical politics, but the Government has taken no action whatever and an estimated deficit of £2,000,000 in the finances of the Australian Broadcasting Commission is the result. As I have explained previously, there has been no increase of what may be called the economic price of any commodity or service, but there has been a substantial increase of the monetary - or fictitious price of all goods and services. The Government, instead of shouldering the responsibility for its failure to implement its 1949 promise to restore the purchasing value of our currency is, to use a colloquialism, “passing the buck” on to the wireless listeners. It is assisting in every way possible to reduce the purchasing power of the workers’ savings bank deposits, which are now estimated at £800,000,000. I repeat that real prices have not increased. When we compare the economic or real cost with the fictitious cost, which is more or less inflated by the private banks in conjunction with the Treasury, that is shown to be absolutely true. I contend that the owner of a wireless receiving set should not be required to pay a licence-fee. When I was Postmaster-General in the former Labour Government I was very reluctant to prosecute persons for operating unlicensed wireless receiving sets. However, I was bound by the legislation.

Large staffs have to he maintained in. every State to issue licences, and many inspectors are employed by the Postal Department to detect offenders. The cost of prosecutions against people for operating unlicensed wireless receiving sets is considerable. If wireless licence-fees were abolished overhead costs would be reduced and the labour force thus released could be used more advantageously in the interests of the nation. This fee can be likened to a tax that was imposed in mediaeval times. When the innovation of windows in houses was introduced, the owners of houses with windows were taxed on the sunlight that entered the rooms, In due course, however,, the more intelligent members of the community realized the stupidity of that tax, and brought pressure to bear to have it reduced and ultimately abolished.

Another important aspect of this matter is that if wireless licence-fees were abolished the cost of providing this national service would be defrayed from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. That would be in accordance with the principle that those members of the community who are most able to pay the greater proportion should do so. I am convinced that ultimately there will be a more intelligent approach to this subject, and that the cost of providing the national broadcasting service will be defrayed from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. In effect, the wireless licence-fee constitutes a flat tax; the lowest paid workers in the community pay at the same rate as do the wealthy members. Yet’ this Government has the audacity to say that it is democratic and does the best it can for the community as a whole ! That is deliberate misrepresentation. This Government is doing its very best for the wealthy sections of the community, and its very worst for the poorer sections. The proposal to increase the licence-fee by £1 a year is outrageous. The fee should be abolished altogether.

I agree with what other honorable senators have said about the efficiency of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I am sure that the present, high standard of programmes that are broadcast by the commercial broadcasting stations would not have been reached if the Australian Broadcasting Commis-sion had not been established. The com: mission broadcasts excellent programmes, and it should be supported to a greater degree by this Government. By increasing the licence-fee the Government will be condoning increases of prices. Ultimately there will be a crash, and, doubtless, the Government will make excuses, which many people may be disposed to accept. However, I emphasize that the crash will occur as a result of various actions by the Government in some directions, and inaction in other directions. Honorable senators opposite cannot claim to be democratic and at the: same time seek to justify the proposed iniquitous fee of £2 a year for a wireless licence. Although the Government does not propose to raise the fee paid by pensioners, the great bulk of the poorer members of the community will be required to pay the increased fee. The Government has adopted this policy because it exists to advance the interests of monopolies rather than those of the ordinary members of the community. It has an obligation, both direct and indirect, to the community as a whole, and in time it will have to accept responsibility for its actions. I remind supporters of the Government that action and reaction are equals as well as opposites, and ultimately the Government will experience the reaction of the proposed iniquitous increase of the wireless licence-fee.

Senator PIESSE:
Western Australia

– I was very interested to hear Senator Cameron assert that the wireless licence-fee should be abolished. That is sheer propaganda, because when the honorable senator was PostmasterGeneral, he had ample opportunity to persuade the then Government to do what he now advocates.

Senator Cameron:

– I said that I was bound by the provisions of the legislation.

Senator PIESSE:

-Since 1940 the wireless licence-fee has not been increased, despite a general increase of prices and charges. Although the fee is to be increased by 100 per cent., it will still represent a payment of less than ls. a week. Surely this is the cheapest charge for entertainment to-day. A wireless receiving set is installed in almost every home in this country, and all members of a household may listen to the programmes for the one fee. Therefore, Senator Cameron’s assertion that the Government is playing to the wealthy, is disproved. I do not believe that the average member of the community will object to paying a licence-fee of £2 a year. In his second-reading speech the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) stated -

Because of this expansion, the national broadcasting service lias become available to a greater and greater proportion of the population, until to-day over 90 per cent, of the people can satisfactorily receive at least one national broadcasting station, and more than 50 per cent, are assured of reliable reception of alternative national programmes.

There is still room for improvement. The remaining 10 per cent, and 40 per cent, of the people respectively are entitled to receive what the others receive. Most of them live in country areas, and unless additional money is expended on improving the service, they will never obtain maximum broadcast reception.

Many of the people in the 40 per cent, group that I have mentioned live in Western Australia. I was very pleased to learn recently that the Australian Broadcasting Commission had inquired into the reason for some of the difficulties that are encountered in connexion with broad cast reception in Western Australia, because I had mentioned that matter in this chamber during the last sessional period. The commission has agreed to install additional regional stations in that State when the necessary funds, labour and equipment are available. The commission has also agreed to additional commercial broadcasting stations being established there. Reception is very bad in the south-west and lower Great Southern, between Albany and Bridgetown, where in “ blanketed “ areas, it is possible to receive broadcasts by only one station at certain times of the day. The additional revenue that will be derived as a result of the increased licence-fee will enable improvements to be effected in Western Australia. I am sure that the people in the areas that I have mentioned will not object to the proposed increase, provided they get good reception and good programmes.

Many honorable senators have opinions differing from mine in relation to television. We should first seek to establish efficient telephone and broadcasting systems. We can do without television, in the meantime. Why not wait until1overseas countries have developed television fully before we invest our money in it? None of us would suffer if tele* vision was not introduced here for several years. Of course, it would be very nice for us to have it, but I am sure that the first people to obtain the benefit would be the city dwellers.

Senator Courtice:

– Is the honorable senator jealous?

Senator PIESSE:

– I am not jealous. I am merely saying that the city people would be the first to be able to take advantage of television. We should be patient. Large expenditures are required on our telephone and broadcasting systems. Let us profit from the experience gained by those countries which have pioneered television. I remind honorable senators that when radio first started in this country it was necessary for people to almost crawl into a loudspeaker in order to hear the broadcasts. Since that time, a great deal of money has been spent on improvement of radio equipment, and the Australian people have received the benefit of that expenditure. I have bought only one wireless set in my life. I waited until, in my opinion, wireless sets were worth buying. T. suggest that it will not hurt the Australian people to wait for television. They have much more important things to worry about at the present time.

If the increased cost of listeners’ licences means that broadcasting services to country areas will be improved, the increase will be justified.

Senator Hendrickson:

– What will country listeners receive from the increased cost ?

Senator PIESSE:

– Some country people are still awaiting the alternative programme, as the Minister for Repatriation stated during his secondreading speech. Unfortunately, some of them do not have the pleasure of listening to the broadcast of Senator

Hendrickson^ remarks, because the broadcasts of the parliamentary proceedings will not reach certain areas. I support the bill.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– In my opinion, the service provided by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, with one or two exceptions, is reasonably good. Senator McCallum is very sensitive about broadcasting because, some years ago, whilst acting as commentator during an election campaign, the honorable senator stated that the result would be a draw, whereas in fact the Australian Labour party was 100 yards in front. In consequence, he became the laughing stock of the whole country. During the broadcasts of the results of the last general election and the previous one, the Australian Broadcasting Commission commentators, particularly Mr. H. D. Black, did an exceedingly good job. I regret that Professor Macmahon Ball is now heard only every second Sunday. Previously he broadcast every Sunday and presented to us a different point of .view from that of the commentators who speak every day of the week.

If this Government is genuine in its desire to prevent inflation, I do not know why it tolerates the state of affairs which exists in the radio world to-day. Every night of the week hundreds of pounds are given away during radio programmes. I wish to refer to a gentleman by the name of Bob Dyer, who, in my opinion, is not worth two “ bob “. When I say so, I do not wish to take advantage of the fact that I am speaking in the Parliament. I have seen the gentleman at the Tivoli Theatre, in Sydney, and I have searched in vain for evidence to justify his salary of £33,000 a year. It is of no avail to plead that much of that sum is absorbed by taxes. I point out that the shaving cream which he advertises has increased in price from ls. 2d. to 2s. Any one who uses it will agree that less and less soap is received for the money paid and that more and more water is required to make it lather. I suggest to the Government that if it wishes to keep the cost of living down it should take action to curb this lavish expenditure on radio advertising. I do not know what Senator McCallum has to say about this matter, because the honorable senator has a peculiar facility for leaving the chamber as soon as he has spoken. However, he made the statement that the people should be given what they want. I contend that if we give the people what they want they will not advance very far. In my opinion they can only advance if intelligent people more or less thrust upon them broadcasts of a certain kind. Ignorance is everywhere and is almost invincible. It is the function of radio to educate as well as to entertain the people.

With the system of capitalism which operates in this country, advertising is inevitable, but to my mind it is atrocious that one individual should be paid £33,000 a year for radio advertising work and that the racket which is being practised at the present time, night after night, should be allowed to continue. I remind honorable senators that if a person is sufficiently unfortunate to have a loved one in hospital the deduction which is allowed from income tax liability is only £100. Yet Colgate Palmolive Proprietary Limited is permitted to reduce its tax liability by paying Bob Dyer £33.000 a year. Jack Davey appears to have a finger in many pies, but he is a clever entertainer. He is at least humorous and witty.

I believe that, to a degree, the taste of the people must be catered for, but it seems to me that many people do not appreciate that the costs of the programmes to which I have referred drastically affect the cost of living. No doubt most people listen to such programmes in the hope that they or some one near to them will win a prize, but they do not understand that the whole thing is a racket. To my mind the “ Quiz Kids “ programme and other broadcasts of that kind are lowering the standards of education in this country. The fact that Professor Osborne, of Victoria, should be prepared to advertise a certain make of motor car for the sake of a few pounds is an insult to the universities of Australia. A programme such as the “brains trust” in England, is a different matter altogether.

Senator McCallum referred to a third programme. I assume that he meant a programme similar to that broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation, the details of which are published in the Listener every week. It is not often that I agree with the honorable senator, but I do so on this occasion. I consider that such a programme would be worthwhile.

Although I have nothing against the Australian Broadcasting Commission, I am nevertheless of the opinion that the attempt to re-enact the Sturt expedition, which was staged as part of the jubilee celebrations, was the most nonsensical and idiotic affair since Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden. Generally speaking, the standard of intelligence displayed in the jubilee year celebrations has been very low. A lack of perspective and also a lack of understanding of the matters that are important to the country has been displayed. I listen to the programmes broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Commission much more frequently than I listen tothose broadcast by commercial stations. On Sunday nights especially, it is most irritating when commercial radio stations advertise a brand of soap in the middle of a symphony or a play.

Prizes are not given away on radio programmes for nothing. The public pays in the long run. To my mind there should be a limit to such advertising. If manufacturers wish to advertise, let them, do so in a straightforward manner. When I was in the United States of America, I remember being in one of the underground stations in New York. The blare of broadcast advertisements was so great that if you asked a man where to go to catch a train to Chicago, before you arrived at the right platform you had forgotten the directions you had been given. I understand that even in the United States of America radio broadcasting has now been curtailed. It seems to me that enormous sums of money are being paid to certain individuals in order that manufacturers may escape their tax liability. I do not suppose that the Minister for Repatriation will take any action in the matter, but I hope that he will refer it to his colleague, the Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony). I know that some people wish to listen to radio artists such as Bob Dyer-

Senator Cormack:

– Hear, hear !

Senator GRANT:

– I was not aware of the radio programmes to which the honor able senator listens. I am glad that he has now given me some indication. I appreciate that it is very difficult to arrest inflation, but I suggest that a step in the right direction would be taken if the Government curtailed the extensive radio advertising which is indulged in at present. During a time when commodities are very scarce, it should not be possible for large quantities of articles to be given away on radio programmes. As honorable senators know a radio announcer will advertise a certain brand of wine as the best that may be bought. A few minutes later he will advertise another brand of wine as the best. I do not suppose that that kind of advertising could be stopped.

Senator Armstrong:

– The thing to do is to try them all !

Senator GRANT:

– I would not mind trying them all if I had the money to pay for them. I maintain that the forms of advertising to which I have referred represent nothing more than subterfuges to escape tax. Other people who make large sums of money have no such opportunity to dodge their tax liability. I hope that the Minister for Repatriation will discuss the matter with his Cabinet colleagues.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

.- Approximately 2,000,000 people in Australia to-day buy wireless listeners’ licences. Of those people, approximately 255,000 own more than one wireless set. Therefore, we can say that approximately 1,500,000 workers own only one radio set. A wealthy householder may have several receiving sets, one in the living room, one in his bedroom, another in the kitchen, and almost certainly another in his motor car; yet for all those sets he will be required to pay a licence fee of only £2, the same as the worker pays for his single set. That is another example of how the Government’s taxation proposals discriminate unfairly against the workers. Young married couples, who are trying to furnish their homes on the time payment system, will find the increased listeners’ fee an added burden, whereas the wealthy person, who owns many receiving sets, may actually pay less in future than he paid in the past.

The news service of the Australian Broadcasting Commission was eulogized by Senator McCallum. I agree that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is doing a good job, particularly in regard to the news service. My complaint, however, is that of the fifteen minutes’ news broadcast we usually get seven or eight minutes of overseas news, something in which we in Australia are not interested at all.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– Well, we ought to be.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I am not protesting against the broadcasting of the principal items of overseas news, but the people want to know what is happening in their own country, and Australian news should receive at least equal consideration. I am sure that most people in Australia would prefer to be given the Australian news first, unless some thing of unusual importance had occurred overseas. At present, we have to listen to a lot of news from abroad before hearing anything of what has happened in Australia, even news of great bush fires, or other tragedies.

It is unfair that people who live in areas where they can tune in effectively to only one station should have to pay the same licence fee as do people in the cities, who can listen to a great number of stations. I know of districts not more than 100 miles west of Sydney where it is difficult to pick up more than a single station. Some concession should be allowed to people who live in such areas.

Reference has been made to Bob Dyer, who was recently associated with programmes broadcast on. behalf of one of the oil firms. The price of petrol was recently increased, and we. have been told that another increase is due; yet the oil companies continue to spend enormous amounts of money on advertising, including, radio programmes in which large sums of money, and goods, of considerable value, are given away. We know that in these times of inflation price increases are to be expected, but firms that can afford, to expend such large amounts on advertising should be expected to pay their fair share of taxation.

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

– Speeches delivered by members of the Opposition give evidence of a good deal of muddled thinking, and it is time that somebody clarified the position. Senator Cameron drew an extraordinary analogy between the tax placed on people in the middle ages for having windows in their houses through which to admit the sunlight, and the listeners’ fee charged to people who own radio receiving sets. He forgot to point out that sunlight is distributed free of cost to every one. whereas it costs a considerable amount of money to provide radio programmes. The honorable senator also said that the unfortunate workers were being hit unfairly by the increased listening fee, and that the Australian Broadcasting Commission service should be paid for out of Consolidated Revenue. That would cost £10,000,000 or £12,000,000, and the extra money would have to be found by taxation. Well, almost every day some one reminds us in the Senate that all taxation is borne ultimately by the workers.

Senator Tangney:

– Hear, hear!

Senator KENDALL:

– The honorable senator applauds the statement, and thereby admits that the increased listening fee must be paid by the workers, whether in the form of a direct fee or through increased taxation. The fee of £2 a year represents only about lid. a day, which is a very moderate charge for the service given by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Indeed, it is by far the cheapest entertainment that any of us have ever enjoyed.

Senator Grant gave us a long discourse on the iniquity of advertising. Let me first correct his statement that Bob Dyer receives £33,000 a year. It is true that he is paid £33,000 a year,, but out of that he must himself bear the cost of running the shows that he puts on. His net income is considerably less than £33,000. I am not in his confidence, but that would seem to be the position. However,, even if he receives a net income of £33,000, the Commonwealth Treasurer may be relied upon to take care of a good share of it for him. If the oil companies and other big firms did not spend their advertising allocation on radio programmes, they would spend it on newspaper advertising, or in putting up placards on hoardings, or on advertising in railway carriages and tram-cars. Who would be so bold as to advocate that advertising should be abolished? Senator Grant complained about the “ Quiz Kids “ session. Perhaps he has more intelligence than I have, but I assure him that I, in common with a great many others, have learned a good deal from the <( Quiz Kids “, and I have enjoyed many happy hours listening to them. -Senator Grant also complained about a man named Osborne, who advertised, a motor car. If he did not advertise the car some one else would have done so. Most firms allocate a certain amount of money for advertising.

Senator GRANT:

– It is not a mere allocation. The amount is unlimited.

Senator KENDALL:

– Who does the honorable senator suggest should limit the amount expended on advertising? I myself would be prepared to accept .a

Salary advertising a product that I knew to be good if any one would trust me to do so, which is most unlikely.

Senator Ashley said that it was unfair to the workers to allow a person to have two radio receiving sets in has house for the same licence-fee as he would pay for only one. I cannot see anything unfair in it. We know that a great many young men take pleasure in making receiving sets, and I am fairly confident that, on an average, there are just as many receiving sets to be found in the homes of the workers as in the homes of other people.

I cannot endorse what Senator Ashley said about the news service. I believe that the people of Australia should take more interest in overseas news, because what is happening overseas is of paramount importance to Australia. It is more important to the people of Australia to learn what is happening in Korea and Malaya than to hear about a small bush fire somewhere in the country. If honorable senators opposite were to listen more intently to overseas news they would be able to make more knowledgeable contributions to debates.

I ,agree that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is doing a very fine job, and I agree with Senator McCallum that it ought to broadcast something in the nature of the “ third programme “ of the British Broadcasting Corporation. This is a matter to which I have given a good deal of thought over the years, and I am convinced that a serious programme would attract many more listeners than most people believe.

Sitting suspended from 5.J/5 to 8 p.m.

Senator HENDRICKSON:
Victoria

– The Senate is indeed fortunate to have among its members an honorable senator with the vast knowledge of broadcasting and of other matters that is possessed by Senator Kendall. It is very comforting to know that he is always here to put us right when we go wrong. We all are aware of the difficulties with which the Australian Broadcasting Commission is -confronted in carrying out its important task. Honorable senators on this .side of the chamber have nothing but praise for the manner in which it has carried out that task. There is great merit in the contention of Senator Cameron that the cost of any extension of the facilities provided by the commission should be met by the taxpayers .as n whole on an equitable basis.

The number of wireless listeners’ licences issued in Australia has grown tremendously since wireless broadcasting was first instituted. In 1925 approximately sixty thousand listeners’ licences were issued. Even in those very early years of wireless broadcasting in Australia those engaged in the broadcasting of wireless programmes rendered an. excellent service to the people. By 1938, the number of listeners’ licences had increased to 300,000, and by 1950 it increased to 1,000,000. I understand that the number is now almost 2,000,000. The improvements that have been effected in national programmes since the inception of wireless broadcasting have not been commensurate with the tremendously increased volume of revenue derived from listeners’ licence fees. How honorable senators opposite, including Senator Kendall, can have the audacity to attempt to justify the proposal to double the wireless listeners’ licence fees is beyond my comprehension, particularly in view of their statements prior to the general election of 1949 that,’ if they were returned to office, they would reduce taxes.

Senator Seward:

– Do conditions never change ?

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– I still have the faith that I always had in the policy of the greatest leader the Australian Labour party has ever had, the great war-time Prime Minister, the lata Ben Chifley, who told the people in 1949, not that he would reduce taxes, but that as economic conditions permitted he would grant such taxation remissions as were possible in the light of the circumstances then existing. None knew better than he did that the specious appeals made by the non-Labour parties would appeal to unthinking people, but he was an honest man and, realizing that the country was passing through a difficult period, he made no false promises in order to gain popularity. That is my answer to Senator Seward’s interjection. I observe that the honorable senator smiles. What I have said is the incontrovertible truth. Eager to occupy the treasury bench at any cost, the nonLabour parties made extravagant promises to the people, knowing very well that there was little likelihood that they could be honoured.

An honorable senator opposite has said that young people make a hobby of constructing wireless receivers and that consequently a set is to be found in almost every room in an average home. That is far from true. Reference to the files in the wireless section of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department will show that most working people possess only one wireless receiver. Until now, workers who live in zone 1 have been able to obtain a wireless listeners’ licence for £1 per annum. Those who were fortunate enough to possess more than one wireless receiver were called upon to pay an additional licence fee of 10s. for each additional instrument. They are now to be relieved of the obligation to pay the extra impost for each additional receiver, and to offset the loss of revenue involved those who own only one receiver are to be called upon to meet a 100 per cent, increase in the cost of the licence. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), who is in charge of the bill, can explain the Government’s reason for this decision as best he may.

Representations have been made to me regarding the method adopted by the Australian Broadcasting Commission in utilizing the services of live artists in the national broadcasting service. 1 understand that section 88 of the Broadcasting Act requires that a certain percentage of live artist entertainment shall be provided in all national broadcasts. The provisions of that section are not being enforced. Instead, recorded items of all kinds are foisted on the listening public and young people of superior musical and theatrical talent are being discouraged. I have been informed by the trade union that enrols musicians that it has advised young persons who desire to earn their living as musicians not to look to a musical profession as a means of livelihood. As a result of the practice adopted by the commission many budding musicians are being discouraged from continuing their studies. Indications point to the likelihood that, within two years or so, all broadcast entertainment will be of the “ canned “ variety. The Govern ment should direct the commission to adhere to the provisions of the section to which I have referred, especially if it hopes to justify this proposal to increase the cost of listeners’ licence-fees.

I pay a tribute to the excellent work done by the officers of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department in providing the requisite technical assistance to enable the commission to present its programmes to the people. I do not know the charges, if any, that are made for such services. I should like the Minister to deal with that aspect of the subject when he is replying to this debate.

Grave complaints have been made by many people regarding the exclusion of items of great news value from news sessions broadcast over the national stations. In Victoria, a couple of weeks ago, a very important function, associated with the jubilee celebrations, which was attended by 100,000 persons, was not even mentioned in the news broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Later, on the following Sunday, another function, which was also associated with the jubilee celebrations and which was attended by 80,000 persons, was ignored in the news session broadcast by the commission.

Complaints have also been made about the vast sums of money that are permitted as allowable deductions for income tax purposes expended by Australian manufacturers in radio advertising. A radio session which is very popular among the listeners is called “Pick a Box”. It is conducted by the radio compere, Bob Dyer, who, I understand, receives no less than £33,000 a year from a manufacturer of tooth paste to conduct weekly broadcast programmes. Under the arrangement with his sponsor he may have to meet the cost of certain prizes. That does not concern me so much as does the fact that in times of scarcity of commodities manufacturers should be permitted to claim tax deductions in respect of large sums of money spent on radio advertising. In these days when motor cars are sold at a premium, imagine a motor car firm being permitted to escape liability for taxation in respect of expenses incurred on advertising motor cars ! The Government should limit the amount in respect of which companies and individuals may claim tax deductions. Any additional taxes collected as the result of such limitation could well be used for improving the facilities provided by the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

This is yet another measure to increase taxes. Indeed, almost every measure introduced by this Government has had for its purpose an increase of taxes. I hope that this bill will be rejected and that before long the people will reject this Government which promised to reduce taxes, to abolish controls and to restore value to the £1, but which has blindly gone on increasing tax after tax, imposing still greater controls and conveniently forgetting about its promise to restore value to the £1. I oppose the bill.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– There are certain features of this bill to which I also take exception. The principal one is the proposal to increase the cost of wireless listeners’ licences. I regard wireless broadcasting as a very important and essential service which is in much the same category as is education. It is of the utmost value to the people outback, who receive their newspapers days after they have been issued. Many days elapse before newspapers reach the settlers in the far north-west of Western Australia but the national broadcasting service and pedal wireless sets enable them to keep abreast of the times. I do not know whether any special provision is made in this bill for the pedal wireless sets. They are a necessary adjunct to the flying doctor. They have helped to make the lives of pioneer women in the outback much more secure and have given them a few of the amenities that city dwellers regard as their right. For that reason I regret that the Government has increased the cost of licences to those to whom the pedal wireless gives such a necessary service. I would prefer to see the charge increased on the second, third and fourth sets rather than have the fee for a single set doubled. People who can afford to have two or three wireless sets in the home are able to pay an extra charge. When there is only one wireless set in a home it is an essential service and the licence-fee should not be doubled. Many country children who have been receiving their education by correspondence now listen to new educational radio broadcasts. Mothers who have had to supervise the correspondence courses of their children have found that the lessons by wireless are a great boon, but the cost of that amenity is to be doubled. I hope that the Minister will try to do something for the country dwellers whose children are receiving lessons by radio with the object of reducing the licence-fee.

With other honorable senators, I believe that the huge prizes that are given in radio competitions constitute a form of illegal gambling. Betting on the racecourses is controlled but many of the quizzes on the air are not even games of skill. Recently a house valued at from £4,000 to £5,000 was given for an incorrect answer. It would not matter so much perhaps if the answers of the winners were correct. Extremely high salaries are paid to people in radio work who are not producing anything. Honorable senators have been told that there must be more production, yet people are attracted into radio jobs for which they are paid as high as £33,000 a year. Even the Prime Minister does not get a quarter of that sum despite his heavy responsibilities. The Australian Broadcasting Commission is not immune from this charge. A few months ago an Australian artist was brought from London to give a series of broadcasts and I do not think that they were any better than those of Australian artists who were already resident in this country. Honorable senators should be told how much is spent on items of that kind.

I should like to know whether any record is kept of the prize money that has been given by all firms in the past five years through radio quizzes. It would be very enlighteningto know how much has been spent on advertising in that way. It is really only a method of defrauding the Commonwealth Treasurer. In many cases the money is spent to advertise goods that are not worth advertising. The advertisements are designed directly to get people to buy tubes of tooth paste and cakes of soap that they do not require. In some cases, in an endeavour to win a prize, people buy the articles after the competitions have closed. It is about time something was done to regulate this expenditure. Honorable senators know that some patent medicines which are advertised widely consist simply of coloured water. An investigation was made some years ago intothe various patent medicines that were on the market. This revealed that medicines which were being sold for 15s. to 16s. a bottle contained ingredients worth only a few pence. Medicines of that kind are being advertised by radio. Listeners hear pink pills for pale people and indigestion powders advertised in conjunction with symphonies. It is enough to make the composers of classical music turn in their graves. I do not know whether their families are paid any royalty. Sometimes one advertisement will contradict another.

It is refreshing to be able to listen to programmes in New Zealand and Great Britain without the constant interruptions from advertisements. If a person is to be charged £2 a year for a listener’s licence he should not have to listen to advertisements, many of which are not even true. A committee should be set up to inquire into the truth or otherwise of the advertisements that are broadcast by radio because many of them can do untold harm. Goods which are advertised are not true to the description or to the claims that are made for them. Some of the tablets and powders that are advertised are guaranteed to cure everything from corns to cancer. This exploitation of the foibles of the people should be rigorously suppressed by the Government. I repeat that the doubling of the licence-fee is wrong and that some consideration should be given to holders of single licences in the country areas where the wireless set is a life-line. I know that the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) who is in charge of the bill in the Senate has a great deal of sympathy with the country people because he was a member of the Social Security Committee, of which I was also a member, when it visited outback areas, where the pedal wireless was an important link with the flying doctor service. I hope that he will be able to persuade the Government to give consideration to the points that I have mentioned.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) put -

That the question be now put.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Cooper) proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– In my second-reading speech, I said that this legislation would penalize a majority of radio listeners. I pointed out that there were nearly 2,000,000 wire less licence-holders in this country. The exact figure is 1,991,000. Of that number 255,000 licence-holders have more than one receiving set. It is a fair assumption, therefore, that the remaining 1,738,000 are workers. This measure is another instalment in the Government’s plan to impose higher taxes on those members of the community who are least able to bear them. The 255,000 people who have more than one set are well able to pay the extra £1 a year. Some of them may have two sets in their homes and perhaps another one or two in their motor cars, yet they will have to pay only the same annual fee as the man who has only one receiver. In the course of my second-reading speech, an honorable senator on the Government side said by way of interjection that the figures that I had quoted were wrong. I have risen at this stage to emphasize that my figures are correct. I regret that the action of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) in gagging the second-reading debate prevented his own colleague, the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) from answering some of the questions that were asked by honorable senators on both sides of the chamber. I have never known that to happen before in the Senate, and I hope that there will not be a repetition of the Minister’s discourtesy to the Opposition. I invite the Minister for Repatriation, even at this late stage, to reply in his usual courteous manner to the various points that have been raised.

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I support Senator Ashley’s remarks. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) was most unfair and discourteous in preventing the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), who is in charge of the bill, from answering questions that had been put to him during the second-reading debate. If the Minister for Repatriation is prepared to speak now, I shall have no more to say at this stage.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

in reply - Senator Ashley has made a mountain out of a molehill. I can assure him that many people in this community, who cannot be regarded as working-class citizens, have only one wireless receiver. The proposed annual fee of £2 works out at less than 5d. a week. In other words, for between £d. and Id. a day, a whole family may enjoy radio entertainment.

Senator Guy:

– It is cheap entertainment.

Senator COOPER:

– It is better than cheap entertainment; it is gift entertainment. The single licence system is not peculiar to Australia. It is in force in almost every other country except the United States of America. As Senator Ashley, who was Postmaster-General in a former Labour government, will realize, it has been very difficult to police the provision that a person should hold a licence for every wireless receiving set in his possession at the premises stated in the licence. Accordingly, the Government decided that only one licence need be held by a person in respect of those wireless sets. This is in line with the practice in other countries. Senator Cameron, who also was PostmasterGeneral in a former Labour government, has asserted that wireless licences should be abolished. The effect of his suggestion would be that people who did not desire to own a wireless set in order to listen to broadcast programmes, would have to pay for the entertainment of persons who did. The United States of America is the only country where that system operates to-day. The Government considers that only the people who derive the benefit should be required to pay, as is the case with electricity and water services.

Solely for purposes of propaganda, honorable senators opposite have contended that the proposed £1 a year increase of the licence-fee will inflict tremendous hardship on the community. 1 am sorry that Senator Tangney is absent from the chamber. She claimed that a tremendous hardship would be imposed on people in country areas by the proposed increase. I point out that the increase proposed for country listeners is only 14s. a year, or less than id. a day. For the past four or five hours the Opposition has engaged in cheap propaganda.

Senator Fraser:

– The licence-fee is to be increased by 100 per cent.

Senator COOPER:

– The increase for people in country areas will be less than id. a day, and that for other people less than Id. a day.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2738

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) BILL 1951

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 15th November (vide page 2059), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator HENDRICKSON:
Victoria

– This measure conflicts with the promises that were given to the people of this country by supporters of the Government during the last two general election campaigns. They told the people that if they were returned to office the war-time controls would be lifted and that it would not be long before the supply of commodities would equal the demand. Labour realized that many people had money with which to buy commodities that have been described by the supporters of the Government as luxury goods, because they had lived in an austere manner during the war period. However, we pointed out that if we were to maintain a sound economy in this country, it would be necessary to retain various forms of control. Although Labour had successfully administered this country during the war period, the people were swayed by the promises of our opponents. During the general election campaign in 1949, in an address delivered in the Canterbury Town Hall in Melbourne, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) stated -

We will review the incidence of indirect taxes (which are a huge though sometimes unrecognized item in Australia) upon basic wage and cost of living items and housing costs.

The right honorable gentleman was, of course, referring to sales tax. Recently, however, his lieutenant, the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden), stated that it was necessary to continue controls that the Prime Minister had promised the people would be abolished. The Treasurer has stated that this is another measure designed to defeat inflation. Sales tax is probably the most cruel tax that is imposed on the people, because married men, whether rich or poor, have to pay the piper. The Government calls the tune and they have to dance to it. This is a most vicious method of extracting money from the people.

Senator Laught:

– Was not sales tax first imposed by the Scullin Labour Government?

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– I thought that I might get a bite from some of the “fish” on the opposite side. In the dark days of the Scullin Administration

Senator Wedgwood:

– Were they dark days?

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– My word, they were dark days ! As Mr. Joseph Lyons once remarked, the conditions of those days were brought about by the maladministration of two of the greatest scoundrels that Australia has

I’verever known - Bruce and Page.

Senator McCallum:

– That is a lie.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator is straying from the bill. Although I have read its provisions, [ cannot, by any stretch of imagination, link the honorable senator’s remarks with them. He should confine his remarks to the bill.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– I agree, Mr. President, that my remarks were a bit wide of the mark. I was merely trying to put some of the Government senators on the right track. I know that Senator McCallum became very agitated this afternoon. I assure him, through the Chair, that I shall not become emotional. This country had been ruined by anti-Labour governments that were in office from 1920 to 1929. Mr. Scullin found, when he assumed office, that the Treasury was empty. There were only three supporters of Labour in this chamber at that time. Because the Commonwealth Bank had refused to make finance available, the hostile Senate refused to pass a measure to provide £12,000,000 for the assistance of primary producers, who were starving, and £6,000,000 to provide work for the unemployed. In order to be able to pay the salaries of public servants and to meet social services commitments, Mr. Scullin was then forced to introduce sales tax, which, in fact, Labour detested.

Senator Pearson:

– The Chifley Labour Government had ample opportunity to abolish sales tax.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– When the Chifley Labour Government came to office the Japanese were knocking at the door of this country, and because the former anti-Labour Government had failed to make adequate provision for defence-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order I If the government of that day had wandered from its responsibilities as far as the honorable senator has wandered from the bill, we might not have been here to-day.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– The sales tax yielded £3,000,000 in 1930. The opponents of Labour told the people that if they were returned to office sales tax would be abolished. I recollect Mr. Lyons stating that if the anti-Labour Government was returned to office jobs would be found for all. Unfortunately, the people of this country believed him. In 1931, when the anti-Labour Government led by Mr. Lyons had a majority in both Houses of the Parliament, the yield from sales tax was £8,500,000. By 1939 the amount of revenue received from sales tax had increased to £9,000,000. During those years there were more than 500,000 persons unemployed in Australia. By 1943, the yield from sales tax had increased to £28,000,000. That was the darkest year in the history of this country. The people were prepared to do almost anything and to go to any length to ensure that the “ Nips “ would be prevented from invading Australia and molesting our women and children. Sales tax was increased because the government of the day had to obtain additional revenue in order to prosecute the war effort. Labour had to curb the production of luxury commodities because, in effect, that production had enabled our enemies to put bayonets on their rifles. It administered the country until 1949, when sales tax had grown to £39,000,000 per annum. In that year a general election was held. During the election campaign the Prime Minister stated that, if returned to office, the Government parties would review the incidence of indirect taxation. Apparently the electors did not appreciate mat the review would involve doubling the incidence of sales tax. The political wool was pulled over their eyes. This Government has been in office almost two years, and in that time the annual revenue from sales tax has increased from £39,000,000 to £57,173,101 last year. The estimated revenue from sales tax for 1950-51 is £117,000,000. That is the amount of money which this Government will take from Australian families, both rich and poor. Yet, in 1949 the present Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden), who apparently would promise anything and give nothing, stated -

We promise that a competent review will also be made of the incidence of indirect taxation, because we recognize the necessity for sensible reductions in the many cases where such reductions will arrest the upward trend of living costs.

The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), during his secondreading speech, stated that this bill is necessary in order to halt inflation. It is difficult to tie up his words with those of the Treasurer when he was in Opposition in 1948. The people have been misled, but I think it will be for the last time. The Treasurer said in 1948 -

Toothpaste, washing soap, soap powders, dusters and dish cloths are essential aids to cleanliness and to the maintenance of healthy living standards, yet they are all subject to sales tax at the rate of 2s. in the £1.

To-day sales tax on such items is to be increased to 70 per cent. The right honorable gentleman continued -

Surely prevention is better than cure in this case as in others. Is it not ridiculous that the Government should spend tens of millions of pounds on social services?

I suggest that what was really burning in the Treasurer’s mind at that time was the audacity of the Chifley Government in attempting to ensure that the people who had built this country should receive certain benefits.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Is the honorable senator reading from a Hansard “flat”?

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– Yes.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is distinctly out of order to do so. The honorable senator should be aware of ‘the rule governing the issue of Hansard “ flats “, which provides that quotations should not be read from them during a debate.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– The breach arises from the fact that I do not know the Standing Orders as we’ll as you do, Mr. President. I bow to your ruling. I think, however, that honorable senators opposite should now appreciate that although it is very nice and easy to float into this Parliament on promises to the people, it is not so easy to hide the records of speeches previously made.

Sales tax in 1950-51 will bring in revenue to a greater amount than the surplus for which the Treasurer has budgeted. Would it not be honest and also in the interests of national development if the Treasurer honoured his promises to the people, wiped out sales tax, and said, “ Let us balance our budget without budgeting for a surplus “? Far from being prepared to do that, he intends to impose an additional sales tax burden upon the people. When the Minister for National Development replies to the debate, I should like him to explain to the Senate why it is necessary to collect £117,000,000 by way of sales tax and at the same time to budget for a surplus of £114,500,000. If he again says that it is necessary in order to stem the tide of inflation, I shall not be prepared to believe him. In my opinion, the present Treasurer is one of the most able accountants in Australia to-day, and I am always prepared to believe his statements. As I have already pointed out, the right honorable gentleman stated that if sales tax is increased inflation will also be increased.

Perhaps this Government has other objectives in mind. Honorable senators have heard a great deal about communism, although not much has been heard of fascism. Perhaps this drastic increase of indirect tax represents the first step towards the introduction of fascism in Australia.

Government senators interjecting,

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– I am merely using my imagination as honorable senators opposite use theirs when they accuse members of the Opposition of leaning towards communism. Will this additional heavy burden of indirect tax lead to direction of labour in peace-time ? If it will, I contend that it is time that the people of Australia were informed of the fact. Honorable senators opposite should appreciate that the referendum on prices control was defeated because the people were told by the supporters of the present Government that the Labour Government of the day wished to have prices controlled in order to direct labour. No statement could have been further from the truth. At that time, the Labour Government believed that unless the economy could be effectively geared in order to meet the transition from war to peace, the Government would be forced to bring in legislation of a kind that would force it to hide its head in shame.

I contend that it is impossible for the legislation now before the Senate to check inflation in any way. Surely the Government does not suggest that the imposition of sales tax on the powder to prevent a baby’s rash will stop its mother from buying such powder ? I suggest thai she will deny herself food in order to buy powder for the baby. Surely the Government does not believe that people in the country will do without refrigerators and other articles which are now subject to heavy additional sales tax ? I contend that increased sales tax represents an endeavour to impose conscription of labour on the people of Australia, because certain industries will be obliged to close down and the employees of those industries will be forced to work at the direction of the Government.

Senator Wright:

– The honorable senator does not understand the terms he uses.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– The names of unemployed workers will be recorded in a register. They will be told, “ There is your job. Take it or leave it. If you do not take it you will not be entitled to unemployment relief “. I should like honorable senators to remember my words and also those of Senator Wright, who interjected. I venture to say that my words will prove to be true. If they are, I hope that the honorable senator will not again tell me that

I do not understand the terms that I use. I understand them only too well. I appreciate what direction of labour would mean to the workers of this country, and I shall do everything in my power to prevent its introduction.

This bill will have the effect of further undermining the purchasing power of the people. Many items in the “ C “ series index, on which the basic wage is based, will be affected by its operation. Last month the basic wage increased considerably. It have no doubt that there will be another increase in February and that when this bill becomes law it will again increase. Inflation will also increase. The heavy burden of indirect taxes is taking away from the young people of Australia the incentive to get married and to bear children, although for some years the leaders of our nation have said that children are the best immigrants that we can get. What young couple would get married and bring children into the world knowing that they are to be subjected to extortionate tax impositions such as this ?

Senator Wright:

– How do our taxation levels compare with those of Great Britain?

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– I wish that the honorable senator were in Great Britain. He is always interjecting and interrupting the trend of my thoughts. I suggest that this bill will have the effect of imposing added burdens on the budget of the housewife. I do not wish to compare our conditions with those of Great Britain, Russia or Germany, because as far as I am concerned the workers of those countries must do the best they can. All that I am concerned with is how the people of this country arc faring at the hands of a government which told them in 1949 that it would reduce taxes.

Senator Robertson:

– The honorable senator seems to be bearing up very well !

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– I am capable of looking after myself. The honorable senator need have no fears on my account. Had the electors of Australia taken my advice in 1949 they also would be well looked after, as they were under Labour governments from 1942 to 1949.

For every £1 that was collected by way of indirect tax in 1943, £2 was collected last year. This year £4 will be collected. When will this octopus, which is sucking the life-blood of the people, be laid low? When the last war broke out the people of Australia were told that if they went away and fought for this country they would be given a new order when they returned. Was a new order really needed ? I notice that Senator Wright nods his head. I say to the honorable senator that all classes in Australia to-day, whether manufacturers, primary producers or workers, are worse off than they were in 1949. Legislation of the kind which we are now considering has been responsible for the retrenchment of employees in many industries. Surely the Government does not contend that the furnishing industry is a luxury industry, that the beds on which a family sleeps are luxuries, or that the piece of matting which they put under their feet when they get undressed at night is a luxury item? Because of increased sales tax, certain Melbourne furniture firms have been obliged to reduce their staffs because the public cannot afford to buy the furniture which they manufacture. Surely singlets and underclothing are not luxuries, yet sales tax has been imposed on them. The worker finds it harder to buy even those items which are not taxed, because his income is drained away by having to pay tax at the rate of 66$ per cent, on certain other items. Now, in addition to the increased indirect taxation that has been imposed, the Government proposes to place an additional 10 per cent, levy on incomes.

The Government must admit that it made false promises to the people. If they were not deliberately false, then the Government must admit that its judgment was at fault, and that circumstances have got beyond it. The only honorable thing to do in the circumstances is to vacate the treasury bench in favour of the Labour party which, from the end of the war in 1945 until 1949, kept the country on an even financial keel.

Senator Wright:

– The honorable senator, whether he is crowing or croaking, is always wrong.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– If Senator Wright suffered from the same dis ability as I do, I should feel sorry for him. He does himself little credit by his cheap, sneering jibes about an ailment that causes me a great deal of inconvenience. The Government should resign in favour of the Labour party, as did the former Menzies Government in 1941. From the end of the war until 1949, the Labour Government gave the country full employment, and gradually reduced taxation. Leaders of the antiLabour parties said that the “ Chifley £1 “ was worth only 12s. in 1949 compared with 1939. If that were so, then it cannot be denied that the economic situation has deteriorated so much since then that the “ Menzies £1 “ is now worth only 5s. compared with 1939.

Senator HENTY:
Tasmania

Senator Hendrickson said that if the Government were concerned for the development of the nation it would forego sales tax increases, and not attempt to budget for a surplus. As a matter of fact, the surplus will be raised in order to foster the development of the nation. The Commonwealth has promised the States that if the loan market does not yield enough money to finance their developmental projects, the Commonwealth will make up the deficiency out of the surplus. Senator Hendrickson, when criticising the Government’s sales tax proposals, overlooked the fact that the present schedule is very much the same as it was from 1942 to 1949.

Senator Hendrickson:

– That is true, but the anti-Labour parties promised that they would make things better.

Senator HENTY:

– The Labour Government taxed ordinary soap, but not dog’s soap. It taxed baby powder, but not flea powder. In that respect, it was no better than the present Government. Senator Hendrickson said that the working people would bear the brunt of sales tax increases, but that is not so. Every one who buys articles that bear tax will pay the tax, but most of the necessaries of life, including the basic food lines, are not taxed by this Government any more than they were taxed by the Labour Government. By refusing to buy the socalled luxury lines, people may avoid paying sales tax.

It is estimated that sales tax increases will yield revenue amounting to 2s. 6d. a week per head of population. It is not hard for a man to save 2s. 6d. a week if he wishes to do so. It represents less than the price of a packet of twenty cigarettes. The sales tax increases imposed in the last budget were intended to check the purchase of certain articles, but, because of the continued prosperity of the nation, the people went on buying those articles, and the tax did not achieve its purpose. Therefore, the rate has been increased.

It is not correct to describe as luxuries all the goods that carry sales tax at the higher rates. It may be argued that nothing is a luxury if we can so raise the standard of living as to bring it properly within the reach of every one. However, some articles are less essential than others. The Labour Government imposed excise at the rate of Ss. a gross o:i matches, which represented three farthings a box. That was done, not because the Labour Government believed that matches were a luxury, but because the turnover on matches was rapid, and the tax would, therefore, yield a large revenue. The same may be said of such articles as baby powder and razor blades.

Whether we like it or not, sales tax will be with us for many years to come, no matter what changes of government may occur. Sales tax was first imposed by the Scullin Government during the depression, and has been continued by Labour and non-Labour governments from that time until now. Therefore, seeing that the tax is here to stay, we should try to remove some of the features that make it particularly irksome. For instance, all business people resent the fact that there are five different rates of tax, 12i per cent., 20 per cent., 33-J per cent., 50 per cent, and 665 per cent., a fact which imposes a great deal of extra work on clerical staff in the getting out of invoices. The Government should consider the imposition of a two-rate basis of tax, at 25 per cent, and 50 per cent., or whatever percentage it may deem necessary. The imposition of five separate rates is cumbersome and unwieldy.

Many anomalies arise under this legislation which should be remedied without delay. For instance, all biscuits except rice and arrowroot biscuits are subject to tax. For some reason those responsible for the formulation of sales tax schedules appear to be under the mistaken impression that rice and arrowroot biscuits are peculiarly suited as food for babies. Shades of Truby King ! Every modern parent realizes that biscuits are not a healthful food for babies. The stupid exemption of two kinds of biscuits in a long list of such confections is completely unjustified.

Some time ago Senator Willesee very sensibly criticized the imposition of sales tax on ice-blocks made by small shopkeepers as a sideline and sold to children for 1 1/2d. or 2d. each. Senator Willesee pointed out that it would be impossible for any sales tax inspector to estimate the quantity of ice-blocks made by a small shop-keeper. Ice-blocks are usually made by the wife or the mother of a small shop-keeper as part of her contribution to the business. In very few instances are strict records kept concerning the number made. Small shopkeepers have to pay sales tax on the iceblocks sold by them each month. They are registered and given a sales tax number which they must quote when purchasing the ingredients with which the ice-blocks are made. What a stupid rigmarole for the small amount of revenue derived from sales tax on that commodity 1 Ice-blocks should be exempted from tax. Instead, the appropriate tax should be levied on the material from which they are made on purchase from the wholesaler.

Another absurdity in the sales tax legislation is instanced by the imposition of sales tax on certain kinds of small goods made and sold by bakers. The bakers are registered and given sales tax numbers and at the end of each month they have to compute the wholesale value of cakes and buns subject to tax in accordance with a formula worked out by the department. Again, if the ingredients of such cakes and buns were taxed in the hands of the wholesaler much time and expense would be saved and no loss of revenue would be involved.

Some of the interpretations in the sales tax schedules that are issued by the

Taxation Branch are difficult to understand. I have in my hand such a schedule dated the 7th September, 1951. It was brought to my notice by a firm which experienced difficulty in determine ing what rate of sales tax applied to a 16-oz. jar of lemon butter. The schedule reads -

Goods ruled to be exempt:

Lemon butter sold in containers having a content not exceeding 15 oz.

If a container of lemon butter holds 15 oz. it is exempt from tax. The schedule then reads -

Goods ruled not to be exempt:

Lemon butter, and substitutes for lemon butter, sold in bulk, or in containers having a content of 4 lb. or more.

Thus, jars of lemon butter containing not more than 15 oz. are exempt, but a 4-lb. jar is taxable. The question is: What tax is applicable to a 16-oz. jar? Under this iniquitous system the trader does not allow himself to be caught. He charges the tax if he is uncertain whether it should be charged because if the commodity is subject to the tax he is responsible for its payment. Naturally, he takes no risk, and in cases of doubt adds the tax. Anomalies of that kind which are apparent right throughout the tax schedules could be remedied by the use of a little bit of common sense. Recently, to the gratification of taxpayers generally, the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) decided to institute desirable simplifications in income tax returns that had been recommended by the expert committee on taxation. He should consider the desirability of referring these glaring sales tax anomalies to the committee for consideration and report. These stupidities should be ended.

Senator Cormack:

– These bureaucratic stupidities!

Senator HENTY:

– I am grateful to Senator Cormack for his more precise description of them. Obviously, many of these anomalies have arisen because the schedules have been prepared by persons who have no practical business experience and consequently no knowledge of the additional work that their blunderings have imposed on the business community.

In order to illustrate the extreme difficulty experienced by traders in interpreting the sales tax schedules, I direct attention to the tax imposed on mixed, fruits used for Christmas puddings. On one particular line the sales tax applies to 12% per cent, of 12i per cent, of the value of the contents. The tax on another line applies to 12$ per cent, of 10 per cent, of the value of the contents. In each case the tax due is dependent upon the quantity of peel and almondsin the package of mixed fruit. Th, Commissioner of Taxation should remember that traders who have to assist the Government in the collection of sales tax revenue are not “ Mandrakes “ but ordinary human beings. Anomalies of the kind to which I have directed attention should be remedied without delay. .

It is entirely unfair to ask one section of the community to act as the unpaid tax collectors of the Government. Sales tax which is collected by registered wholesale houses, is payable on the 21st of each month. Many wholesale houses employ large numbers of clerks to compute the tax and to furnish returns and collections of tax to the Commissioner. For that work they receive no reimbursement whatever. As the number of items on which sales tax is imposed grows larger, the work of computing tax increases. Many wholesale houses are operating under credit restrictions imposed by the central bank. A great deal of the sales tax debited in their customers’ accounts is not collected by them for one or two months after it has been paid. Some allowance should be paid to them for this work and the losses involved in it. The Government should consider remedying these injustices in the legislation as soon as possible.

I return to the theme upon which 1 commenced my speech. The purpose of increased sales tax is to divert labour and materials from less essential to more essential, industries. The Government has made no bones about that. We must protect those essential and basic industries upon which our defence preparations are founded. If we do not protect our basic industries less essential industries will inevitably go to the wall. I am wholeheartedly in accord with the Government’s decision to raise additional revenue from the sales tax, first, to underwrite the loan programmes of the States and, secondly, to divert labour and materials from non-essential to essential industries to enable us to increase our defence potential.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

– An examination of all forms of taxation provides a very interesting study. If we follow the course of taxation from the days when the rate of income tax was Id. or 2d. in the £1 up to the present we shall learn very much about the subject. In periods of war the governments of the day had to raise funds to meet the exigencies of war, and income tax and other forms of taxation were introduced. The sales tax was not introduced until August, 1930. It was introduced by the Australian Government in a period when the budgets of all the governments resulted in deficits. In that period there were substantial increases in all forms of taxation and particularly in income tax, customs and excise. That was the atmosphere in which the sales tax was introduced in Australia. The tax was first imposed at the rate of 2-J per cent., but in less than twelve months it was increased to 6 per cent. Honorable senators may deduce from that increase that it was found to be such a promoter of funds that an increase was inevitable. As economic conditions improved, the rate was decreased to 5 per cent, and then to 4 per cent, but in 1938 it rose against to 5 per cent. In 1939 it was 6 per cent, and in 1940 it was raised to 8$ per cent. Late in 1940 the Government adpoted a method of imposing different rates of sales tax according to whether the goods were necessities or luxuries. The maximum rate of sales tax had risen to 15 per cent, in 1940 and then it rose to 20 per cent, in 1941 and to 25 per cent, in 1942. In 1950 the maximum rate was raised to 33$ per cent, but the bill under discussion proposes to lift that maximum to 66$ per cent. That is a brief history of the sales tax in Australia. As a member of the Australian Labour party I believe that the principle underlying the sales tax is a bad one. It is unfair. The policy of the Australian Labour party in respect of the sales tax is in line with abolition.

Senator Wright:

– What does the honorable senator mean by “ in line with “?

Senator BENN:

– It is opposed definitely to the sales tax. Its platform provides for the repeal of the tax. The sales tax was introduced in the depression years and was continued through the years of rehabilitation into war-time. When the war had to be financed, the governments of the day found that an increase of sales tax was essential. Their purpose was two-fold. First, they needed funds and secondly they wanted to divert from non-essential industries materials which were required in essential industry. The bad principle of the sales tax is that it entirely disregards ability to pay. The income of the individual is ignored. As Senator Henty has pointed out, sales tax is related to wholesale values and to prices.. The wholesaler or the manufacturer is required to calculate the sales, tax. For the buying public, that is where the sales tax begins and from that point the price rises. A young girl in her first job who wants to buy a handbag with her small wages has to pay the same rate of sales tax as the wealthiest, woman in the land. That is unfair. Another bad feature is the collection of the tax. In this community the great majority of traders are honest but there are also business adventurers. Is the Government sure that all the sales tax collected in the community is properly accounted for to the Taxation Branch? Frequently the press reports that persons have been fined for neglecting to pay sales tax. The season is always open for business adventurers. Senator Henty mentioned the hardships imposed on merchants and others who are required to collect sales tax. That is not a. new responsibility. They have carried it for years. Senator Henty made it appear that the merchants and the manufacturers had to account for sales tax and had to bear the expense of the staff employed to collect and account for it. Surely Senator Henty did not ask the Senate to believe that statement in its entirety. Every merchant and manufacturer has a costing system and every cost in the collection of tax has to be written into the price that he will charge for his goods. Finally the public has to meet that charge. It does not matter whether they are employed privately or by the Taxation Branch. The public pay the wages. Sales tax increases the cost of living whether the item concerned is in the “ C “ series index or not. The very existence of sales tax means a higher cost of living because all forms of taxation go on to the price that is paid by the public. The second schedule to the bill sets out that a. sales tax of 20 per cent, is applicable to - motor cars designed primarily and principally for the transport of persons, including sedans, coupes, tourers, roadsters, taxi-cabs, station wagons and estate cars but not including panel vans, delivery vans, utilities, hearses, jeeps, trucks, lorries, or motor buses.

The Government thought that by inflicting a rate of 20 per cent, sales tax on motor cars, the cost of living would not be affected. Did it disregard entirely the use of cars by commercial travellers and others engaged in the distribution of goods and commodities? Those costs have to be borne by the public. The second schedule to the ‘bill also refers to confectionery, including pop-corn, confectionery novelties, crystallized fruit and other items. They all yield a sales tax of 20 per cent. Such a tax may be warranted in certain periods but this is not a time when pop-corn and other sweets should have to bear such a high rate of sales “tax.

Visitors from overseas occasionally speak of Australia as a nation that is backward culturally. Recently a lecturer speaking in Brisbane said there was a low level of appreciation of culture in this country. On examining the schedule this bill, honorable senators will find that musical instruments and instruments for hands and orchestras bear a sales tax of 25 per cent. How is culture to be encouraged if it is to be so heavily taxed? The schedule also provides for a sales tax at the rate of 33$ per cent, on watches of various kinds. Some watches are not taxable to that degree but there is little choice of watches on the market to-day and the average purchaser is required to pay sales tax of 33$ per cent. A watch is a necessity. There is scarcely a calling that does not require the use of a watch.

Fountain pens and propelling pencils are to attract the same rate of tax. In other words, a taxpayer who needs a new fountain pen to write a cheque to meet his income tax assessment for the current year will have to pay 33$ per cent, sales tax on that pen. Also in the fourth schedule are handbags, evening bags, purses, shopping bags, &c. Earlier in my speech I revealed the unfair incidence of the sales tax. The imposition of a tax of 33$ per cent, on these essential items is an illustration of my argument. Purses surely are necessities for women. Even if a woman is only going for a tram ride she has to take 3s. or 4s. with her in these days of inflation. A similar rate of tax will be payable on yachts, skiffs, dinghies, launches, speedboats, canoes and other watercraft for pleasure, sport or recreation. I remind the Government that many watercraft are used for fishing purposes. By supplementing their larders with fish, boatowners can ease to some degree at least the heavy demand for meat in the country. Some discrimination should have been shown in imposing sales tax on boats, or, better still, boats should have been left out of the schedule altogether.

The fourth schedule also includes “ equipment, apparatus and accessories of a kind used exclusively or primarily and principally in indoor or outdoor sports and games, gymnastics, athletics and physical culture . . .” The equipment to which the tax will apply includes guns, rifles and ammunition, surfoplanes, surf skis and surf boards. Surely the improvement of the physical standards of our younger generation is a matter of some importance to this country. We have special organizations charged with the task of improving national fitness, yet here we have a government that is doing its utmost to prevent the youth of this country from becoming physically fit. ] point out, too, that guns and rifles can also be used to augment the food supply. For that reason they might well have been exempted from the sales tax. I am rather surprised that no protest against the application of such a high rate of sales tax to guns and rifles has been made by members of the Country party on behalf of primary producers who require firearms to exterminate pests.

The imposition of sales tax on surf skis and surfboards is hard to understand in view of the need for such equipment for shark patrols and surf rescue work at beaches throughout the Commonwealth. Those items, too, should have been allowed to remain tax free. Item No, 14 in the fourth schedule is “ Toys and parts for toys, Christmas stockings and Christmas crackers “. Surely the Government is getting down to the Scrooge level when it inflicts such a high rate of tales tax on those goods. Games and puzzles also are included. All of us remember the pleasure that we had in our childhood days from games such as ludo, snakes and ladders, and draughts. Are the children of to-day to be denied the pleasure of sitting around the fireside on cold nights playing those games? Are they to ‘be driven to race-courses or startingprice shops for their recreation? The 834 per cent, rate will apply also to mouth organs, harmonicas, flageolets, or jews’ harps and other musical instruments. Such instruments are, of course, used mainly by the children of working people. One seldom sees the child of a wealthy family playing a mouth organ. Such children have pianos.

T come now to the fifth schedule, which specifies the goods to which sales tax shall be applied at the rate of 50 per cent. They include toilet and beauty preparations and materials. No one can say that these things are luxuries in 1951. Over the years, womenfolk have become accustomed to using ‘them. The average husband would find it very difficult indeed to persuade his wife that beauty preparations were luxuries and should be done without. In hot climates particularly items such as powders, are necessities. In the same schedule we find safety razors and safety razor blades. Does the Government want Australian men to be a hairy race like their prehistoric ancestors? Perhaps honorable senators opposite think that if Australian taxpayers are encouraged to let their hair grow over their eyes they will no longer be able to see what the Government is up to. Finally [ come to the articles which will carry the highest rate of sales tax, namely, 66§ per cent. They include jewellery and fancy goods, including imitation jewellery. I have never had much use for imitation jewellery but there are many young people in the community who like to adorn themselves with it. 1 remember reading some years ago of a woman who appeared in certain bankruptcy proceedings. When she was asked to state what jewellery she had, she said that, as she was known as an extremely wealthy woman she could wear imitation jewellery because everybody thought thai it was real. Many people like to adorn themselves with artificial jewellery but in future such jewellery will carry sales tax at the rate of 66f per cent. The final item with which I wish to deal is Item 3 of the Sixth Schedule, which includes party decorations and party novelties. I am wondering how honorable senators, opposite will appear if they hold a party on some future occasion. What kind of party caps will Ministers choose? One may wear a cap depicting gloom. Another may prefer one symbolizing smugness; but most fitting of all, in view of the provisions of this measure, will be the headdress of buccaneers.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Western Australia

– The Government sales tax proposals were referred to so fully during the debate on the Estimates and budget papers that very little can be added at this stage. To deal with individual items as Senator Benn has done i? a waste of time. People can read these things for themselves. In any case, most of the items to which he referred are not necessities and the Australian people can avoid the impositions that those goods carry, if they so wish. I agree with the large number of Australian women who believe that indirect taxes, spread over the whole community, provide an excellent means not only to halt inflation but also to provide the budget surplus that is so desirable. Senator Henty made the point that the Australian Government had promised to underwrite loans to the States for developmental works, and that that could only be done by means of a budget surplus. Therefore, there is no need for me to enlarge on that point. Senator Hendrickson, who was ably supported by Senator Benn, presented a dismal picture of the downtrodden Australian people, labouring under the burden of the sales tax. Whilst I realize that honorable senators opposite have not a very high opinion of economists generally, I shall quote the views of one authority, Mr. E. J. Donath of the faculty of Commerce and Economics of the University of Melbourne. In an article published in the Melbourne Sun Pictorial of the 2oth November, Mr. Donath asks the very sensible question, “ Are we living better than we were in 1939?”. Then he proceeds-

The answer is yes - amd by quite a good margin.

If you do not believe Mr. Menzies and the figures of the Com mon wealth Statistician, I can give you other strong indications that, compared with 1930, the standard of living has risen.

Although population has increased only by 20 per cent, there are now 875,000 motor cars registered - that is an increase of more than CO per cent, since pre-war. The number of motor cycles has nearly doubled, a sure sign of the vastly improved purchasing power of “ juniors “.

Last year we ate, per head, twice as much lamb as pre-war, 60 per cent, more tomatoes, 20 per cent, more butter, 30 per cent, more milk and milk products, 10 per cent, more fresh fruits, &c. Not to mention our consumption of beer, which has gone up by 50 per cent, per head, and of wine, which has trebled.

Our intake of energy values in calories per head per day was already, pre-war, one of the highest in the world. Now it is 3,231 calories per day - an increase of nearly 4 per cent.

There is no doubt that the number of household aids which used to be considered luxuries has steadily increased; washing machines, vacuum cleaners, refrigerators and radiograms can be seen in far more homes than pre-war.

Another indication is the attendance at races, sports meetings and films - which certainly has not gone down. The number of students at the universities has more than doubled, and expensive public schools have long waiting lists, although their .fees have increased very considerably.

Yet another indication is that the number of broadcast listeners’ licences has nearly doubled, and savings bank deposits have risen about 3i times - surely the value of the pound has not declined 34 times.

Nominally our incomes have gone up about 2£ times. There are, of course, large variations within the population. Last year woolgrowers earned nearly 15 times as much as in 1939, while farming income as a whole was six-fold.

By now you may believe that the Commonwealth Statistician has correctly calculated that the “ real “ wage of the wage and salary earner has risen by about one-quarter.

In other words, we can buy about onequarter of commodities more than in 1939, and it must not be forgotten that this has been gained in spite of the desirable shorter working week.

Nobody is unemployed to-day, whilst we still remember the many thousands of unfortunates in 1939, when one in ten of the trade union members was out of work.

I could add many more indications of our somewhat higher standard of living. Why. then is there such a widely spread feeling of frustration? Why does one hear so often that we were better off before the war?

This tax is being spread over the whole community. As Senator Benn has stated, and as I have said before, people do not need to buy luxury goods. However, I must record my protest once more about the imposition of sales tax on certain items of household goods that have been classed as luxuries. Refrigerators, sewing machines and cleaning machines are not luxuries. As domestic help is practically non est in this country, the housewives are entitled to them. They should not be placed beyond the reach of the housewives. I consider that the Treasurer (.Sir Arthur Fadden) would have been well advised, also, to exclude toilet accessories for men, women, and babies from sales tax. No man likes to go about looking like the great unshaven. He likes to be nice and neat and clean. No woman likes to go about without colour on her cheeks, and no baby likes to be uncomfortable because of the scant use of baby powder. In the interests of the morale of OU: people I hope that the Treasurer will review the incidence of sales tax on these items in due course. I consider that the imposition of sales tax on cultural items, such as musical instruments, photographic equipment and radios will react against the best interests and the education of our people. As Senator Benn rightly pointed out, we are behind other countries culturally, and this will further aggravate the position. However, having regard to the prevailing conditions, and having registered my protest about the imposition of sales tax on certain articles, I support the bill.

Motion (by Senator MoLeay) put -

That the question be now put.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 29

NOES: 17

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 29

NOES: 18

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

page 2749

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formallyput the question -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question put. The Senate divided. (The President -Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 19

NOES: 29

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2750

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS ) BILL 1951

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Classification of goods).

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– This clause dennes “container “ in relation to goods. Will the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) state whether it also refers to hessian, bags or paper? My reason for inquiring is that brown paper bags are used extensively, even for the carriage of such commodities as cement. Can the Minister explain whether the exemption extends to paper bags?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– This provision is necessary in order to ensure that where goods are sold in containers, tax will be paid on the containers at the same rate as that which applies to the goods inside the containers. The tax is not applicable to paper bags or paper wrapping, but would apply to hessian, cardboard or timber. Paper bags and wrapping paper are the only exceptions. The honorable senator has referred to the fact that cement is sold in paper containers. I point out that the cement itself is not taxable.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (First schedule).

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Paragraph (i) of this clause proposes to amend the first schedule lo the principal act as follows: - by omitting items 107 and 107a and inserting in their stead the following item : - “107. (1) Exposed or developed films which are imported into Australia and represent dramatic or Australian subjects, but not including films suitable for use only with home cinematographs.

I should like to know exactly what it intended by this amendment? Will it affect professional photographers? If such a photographer takes, for instance, a photograph of a wedding group, will the film that he uses be exempt from sales tax ? I point out that such a photographer might use a big studio camera.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– The amendment relates to motion picture films only and is confined to the allowance of exemption on educational films made in Australia. Formerly, the exemption of educational films was confined to those which were imported into Australia and certified by the Chief Commonwealth Films Censor as being of an educational nature. Similar films are now made in Australia, and the object of the amendment is to extend the exemption to such films and thereby remove an anomaly.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– Paragraph (/) of this clause proposes to amend the first schedule to the principal act by adding at the end of item 75 the following sub-item : -

  1. Goods for use (whether as goods or in some other form ) , and not for sale, by society, institution or organization which is established and carried on exclusively or principally for the promotion of competitive sport among the students of universities, or of schools which are conducted by organizations not carried on for the profit of an individual

Would the Minister explain whether racing boats used by rowing clubs, although not used exclusively for the training of university or public school students, would come within the exemption?

Senator SPOONER:

– The answer is No “.

Senator FRASER:
Western Australia

– Paragraph (g) proposes to amend the first schedule to the principal act by omitting sub-item (1) of item 81 and inserting in its stead the following sub-item : -

  1. Goods for use (whether as goods or in some other form) , and not for sale, by -

    1. a public hospital;
    2. a hospital which is carried on by a society or association otherwise than forthe purpose of profit or gain to the individual members of the society or association;
    3. a public benevolent institution; or
    4. a public organization which the Commissioner is satisfied is established and maintained for the relief of unemployed persons

I should like the Minister to explain whether the amendment will apply to a private hospital or a semi-private hospital which is subsidized by the Government. He is no doubt aware that certain hospitals arc not approved hospitals as far as the Commonwealth contribution is concerned. Is it intended that such hospitals shall receive the same sales tax concessions as public hospitals receive?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– With one addition, the paragraph is expressed in the same way as it appears in the principal act. That addition will have the effect of exempting from sales tax the requirements of private hospitals which are not conducted for profit. The test to determine exemption or otherwise is whether the hospital is conducted for profit or not. If it is a private hospital, which is conducted by the matron or the proprietor for the purpose of making a profit, it must pay sales tax on the goods which it purchases. If, however, it is a hospital conducted by a religious body or a community group, not for the purpose of making a profit, it will receive the same benefit in regard to sales tax as public hospitals receive.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Repeal and substitution of certain schedules).

Senator PIESSE:
Western Australia

.- Item 12 of the fourth schedule includes ammunition. Some primary producers use ammunition in large quantities for the destruction of vermin, and I ask the Minister to consider remitting sales tax on ammunition used for this purpose.

Senator RYAN:
South Australia

– I direct the attention of honorable senators to item 12 of the fourth schedule -

Equipment, apparatus and accessories of a kind used exclusively or primarily and prin cipally in indoor or outdoor sports and games, gymnastics, athletics and physical culture.

Sales tax on sporting equipment has been increased from 8 per cent. to 33 per cent. I am particularly concerned about equipment used in playing cricket, and I believe that the Government was wrongly advised by its experts when it decided to increase the tax on this material. The Minister, in his second-reading speech on the bill, said -

Tax at the rate of 33 per cent. will be payable in respect of wireless sets, radiograms, gramophones and gramophone records, which previously have been taxed at the rate of 25 per cent., but musical instruments generally remain subject to tax at the present rate of 25 per cent. Equipment for sports and games, toys and associated articles which have hitherto borne tax at the general rate will also be subject to the rate of 33 per cent.

Cricket is a game in which most Australians participate either as players or spectators. It is our national game, yet it has been singled out by the Government for vicious and discriminatory taxation. I have here a letter written by the South Australian Cricket Association to the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) protesting against the increased tax. The letter, which is dated the 2nd November, 1951, is as follows: -

The committee of this association for itself, and on behalf of its member clubs, affiliated clubs, and the many thousands of cricketers throughout the State of South Australia, submits a respectful protest against the drastic increase of 25 per cent. in the sales tax on equipment used in connexion with outdoor sports and games generally. This applies particularly to the effect the impost will have upon cricket, which is possibly the hardest hit of all athletic sports in that the cost of cricket equipment (under reasonable trading conditions probably the most expensive of all field games in which the average use of the country participates) is at the present time almost prohibited.

Attached is an article taken from Adelaide Advertiser of November 1st, which emphasises this point. The figures quoted in this article are for top-class material and apply more particularly to the outfitting of an individual at his own expense. Even allowing for the fact that junior clubs use cheaper material and that some measure of relief in the way of discounts is given to such clubs, it will be readily seen what a tremendously increased burden has been imposed upon such bodies already labouring under the handicap of current inflationary prices without having to combat such a substantial increase as that recently imposed through taxation channels in providing the equipment essential to a continuance of their activities.

If the .present position is maintained it simply means that cricket and other healthy outdoor sport will languish and the youth of the community unable to afford participation in games which are taxed as “ luxuries “ and priced beyond their means, will be forced to spend their leisure hours in ways far less conducive to the health-giving and characterforming attributes associated with clean healthy sport.

To my committee it seems very regrettable that a government which on one hand gives its blessing and financial assistance to movements having for their object the promotion of the physical fitness of its young people, should on the other hand impose financial hardships to the point of the risk of extinction - upon the activities of the great army of honorary workers who give their time and energies to the cause of physical fitness by the encouragement of participation in healthy recreation by the young men and women of the country.

It is earnestly asked that the Commonwealth Government will give this matter its further consideration and that the former 8A per cent, tax levy will not be exceeded.

Yours faithfully,

H. Jeanes, Secretary,

South Australian Cricket Association Incorporated.

Ministers have praised the compulsory military training scheme which, they say, has greatly benefited trainees, both physically and mentally. No doubt that is true, but no one can deny that outdoor games such as cricket have also contributed to the physical and mental improvement of our young people. Therefore, I cannot understand why the Government has, by increasing sales tax on sporting equipment, placed it practically beyond the reach of a great many people. The tax on musical instruments has not been increased, whereas the tax on sporting equipment has been increased by 25 per cent. I hope that the Government will reconsider its decision, and that it will not hamper by unduly high taxation indulgence in healthy and characterbuilding sports.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

, - In the Second Schedule, item 1 includes -

Motor cars designed primarily and principally for the transport of persons, including sedans, coupes, tourers, roadsters, taxi-cabs, station wagons and estate cars, but not including panel vans, delivery vans, utilities, hearses, jeeps, trucks, lorries, or motor buses.

In Tasmania, there is a big tourist trade in which a number of ex-servicemen participate, using ordinary motor cars in which they carry from five to six passengers. They are competing against firms which use buses that carry ten or twelve passengers. The ex-servicemen have to pay the increased sales tax on their vehicles, whereas the tourist firms, which use buses, are exempt. I ask the Government to consider placing the exservicemen in a special category in view of their contribution to the tourist trade.

Senator PIESSE:
Western Australia

.- Item 3 of the Second Schedule includes ice-blocks. I understand that there are two kinds of ice-blocks, and I should like to know what kind is covered in this item. The increased tax was placed on ice-cream in order to divert milk from ice-cream to milk for making butter. There are two varieties of iceblocks, the one most popularly in demand being made purely of water and fruit juice. Why should sales tax be imposed upon such a confection? It seems absurd that the Government should impose a tax on water and fruit juices.

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Second Schedule includes confectionery, including popcorn, ice cream, ice-blocks and semi-frozen comestibles and mixtures from which those goods are made, ice-cream cones, cups and wafers. Undoubtedly, the Government desires to extract the utmost from every possible source of revenue. It does not even give the kiddies a chance ! Will the Minister state whether ice-blocks made by the ordinary housewife, simply by freezing water in a refrigerator, and ice-blocks made by shopkeepers consisting of water and fruit juices, are subject to tax? How does the Government propose to ascertain the quantity of iceblocks that are made by small shopkeepers, and how does it propose to collect the tax on them ? Does it intend to appoint a team of inspectors to ascertain how many ice-blocks are made by each small shopkeeper? It should be a little realistic and remove ice-blocks from the schedule altogether.

Senator SEWARD:
Western Australia

– I support the request made by Senator Piesse for the exemption of ammunition used for the. destruction of vermin. If that item were deleted from the schedule no great loss of revenue would be involved and a considerable benefit would be conferred on primary producers in Western Australia. Western Australia is different from the -closely settled States of New South Wales and Victoria. It has a very lengthy border which must be protected from the entry of vermin particularly of kangaroos, emus and foxes. The only effective way to prevent vermin from entering farms is by shooting. Emus can ruin a crop in one night. Primary producers living near the border protect not only their own properties but also the properties of other primary producers located at some distance from the border. If the Minister can see his way clear to grant this small benefit to Western Australian primary producers he will make a very large contribution to the efforts which they are making to rid the State of vermin. I warmly commend the proposal to his consideration.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

.- Item 12 (g) in the Fourth Schedule covers goods for installation as fixtures in public playgrounds for children. I should like to know what goods are covered by the item.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– In the Fourth Schedule, item 8 covers inter alia shopping and knitting bags. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the fact that shopping bags are extensively used by women to carry home their purchases because in these days few shopkeepers deliver goods. The tax on those items is to be increased by 33$ per cent., whereas the tax on motor cars is to be increased by only 20 per cent. The owner of a motor oar is not compelled to carry home his or her purchases in shopping bags. Why should such a differentiation be made, having regard to the fact that shopping bags are a necessity for most housewives ? The same remarks apply to knitting hags. Those who travel in public conveyances will see many young persons carrying knitting bags containing articles of attire and the like in the making. Why should these two items be subject to such a steep increase of tax? “

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

1 11.7] . - This is a set of circumstances in which I am, in truth, an Aunt Sally. It is easy for honorable senators to criticize individual items in the schedules. I remind them that all of those items have been included in the schedules throughout the years and variations have been made in the tax imposed on them from time to time. Honorable senators cannot consider the tax applicable to a specific item without looking at the background of the whole proposal. It is fair for me to say that, even though the ink on the budget is scarcely dry, it has already had a profound effect on the economy of Australia. It has already gone a considerable distance in checking inflation.

Opposition senators interjecting.

Senator SPOONER:

– J know that that state of affairs very much discourages honorable senators opposite, who do not like to see the Government succeeding in doing a good job for Australia. It is not given to us to foresee what will be the end result of the inflationary spiral, but it is now generally accepted, even by members of the Opposition in their inmost hearts, that the budget represents a good and solid move in the direction of stemming inflation.

I should much sooner stand up and take credit for having reduced taxes than have to bear the odium of having to explain why taxes should be increased. The economic circumstances of Australia irresistibly led to the necessity for imposing increased taxation. With the sales tax as with other forms of taxes we have followed what we consider to be the right policy.

I shall endeavour to deal with the points raised by honorable senators as far as T am able to do so. Senator Piesse, and Senator Seward ref erred to the desirability of exempting from sales tax ammunition used by primary producers for the destruction of vermin. I understand that a similar proposal was made in another place and that although the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) would not agree to delete the item from the schedule, he gave an assurance that he would carefully examine the proposal in order to ascertain whether it was administratively possible to assist in the desired direction.

Senator Ryan is obviously a cricket enthusiast. I assure him that despite the increases of sales tax on sporting materials the game of cricket will continue. What he has said about cricket could be said as equally effectively by enthusiasts in other forms of sport for the exemption of the sporting goods in which they are interested. The increase of sales tax on sporting materials from 8$ per cent, to 33;V per cent, brings the rate applied in this country on a parity with that applicable in Great Britain. There was no diminution of cricketing activities in Great Britain as a result of the increase on sales tax on cricketing materials in that country and I am sure that Australian cricketers will not be deterred by this proposal.

Senator O’Byrne referred to the tax on certain motor vehicles used in the tourist trade. I admit that in principle, there should be no difference between the tax imposed on vehicles used in the provision of the same kind of service. I shall bring his observations to the notice of the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden), with a request that they be examined.

Senator Piesse and Senator Nash, referred to the tax on ice-blocks made of water and fruit juices. Senator Nash asked whether tax is imposed on ice-blocks made by a good housewife in her own home. Ice-blocks made by a housewife for her own use and for the use of ho family are, of course, exempt from the tax. Ice-blocks made by shopkeepers for sale come under the general description of confectionery. The difficulties that arise in the collection of the tax will be no greater under this legislation than they were under the legislation that has operated in the past. Over the years, the departmental officers have gained a wealth of administrative experience in these matters. It is not possible to pick out one item and say that particular diffi-

Senator Spooner culties will arise in connexion with it. The experience of the departmental officers is sufficiently wide to cover all items.

Senator O’Flaherty was off the track when he referred to the imposition of sales tax on goods for installation as fixtures in public playgrounds for children. If the honorable senator will read the schedule more carefully he will see that such goods are specifically exempt from tax.

Senator Ashley referred to the increased tax on shopping and knitting bags. Representations were made in regard to those items about twelve months ago, when the sales tax legislation was under consideration. That the tax on them has not been increased, when it has been increased on so many other items, show3 that the Government has at least given some consideration to views of the kind that were expressed by the honorable senator.

Senator FRASER:
Western Australia

– The Minister has spoken of the steps that have been taken by the Government to halt inflation. His views upon that subject are not shared by some of the banking institutions of this country. If this Government went to the country to-morrow on the measure that is before the committee it would be annihilated. The Government kept its promise to give the mothers of Australia an increase of 5s. in child endowment for the first child but it has taken it all backthrough the sales tax. Perhaps the Minister will state whether the term “ toys “ includes child’s comforters and teething rings ?

Senator Spooner:

– The answer is “ No “.

Senator AYLETT (Tasmania) [11.17 j. - Honorable senators on this side of the chamber are endeavouring to get information at the committee stage because an opportunity was denied them on the second reading. The Minister has stated that this budget has already had a profound effect. That is true, especially as it affects the working people and those who have to buy cars to get to their places of work. Tens of thousands would not be able to get to work without cars.

Senator Spooner:

– Tens of thousands of people could not afford cars when the honorable senator’s party was in power.

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

– When the Labour Government was in power this country was facing the gravest crisis in its history and all our efforts were concentrated on saving the country and the skin of the Minister. In the second schedule, item 1, the Government has given the worst example of class distinction that has come before the Parliament. It has not raised the sales tax on utility vehicles because they are good enough for the worker to use to ride to work or for a man to take his kiddies for a ride. I.f he wants to ride in decent comfort he has to pay sales tax on a. car. In the past the working man found that a tourer was the cheapest form of motor car but even that is not free of the higher sales tax. The working man can have the privilege of riding in a hearse because that is not regarded as a pleasure ride but at the rate inflation is progressing a ride in a hearse will be a pleasure. The Minister has claimed that the budget is anti-inflationary. On the contrary, it has increased the rate of inflation. Every time the sales tax is raised, inflation must become worse.

Senator Seward:

– I rise to order. I am new to the procedure of this chamber, but is an honorable senator permitted to make a second-reading speech at the committee stage, when he should be asking for information? My point is that the honorable senator is out of order because he is delivering a second-reading speech.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reid:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– As long as the honorable senator keeps to the item under discussion, he will be in order.

Senator AYLETT:

– The committee is considering motor cars. I claim that the item should not be in the bill at all and F am giving my reasons for doing so. A wealthy man can ride in comfort in a motor car, but if a man is not in a position to pay for a motor car he must travel by tram or ride a bicycle or walk to work.

Senator Henty:

– Motor cars are cheaper now than’ they have been for months.

Senator AYLETT:

– I inquired about the price of motor cars recently and found that they have gone up by about £1G0. If the honorable senator can tell the committee where a new motor car can be bought at a reduced price, honorable senators would be pleased to get the information. Even if they were cheaper, that does not justify the Government in increasing the sales tax. It even proposes to increase the sales tax on station wagons which cart in produce. Every time the sales tax is increased on such vehicles inflation becomes worse because the price to the consumer is increased. The Government claims that only luxury goods are subject to sales tax. Is preserved ginger a luxury? It is a food used in every kitchen.

Senator Piesse:

– We can do without it.

Senator AYLETT:

– There are many things the honorable senator can do without, but he has enough money to enable him to avoid denying himself. He does not care about the person who has no money. I suppose that he will say that, the little kiddies can do without their ice-cream and their ice-blocks. They are the luxuries on which the Government is imposing extra sales tax! It is not content with taxing wealthy men and women who can fight for themselves, and so it deprives the innocent little children, who cannot defend themselves, of ice creams. Can honorable senators imagine anything more miserable? Perhaps contemptible would be the correct word to use. It shows to what depths the Government will go when the Minister states that the budget has had a profound effect already. Of course it has. The poor little child who goes to buy an ice cream knows that. So does the man who buys a motor car. The Government attacks every child who goes to school by taxing school requisites. I worked hard to give my son an education and I know how difficult the struggle is for the working class. This unsympathetic Government virtually says, “We know that you and your wife are going without pleasures so that you can give your children an education but nevertheless we will slap a little more sales tax on the school requisites “. That is “the profound effect” that the budget is having on the community. The Government should adjourn the debate and go through the schedule again to ascertain if some of these goods could not be freed of sales tax. It is no excuse to say that the Government must have money. It has planned for a surplus of £114,500,000. There is no need to tax the kiddies’ ice creams and pencils. When the Government taxes fishing requisites it is driving at an industry that the Labour Government did its best to foster. Now this Government is trying to kill the fishing industry. The higher sales tax on fishing equipment will, of course, be passed on by the fishermen, and will be reflected in the higherprices for fish.

Senator Spooner:

– The item does not refer to equipment used by professional fishermen.

Senator AYLETT:

– I am going on what is in the bill. I have spoken of the difficulties that working people are having to-day in educating their children.

Senator Spooner:

– I thought that the honorable senator was talking about fishing?

Senator AYLETT:

– I am pointing out that the increased cost of fishing equipment will be reflected ultimately in higher living costs.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

Motion (by Senator Spicer) put -

That the questionbe now put.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Reid.)

AYES: 27

NOES: 18

Majority . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the clause stand as printed.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Reid.)

AYES: 27

NOES: 18

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment;, report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Spooner) proposed -

That thebill be now read a third time.

Senator RYAN (.South Australia) 1 1 1.43]. - In reply to my earlier representations, the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) said that he could not guarantee that there would be any reduction of the sales tax on cricket equipment, and that, despite my protestations the game of cricket would probably continue to be as popular as ever. That reply was typical of the self-assured expressions that enamate from the ministerial bench in answer to submissions made from this side of the chamber. I should like to know why the taxation eagles have decided that the sales tax on cricket equipment should be raised so drastically from 8$ per cent, to 33$ per cent. Clearly, cricket has been deemed to be a luxury pastime and, consequently, sporting materials used in connexion with cricket, are regarded by the Government as nonessential. I challenge the Government to submit the matter to the test by holding a. referendum. A malicious and vicious attack has been made on this sport. Gear used in connexion with cricket is to be taxed at a higher rate- than gear used in connexion with other sports. The Minister endeavoured to raise a smokescreen by stating that equipment used in connexion with cricket in Great Britain-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! When speaking to the motion for the third reading of a bill it is only permissible for an honorable senator to advance reasons why the bill should, or should not be read a third time. He may not refer to an aspect that was considered at the committee stage.

Senator RYAN:

– I humbly submit that I am advancing reasons why the bill should not be read a third time. Equipment used for cricket is included in the schedule to the bill. The Minister’s reply to my representations was not satisfactory.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator admits that he dealt with this aspect of the matter at the committee stage. Therefore, as I have already ruled, he may not proceed on his present line.

Senator RYAN:

– J. bow to your ruling, Mr. President. However, I should like to support my assertion that equipment used in cricket is more costly than is equipment used in connexion with other athletic sports. All my life I have been actively associated with cricket.

Senator Scott:

– I rise to order! The honorable senator is merely repeating what he said at the committee stage.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I have already advised the honorable senator that he may not deal with matters that were discussed at the committee stage. I have allowed him a certain amount of latitude. If the honorable senator can advance any reason why the bill should, or should not be read a. third time, he may proceed.

Senator Critchley having risen in his place,

Senator RYAN:

– I consider that the bill should be rejected because of its iniquitous provisions. Undue hardship will be imposed on the community. Sales tax is to be imposed on many articles that were not included in the previous schedule of articles subject to sales tax. That will force up the cost of living in no uncertain manner. Heavy indirect taxation is to be imposed in relation to many items that are needed by the workers of this country. The rate of sales tax on a number of articles has been increased from 8$ per cent, to 12$ per cent. In 1949 the former Labour Government reduced the general rate of sales tax from 12$ per cent, to 8$ per cent. This Government definitely promised the people that it would reduce indirect taxation.

Senator Wright:

– I rise to order! I draw attention to Standing Order 421, and re-submit the point of order that was raised by Senator Scott. Hansard will record that what Senator Ryan is now saying is merely a repetition of what he was presumptuous enough to say during the debate on the motion for the second reading of the bill.

The PRESIDENT:

– -Order ! I have already ruled that it is not permissible for an honorable senator, when speaking to the motion for the third reading of a bill, to traverse matter that was dealt with at the committee stage. Unless Senator Ryan can advance reasons why the bill should not be read a third time, I shall not allow him to continue.

Senator Hendrickson:

– I rise to order ! With all deference, Mr. President, are we to understand your ruling to mean that an honorable senator, who has not spoken on the motion for the second reading of a bill, may not, on the motion for the third reading of the measure, discuss any items mentioned in the bill?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! This matter is covered by a ruling given by President Givens, which reads -

On the motion for the third reading it is permissiblefor aSenator to advance reasons why the Bill should or should not be read a third time. He may not bring up a committee matter.

I shall not prevent an honorable senator from speaking on the motion for the third reading of a bill provided that he confines his remarks to a matter that has not been dealt with at the committee stage. Unless Senator Ryan conforms with my ruling, he will be distinctly out of order.

Senator Ashley:

– I rise to order! When Senator Wright rose to a point of order, Senator Ryan was referring to promises that had been made by the Government. That matter was not dealt with at the committee stage. Was not the honorable senator in order?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! There is nothing in the bill about promises made by the Government. Therefore the honorable senator was distinctly out of order.

Senator Ashley:

– But he was dealing with taxation.

The PRESIDENT:

– My ruling will stand.

Senator Kendall:

– I move -

That the question be now put.

Senator Critchley:

– May I speak to the motion, Mr. President? But for a misunderstanding, I would have spoken several minutes ago.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! As a motion has been moved that the question be now put, I have no option but to put the question. The question is-

Senator Fraser:

– I rise to order ! Prior to Senator Kendall moving that the question be now put, a point of order had been raised. Senator Critchley had received the call prior to that motion being moved.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! It is true that Senator Critchley rose, butI called on Senator Ryan to continue.He had remained seated, after my ruling, because of a misunderstanding. We must observe the correct procedure. Therefore, I must put the question-

Senator Fraser:

– Before you put the question, Mr. President, would it not be permissible for Senator Critchley to speak, in view of the fact that he received a call from the Chair prior to the point of order being raised?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Senator Fraser appears to be under a slight misapprehension. Due to a misunderstanding following my ruling, both Senator Ryan and Senator Critchley rose. I permitted Senator Ryan to continue, and Senator Critchley resumed his seat. If we sort this matter out clearly we shall get back on to the running rails again.

Senator Critchley:

– I do not think that I will ever get there.

Senator Grant:

– He is out of order, himself.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Grant, did I understand you to say that I was out of order?

Senator Grant:

– I did, sir.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask you to withdraw that remark unreservedly.

Senator Grant:

– I withdraw it unreservedly.

Wednesday, 28 November 1951

Question put -

That the question be now put.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 18

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a third time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 18

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2759

ADJOURNMENT

Wool

Motion(by SenatorO’Sullivan) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator PIESSE:
Western Australia

– I wish to mention a matter, even at this late hour, because, according to newspaper reports, it seems that the present sessional period will soon end. I have mentioned the subject to which I now wish to refer many times by means of questions in the Senate. I refer to the payment of Joint Organization funds to primary producers who sold their wool during war-time. I appreciate that the Ministers concerned have answered my questions to the best of their ability, and I am grateful for the information that I have been given. Some three or four months ago the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) stated that legislation would be introduced during the current sessional period to enable the payment of such money to be made to persons who have left the industry. A little more than two years ago, £25,000,000 of this money was distributed to growers whose wool was acquired under the war-time legislation. Shortly after that, legal proceedings were commenced in the High Court of Australia because of the fact that buyers who had bought wool privately, and the growers who had sold their wool to them, contend that that they are entitled to the Joint Organization funds. Until that litigation is concluded and the judgment of the High Court is given, the Government considers that no finality can be reached in the matter. It should be remembered, however, that people who sold their wool under the scheme are leaving the industry month by month. It is no exaggeration to say that many of them could very well do with the money. In many instances, they are people who have retired on account of age. Even farmers do not live for ever. I believe that the Government could do something to assist such people by means of an interim payment. I appreciate that nothing can be done now during the present sittings of the Parliament, but the Cabinet will meet after the Parliament rises and I hope that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture will again consider what can be done to make an interim payment to persons who have left the industry.

The Government holds £65,500,000 on behalf of the wool-growers of Australia. The final amount available for distribution will, of course, not be known until the cost of buildings and other installations has been assessed, but I suggest that the Government could easily distribute a portion of that sum. Those who have retired front the industry should be given somepayment, even if only an amount equivalent to that which they received previously. I appreciate that some wool-growers do not want the money this year because it will add to their tax liability, but others do. An equivalent payment to all wool-growers would account for only about £25,000,000. No doubt some people will say that it will not be possible to locate many of those who have left the industry. I suggest that if the Government advertises, either over the air or in the newspapers, the fact that a distribution is to be made, those who are still living will very soon come forth. The executors of deceased estates will also make application. In my opinion, it would not be difficult for the Department of Commerce and Agriculture to ascertain the whereabouts of the persons concerned.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2760

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for - Defence purposes -

Smithfield, South Australia.

Wallangarra, New South Wales.

Department of Civil Aviation purposes -

Cleve, South Australia.

Postal purposes -

Alford, South Australia.

Bordertown, South Australia.

Mallala, South Australia.

Parramatta North, New South Wales.

National Fitness Act - Report for year 1950.

Papua and New Guinea Act- Ordinance - 1951 - No. 41 - Superannuation (Papua and New Guinea) (No. 2).

Public Service Act - Appointments - Department -

National Development - C. Bursill, P. E. Playford.

Supply - J. D. Heinrich.

Sugar Agreement Act - Twentieth Annual Report of the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee, for year ended 31st August, 1951.

Senateadjourned at 12.13 a.m. (Wednesday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 27 November 1951, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1951/19511127_senate_20_215/>.