20th Parliament · 1st Session
The President (Senator the Hon. Et! ward Mattner) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 2842
– I direct a question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Is the report in the press to-day that it is the intention of the Government to consider the sale of the Commonwealth -owned ships correct? If such is the case, will the Minister assure the Senate that Parliament will be consulted before negotiations are completed? “Will the Minister state whether the Government has a mandate from the people to sell these ships?
– Although it is an accepted principle that Ministers do npt reply to questions dealing with Government policy I inform the honorable senator that no decision has been reached on the matter raised by him.
– Has the Minister for Shipping and Transport read a press report to the effect that Cabinet will soon consider the policy that the Government shall adopt in relation to government-owned ships? Will the Minister undertake that, at any Cabinet discussions on this subject, he will impress on his colleagues the urgent necessity to improve the present shipping services between the .ports of Tasmania, King Island, Flinders Island and the ‘mainland? “Will he do all that is possible to improve the present services?
– The matter raised by the honorable senator has already been discussed with officers of my department by Tasmanian members of both Houses of the Parliament. Had it not been for the Communists, .the present problem would not have arisen. If the Labour party would assist the Government to overcome it, to the same degree as it worked for the Communists during the recent referendum campaign, the problem would soon be solved. I cannot comment on government policy beyond informing the
Senate that no decision has yet been reached in connexion with this matter. However, I assure honorable senators, particularly those who represent Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia, which States are experiencing -great difficulties as a result of the shortage of shipping and constant delays in the movement of cargo, that I will do all that I can to see that those States shall receive the shipping services to which they are entitled.
– In view of the unfavorable petrol supply outlook, will the Minister for Shipping and Transport investigate the possibility of transporting motor bodies from South Australia by sea rather than by road to the various States? Is the Minister aware that overseas ships discharging at Adelaide could carry hundreds of motor bodies to Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, at which ports they discharge and pick up cargoes? Such a course would save thousands of gallons of petrol and at the same time would enable proper and permanent repairs to be made to the main highways.
– I am in complete agreement with the suggestion contained in the honorable senator’s question. “Whenever possible, iron ore ships are sent to Port Adelaide to complete their cargoes with motor bodies. The Government has also issued instructions to the Deputy Director of Navigation in each State that permits are to be granted to overseas ships tn assist in the transport of motor bodies. The Government has been able to improve the position, but the shortage of ships around the Australian coast and the slow turnround of ships has made it impossible to arrange for the lifting of all the motor bodies that are available. I assure the honorable senator that permits are granted freely to any overseas ship which is available to take motor bodies to Australian ports if the owners are prepared to do so.
-Should the Government be able to summon up during the forthcoming recess the courage, which obviously it lacks while Parliament is meeting, to dispose of the Commonwealth shipping line, will the Minister for
Shipping and Transport take action to ensure that the important although not highly profitable services provided by the line at present shall he maintained?
– The senator may rest assured that I shall give that matter my personal attention. If he will compare the record of the last two years with that of the previous two years, he will appreciate the fact that the shipping services in this country have improved substantially.
– I ask the Attorney-General whether the Minister for Shipping and Transport has conferred with him about the Communist sabotage of shipping which, he claims, is occurring at various ports throughout the Commonwealth? If so, how many shipping hold-ups have been established as the work of Communist saboteurs and what action, if any, has been taken to counter this sabotage? If no such action has been taken, when will it be taken?
– I am not disposed to disclose to the honorable senator any private and confidential conversations that the Minister for Shipping and Transport may have had with me on this, or any other subject. I assure him that in any case in which it is possible for the Government to take legal action to counter activities of the kind referred toby the Minister for Shipping and Transport, such action shall be taken without hesitation. Earlier this year the Government indicated clearly that its constitutional power was not sufficiently wide to deal with the individuals with whom it wished to deal, or with the conduct in which they were engaged. It is regrettable indeed that the Australian Labour party did its best to ensure that the Commonwealth would not obtain the added powers that it sought.
page 2843
– Is the Minister for Shipping and Transport aware that at present there are 34,716 tons of sugar in storage in the Innisfail district awaiting transport to refineries in southern cities? Is he also aware that had it not been for drought conditions causing a smaller harvest this year than is usual, the sugar storage capacity of the majority of sugar mills would have been exhausted, resulting in a widespread interruption of crushing operations and inflicting monetary loss on sugar-growers and workers? Can the Minister state if definite arrangements have been made to transport the unrefined sugar that is now in storage in the various sugar-growing districts of Queensland t£ southern refineries? If such arrangements have been made, will the Government ensure that all sugar storage sheds will be empty before May, 1952?
– I have had a report on this problem and was pleased to discover that at the end of November the position was much better than it was in 1949 when Senator Ashley had control of supplies. The storage capacity at the date of the report was sufficient to accommodate the sugar available. I was also advised that there was a limit to the quantity that could be shipped, having regard to the capacity of the mills to refine, the berths available, the increased traffic around the Australian coast and other factors. It is the desire of the Government to improve the position and every effort is being made to do so. To add to the problems of the Government, it has had to take ships off the run to lift wheat from South Australia to Queensland because of drought conditions there. Despite these problems, I am assured that the position is well in hand, and that every effort will be made to ensure that no difficulties will arise and that the sugar in store will be lifted ap soon as possible.
– Before the next crushing season?
– Yes.
– On the 14th November, Senator Hannaford asked the Minister for Trade and Customs the following question,: -
In the absence of the Minister for Shipping and Transport I address my question to the Minister for Trade and Customs. Owing to the approach of the jam-nicking season in South Australia, will the Minister take steps to see that adequate supplies should be made available to householders?
The following information is now furnished : -
Whilst refined sugar may not be in overabundant supply in South Australia during the jam-making season, householders should be able to obtain reasonable quantities of refined sugar for this purpose. To supplement refined sugar supplies u superior high-grade raw sugar is now being made available to grocery and manufacturers who order it.
Certain recent improvement in the coal position and an alleviation of the other factors, affecting the supply of sugar to which I will refer later have enabled greater quantities of sugar to be made available in the past few months in South Australia despite the enforced closure of the Adelaide refinery last month for the employees fortnights’ annual leave.
In October and November last year the refinery was shut down for a period of seven weeks due to an industrial dispute which resulted in a loss in production of 6,000 tons of refined sugar. This severe loss ha» gradually been overtaken and in the past four months the quota for wholesalers who supply the retail trade has been on a 90 per cent, basis. It is understood that if the recent good production rate at the refinery is maintained to the end of November it will be possible to increase the grocery trade quotas to 100 per cent.
I should mention that the shortage of refined sugar which has occurred at times in parts of Australia in recent years is due to a number of factors outside the control of the sugar industry. These include restriction of coal supplies to the refineries, difficulties in obtaining sufficient skilled and experienced labour, and in some States, interruptions to electricity supplies. Other factors such as delay in shipping raw sugar from Queensland with a consequent deterioration in the sugar have also affected the position.
It has been found necessary by the trade to adopt a system of allocating the available supplies of sugar amongst the different categories of users. Since the abolition of sugar rationing in 1947 the Commonwealth Government has had no control over the distribution of sugar, but the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited, as agent for the Queensland Sugar Board, has introduced a quota system to operate when circumstances demand.
page 2844
– Last week the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture indicated to me that his colleague had been in communication with the United Kingdom Government as to the expected impact on the English market of the proposed imports of American apples into the United Kingdom. Can the Minister say what advice has been received from the United Kingdom Government in thi* matter?
– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has furnished the following reply : - l im British Ministry of Food has indicated that., in order to protect thu interests nf Australian apple exporters to the extent possible while permitting the entry into the United Kingdom of apples of thu 1 !>:”»! North American crops, it is confining the arrival (bites of these imports to the period stated by the honorable senator and that it is anticipated thai, most of the fruit will arrive during February and March of 1952.
The quantities of American and Canadian fruit that will be permitted entry into the United Kingdom under licence will depend upon the price of the fruit a ml the extent of the funds allocated for the purpose. This information has not been divulged by the ministry which has indicated, however, that the quantities to be imported are unlikely to exceed 20 per cent, of the quantities imported from North American sources in an average pre-war season.
For the information of the honorable senator the average quantity of fresh apples imported annually into the United Kingdom from North America over the years 1937, 1938 and 1939 was between fl.000,000 and 10,000,000 cases.
page 2845
– Last week-end I had the pleasure of visiting the Snowy Mountains and inspecting the hydroelectric scheme now in progress there. Arising from my impressions of the magnitude of that undertaking, and of the splendid work that is being done by Australian engineers and workmen, I ask the Minister for National Development whether he will arrange to have a film made showing the progress that has been made with the scheme during the last eighteen months, so that it may be exhibited throughout the length and breadth of the Commonwealth? Will the Minister* also consult with the Ministers of Education in the various States with a view to having included in school textbooks information about this great national developmental scheme, showing the importance to our economy of the electric power, that will be generated, and the water that will be stored for irrigation purposes?
– I regret that the visit to the Snowy Mountains last, weekend had to be arranged at such short notice. I promise the Senate that further trips will be organized during the next sittings of the Parliament. The project is a marvellous undertaking of which we should all be proud, and I am sure that, if there were a wider knowledge of the magnitude of the scheme and of the difficulties that have to be overcome, there would be less criticism of it. I do not think that the criticism that has been levelled at the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme by some sections of the press has been fair. It is well that public men should know the position at first hand, in order to be able to reply to such criticism. I thank the honorable senator for his suggestion that details of it should be included in school text-books. I have already suggested to the appropriate authorities that pictures of our great national projects such as the Snowy Mountains scheme, the Eildon Weir, and open-cut mining operations in various parts of Australia, should be included in news gazettes that are usually exhibited at picture shows prior to the screening of the main films. Many of the film newsreels that I have seen were far less fascinating than would be films of our great projects. I have asked my department to consider what can be done by the use of films to make the Australian people more conscious of our large national undertakings. It had not occurred to me that it would be beneficial to include details of them in school text-books. I shall see what can be done in that direction also.
page 2845
– The question that I shall address to the Minister for Shipping and Transport relates to the lighthouse steamer Research Bay that ran aground near Tasmania on the 24th June. Will the Minister inform the Senate of the cost of the repairs that were effected to*~that vessel. Is it a fact that since it has been laid up the lighthouses have been serviced by fishing boats, and that that service has been most unsatisfactory? Has the Minister seen a recent press report headed, “ No engineers, no Christmas cheer for the lighthouse-keepers “ ? The report stated that the lighthouse steamer is held up for the want of three engineers, and that it will not be able to service the lighthouses for Christmas. As a result, it appears that the lighthouse-keepers will he without commodities that they urgently need for Christmas, because the subsidized or makeshift service that is being rendered by fishing boats is unsatisfactory. Have any arrangementsbeen made for another vessel to service the lighthouses before Christmas ?
– Both the Government and the department appreciate the services that the lighthouse-keepers are rendering. I assure the honorable senator that with the limited number of ships left to us by the Labour Government we are doing the best that we possibly can. Whatever else may happen to those ships, none of them will leave the Australian coast. Having regard to the work performed by lighthouse-keepers in lonely outposts, he may also rest assured that no effort will be spared by the Government to safeguard their interests. In order that there shall be no misunderstanding, if the honorable senator places his question on the notice-paper I shall obtain a considered reply concerning the latest position and furnish him with it.
page 2846
– Is the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior aware that erratic parking of motor vehicles prevails at both the Senate and the House of Representatives entrances to Parliament House? If he is, will he undertake to have white or coloured direction lines painted on the asphalt in order that more uniform parking may be possible and more accommodation provided for vehicles? Will the Minister also undertake to have rubbish receptacles placed in ‘bus shelter sheds, bearing a printed invitation to the citizens of Canberra to keep their city clean ?
– I appreciate the importance of the matters raised by the honorable senator and I shall be pleased to bring them to the notice of my colleague, the Minister for the Interior.
page 2846
– I direct the attention of the Minister representing the Postmaster-General to the fact that recently the Australian Broadcasting Com mission has been importing recorded radio programmes from overseas, as the result of which some Australian artists have been dismissed by the commission. Is it a fact that since the dismissal of the Australian Broadcasting Commission Military Band, half-hour recorded programmes by foreign military bands have been broadcast by the commission and that the cost of such programmes is small compared with the total wages which were paid to the members of the Australian Broadcasting Commission Military Band? Will the Minister inform the Senate of the amount paid for the half-hour transcription programme by the Netherlands Marine Military Band which was broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Commission over a Sydney station on the 19th November? In view of the fact that listeners’ licencefees have been doubled by the present Government, will the Minister take steps to ensure that the Australian Broadcasting Commission gives more employment to Australian artists and reduces the amount of broadcasting time given to imported transcribed programmes?
– As answers to the questions asked by the honorable senator will involve a certain amount of detailed investigation, I ask him to place them on the notice-paper. I shall then be able to obtain a considered reply for him. In connexion with the broadcasts by foreign military bands, I have been informed by members of the staff of the Australian Broadcasting Commission that, to a large degree, Australian programmes are exchanged for those of the United States of America or other countries and that the only cost involved is that of transportation of the records.
page 2846
– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration say what is the estimated number of immigrants due to arrive in Australia during 1951-52 from assisted and private sources? Has any estimate been made of the number of workers likely to be included in the total number of immigrants, and has consideration been given to the need for meeting, from the incoming immigrants, the needs of essential industries, particularly of rural industries in Western Australia? What is being done to ensure a greater allocation of directable immigrants, that is, of workers, to the rural industriesof Australia ?
– The honorable senator was good enough to indicate to the Minister for Immigration thathe intended to ask this question, and the Minister has prepared the following reply:-
The honorable senator will be aware that migration planning is based on calendar years and, accordingly, figures readily available of the intakes of immigrants and their allocation to employment in Australia are based on such calendar periods although, of course, closely related to the fiscal period.
During the present calendar year, the intake of immigrants from all sources, including those under employment obligation, has not been as great as was anticipated. This has been due to unavoidable administrative and parliamentary delays in those countries with which we have most recently concluded migration agreements; the Netherlands and Italy, and to the diversion of shipping for special purposes, e.g., the Korean war. In addition, these past months have seen the gradual termination of the Displaced Persons Mass Resettlement Scheme, with its considerable source of directable migrant labour.
However, by the end of 1951, it is estimated that during the present year there will have been an approximate intake of 135,000 immigrants for permanent settlement, of whom some65,000 will have travelled under the various assisted passage schemes. The total intake of British immigrants, both assisted and as full-fare paying passengers during this period, is estimated at 70,000 and assisted immigrants from other European sources should total 20,000. The remainder consists of immigrants from European sources who have travelled outside existing current assisted migration schemes.
Of this intake, the directable worker content will be approximately 30,000, of whom some . 16,000 are British Commonwealth nominees. The remainder consists largely of former displaced persons and the limited numbers we have so far received under the Netherlands and Italian migration agreements. These immigrant workershave all been placed in essential secondary and primary industries, with particular emphasis on investment in the building, metal and engineering undertakings and in the production of consumer goods and fairly equally amongst the primary industries and both public and private services. as I have already stated, the number of directable immigrant workers who have been available for allocation during recent months has not been great, but an indication of the consideration which has been given to the needs of Western Australia may be gained from the fact that of approximately 80,000 displaced person immigrant workers so far received in Australia, approximately 11,000, or 14 per cent., have been allocated to essential employment, including the rural industries, in Western Australia.
In addition to the allocation of the directable immigrant workers introduced under Commonwealth auspices, however, there are those introduced from both the United Kingdom and from European sources by way of personal nominations lodged by friends and relatives, and by group nominations lodged by State and private instrumentalities.On the basis of such nominations lodged during 1951 in Western Australia, the labour force in that State would have been correspondingly increased.
So far as 1052 is concerned, the planned intake is based on a total permanent immigration of 150,000 immigrants. The total worker component of this overall intake, including those being introduced under personal nominations or by other private arrangement, is expected to be approximately 95,000. It is estimated that the directable worker component of this intake will be in the vicinity of 60,000 from all sources, although this will, of course, be subject to finalization of any contemplated further migration agreements from other European sources.
Based on an availability of 20,000 directable immigrant workers during the first six months of 1952, a planned allocation to Western Australia is in the region of 2,300, of whom approximately 1,000 will be intended for permanent rural employment, including timbergetting and saw-milling. As the total allocation from directable immigrants during this period to rural industries throughout Australia is 4,500, the proportion planned for Western Australia is by no means small.
I feel I should explain that in the past, particularly in relation to the displaced persons scheme, it has not generally been possible to specify the occupational category of the immigrants being selected. Now. however, under the current British Commonwealth nomination scheme, the Netherlands and Italian migration agreements and in any contemplated scheme, it is possible to ensure that immigrants are selected for allocation to specified employment.
The honorable senator will be aware of the greater emphasis now being placed on the selection of immigrants suitable for rural employment, and in this regard I mention also that I have recently agreed to the establishment of a special committee of the Immigration Planning Council to examine ways and means by which immigration can make a greater contribution to increased rural production. This committee is to make its recommendations to me in due course through the council and I anticipate that some worthwhile results will be seen early in the new year.
It will be the committee’s responsibility to pay particular attention to the most appropriate basis of selection of immigrants for farm work and the conditions and circumstances on Australian farms which are likely to produce satisfactory results in the placement of experienced immigrant rural workers. The committee will also examine and recommend upon the ways and means by which immigrant workers can be best employed on the seasonal harvesting of food crops, development schemes and with rural contractors and the practicability of establishing land settlement schemes for migrants.
As a result of the work of this committee and through the increased emphasis being placed on the recruitment of immigrants especially selected for rural employment, I hope that it will not be long before we will be able to supply all the labour needs of essential rural production from agreement immigrant sources. Such a position will, of course, be reflected in an even greater allocation of directable immigrants to the rural industries in Western Australia than the planned figures 1 have given earlier in this reply.
– I direct the attention of the Attorney-General to the reported disclosure in a Melbourne coroner’s court this week that a deceased German immigrant had come to this country as the husband of a Polish woman named Lewicki. The German apparently had obtained employment in a munitions factory in this country, and he died as the result of a self-inflicted wound. Mrs. Lewicki told the coroner that her husband had been sent to a concentration camp during the war and had been reported as missing. She had brought the German to this country on her husband’s identity papers. The German shot Mrs. Lewicki before committing suicide, but fortunately she survived. Will the AttorneyGeneral take this matter up with the Minister for Immigration with a view to checking the screening of this German from the time he first came under the notice of the immigration authorities so that we may determine how he was able to get to this country simply by posing as the husband of a Polish immigrant? As this man’s deception was revealed only by chance, it would be interesting to know for how long a prohibited immigrant could reside in this country without fear of detection.
– I assure the honorable senator that all reasonable steps are taken to ensure that there shall be an efficient screening of European immigrants. I shall confer with the Minister for Immigration about the specific matter that the honorable senator has mentioned and obtain a detailed reply for him.
page 2848
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the- Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. Will legislation have to be passed by the Commonwealth Parliament to give effect to the agreement that has been reached between the Commonwealth and the States regarding stock feed prices for wheat whereby farmers will get 16s. Id. a bushel for wheat used for that purpose? If legislation is to be introduced can the Minister say whether this Parliament will deal with it during this session ? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether complementary legislation has yet been introduced into any of the State parliaments ?
– I conferred with the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) to-day and he indicated that he would introduce a bill in another place to-day. I hope that the Senate will receive that bill to-morrow and if Senator Ashley stops his stone-walling tactics I hope that we shall get it through.
– Why does the Minister pick me? I do not want to play kiss in the ring with him.
– The feeling is mutual. I hope that we shall get the bill through to-morrow even if the Senate sits all night to-night. The New South Wales Government has announced in the press to-day that it has agreed to put complementary legislation through the New South Wales Parliament. The other five States have been asked to do likewise and the Government expects that before the 1st December the complementary legislation will be passed through the seven Parliaments.
page 2848
– So that the purport of my question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport will be understood fully, I wish to direct the attention of the Minister to reports which appeared in the Melbourne Herald of the 26th November and in the Adelaide Advertiser yesterday. Those newspapers reported that alarming circumstances have arisen at Geelong, where an
Adelaide visitor was disqualified by a court from holding a Victorian licence to drive a car for twelve months on a charge of having driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor. This disqualification does not affect the convicted person’s South Australian licence. In view of this extraordinary position, I ask the Minister if he can inform the Senate what method for the issue of licences is adopted in the Australian Capital Territory? Can he say whether inquiries are made from applicants for licences as to whether they have been or are under disqualification in the various States? If necessary will he take action to make disqualification of drivers uniform throughout the Commonwealth?
– I appreciate the importance of the question. The Australian Transport Advisory Committee representing the six States of the Commonwealth and the Australian Capital Territory has standing committees which meet from time to time. The Commonwealth Transport Department has recommended that the authorities in each State and the Australian Capital Territory should adopt uniform laws on matters such as that raised by the honorable senator. It is difficult to get all the States into line, however. If Senator Critchley will put the question on the notice-paper, T will get the latest information as to how far recommendations have gone and what stage has been reached. If the responsible bodies have not already adopted a uniform policy, the fact that the honorable senator has brought the question before the Senate may be the means of impressing on them the importance of reaching finality.
page 2849
– Yesterday, I asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, as the representative of the Prime Minister whether, in view of the disabilities confronting the people of Australia generally, and particularly persons on fixed incomes, as the result of the falling value of the £1, favorable consideration would be given 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 currency. The Minister replied that no good purpose would be served by appointing such a royal commission. “Will the Minister state whether that reply can be taken to mean that he refuses to submit this proposal to the Prime Minister ?
– I suggest that the honorable senator should examine his own conscience, and consider whether he himself has made any contribution towards reducing inflation. It would ‘be quite idle to refer such a matter to a royal commission. The whole world knows that inflation is attributable to the inept socialist rule from which .this country suffered for eight years.
– I wish that the Minister would be courteous enough to give me an answer. I have asked the question, not on my own behalf, but as the result of the decision of a large public meeting held in Western Australia recently. Again I appeal to the Minister to give me an answer.
– I regret that there should be any need for me to give an assurance that I am always courteous. I only wish that the honorable senator would always be sensible. I ask .that further questions be put on the noticepaper.
page 2849
– In view of the defeat of the Government’s recent referendum proposals, can the AttorneyGeneral say whether any approach has been made to the State governments with a view to obtaining from the States the necessary authority to implement the Government’s anti-Communist legislation?
– Apparently the honorable senator did not hear my request that any further questions should be placed on the notice-paper. The Senate has much work before it and I assure the honorable senator that, in making this request, I have no intention to be discourteous to the Opposition.
page 2849
– This morning I visited the Canberra Community Hospital and saw ‘both Senator Tangney and
Senator George Rankin, and, on behalf of their colleagues in this chamber, .presented to them suitable floral decorations for their rooms. I also conveyed to them the Senate’s good wishes for a speedy recovery. I am happy to say that both honorable senators are as well as can be expected.
page 2850
– I have received from Senator Byrne an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the Senate for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely -
The continued failure of the Government to honour its undertakings to develop the resources of the State of Queensland in the interests of national wealth and national defence.
. J. move -
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to to-morrow, at 10 a.m.
– Is the motion supported ?
Four honorable senators having risen in support of the motion,
– A motion such as this is not moved frequently nor is such a step taken lightly. It is a procedure to enable those who are interested in a particular problem of gravity and urgency to draw the attention of the Government and the nation generally to that problem. Those are the motives that have actuated me to-day. During the last few weeks the Opposition has pointed out many instances of the genera] failure of the Government to honour a multitude of political promises that it has made to people in all parts of this country. I shall pin-point some of those promises, particularly those that have been made to the people of one of the six component States, Queensland.
The Senate is the most appropriate forum for the discussion, because constitutionally the function of this chamber is to protect the States. In this instance, it should protect the State of Queensland. T doubt whether any other section of our people has received such a plethora of promises, or have endured such penury of performance from this Government as have the people of Queensland. 1 doubt, also, whether the hopes of any other people have been more confidently raised and then so wantonly destroyed. Never has trust been more generously bestowed or more grievously betrayed. We must consider problems associated with national development, and the development of one of the greatest States in the federation, in relation to the particular and peculiar nature of that State. Queensland is our most northerly State, and, from the point of view of settled population, it is the largest in area. Geographically, it is the closest to our potential enemies. From the point of view of defence, it has the longest coastline to defend. From the point of view of population of areas capable of being populated, it is the most sparsely populated of the States. Those are the prime considerations that we must keep in the forefront of our minds in considering any problem associated with the development of Queensland.
The problem of developing Queensland has two facets. First, it must be developed from the point of view of resistance of physical aggression by an enemy. Australia has, in the past, been able to resist armed aggression. But. there is another type of aggression which cannot be resisted so easily, difficult and critical- as it was for us to resist physical aggression. I refer to moral aggression directed at Australia because of the sparseness of our population, a charge which we shall have to resist at the bar of world opinion. Significantly enough, that threat can be poised not only by our potential enemies but also by our friends. When the pressure of population in certain countries become? too great, and tends to be a political and social embarrassment to our friends overseas, they will point to Australia and ask what we can do to relieve that pressure. That is the type of aggression against which we will have little or no defence. We must consider the Queensland problem in the light of those two facts.
The Queensland Government has already attempted to do something in the matter. Over a period of some years. particularly during the life of the present Queensland Government, it has advanced a number of sound, well considered, and complete schemes for national development. All of those schemes, if completely aud fully implemented, would have the effect not only of developing Queensland, but also the nation. Not one project on the long and comprehensive list could be called a “ pipe dream “. None could be called completely unreal. They are all projects that are essentially and basically practical. First, there is the great Burdekin irrigation and hydrodevelopment project, of which we have heard so much. Secondly, there is the Tully Falls hydro-electric project, which also is in north Queensland. Then there is the scheme for the development of the Blair Athol coal-ifield. Next is a project, for the development of the coke ovens at Bowen. Then there is the Mareeba-Dimbulah tobacco-growing project. The next is the development of production of sulphur at the great open-cut mines at Mount Morgan. Last, but not least, on the list is the scheme for the development of the Callide coal-field in southern Queensland. Those seven major schemes are all essentially practical, and all of them will fill the dual role of developing Queensland and enabling that State to play its part in increasing the national wealth, and contributing to the defence of Australia.
The history of the approach by the State government to the Commonwealth in relation to each of those schemes is a long and most unhappy one. I propose, within the limited time available to me under the Standing Orders, to refer briefly to each of them, and to show that the Australian Government has consistently followed a definite pattern. First, there was tremendous enthusiasm; then announcements that the Commonwealth would be behind certain schemes. Those announcements were made at times that were politically opportune from, the point of view of the Commonwealth. There followed recession of interest, and, ultimately, retraction and withdrawal. Then followed complete silence. That is the theme and pattern that has been followed in connexion with all those schemes. The result is that Queensland is getting nowhere. 1 shall outline briefly the Burdekin River scheme envisaged by the State Government. It provides for a main storage dam above the Burdekin Falls. The Burdekin River is one of Queensland’s great northern rivers, having its estuary between Ayr and Home Hill, south of Townsville. The rapid fall of the water from the storage dam will be utilized to generate electricity. I cite public statements that have been made from time to time by the dramatis personae who have passed through this succession of tragedies. The theme is always the same. Only the characters change. For a long time the main character was the present Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey), who gradually moved off the stage to fresh woods and pastures new. A new character then entered in the person of the present Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner). The theme remained constant, however. It consisted all along of promises, retractions, and ominous silences. In 1948, the present Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey) said that, if the Burdekin Valley and Blair Athol resources were developed properly they would add appreciably to Australian production, wealth, settlement and security. During the policy speech of the present Treasurer (SiT Arthur Fadden), made at Boonah in 1949. he stated -
We will proceed with the Burdekin scheme immediately and not keep it pigeon-holed ae a blue-print for depression.
It seems suspiciously as though depression is now on .the way. In 1950, the right honorable gentleman repudiated his previous statement and said that he had found that no assurance was given by the previous Treasurer, Mr. Chifley, concerning finance. In a statement in the House of Representatives, Mr. Chifley later denied that statement by Sir Arthur Fadden. In furtherance of his policy of repudiation, the present Treasurer placed other difficulties in the way of the Burdekin scheme.
In 1950, Mr. Casey again came into the picture with the following statement: -
The development of Queensland is an Australian responsibility. It is my conviction that there should be a positive and vigorous move to develop Northern Queensland.
That conviction had been strengthened by his famous week-end tour of the area, when he flew over the Burdekin River at a height of 6,000 feet. In 1950, the present Treasurer stated that he would not be stampeded into a consideration of the matter. Two years have passed since the statement to which I have already referred. In July, 1951, he stated that a new approach was necessary. So the matter rests. The waters of the Burdekin River continue to run into the sands surrounding the delta.
I come now to the Tully Falls hydroelectric scheme, which envisages the development of the Tully River for tha generation of hydro-electric power for use by the whole of the Cairns region. The complete project is estimated to cost approximately £11,000,000. The first stage has already been approved. Indeed, the State Government has embarked on the project; it expended more than £110,000 to the 30th June, 1950. Of the allocation of £330,000 for 1950-51, approximately £217,000 has been spent. The Queensland Government has also approved the granting of a subsidy. An approach was made to the Australian Government to assist with the cost of the project, but so far no finality has been reached. I understand that the attitude of this Government is that it will consider the scheme when the Burdekin Valley scheme has been completed. We have seen what has happened to the Burdekin scheme. The matter has become even worse because of the financial policy of this Government. Recently, the Queensland Minister for Mines was forced to make the alarming statement that he had been informed by the State Electricity Commissioner, Mr. Neil Smith, that unless loan funds were made available at once, regional electricity boards would have to close all works, displace thousands of people from employment, and terminate the contracts that have been pushed ahead at all speed to meet electrical requirements. Not only has the Tully Falls scheme not gone ahead, but other similar regional schemes will also have to be abandoned. That is the history of the Tully Falls scheme. Again, no finality has been reached.
I come now to the greatest scheme of all - the Blair Athol scheme. Again, the same theme is followed. The present Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey) appears on the stage and wanders across it, mouthing platitudes and generalities. As time goes on, and one character follows another, the present Minister for National Development emerges. In 1948, Mr. Casey said that the answer to Australia’s acute coal shortage lay in Queensland’s expanding production, but not for at least five years. This is now the end of 1951. If something had been done in 1948 we would now be approaching realization of our hopes. Mr. Casey also stated that Australia would remain at the mercy of Newcastle until Blair Athol was in full production, which would take at least five years. In July, 1948, he said that if Blair Athol was developed according to its then promise it would add appreciably to Australian production, wealth and security. In 1950, the same sentiments were still being mouthed. In that year the right honorable gentleman said that the development of Australia’s great national resources was an integral part of the defence of Australia.
So we move on to 1951, when the present Minister for National Development, after inspecting the Blair Athol field, said -
This is a challenge to Australia. I will do my darndest to get results.
I admit that the honorable senator has not yet had a great deal of time in which to obtain results. His statement, however, is so like many previous statements that I wonder what we can expect from it. As recently as this month, the honorable senator stated that he was satisfied that Blair Athol could yield more coal. He also stated that the railway to the field was not adequate. That is the history of Blair Athol, one of the natural wonders of the world, where a complete unbroken seam of first-quality steaming coal, with an overburden ratio of one to one, or less, is to be found. At Blair Athol there is a complete face of coal without one band of muck or dirt. It is one of the greatest sources of power supply in Australia, if hot in the world. Yet that is the history of the attitude of this Government to it.
– Was not Blair Athol in existence when Mr. Chifley was in power?
– Yes. Mr. Chifley made certain firm proposals, but, unfortunately, he was not able to implement them because the people of Australia were politically misled and did not give him the opportunity to do so.
I now wish to deal with the coke works at Bowen. This matter was discussed at the conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers in 1950, the report of the proceedings of which are public documents and available to any one who wishes to see them. At that conference, the Premier of Queensland, Mr. Hanlon, stated that Australia required more coke for its heavy industries. Bowen is a town on the north coast of Queensland, 50 miles from one of the greatest coal seams in Australia. I refer to the Collinsville seam, which has a thickness of 15 feet. Excellent coking coal is available. The State Government has a coke works at Bowen, but it cannot produce large quantities of coke because the works are somewhat primitive and not up to the standard necessary to meet the requirements of the heavy industries of Australia. It is a project of major national importance and urgency. If there is any project which should receive the immediate and close attention of the Australian Government it is the Bowen coke project. However, the history of the project is again one of approaches to governments and of inactivity. The Brisbane Courier-Mail of the 16th November published the following report : -
Canberra, Thursday. - Modernizing and more efficient operation of the State coke works at Bowen, Queensland, a.re urged by the Commonwealth National Development Department in a review of the Australian coke industry. Releasing the report to-day, the National Development Minister (Senator Spooner) said a shortage of 45,000 tons of hard coke for basic industries was inevitable this year . “ I consider coking coal deposits in Queenslaud should be developed “, Senator Spooner said.
The report also stated that there were prospects of obtaining adequate coal from the mechanization of the State mine at Collinsville. That is the attitude of the Minister for National Development. We expect that policy to be implemented. We do not expect the Minister to follow the course set by his predecessors. Apparently the honorable senator is conscious of the necessity to produce more coke, but honorable senators on this side of the chamber wish to see that consciousness translated into action. Not only the people of Queensland, but also those in other States where heavy industries are dependent on supplies of coke, will look forward to action being taken.
And so we come to the MareebaDimbulah tobacco-growing project, and here again we have the same sad story to tell. A report was prepared and submitted in 1949, and limited action was taken, but no finality was reached. Once more the Government of Queensland pressed earnestly and seriously for a decision. The Mareeba-Dimbulah tobacco lands lie on the Atherton Tableland, an area which is capable of great development. Tobacco is not only an amenity; it is also a commodity of great importance in the economy of Australia. We do not produce in Australia nearly as much tobacco as is consumed here, and a large quantity is imported from dollar sources. That fact makes the project of particular significance to Australia, apart from its importance to Queensland.
There is a general shortage of sulphur, and consideration has been given to proposals to produce sulphur from pyrites obtained from the Mount Morgan open-, cut mine in central Queensland. Certain proposals were advanced, but no finality has been reached, although I have frequently heard members of the Australian Country party in the Senate crying out for the production of more sulphur with which to manufacture superphosphate and other fertilizers.
– When was the Mount Morgan proposal submitted?
– It is more recent than the others, but the submission was made at least twelve months ago.
We come now to perhaps the most important item in the whole list of tragic failures, the project for the development of the Callide coal-field. This project has become a political football. The Government of Queensland has pressed for the development of the field, but here again we have the same sorry and disappointing story to tell. It goes back to 1949, when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) promised to improve transport facilities to the Callide field. In February, 1950, Cabinet asked the then Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator McLeay) to make a “ full-blooded “ attack on Australia’s coal problem. Later the figure of the then Minister for National Development (Mr. Casey), came on the scene, and on the 23rd of February, 1950, he said that the Government had a five-year .plan for the public and private expenditure of £1,000,000,000 on national development. The Callide coal-field was to be included in the scheme. However, nothing has since been heard of it. A Director of National Development was imported, and has since been exported. The whole national development scheme has collapsed, and so has the project for the development of the Callide field. In March, 1950, Mr. Casey said that the Government was paying particular attention to the Callide field as a part of its plan to develop the coal resources of Australia. In June, 1950, the Prime Minister said that the development of Queensland coal-fields, particularly the Callide field, was to be given immediate consideration by the Government. The importation of South African and Indian coal was merely an emergency stop-gap. It certainly proved to be an expensive stop-gap. The figures associated with the importation of African and Indian coal are staggering, and I am sure that honorable senators and the public generally do not realize how much that coal is costing Australia. The latest available information about the subsidy on foreign coal indicates that the most recent shipment of Indian coal cost £13 10s. a ton free-on-wharf at Melbourne, including freight, of £8 sterling a ton. Future shipments of African coal are expected to cost about the same. On imported coal the Commonwealth pays a subsidy amounting to the difference between the New South “Wales parity price of £5 2s. lid. a ton and the actual cost of the coal landed in Australia. Therefore, Indian and South African coal would attract a subsidy of £8 7s. Id. a ton. That is the cost of the temporary expedient resorted to by the Prime Minister pending the successful outcome of the all-out effort to develop the Callide field. The subsidy on 1,000,000 tons of imported coal coats the Commonwealth each year more than £8,350,000. In the current financial year provision is made for subsidizing the importation of 2,250,000 tons of coal up to the 30th June, 1953. The cost of this subsidy should be compared with the promised subsidy of £400,000 payable on 200,000 tons of Callide coal shipped to Victoria.
The Government of Queensland has already expended a considerable amount of money on the Callide-Gladstone road, including £126,000 on the construction of a 14-mile deviation. It also has in hand projects estimated to cost £642,000 for the improvement of the railway from the Callide field to the coast. The Gladstone Harbour Board has contracted to expend £120,000 on the construction of improved loading facilities at Gladstone, and further sums on the improvement of wharf and harbour facilities. Compared with this expenditure, actual and projected, the Commonwealth has promised to hear the cost of widening the Callide to Gladstone road, amounting to £186,000.
The people of Queensland are subsidizing the coal consumers of Victoria by meeting the cost of improving transport and loading facilities for Callide coal. The existing road, railway and harbour facilities are sufficient to meet the needs of Queensland. Therefore, the expenditure of £642,000 by the Queensland Government, plus the amount expended by the Gladstone Harbour Board, represents a subsidy to Victoria. The production of an additional 200,000 tons of coal a year from the Callide field would save the Commonwealth more than £1,200,000 in subsidy. In return for that saving, the Commonwealth will give to Queensland only £186,000 for road improvement. The Callide coal-field still remains virtually undeveloped. It is one of a series of projects stretching like a chain across Queensland and the other States of the Commonwealth. I had hoped that the development of those projects would bind the States and the Commonwealth together in a united effort; that it would bind our wealth to the Commonwealth’s wealth, our security to the security of the Commonwealth as a whole.
However, the chain is now broken, and the links are rusting and useless. Nevertheless, the people of Queensland will not remain idle. “Whatever the Commonwealth does, we shall continue to the full limit of our ability to develop the State. Perhaps for a long time to come our rivers will continue to plunge into the gaping maw of the already surfeited ocean. Perhaps our coal will continue to sleep its long sleep in its primeval bed, but the people of Queensland, imbued with limitless courage, will continue to do’ what they can to develop the resources of their State, until there is in the National Parliament a government which will share our hopes, match our vision with its vision, and match our efforts with its effort. “We look forward to that day, and in the meantime we will continue to work and make sacrifices. However, we appeal to the National Government, in the interests of security, and to enable us to resist aggression, to assume the national obligation which properly rests upon it.
– Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.
– I do not dispute the “fact that Senator Byrne has raised for discussion a very important matter. Indeed, I should like to hear more debates on similar matters. I submit, however, that the timing of the motion was not well chosen, because, in the dying days of a sessional period, it is not possible to do justice to it. We are now in the second last day of the present sessional period and we have yet to clear a business paper that I understand is of record dimensions. I shall reply briefly to the motion and endeavour to answer the arguments advanced by the honorable senator. It is generally agreed that practical assistance is best evidenced in financial aid. The cold, hard fact is that under the Commonwealth-State arrangements a great deal of financial assistance has been made available to Queensland. It can fairly be said that’ whatever may be the present difficulties of Queensland they have not been caused by an ungenerous approach on the part of the Menzies-Fadden Government to the financial arrangements made with the Queensland Government this year. A programme of borrowing for public works projects in Queensland this year has been approved to an amount of £22,500,000, by comparison with £17,026,000 last year. This year, payments to Queensland under the Commonwealth-State Financial Agreement will amount to £29,500,000, compared with £19,900,000 last year. This year, semi-government borrowing in Queensland has been approved to an amount of £10,500,000, by comparison with £7,096,000 last year. Queensland has been most generously treated by the Australian Government. May I express the hope that Queensland will always be generously treated by the Australian Government, because I subscribe to the view expressed by the honorable senator that that State offers greater potential opportunities for development than does any of the other States in the Commonwealth. That the Commonwealth has recognized those opportunities is shown by the fact that the works programme for Queensland this year was reduced by only 16 per cent, compared with a reduction of 30 per cent, in the works programmes of some other States.
Let us get back to basic causes. The primary obstacle to progress in Queensland is the fact that that State has been controlled by a Labour government for about 30 years.
– The people of Queensland do not regard that as an obstacle.
– The Queensland Government consists of representatives of a political party the members of which for all practical purposes, are recruited in Queen-street, Brisbane, and, consequently have no knowledge of or interest in conditions in northern Queensland.
Opposition senators interjecting,
– During the last Queensland State elections we saw the emergence of the North Queensland Labour party, which was formed. in an endeavour to fight the domination of Queensland from Brisbane. What is the position of railway works in Queensland? I have been informed that during the 30 years or more that Labour governments have been in office in Queensland only 7 miles of new railways have been built in rural districts in that State. Labour governments have devoted all their funds to the districts that they truly represent - the industrial suburbs of Brisbane and of the large cities and towns.
I trust that I have established the fact that the Commonwealth has taken a broad outlook in regard to the needs of Queensland and that if that State has failed to progress the fault lies primarily with the State Government. The party to which Senator Byrne belongs occupied the treasury bench in the Commonwealth Parliament for eight years, and during that time it had the fullest opportunity to do the things which the honorable senator now says should have been done. This Government has been in office for nearly two years, but in that brief period it has established a record that will stand comparison with that of other governments. The matters that were mentioned by the honorable senator have been the subject of discussion, not for years, but for generations. Some time ago when I went to Blair Athol and made some incautious comments about conditions there, which were subsequently reported in the press, I was told, “ Those same comments were made in the Queensland Parliament in 1894”. I replied, “ The time to become vocal about these mammoth developmental works is when a concrete plan has been evolved to implement them. Until such a plan has been evolved, it is better not to have too much to say about them.”
The basic difficulty in Queensland is caused by the lack of adequate transport facilities, “We have tackled this problem in a realistic fashion, having regard to what has to be done. The true position in regard to the Callide field is that the Commonwealth provided £186,000 from its coffers to assist the State in financing the construction of a road to the field. It negotiated the arrangement under which Victoria now takes Callide coal and it has subsidized the purchase of that coal by the Victorian Government. If that is not practical assistance, I should like to know what is. The output of Callide coal is entirely dependent upon the carrying capacity of the road to the Callide field. Nothing, further can be done to assist the development of the Callide field until transport facilities from Callide to the coast, and from the coast interstate, have been improved.
I agree with what the honorable senator has said about Blair Athol. I, too, agree that it is a challenge to all of of us. There, again, however, a problem of transport arises. Although I am devoting a great deal of time and attention to the solution of that problem, I do not claim that I shall succeed where better men than I am have failed.
I believe that the development of the Tully Falls hydro-electric scheme is proceeding as expected. Officers of my department have been working with the Queensland State officers on the question of the Bowen coke works for some time. The honorable senator apparently does not know that as a result of the united efforts of the Commonwealth and the States, the Bowen coke works are producing substantially more now than they have done for some considerable time past. The honorable senator has claimed that there is apparently lack of appreciation of Queensland’s needs. May I direct the attention of the Senate to the cotton-growing industry in Queensland. This Government has guaranteed prices for cotton production. A similar proposal was rejected by the party that the honorable senator represents. Both the Australian Government under the late Mr. Chifley and Senator Courtice, who was a Minister in that Government, declined to render that assistance which has been given now by the Menzies-Fadden Government. I also direct the attention of the Senate to the tremendous benefits that Queensland will receive following the completion of the overseas meat contract. The indications are that the prices arranged under that contract will provide for an increase of 30 to 40 per cent, in the prices at present ruling in Queensland.
The Government is waiting for information that it has requested from the Queensland Government in relation to the Burdekin River scheme. It knows what is required in all the proposals that have been mentioned by the honorable senator. In a minor way, the Government has granted a good deal of assistance to Mount Isa Mines Limited. It is a great privilege to be able to help that project. As far as tobacco-growing in Queensland is concerned, the most important part of the vigorous development that has occurred has been the assistance given by the Commonwealth to the State through the war service land settlement scheme in the Dalby and Burdekin areas. Mount Morgan is facing a new era in its development and I believe that the expansion of the pyrites output, the development of the Gladstone shipping port and the coal output from Callide will make a substantial difference to that part of Queensland.
I do not approach these matters in a small-minded way. In politics it is the objective of the Opposition to criticize the Government and endeavour to obtain a political advantage. I would not have minded had the Opposition tabled a motion such as this earlier in this session instead of occupying so much time on the Estimates and budget papers because I believe that the thrust and parry of debate, even though political in content, might have been a good thing for Australia. In the portfolio that I now hold, I try not to advance politics to a degree greater than that which is necessary to keep the Government in power, but I believe that it is necessary for the Commonwealth and State governments to work together for the advancement of national projects. Knowing the past experience of the honorable senator, I can only assume that he has given some expression to the views of the State political party in Queensland. I did not attack that view on my recent visit to Queensland. I believe in the future of that State. At the first opportunity following my appointment as Minister for National Development, I went to Queensland and visited Rockhampton, Mount Morgan, Callide, Blair Athol, Bowen and Mount Isa, so that I would know those places and their problems personally. I did not detect any feeling on the part of the political parties in Queensland other than pleasure at the opportunity to see a Minister of the Commonwealth who displayed personal interest in Queensland. I doubt if any Cabinet Minister holding a portfolio associated with trade or commerce has not been to Queensland since this Government was returned to power. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) took a week off to go with me and show me what had to be done.
Without expressing any political feeling, I do not regard the motion as being well-timed. I do not decry it. I think that it is a good thing for the Senate to know the extent to which Queensland has been assisted by the Commonwealth Government and that honorable senators should discuss the problems of that State. I wish that the matter could have been brought forward earlier so that I could have had an opportunity to prepare a reply to the statements that have been made. The aggressor always has the advantage. He has his material prepared and the Minister has to scramble something together at short notice. The case that I have put to the Senate is only one-half of the Commonwealth’s case. I have made no mention of the assistance that has been given by the Commonwealth Government to the sugar industry. The recent increase in the price of sugar was the largest that has ever been given for that commodity. I invite the honorable senator to submit his motion again at another session. I would like to see it put on the noticepaper so that the other members could have an opportunity to gather information. From what I have said I believe that I have shown that there is the friendliest feeling on the part of the Commonwealth Government towards the electors of Queensland and that that friendly feeling has been evidenced in the most practical f ashion. On that note I conclude, and move -
That the question be now put.
Question put. The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)
AYES: 30
NOES: 21
Majority…… 9
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Question put -
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to to-morrow, at 10 a.m.
The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)
AYES: 21
NOES: 30
Majority . . . . 9
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
page 2858
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Spooner) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to reconstitute the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. The committee was established in 1913 and continued to function until 1932, when it was suspended by act of parliament as a depression economy measure. That act provided that the committee could be reconstituted by resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. The question of reconstituting the committee has been examined on several occasions but for various reasons the government of the day decided against the proposals submitted. The Auditor-General, in advocating in his 1947-48 report removal of the suspension imposed by Act No. 58 of 1932 referred to the rapid increase of Commonwealth revenue and expenditure since pre-war years, and expressed the view that the need for a more detailed survey of expenditure was now much greater than it had been during the period from 1913 to 1932 when the committee had functioned. The Government has examined the matter fully and has reached the conclusion that the reconstitution of the committee would be a wise proceeding. In reaching this decision, the Government took into consideration the substantial growth in Commonwealth expenditure in recent years and the necessity to impose as much check as possible on the tendency to further increases.
Although the committee could be reconstituted by resolution of both Houses of Parliament, it has been decided to repeal the old act and to bring in a number of new provisions and to redraft some of the provisions of the old act. As in the case of the act which it repeals, the bill provides for ten members, three of whom shall be members of and appointed by the Senate, and seven members shall be members of and appointed by the House of Representatives. The duties of the committee as laid down in the previous act were -
Id) Any other duties assigned to the committee by joint standing orders approved by both Houses of Parliament. [n addition to the above duties which have been retained in the present bill, the committee will be required to examine each statement and report transmitted to Parliament by the Auditor-General in pursuance of the Audit Act. Provision is made in the bill for the committee to take in private, if so requested by a witness, evidence whether oral or documentary which, in the opinion of the committee, relates to a secret or confidential matter, and such evidence may not be disclosed without the authority of the witness. The bill makes provision for the appointment by the committee of sectional committees to report to the committee upon such matters with which the committee is concerned as the committee directs. The number of sectional committees is limited to two, and each sectional committee shall consist of three or more members.
A departure made in this bill is for the payment of allowances as prescribed by regulation. This is desirable to avoid the necessity to amend the act in the event of an adjustment becoming necessary in the rate of allowance payable to members. The remaining provisions in the bill are substantially the same as those included in the old act. The expenditure in meeting allowances and cost of travel is limited under this bill to £5,000 in any one financial year. I commend the measure to honorable senators who, I am sure, will concur in the need for the reconstitution of the committee.
Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.
page 2859
Debate resumed from the 22nd November (vide page 2466), on motion by Senator Spooner -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– ‘The Opposition does not oppose this measure, which authorizes the establishment of an authority to handle industrial disputes that may arise in connexion with work on the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme. The bill implements a request that has been, made by all of the trade unions employed on the project. The proposed authority will function along lines similar to those that have been adopted by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board. Even if no industrial troubles arise in the future, it is desirable that constant vigilance should be exercised by an arbitrator, to whom employees may appeal at all times. I understand that members of about twenty trade unions, seventeen of which .operate under State awards, and three under federal awards, are working on the project. Problems may arise if workers under State awards seek to transfer to work covered by federal awards. The Government has undertaken not to break down any of the present conditions on the project. That is very important. In future it may be necessary for the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority to offer additional inducements to attract workers from metropolitan areas, in view of the climatic conditions in the Snowy Mountains area during the winter months. I believe that the proposed authority has been named unofficially. It will be able to consider the matter of additional inducements. Many of the men who are working on the project are employed by contractors and sub-contractors. Therefore the value of the proposed authority will be two-fold. In the first place, it will be able to ensure that the employees of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority shall receive proper remuneration for their work, and, secondly, that contractors and sub-contractors will not be able to “ get away “ with paying their employees less than prescribed rates. About 60 per cent, of the workers on the Snowy Mountains scheme are members of the Australian Workers Union, which has agreed that this legislation is desirable. The Australian Council of Trades Unions and the New South Wales Trades and Labour Council also have agreed that it is desirable. Therefore, I think that it is desirable that the Opposition should say that it is desirable.
.- I, too, have great pleasure in commending the bill. It is apparent from Senator Armstrong’s remarks that there is no difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition on it. Therefore I commend it to the Senate as strongly as have the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) and Senator Armstrong. The scheme that is in progress in the Snowy Mountains is one which in time to come will mean more to Australia in the way of electricity and power than any other scheme that is in progress at present. It will result in the doubling of electric power available for New South Wales and Victoria, and the advantage of at least 2,000,000 acre-feet of water to the dry lands of the Murray and Murrumbidgee areas. It is expected that some electric power will be available about 1954, and that the authority will become practically self-supporting by about 1965. It is essential that the smooth progress of the project shall not be held up in any way because of a lack of proper industrial authority. This measure provides for the establishment of such an authority.
– I, too, have much pleasure in supporting the bill. One of the planks of Labour’s platform is that arbitration shall be adopted wherever possible. During the last week-end I visited the Snowy Mountains scheme and was astounded by its magnitude. The progress that has been made during the last twenty months is indeed praiseworthy. Many miles of roadway have been constructed along the sides of mountains, in most inaccessible country, to enable machinery to be transported to higher levels, and so that the workmen may be conveyed to and from their work. Unfortunately, some newspapers have been unjust in their reports about the workers on the scheme. As is inevitable on such a large undertaking, large quantities of materials are stacked at various places. It is necessary for the authority to order ahead, in order to ensure continuity of progress. I did not see any evidence of extravagance or waste to justify the reports that have appeared in the press. On the contrary, 1 consider that the workers are carrying out their allotted tasks efficiently. Even the smallest details are receiving adequate attention.
Many homes are being constructed for the workmen. Even the assistant commissioner is living in the quarters. He told me that the’ first objective of the authority is to provide homes for the workers. The commissioner was good enough to explain to me all details of the work in progress, and the expected cost. It is essential that the Government should plan ahead in the matter of finance for the scheme. At present the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority does not know from year to year whether the rate of expenditure will be maintained, increased, or reduced. Accordingly, the authority is unable to lodge advance orders for heavy machinery. Instead of the Government financing this project by annual votes, I consider that it would be preferable to appropriate from £60,000,000 to £65,000,000 to cover work on the scheme for a period of four or five years. The authority could then lodge advance orders for heavy machinery, which is hard to obtain. Furthermore, a lengthy waiting period is usually involved. I understand that some machinery that was not expected to arrive until early next year has already arrived, and that a big strain will thereby be placed on the available finance. Indeed, expenditure on certain portions of the project during this year will probably have to be curtailed so that this machinery can be paid for.
I have nothing but praise for the scheme as a whole, and for the men who are carrying out the work. I was astonished to learn, however, that some of the engineers from overseas are receiving higher remuneration than are the Australian engineers. I do not think that the provisions of the bill before the chamber will apply to the engineers. This aspect of the matter should receive the careful attention of the Government. If we wish to attract the best Australian engineers to the project we must ensure that their remuneration shall be appropriate, and not disproportionate to that received by the engineers who are at present engaged. Doubtless this measure will assist to stabilize employment “on the project. I believe that conciliation is preferable to arbitration. Agreements reached at round-table conferences in relation to wages, hours, and conditions can be ratified by the court. Finally, I consider that this measure will assist to maintain harmony on the project, which is proceeding very smoothly. The available finances have been husbanded in order to obviate unnecessary expenditure. The workmen employed on the project are doing a splendid job.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 2861
Bill presented by Senator Cooper, and read a first time.
Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) put -
That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reid) . -There being an absolute majority of the whole number of senators present, and no dissentient voice, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to express in legislative form the reestablishment benefits to which members of the forces engaged in operations in Korea and Malaya shall be entitled. Provision was made in December of last year for the benefits which were necessary in the early stages of the operations, such as war pensions and medical treatment of disabled members. It was possible at that time to come to decisions concerning all other benefits provided in the regulations made under the Repatriation Act, and they also were extended to members and their dependants. Benefits of the character covered by the Reestablishment and Employment Act were deferred for further consideration. Decisions have now been reached, and this bill proposes to insert in that act a new Part which will define the benefits to be extended to the forces engaged in the present operations. Taking the order in which they are provided in the principal act, they are as follows: -
Part I. - Preliminary.
Part II.-
Division 1 - Reinstatement in Civil Employment.
Division 2 - Preference in Employment.
Division 4 - Modification of Conditions of Entry to Employment.
Division 5 - The Commonwealth Employment Service.
Part IV. - Disabled Persons.
Part VI.-
Division 2 - Re-employment Allowances.
Division 3 - Re-establishment Loans.
Division 4 - Business Reestablishment Allowances.
Part VIII. - Housing.
Part IX. - Legal Service Bureaux.
Part X. - War Service Moratorium (four divisions relating to various phases).
Part XI. - Miscellaneous.
The new Fart will be Fart XI., and the existing Fart XI. - Miscellaneous - will be renumbered Part XII. Division 3 of Part II. - Apprenticeship - will not be necessary. Apprentices were not to be enlisted ; the few that may have enlisted can satisfactorily be assisted under a provision contained in the repatriation regulations.
Part III. relates to vocational training. The Repatriation Commission is now responsible for activities of this kind, the main scheme - the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme - having been placed under the control of the commission about two years ago. The scheme for the forces engaged in Korean and Malayan operations will be broadly similar to that scheme, and it will be more satisfactory to place the necessary legislative provisions in the repatriation regulations. Part V. - Demobilization - will not be necessary, and has not been extended. Division 1 of Part VI. made provision for periods of re-establishment leave to facilitate the process of demobilization of members of the forces when the 1939-45 war ended. As a measure of this nature will not be necessary in connexion with members covered by this bill, it has not been extended to them. Part VII. - Servicemen’s Settlement - can be given effect by suitable extension of existing arrangements under other legislation.
On reading the new Part XL, it will be Been that most of the benefits covered by the new Part can be extended with very little alteration or adaptation of the existing provisions in the parts and divisions covering the particular benefits. With reinstatement in employment, Division 1 of Part II. contains much that, although necessary to meet the position as it was in 1945, is not necessary for the present purpose. The provisions deemed suitable for the present occasion are set out in Division 2 of the new Part XI.
Part IV. - Disabled Persons - instituted a scheme whereby members of the forces and other persons substantially handicapped in obtaining employment could be fitted, by occupational and other therapy and training, to obtain and maintain themselves in employment. So far as members of the forces were concerned, it related to those whose dis- abilities were not due to service and who were not eligible for therapy under the provisions of the Repatriation Act or training under the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme.
In 1948, a similar scheme was established, under Part VIII. of the Social Services Consolidation Act, for the genera] community, including any members of the forces who came within its scope. It is working out satisfactorily. By Division 3 of Part XI. of this bill, it is provided that members of the forces engaged in Korea and Malaya, who are disabled persons but are not eligible for treatment and training under the Repatriation Act, may be granted the benefits provided under Part VIII. of the Social Services Consolidation Act as though they were within the classes of eligible persons to whom the Part relates.
That is a brief summary of the reestablishment benefits for the forces engaged in Korea and Malaya, and of the form of the legislation necessary to meet the position. It will be appreciated, however, that the position is very similar to that which obtained when the principal act was passed in 1945. Hostilities had not then ceased, and a number of extra provisions had to be made in the light of developments, such as cessation of hostilities, the changing character of the forces from war-time to post-war conditions, and members continuing in the forces instead of returning to civil life. In fact, the bill contains amendments concerning matters which have arisen only recently in connexion with reestablishment of members and dependants of the 1939-45 forces, and which will be explained at the committee stage of the bill. The most important of these concerns the time within which an application for a re-establishment loan or a business reestablishment allowance may be lodged by the widow of a member. Under the existing provisions, she must apply within the time within which her husband could have applied had he not died. As the unexpired portion of that time may be fairly short, it is proposed that, in these cases, the widow may apply within twelve months of her husband’s death, or, if she has children under the age of six years, up to the time when the youngest child attains the age of six years.
The second material purpose of the bill relates to the scope of the regulation power. Section 137 of the act provides that the act may be amended by regulation. It was realized by the Opposition at that time that with the task of demobilizing and re-establishing several hundred thousand members of the forces, amendments and extensions of the provisions of the act would have to be made, sometimes urgently and promptly, while the Parliament was in recess. Thirtynine such regulations were made, and they affected the act at many points. The amendments were necessary and none of the regulations was disallowed by the Parliament. However, on the Opposition’s representations when the bill was before the Parliament, it was further provided in section 137 that any such regulations shall, by force of the provision, if not sooner repealed, be repealed at the termination of all the wars in which His Majesty was engaged at the time, namely, August, 1945. It is hoped that formal termination will be reached within the next few months, but the opportunity to put the provisions on the normal legislative footing is taken in this present bill. The regulations in question were contained in a set entitled “ Re-establishment and Employment Regulations “. Clause 3 of the bill provides for their repeal. It also provides that the substance of those which are still necessary to continue shall have effect as if the provisions had been enacted by the present bill.
Part XI. - Miscellaneous - has been renumbered Part XII., and has been rewritten. It will be seen that the regulation power is now on the normal basis, the power to amend the act by regulation having been omitted. The part also contains amendments of the Public Service Act to make suitable provision for members of the forces, Korea and Malaya operations. I commend the bill to honorable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 2863
.- I move -
That, in the opinion of the Senate, it is undesirable that any person not an Australian should have any substantial measure of ownership or control over any Australian commercial broadcasting station, whether such ownership or control be exercisable directly or indirectly.
In moving this motion, I am motivated by two reasons. The first is a relatively minor one. The second, which is the major one, is concerned with matters of general policy. The minor matter which engages my attention at this moment concerns the recent specific acts by means of which overseas interests have- gained control of a number of broadcasting stations in Australia. It is probable that this has never happened before. Some people may doubt whether it has, in fact, happened now, but there seems to be little doubt that, for the first time in our history, a very substantial section of the Australian broadcasting industry has come under overseas control. It has happened in this way: Two newspapers in England, the London Daily Mirror and the Sunday Pictorial recently formed in Australia a company known as M.P.A. Productions Proprietary Limited, which, I believe, represents the initials of “ Melbourne, Pictorial, Argus “. This organization bought the shares owned by Broadcasting Associates Limited, thereby gaining control of the following radio stations in Australia : -
Australian stations completely controlled by M.P.A. Productions Proprietary Limited a.nd 2GB. - 3GB Sydney, 20A Canberra, 2MG Mudgee, 5DN Adelaide, 5RM Renmark (till 3rd March), 2WL Wollongong (half of the shares), and 2.LF (ownership hinges on one share).
Stations controlled by Argus Broadcasting Service Proprietary Limited.- 3SR Shepparton, 3WL Warragul, and 3YB Warrnambool.
Stations partly controlled by M.P.A. Productions Proprietary Limited. - 2HR Lochinvar (40 per cent.)”, 2LT Lithgow (33$ per cent.), and 3AW Melbourne (20 per cent.).
Those two London newspapers also formed a company called Australasian Nominees Limited, which bought the Melbourne Argus that was owned by the Australasian Limited. That organization controlled the company known as Australasian Broadcasting Limited, which controlled 3AR Melbourne and 3Y.D Warrnambool. M.P.A. Productions Proprietary Limited owns a majority of the shares in the Macquarie Broadcasting network, which includes many radio stations, some of which M.P.A. Productions Proprietary Limited already controls. The members of the Macquarie broadcasting network are -
Stations in Macquarie Network in 1942. - 2GB Sydney, 2 HE Lochinvar, 2CA Canberra, 2G55 Orange, 2LM Lismore, 2NZ Inverell, 2 WL Wollongong, 3AW Melbourne, 3BA Ballarat. 3BA Hamilton, 3SH Swan Hill, 3TB. Sale, 4BH Brisbane, 5DN Adelaide. 5B..M Renmark, 6PR Perth, CT55 Dardanup, 7 HO Hobart, 7 LA Launceston, 7BU Burnie, 7Q.T Queenstown, 7DY Derby, and 7A.D Devonport.
The fact . that the organization owns a controlling interest in the Macquarie network does not mean that it has a controlling interest in all the stations in the network. Local stations formed an association to enable them to obtain programmes which might be too expensive for the individual stations to bargain foi- on their own. However, within the network are four or five stations which M.P.A. Productions Proprietary Limited directly controls.
The royal commission on the press in England found in 3949 that one man Mr. H. G. Bartholomew directed the policy of both the Daily Mirror and the Sunday Pictorial. The directorate of efi eli of those papers consists of seven members, and on each directorate four of the members are identical, so that the same four members control the two newspapers, which have some sort of interlocking ownership. I mention those facts in order to show that a great measure of control of some stations, and absolute control of others, has in fact passed from Australia to Mr. Bartholomew. I do not wish in any way to disparage that gentleman, or the companies with which he is associated. Some other financial group might well have obtained the measure of control which his group has obtained over radio stations in Australia. The fact that the control was obtained by this particular group does not redound to the discredit of those associated with it. My only reason for mentioning the fact is to make it clear that what I say could happen has, in fact, happened.
That leads me to what is really the major question at issue before the Senate : Whether any overseas group or individual should be able to direct the policy of a large number of radio stations in Australia. At this stage.
I should like to put to honorable senators the suggestion that the radio broadcasting industry is entirely different from every other industry, except, possibly, the newspaper industry, in that it represents one of the most important methods of controlling public opinion. The radio broadcasting system has always been the first target of the minister for propaganda in totalitarian countries, because those ministers have always wanted to gain control of the methods of forming public opinion. In practically every house there is a radio set, which, all day long, disseminates news, views and entertainment. In other countries, in less happy circumstances, public opinion has been moulded, without the listeners really knowing that their opinions have been moulded. That is why it is important that no government should ever gain complete control of all radio stations by nationalizing the radio broadcasting industry. That is why it is so important that no single group in Australia should gain a monopoly control over all commercial radio broadcasting stations. That is why it is particularly important that no overseas group should gain control of commercial broadcasting in Australia, so as to be in a position to influence a large section of Australian opinion. We have to consider, not only broadcasting as it exists to-day, but also broadcasting as it will exist in the future when, through facsimile broadcasting, printed news and views will be broadcast to be read in every home in Australia.
– Would the honorable senator object to an Australian monopoly of broadcasting?
– I have just said that it would be most dangerous for any single group to gain monopoly control over radio broadcasting. That is why all political parties have hitherto agreed that the number of radio broadcasting stations which can be controlled by one person shall be limited. I regret that this provision can be overcome by the formation of holding companies, a point to which I may direct attention later. The point which I wish to stress now is that the radio broadcasting industry is different from other industries because it offers facilities for moulding publicopinion on all matters of moment.
– “Why not nationalize the broadcasting industry?
– It would be just as dangerous for the government of the day to be able to pump its ideas into the homes of the people as it would be for any other group or organization to be able to do so. I do not believe that radio broadcasting stations in Australia, or any substantial proportion of them, should come under the control of any person or group of persons outside Australia, and that is true whether such control is vested in Colonel MacCormack of the Chicago Tribune, the Hearst Press, the Paris Soir, the New York Times, or any other person or organization. Australia has a great variety of relations with foreign countries. We have trade relations which are a matter for- discussion between our Government and the government of other countries. We have diplomatic relations with many other governments. Questions arise on defence measures, involving decisions as to whether force should be used in this issue or that. Questions relating to immigration arise from time to time. Discussion on many problems is going on all the time with various governments, and Australia’s attitude towards those problems is guided very largely by the state of public opinion in this country. Therefore, it is essential that we should know that those who are moulding public opinion here are of this country, and nowhere else.
Censorship is not involved in this issue. It is not a matter of permitting the dissemination of some views or of forbidding the dissemination of others. In Australia, there are two main divisions of political thought, but the arguments which develop out of those divisions are Australian arguments put forward in the belief that the measures advocated would, if adopted, promote the greatest good to the greatest number of Australians. We have no assurance that arguments advanced from anywhere outside Australia would be motivated by the same principle. I hope that we shall always be able to listen to broadcasts from overseas stations, and thus learn of the opinions that are held in those countries, but when we listen to comments broadcast from overseas stations we know that what we hear comes to us from another country, and we assess their value and importance in the light of that knowledge. When we listen to comments broadcast by an Australian station we assume that they represent the opinions of at least a section of the Australian people.
Sitting suspended from 5.^6 to 8 p.m.
– Now is the appropriate time for this Senate to state whether or not it is desirable that overseas persons and companies should gain control of broadcasting in this country. There is no element of censorship in the motion which I have proposed. It does not seek to prevent the presentation of Australian viewpoints through the medium of Australian broadcasting stations. It does not seek to prevent the broadcasting in this country of points of view by stations outside Australia. Those who listen to broadcasts made by overseas stations know from which country they emanate and they form their own judgment about the matter contained in them. What we have to decide is’ whether broadcasting stations that present allegedly Australian views and policies, should be controlled by persons who are not Australians and who may be thought not to be presenting an Australian viewpoint. Honorable senators opposite may ask whether we should prevent overseas capital from being invested in certain broadcasting stations in Australia.
Opposition senators interjecting,
– Let those honorable senators who are interjecting say whether they believe it to be right for overseas capital to be permitted to gain control of broadcasting stations in this country. Let them indicate whether they believe that Russian, French, Spanish or American capital should control broadcasting stations in Australia. Let them say without qualification whether they believe it to be desirable that capital from any overseas country should be permitted to gain control of the greatest medium in the formation of Australian public opinion, and so be able to mould public opinion in this country, not with the imprimatur of the country from which it comes hut under the guise of an Australian station submitting Australian views to the Australian people.
The broadcasting industry is completely different from other industries. Financial matters in Australia are already controlled by the Commonwealth Bank, but this matter concerns a principle that is of much greater significance than mere finance. Broadcasting is the principal medium for the moulding of public opinion in this country on matters of all kinds, including our relations with other countries. If our overseas trade policy is to be decided in a democratic way, should not the views expressed by broadcasting stations in regard to that subject be formulated in this country? If diplomatic matters are under consideration, should not views relating to them, which may well be opposing views, be formulated within this country and listeners be made aware that they are listening to views that have been formulated in this .country? The same principle should apply to broadcast matters concerning the use of our troops. Broadcasting reaches every home and consequently it should not be the preserve of the Government of this country, or of any private monopoly in this country, and above all it should not be the preserve of any private monopoly outside this country.
Opposition senators interjecting,
– If any honorable senator opposite believes that it is desirable that this medium for moulding public opinion should be controlled from outside Australia, let him stand in his place and 3ay so without equivocation. All political parties have agreed in the past that it was right and proper that the number of broadcasting stations controlled by any persons or companies in Australia should be strictly limited. A provision to that effect was inserted in the Broadcasting Act 19<I6 with the approval of all political parties then represented in the Parliament. Surely, then, it is even more right and proper that persons and companies from outside Australia should be permitted to control even fewer broadcasting stations. In my opinion, and I hope it will be shown to be the opinion of the Senate also, they should control none at all.
This motion has no relation to the control of the investment of overseas capital in an Australian industry. It relates solely to the control of the most important medium in the moulding of public opinion in this country. If honorable senators opposite believe that broadcasting should be controlled by Hearst or MacCormack or some other overseas interests, let them ‘ say so. Now is the time for them to make a clear statement of policy, because for the first time an incursion into Australian broadcasting is being made by an overseas company. For the first time a company which holds shares in a holding company which, in turn, holds shares in other holding companies, has obtained control of a number of Australian broadcasting stations and may be able to circumvent the provisions of the Broadcasting Act, which limits the number of stations that may be controlled by a person or a company. If honorable senators opposite have changed their views about this matter since 1946, let them say so here and now.
Opposition senators interjecting ,
– Order ! The Senate is considering the control of broadcasting. Honorable senators should exercise some control of themselves. I remind them that their disorderliness is being broadcast to the people.
Senator Hendrickson interjecting,
– Order! I ask Senator Hendrickson to pay due deference to the Chair. I shall not permit these constant interjections to continue.
– I thank you. Mr. President, for having protected me from these constant interjections.
– The honorable senator invited them.
– I cannot understand why my remarks, which have been on a plane of high principle, and which have not been directed against any member of the Senate, should have aroused such exacerbation amongst Opposition senators. I am merely seeking to impose in t,hn realm of broadcasting control only what Opposition senators themselves sought to impose in the realm of financial control. If Opposition senators are united on this matter there is no reason why they should reject a policy which they espoused in 1946. If they continue their hostility to this motion and force it to a division they will act against the best interests of the people of this country. I do not think that the Opposition is united in its attitude to the motion. Opposition to it has come from only a scattered and noisy section of interjectors. This is not a matter of party politics. Some Opposition senators have been provoked to laughter. If they consider chia to be a matter of party politics, I. trust that they will explain why they regard it as such. Do they believe that those who are responsible for the incursion of overseas interests into Australian broadcasting are likely to favour their particular brand of politics, or ours, or that they will stand aloof from party politics? If not, what was the reason for their loud and inane laughter when I suggested that this is a matter not of party politics but of the control of the principal medium for moulding public opinion. Such control has been sought by the governments of other countries which have determined to adopt totalitarian practices and when they have obtained it they have used it as a means of conditioning the minds of the people to accept totalitarian practices. Australia is but a young and sparsely populated country in which only a comparatively few broadcasting stations have been established. Should we allow the United States of America, Russia, or any other great foreign country to control broadcasting stations in this country by means of holding companies? Do honorable senators opposite favour control of the Australian commercial broadcasting stations by a foreign country? If so, what countries do they think should control them and how many stations should they control. If honorable senators would prefer to see this medium of public opinion reserved to Australians, I hope they will support this motion.
– I second the motion.
– The terms of Senator Gorton’s motion are as follows : -
Tha.t, in the opinion of the Senate, it te undesirable that any person not an Australian should have any substantial measure of ownership or control over any Australian commercial broadcasting station whether such ownership or control be exercisable directly or indirectly
I awaited with very great interest the development of Senator Gorton’s argument in support of his motion and I must say at once that I have never heard a motion so ill supported in this chamber. The honorable senator advanced two reasons for the motion. He claimed that the first was a minor reason but he devoted a great part of his address to it. The minor reason concerned the activities of a group of British financial interests. He stated that the group had substantial interests in certain Australian broadcasting stations and had a controlling interest in others. Senator Gorton claimed that the London Daily Mirror and Sunday Pictorial form a body known as M.P.A. Productions Proprietary Limited in Australia. He claimed that it had bought shares in Broadcasting Associates Limited, which gave it varying degrees of holdings ranging down to one-fifth of the shares in certain companies. Certainly its holdings did not comprise a controlling interest in any of the companies associated with that body according to the figures that he supplied. He claimed that M.P.A. Productions Proprietary Limited also formed Australasian Companies Limited.
– No, I claimed that the Daily Mirror and the Sunday Pictorial formed that body.
– Very well, but he also claimed that they had acquired Argus and Australasian Limited and three broadcasting stations in Victoria in the Argus service. He claimed, too, that M.P.A. Productions Proprietary Limited has acquired the majority of the shares in the Macquarie broadcasting network. I neither accept nor reject those statements. I have no knowledge of the facts except that I know that he made one small error in his statement if he included station 7HT in Tasmania as a member of the Macquarie network. With my limited knowledge of the network, I believe that it is a loose association of broadcasting stations with separate and mostly local ownership throughout Australia, [f the facts are as stated by the honorable senator, this British organization would have to deal separately with each one of those companies to acquire all or any of their shares. I do not controvert one word that the honorable senator has said about the activities in Australia of these English interests, nor do I accept his statements, because I have no means of checking them. When the honorable senator came to his major reason, he claimed that no foreign group - and I underline those words - should be able to direct the policy of a large number of radio stations which are a vital medium for controlling public opinion. He said that he had nothing to say in disparagement of the people who are directing this enterprise and the persons who control its British interests. I put it to the Senate that we have come to a nice pass in Australia when a purely British group of investors can be referred to in the Parliament as a foreign body, or a foreign group. Those are the exact words that the honorable senator used.
– Is the honorable senator sure that these interests are purely British?
– I am relying on the honorable senator for his statement that two newspapers published and operating in Britain were responsible for this activity in Australia, and I repeat that it amazes me that I should live to hear a group of British investors referred to in the Parliament as a foreign group. I point out to the Senate that the Labour party when it was in power set out deliberately to attract British capital to this country. Years of very careful and difficult negotiation were undertaken to remove the injustice of double taxation on the citizens of Australia and the United Kingdom in the matter of profits earned by the citizens of one country in the other. It was a very great achievement on the part of the Labour Government that an arrangement on that ques tion satisfactory to the citizens of both the United Kingdom and Australia was accomplished. It opened the way for a ready flow of capital between the two countries. Allied with that policy was an endeavour to bring about a similar arrangement with the United States of America. Negotiations were proceeding with that country when the Labour party left office in 1949. They were not concluded because it appeared that, with the dollar stricture, the situation would have operated adversely against this country at least for the time being. But I think that it is very much to the interest of Australia to attract to this country as much British and American capital as possible.
– Not for broadcasting stations.
– If the principle supported by Senator Gorton is to prevail and British investors are to be regarded as foreign groups, it is only a logical extension of that principle to apply it to banking, insurance and shipping interests in this country and to many others as well. Some of them are vital to this country.
– Not as vital as wireless.
– Wireless is important. I agree with an honorable senator on the opposite side who interjected .that these broadcasting stations are largely commercial undertakings. They are not propagandists in the first sense. Their main and primary function is to be a commercial venture. Their news dissemination and their colouring of news is of relatively minor importance in my view. If we are to take towards British groups the attitude suggested by Senator Gorton we should certainly have to take it against American capital coming into any field in this country which is regarded as vital. It is useless to say that commercial broadcasting services are the only vital elements in this country. The principle that is advocated by Senator Gorton is wholly bad. Above all it is anti-British and un-Australian, and for those reasons the Opposition will oppose this motion. The group mentioned by Senator Gorton is a British group, as he has acknowledged.
– I said that it was formed by two English newspapers.
– I take it that English is British. When these people or their representatives come to this country they are subject to all the laws of Australia, both Commonwealth and State. They are subject to the laws of libel and sedition and to the provisions of the Broadcasting Act. Nothing is more important in a democracy than that all viewpoints of a community should be freely expressed. It is very significant that the Argus, a Melbourne newspaper controlled by this group, is practically the only newspaper in Australia that, for the time toeing at least, has been consistent in its opposition to the viewpoint of this Government. It is also significant that Senator Gorton is the spearhead. of this attack, which is primarily directed not at a point of principle but at a group of individual investors. Senator Gorton i3 a Victorian senator in whose State the Argus has its main circulation. I put it seriously on behalf of the Opposition that this motion is solely inspired by a grudge against the proprietors of the Argus and that the entry of this group into broadcasting is feared as a break in the monopoly of viewpoint that has been presented over the commercial broadcasting stations of this country.
– How many of them are Labour?
– Very few of them are Labour-controlled. Those that are Labour-controlled could be numbered on the fingers of one hand. I put it to Senator Gorton and to the Government, on whose behalf I presume he is advancing this motion, that they fear the element of competition and the possibility of the presentation of another viewpoint in this country. That is an Aunt Sally of his own creation. Let the honorable senator tell the Senate anything that has happened in the field of broadcasting as a result of this group’s excursion into that field. He has voiced not one single complaint about the activities of the group or of those who constitute it. Labour is not opposed to monopolies. The people of this country should be well aware of that. Labour sought to establish a monopoly for the people in airways in the national interest. It set out to do the same thing in banking because it believed that to be in the national interest also.
I have no hesitation in saying that Australia should have followed the lead of Great Britain under governments of all complexions - Conservative, Liberal, or Labour - not one of which has tolerated commercial broadcasting enterprises. It would be a good thing if it were possible to revert to that position in this country. It is not possible owing to our Constitution and to decisions that have been made by the High Court from time to time, so honorable senators are not faced with that possibility. Therefore, broadcasting is a field for private enterprise. One would expect Government supporters, who are the champions of private enterprise, to give the greatest possible encouragement to competition in that field, but quite obviously they fear that the viewpoint which this group expresses in one Australian newspaper, may be transmitted over the Australian commercial radio stations in which the group has acquired a minor interest, or a major or controlling interest. But what has happened? Has the policy of those stations been disturbed since the transaction has taken place? If we are to close our doors to foreign capital in one vital field, we should close them also in other fields. I remind the Senate that the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Limited holds 49 per cent, of the shares in Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited. There is an example of British capital being invested in this country. Is there any objection to that? Australia depends entirely upon overseas sources for its petrol supplies, and petrol is of course vital to the economy of this country and even to its very safety. Our first line of defence is in the air, but aeroplanes cannot fly without petrol. Does Senator Gorton object to a British group, which he would term a “ foreign body “, having a substantial interest in Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited? I invite him to reply to that question. Does he object to the investment of American capital in the Ford organization in Australia which made a vast and very important contribution to our munitions programme during World War II? Surely the principle is the same. Let us assume for the purpose of argument that broadcasting is a vital undertaking. Is not the supply of petrol also vital to this country?
– Order I I am not prepared to permit the honorable senator to continue that line of argument. There is nothing in the motion about petrol. I ask the honorable senator to confine his remarks to broadcasting.
– I readily accept your ruling, Mr. President. My argument is that the investment of British and American capital in this country is something to be encouraged and gOt to be censured; and censure is, of course, implicit in the remarks that have been made to-night by Senator Gorton. I invite the Senate to bear in mind that many important Australian organizations which, we are proud to say, have played a great part in the development of this country, have taken wings and are expanding abroad. If we are to prevent the investment of British capital in Australian enterprises, except in a very limited field, we must expect retaliation against Australian capital when it seeks an outlet in other countries.
– Is the honorable senator defending only British capital? Would he like to see Russian capital admitted ?
– I am answering the honorable senator in the terms of his own motion, which refers specifically to any person who is “ not an Australian “. I take it that that definition would include persons who were not born in this country or” who do not enjoy Australian citizenship. The honorable senator did not make that as clear as he should have done. I have no wish to take much more of the Senate’s time on this topic. We have much more important business to deal with, and I understand that we are to be called upon to sit until the small hours of the morning. Senator Gorton’s motion was merely a cover for an attack on a group of British investors whose only possible sin is that they express through a newspaper that they control a viewpoint that is opposed to that of the Government. For that reason the Opposition opposes the motion. It is bad in principle; it i3 anti-British in tone and intention; and it is un-Australian.
– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has advanced only one proposition in reply to Senator Gorton’s excellent speech. He has claimed that the motion is anti-British. I have never heard the Leader of the Opposition in a more sanctimonious mood. I could almost see the crocodile tears in his eyes; but I am sure that he did not move any of his listeners. He certainly did not move me, and, judging by the smirks on the faces of his colleagues, he did not move them either. The Leader of the Opposition has asked why the introduction of British capital into Australia for the acquisition of broadcasting stations should be opposed in view of the fact that no such opposition was offered to the investment of British capital in banks, insurance companies, shipping companies, and so on. Surely he does not expect us to believe that that analogy is valid? Would he permit British interests to gain a stranglehold on our educational system by acquiring schools and universities?
– I rise to order. I submit that your ruling, Mr. President, which prevented Senator McKenna from referring to petrol companies, should also prevent Senator Vincent from speaking about schools. Our education system has no relation to the motion now before the Chair.
- Senator Vincent is quite in order in developing his line of argument. I permitted Senator McKenna to develop his argument. Apparently Senator Hendrickson did not learn at school the lesson that listeners should always be courteous to a speaker. This is a debate; not a dialogue. I shall not tolerate any more interjections.
– I contend that my hypothetical case of British interests obtaining control of schools and universities is completely analogous to the acquisition of broadcasting stations. The principle now at issue is not the introduction of British capital. The real objection is the control of broadcasting stations getting into the hands of overseas interests. We invite the investment of British and American capital in Australian industries. Any member of this chamber who believes that honorable senators on this side object to the introduction of American or British capital for such purposes is far wide of the mark.
The whole basis of the argument advanced by the Leader of the Opposition was that a broadcasting station was neither more nor less than a business undertaking. If that is so, why did the Australian Labour party force the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Mulcahy) to sell his shares in station 2HD? If the holding of those shares represented a purely business interest in a purely business undertaking, why should there have been any objection to it? I invite the Opposition to answer that question. The Leader of the Opposition said that he neither accepted nor rejected Senator Gorton’s statement about the acquisition of broadcasting stations. I can assure him that Senator Gorton’s statement is true. The contracts for the purchase and sale of those interests have been accepted. It is interesting to note the stations that have been acquired. M.P.A. Productions Proprietary Limited has acquired, by purchase, the. sole ownership of seven broadcasting station in New South Wales and South Australia. It has also acquired a measure of control in thirteen other stations throughout the Commonwealth. The stations concerned are -
Australian Capital Territory. - 2CA Canberra.
New South Wales. - 2G-)i Sydney. 2HR West Maitland, 2LF Young, 2LT Lithgow, 2MG Mudgee, 2MW Murwillumbah, 2PK Parkes, and 2WL Wollongong.
Victoria. - 3AW Melbourne and 3CV Maryborough.
Queensland. - 4BH Brisbane, 4BTJ Bundaberg and 4GY Gympie.
South Australia. - 5DN Adelaide and 5RM Renmark.
Western Australia. - 6IX Perth, 6MD Merredin and 6WB Katanning.
Tasmania. - 71iO Hobart and 7LA Launceston.
There are twenty stations in all. There are 102 commercial broadcasting stations throughout the Commonwealth. Therefore, with one stroke of the pen, British interests have gained some measure of control, if not complete control, of onefifth of the Australian commercial broadcasting network. M.P.A. Productions Proprietary Limited, although an Australian company, is controlled by one man, Mr. H. G. Bartholomew, an Englishman, who also controls the Daily Mirror, one of the largest daily papers in the “United Kingdom. Perhaps a few words about Mr. Bartholomew would not be out of place at this stage. I do not suggest that he owns the Daily Mirror. Shares in that newspaper are held by a number of people, but Mr. Bartholomew and his associates hold a controlling interest. They have enough shares to enable Mr. Bartholomew to be chairman of directors, and, therefore, to control the policy of the newspaper. He controls the Daily Mirror as well as its policy. Therefore, that newspaper nov* controls, wholly or in part, twenty radio stations in Australia. Mr. Bartholomew will, of course, exercise’ a control over those broadcasting stations similar to the control that he exercises over the Daily Mirror. That is an elementary deduction to draw. Can any member of the Opposition deny that that will be so? When Mr. Bartholomew first took over control of the Daily Mirror, its circulation was one of the smallest of the daily newspapers in London. Now it is one of the largest. It has become one of the most powerful newspapers in Great Britain. As a result, Mr. Bartholomew is a very powerful man. The Daily Mirror increased its circulation by descending to the lowest levels of journalism.
– I rise to order. When the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) was speaking to the motion, the Chair ruled that he was out of order because he referred to matters other than broadcasting. I submit that, in discussing the ownership and control of newspapers, Senator Vincent likewise is out of order.
– Order ! When the Leader of the Opposition was speaking to the motion, I allowed him a certain amount of latitude in order to develop his point. However, when I con sidered that he had strayed a little too far, I asked him to connect his remark– with the motion, which he did. I have already allowed Senator Vincent some latitude, but not as much as I allowed to the Leader of the Opposition. If the honorable senator gets too far away from the motion I shall call him to order. As the Senate will be sitting until a late hour this evening in order to dispose of its business, I appeal to honorable senators to keep to the motion before the Chair.
– Let us have a peaceful night.
– I hope that it will be a peaceful sitting.
– I assure the Senate0 that I shall be very much on the track soon. The Daily Mirror descended to the gutter in its standard of journalism. For example, it depicted sex in the depraved manner that appeals to a man’s baser instincts, and it glamorized crime. It also published intimate pen pictures of garrotters, and it “ scotched “ all that was decent in British tradition. It strove at all times to undermine public sentiment in relation to the administration of the British Government. I shall read to the Senate what eminent people in Great Britain have said about the Daily Mirror and about Mr. Bartholomew, who now controls solely, or in part, one-fifth of the radio stations of this country. When, as Home Secretary in a British Labour government, Mr. Herbert Morrison was discussing a cartoon that was published in the Daily Mirror, he is reported to have stated -
The cartoon in question is only one example, but a particularly evil example, of the policy and methods of a newspaper which, intent on exploiting an appetite for sensation and with a reckless indifference to the national interest and to the prejudicial effect on the war effort, has repeatedly published scurrilous misrepresentations, distorted and exaggerated statements and irresponsible generalizations. In the same issue the leading article stated: “… the accepted tip for Army leadership would, in plain truth, be this : - All who aspire to mislead others in war should be brass-buttoned boneheads, socially prejudiced, arrogant and fussy. A tendency to heart disease, apoplexy, diabetes and high blood pressure is desirable in the highest posts . . ‘’
Reasonable criticism on specific points and persons is one thing; general, violent denunciation, manifestly tending to undermine the
Army and depress the whole population, is quite another. Such insidious attacks are not to be excused by calls in other parts of the paper for more vigorous action. The press in general recognizes that the principle of freedom for the expression of opinion which Parliament and the Government are determined to maintain imposes on newspaper proprietors, editors and journalists an obligation to exercise that freedom with a proper sense of responsibility, and that if a particular paper so abuses that freedom that the war effort is hindered, that abuse is as injurious to the interests of the press itself as to the national interest.
That is what Mr. Herbert Morrison thought about Mr. Bartholomew and his newspaper, the Daily Mirror. I shall now read to the Senate the views that a noted journalist and commentator, Mr. A. P. Herbert, expressed in the House of Commons. I do not think that any member of the Opposition could claim that he is not impartial. Referring to the same leading article in the Daily Mirror, Mr. Herbert stated -
I say that it is a damned, disgusting, blackguardly thing; which is a disgrace to the honorable craft to which I belong; and I notice that there is not one man in this House who has had the courage to get up and defend it. It is no good an honorable member saying to me that the Army is composed of adults, and therefore what does it matter what you say! If adults cannot be misled by poisonous nonsense, why have we a law of libel and why have we laws of blasphemy and sedition? I am not in the Army; but I am on the fringe of the Navy, and I do not know that the Navy is less adult than the Army, but I tell the honorable member that I have seen the progressively poisonous effect on adult sailors caused by this particular paper.
That is what two well-known Englishmen think of the Daily Mirror. I agree entirely with both of them. I am more interested in Mr. Bartholomew than I am in the Daily Mirror, because I believe that he is now in Australia. Honorable senators opposite do not appear to be unduly disturbed that henceforth Mr. Bartholomew will exercise complete control over seven of our broadcasting stations, and partial control over another thirteen of them. I consider that the depraved ideas that Mr. Herbert did not like were very much against the public interest. The only person who derived any interest from them was Mr. Bartholomew himself. I should prefer him to stay in England. I do not want to see his vulgar ideas of journalism introduced into our radio programmes. But it is not for this reason that I suggest that he should be denied the right to purchase broadcasting stations in this country. Neither I nor the Parliament as a whole is the custodian of the people’s morals. In the words of Samuel Johnson -
Every man has a right to say the truth, according to hia own ideas, but every other man has the right to knock him down for it.
However, if Mr. Bartholomew wants to broadcast the kind of matter that I have mentioned, I have a perfect right, in this chamber, to express my opinion of him. Of course, that is no reason why Mr. Bartholomew and his crowd should not gain control of Australian broadcasting stations. I am merely informing the Senate of what I know about him, so that honorable senators will know the sort of man he is, from the point of view of morality, and the sort of newspaper he publishes in England.
– Has the honorable senator a photograph of Mr. Bartholomew ?
– I do not want a photograph of him. The power of the radio in relation to public opinion is very great. In the past, dictators have realized the truth of this assertion. Many people who do not even trouble to read the headlines of the newspapers listen to radio news broadcasts while they are eating their meals. The power of the radio is so great that if a teenager were asked to name the greatest singer in the world, she would probably reply “Frank Sinatra”. I have known many men to hurry home for a meal so that they could listen to the “ Dad and Dave “ serial on the wireless. When television is introduced into this country, I consider that the power of the radio here will be increased considerably. Whether we like it or not, the radio moulds public opinion probably to a greater degree than does any other public instrument. Furthermore, it moulds our culture, morals, and political views. It must be remembered that 102 frequencies have already been allocated to B-class broadcasting stations. There are only five or six frequencies still available. As I have mentioned, Mr. Bartholomew has already bought seven
Australian radio stations, and he has an interest in another thirteen broadcasting stations in this country. Would honorable senators opposite remain indifferent to the position if Mr. Bartholomew were to buy all of the Australian radio stations? ‘Of course, Mr. Bartholomew might say that that would be impracticable because the Broadcasting Act would prevent it. That statement would not be correct. Any person may buy every B class radio station in Australia through the medium of holding companies. It is a simple matter as far as the legal position is concerned. There is nothing in the Constitution or in the Broadcasting Act to prevent him from doing so.
Would the Leader of the Opposition accept as proper the proposition that Mr. Bartholomew might purchase all Australian commercial broadcasting stations through a holding company? Would he accept the position if an American holding company subsequently .purchased those radio stations ? Let us suppose that a Russian purchased Mr. Bartholomew’s interests in such stations. Where would the Leader of the Opposition stand then ? It may perhaps be interesting to honorable senators opposite to recall that the Denison estate sold out because it was not receiving sufficient interest on its capital. It is well to ask why Mr. Bartholomew should buy something that is not paying very well. Let some honorable senator opposite get up and answer that question.
– How does the honorable senator know that he has stated the position correctly?
– I defy any one to deny the truth of my statements. It is clear that something must be done about the position. It is the first time that an attempt has been made to secure control of Australian newspapers and radio stations, and I consider that our freedom is at stake. I wish to read to honorable senators some words of John Stuart Mill, because I believe that everybody will be interested in them. Whilst I am reading them, perhaps honorable senators opposite might recollect that it is possible for Mr. Bartholomew, Comrade Stalin or anybody else to buy every B class broadcasting station in Australia and that as the law stands at the moment, nothing could be done to prevent it. The following words of John Stuart Mill have direct application to the motion which the Senate is now considering: -
That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is selfprotection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others.
That is a statement of freedom which it would be well for all of us to ponder, because the matter now under discussion concerns us and our freedom. Our political beliefs belong to us as Australians. They do not belong to Mr. Bartholomew. He may come out here and say what he likes about them, but he should not have the right to own a medium, of expression in which only Australians are concerned. It is our right as Australians to own our broadcasting stations, which are a vital element in our freedom. As John Stuart Mill says, they are “ our concern “. They are not Mr. Bartholomew’s concern. For that reason alone, I support the motion.
– Honorable senators have just listened to a most extraordinary speech. John Stuart Mill has been referred to, but the only way in which I am able to sum up the speech made by Senator Vincent is to paraphrase the lines of Gilbert and Sullivan and say that, like the flowers that bloom in the spring, Senator Vincent’s remarks have nothing to do with the case. Honorable senators have listened to a most vicious attack on a man named Bartholomew. That attack has been made by supporters of a government which only last week read to members of the Opposition a lesson on how carefully they should treat the privileges of the Senate and how careful they must be not to bandy about the names of men who have no opportunity to defend themselves in this chamber. Yet, to-night we have heard a bitter attack on an Englishman by the name of Bartholomew whose claim to fame appears to be that he has bought the 2GB radio set-up in New South Wales.
– Plus eighteen. other radio stations.
– And whatever that set-up included. Viewed dispassionately, the motion now before the Senate is the most extraordinary that I have ever seen presented in this chamber. Earlier in the day a formal motion for the adjournment of the Senate was moved to discuss the development of Queensland. The mover discussed that matter on a high level. After only one honorable senator on the Government side of the chamber had spoken, the motion was gagged. To-night, Senator Gorton’s motion has been debated ad nauseam. I submit that some explanation is due to the Senate, because on an ordinary, simple approach to the matter the reason for the motion is very hard to understand.
During his speech, Senator Vincent indicated what I consider to be the whole “ phoney “ attitude of the Government concerning this matter. The honorable senator stated that Mr. Bartholomew will exercise the same influence over the radio stations which he has purchased as he exercises over the London Daily Mirror newspaper. The honorable senator did not go on to say, “ the same influence as he exercises over the Argus newspaper in ‘ Victoria”. To my mind, that omission points to the nigger in the woodpile. Apparently the Government believes that it is disgraceful in this modern Australia that a substantial newspaper, day after day, should endeavour to present a middleline picture of the politics of the coun-‘ try. For so many years the anti-Labour parties have enjoyed such tremendous support from the press that it is too much for them to swallow when even one of the . major newspapers is prepared to present the point of view of the Australian Labour party. Because of that fact, this vendetta has been launched against the man who has purchased the Melbourne Argus. The Government says, in effect, “ We are not going to permit you to present the reasonably free and accurate report over your radio stations that you present in your newspapers “. The more I look at this motion the more I am convinced that that is its purpose.
If the Government is concerned because it fears that Mr. Bartholomew will use the radio stations that he has acquired for the dissemination of vile and vicious propaganda against the national interests, surely it is not unarmed? Surely it has power to deal with such a situation? 1 can remember - and it is not so long ago - when the gentleman who now holds the august office of Speaker of the House of Representatives was PostmasterGeneral. By a stroke of his pen, he put radio station 2KY off the air because the tone of the commentary being broadcast at a certain time did not please him. Station 2KY was therefore closed down for the week-end. When certain persons searched for the Postmaster-General in order to appeal to him to lift the ban on the station, he could not be found. He was at Kangaroo Island for the week-end. f suggest that that illustrates to honorable senators the kind of power that rests in the hands of Ministers if, in the opinion of the Government, the radio stations such as those which Mr. Bartholomew has acquired do something wrong.
Senator Gorton appeared to rest his whole case on one point. I admit that it is a substantial point if it can be proved. The honorable senator referred to the danger to the national interests of a monopoly of news sources being established.
– I said “ radio stations “.
– Apparently it does not matter that monopolies should exiSt in relation to other news sources.
– Yes it does, but the Government has no control over them.
– If a man is an Australian, apparently it is not a crime for him to mould the opinions of other Australians. I suggest that the honorable senator should consider the substantial list of radio stations that are controlled by Sir Keith Murdoch. _ They will find that he controls stations in almost every State of the Commonwealth.
– How many?
– Between seventeen and twenty. In any event, it is a substantial number. In addition, those stations are completely tied, whereas thirteen of the stations acquired by the group of which Mr. Bartholomew is the head will be only partially controlled. Honorable senators will also find that the only morning newspaper in Queensland is owned by Sir Keith Murdoch.
– In Brisbane - not in Queensland !
– The only morning newspaper in Adelaide is also owned by him. Apparently the Government considers that that is in order. However, when Mr. Bartholomew comes to this country, buys a newspaper in order to present political matters fairly, that is completely wrong, according to the Government. If honorable senators opposite wish to prevent sources of propaganda from falling into the hands of persons who are not Australians, why do they not introduce the necessary legislation?
I suggest to honorable senators that the most potent single source of propaganda in the world to-day is the motion picture. Ninety-five per cent, of the motion pictures which come into this country are made in the United States of America and Great Britain.
– And every one knows it!
– As the honorable senator says, every one knows that that is so. Some of the propaganda which those motion pictures disseminate is of the most intense and definite kind. If the Government is logical in its desire to prevent the establishment of a monopoly of news and propaganda sources, why does it not consider the motion picture industry? There is no suggestion that that will be done. The motion which the Senate is considering seems to be the result of a private vendetta between the Government and the group to which I have referred. The Government’s courage seems to have been aroused at last.
The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) referred to the fact that private trading banks, which have a great influence on our lives, are owned by overseas interests. Yet it has never been suggested by honorable senators opposite that British interests should be bought out. It would, perhaps, be interesting to ascertain the degree to which Australian trading banks are owned by English interests. I suggest that approximately 80 per cent, of the capital of such banks is held outside Australia. In order to be consistent, I think that Senator Gorton should suggest to the Government that the overseas interests in Australian trading banks should be bought out by Australian shareholders. Similar action has been taken in other countries. Perhaps the honorable senator might care to suggest that the same action be taken in relation to insurance companies also.
I do not wish to delay the Senate, because I understand that a number of speakers will be permitted to debate this matter if their speeches are not too lengthy. I should like to hear as many expressions of opinion as possible from honorable senators opposite, because the more closely I listened to the original speakers on the Government side, the more confused the position became. I wish to know who is behind this motion. Has it been sponsored by the Cabinet and given to a private senator to handle in this chamber? If the Government is associated with this matter, why did not the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) or some other Minister introduce it?
– Honorable senators on this side of the chamber are at liberty to express their views.
– I remind honorable senators that in the House of Representatives a lowly rank and file member was given the task of throwing this atom bomb into the Parliament.
– Does not the honorable senator agree that private members should be entitled to move a motion?
– This is no private members’ proposition, as may be understood by comparing the time allowed for its discussion with the time allowed this afternoon for the debate on a matter of urgent public importance relating to the failure of the Government to honour its undertakings to the Government of Queensland. On that subject, the gag was applied after only one member of the Opposition had spoken. This attack by Government supporters is directed against a man whose offence is that he, through the Melbourne Argus, has given the Labour party a fair share of publicity. Even then, the paper has not given the Labour party full support, as witness some of the editorials that have bitterly criticized the party. However, because the Angus does give the Labour party its share of publicity, the man who has a controlling interest in it is to be prevented from bringing British capital into Australia, to expand his enterprises here. I am sorry that so much time has been wasted in the discussion of this “ phoney “ issue.
– I am grateful to Senator Armstrong for his concluding remarks in which he claimed that private members of the Government parties were being put forward as “ fall guys “, if one may borrow a term from the American vaudeville stage. Actually, the reverse is the case. This motion has been brought on in response to requests by members of the Senate and the House of Representatives that private members should be given an opportunity to make clear to the public their opinions on so vital an issue.
Because so much discursive propaganda has been voiced by members of the Opposition, it might not be out of place to remind the Senate of the motion before the Chair. It reads -
That, in the opinion of the Senate, it is undesirable that any person not an Australian should have any substantial measure of ownership or control over any Australian commercial broadcasting station, whether such ownership or control be exercisable directly or indirectly.
The motion deals with broadcasting, not with newspapers. Those who support the motion might well take their text from the leading article of a Victorian newspaper, the name of which has been bandied about in this discussion. The words to which I refer are these -
True culture generates in a nation’s soil, and hi nourished by it.
Culture springs from the people, and not from outside agencies. A proper appreciation of the duty of the people to the nation springs from within themselves, but in these times efforts are continually being made from without to abate the national spirit in this country and in other countries. I direct the minds of honorable senators to the words of John Masefield, the poet laureate, when he first saw the Australian soldiers on Gallipoli in 1914, when he exclaimed -
They walked like kings!
They walked like kings because they were conscious that they came from a kingdom - the kingdom of Australia. They walked like kings because they believed in the Australian people, and in the future of the Australian nation. They were the custodians of that belief and of the Australian spirit, a spirit that was fostered and generated in the Australian Labour party of 50 years ago. I do not hesitate to say that the Australian nation owes an immense amount to the men who guided the Australian Labour party in those days. The spirit that inspired them is the spirit which I cherish to-day, and that is why I support the motion before the Chair.
The question that confronts the backbenchers of all parties in this Parliament is how to protect and foster Australian culture, and the beliefs and hopes of the Australian people. That is why I am concerned to prevent outside agencies from obtaining facilities in Australia by means of which they may influence public opinion, and change the Australian character. This matter involves our national integrity. Are we a colony in the nineteenth century understanding of that term, or are we a nation in full partnership with our equals in the British Commonwealth of Nations? Are we a colony to be exploited by overseas capital according to the laisse-faire conception of economics? The Australian Labour party never favoured such exploitation in the past, and never supported monopoly enterprise. If it now supports monopolies, let it say so. Per haps it now favours the idea of govern- ment monopoly, but I am sure that it will, not have the support of the Australian people in that, nor will it have mine.
I propose now to answer the charge of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) that those who support the motion are opposed to the entry of British capital into Australia. We donothing of the kind; we welcome it, but we want to know what sort of capital is to come here. Is the capital to be used for productive purposes, and to further the development of the country? Is it to be used to develop in Australia new techniques and new skills, so that, production may be increased, and the country enabled to support a greater population; or are we to be asked towelcome the introduction of refugee capital? Ever since the end of World1 War I., various countries have been disturbed by the sudden influx of refugee capital controlled by those who have nowish to identify themselves with the countries to which they go. Their one desire is to protect their capital. The capital concerned in the transactions under discussion is controlled by men. who are frightened by the situation in western Europe, and are looking for safer investments for their capital in Australia. Here they are seeking easy profits by investing in industries which pander to popular amusement. In thisinstance, the capital has been invested in an industry which provides facilities for moulding public opinion. Senator Armstrong asked why we did not seek totake action against those who control thefilm industry. As a matter of fact, Commonwealth and State governments have taken action, through the censorship, to protect Australian standards and Australian culture against the effects of foreign films. Of course, we have no control over the production of those films. Honorable senators have a duty to theAustralian people to ensure that vital industries are not influenced by refugee capital coming into Australia.
– Has this anything to do with the £300,000,000 of “hot” money that has come to Australia?
– I suggest that it may well be part of it. Putting aside for the moment the matter of moulding public opinion, let us consider the introduction of overseas capital in relation to important secondary industries in general. Surely no one would favour the controlling of Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, one of our most important and efficient industries, by some great American steel combine, or by the British Federation of Steel Industries, or one of its components, for that matter. I am sure that honorable senators opposite would demand that action be taken if they suspected for one moment that Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited was about to come under the control of outside steel interests, and I would support them, as would every honorable senator on the Government side of the chamber. The Leader of the Opposition claimed that the motion before the Chair represented an attack on British capital. However, T feel confident that every member of the Opposition would reject a proposal that the Government of the United Kingdom, having nationalized the steel industry in that country, should proceed to obtain a controlling interest in the steel industry in Australia. If honorable senators opposite are now, as they used to be, the custodians of the Australian spirit, would they view with equanimity the control of the Australian steel industry by the British Government? Their answer to that question is, I am sure, an emphatic “ No “. I should not so regard such control nor should I regard with equanimity an attempt by refugee capital to control to a major degree the means by which news is disseminated to the people of Australia. As a nation, Australia must seek its destiny in its own way. We welcome capital to enable us to become more powerful in terms of wealth and numbers, but no one would suggest that Australia, should become a mecca for the investment of international and refugee capital. The experiences of the last twenty years have taught us that nations have fallen and become the prey of social forces inimical to their way of life because their peoples were suborned and persuaded by foreign powers that had taken control of the instruments of news dissemination and propaganda to reject principles and policies to which they had adhered for centuries. France is a vivid example of a country in the throes of national sickness resulting from the intrusion of foreign capital into its news dissemination agencies in the period 1937 to 1939.
I do not know the origin of the capital from Great Britain which is said to have been invested in the purchase of Australian broadcasting stations. Britain is, and has been for many years, the clearing house for foreign capital.
It is our duty to ensure that Australian economy and Australian culture shall be protected against the intrusion of overseas capital the origin of which we do not know. I wholeheartedly support the motion, not because it is directed at a specific person or group of persons, or at a specific newspaper, but because it seeks to revive, to nourish and to cherish a principle to which the early founders of the Australian Labour party and, indeed, all Australians subscribed
I reserve a final measure of contempt for those Australian citizens who, m the guise of being fit and proper custodians of Australian principles and Australian culture, succumbed to the bail of money and have sold property which the Australian people gave them the right to use solely because they were Australians. I gladly join with my colleagues in supporting the motion.
.- I listened very carefully to the statements made by Senator Gorton, the mover of the motion, and those of his colleagues who supported him, in the hope that I should be enlightened as to its purpose. The more I heard the more 1 became convinced that the motion was prompted by the fact that a section of the Victorian press had fairly stated the views and policies of the Australian Labour party. Senator Gorton was obviously concerned lest overseas interests should attempt to mould the policies of the two major political parties in Australia. Broadcasting is only one means by which the principles and policies of a political party may be conveyed to the people. It is unlikely that any Australian brooadcasting station would broadcast political views of persons or parties in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. Senator Gorton referred extensively to the purchase by M.P.A. Productions Limited of shares in Macquarie Broadcasting Service Proprietary Limited and of certain broadcasting stations associated with the Melbourne Argus. He said that the Macquarie network controls thirteen stations and that the Melbourne Argus controls seven stations. I point out to the honorable senator that although certain broadcasting stations are included in the Macquarie network they are neither owned nor operated by Macquarie Broadcasting Service Proprietary Limited. The honorable senator said that station 2GZ Orange is owned by the Macquarie network.
– I said that that station is included in the Macquarie network.
– Station 2GZ is controlled almost exclusively by the Australian Country party.
– But it is associated with the Macquarie network.
– It is merely served by the Macquarie network. The honorable senator also said that no censorship is exercised over broadcasting. That statement is entirely incorrect. Senator Armstrong has reminded us of the instance in which the present Speaker of the House of Representatives (Mr. Archie Cameron), in his capacity as PostmasterGeneral, put station 2KY off the air because of a contravention of the broadcasting regulations. That action proves the existence of a degree of censorship over broadcasting in Australia. No one should know better than do the members of the Liberal party that broadcasting is controlled. They all recall to their sorrow how unfair dramatizations of political events sponsored by the Liberal party were banned by a Labour government. Senator Gorton referred to the Melbourne Argus. Although that journal usually contains a fair report of the views of the Australian Labour party, at times it has been critical of the policy of that party. Honorable senators opposite have said that this motion stems from a desire to prevent the establishment of a monopoly in commercial broadcasting. The truth is that it stems from a fear that the new company which will control the Macquarie network and certain other broadcasting stations may give a fairer deal to the Australian Labour party than it has received in the past from certain sections of the press and certain broadcasting interests. Senator Gorton has expressed the fear that views and policies that are alleged to be Australian views and policies may be disseminated by overseas interests. Views that are foreign to Australia are already given prominence by the Murdoch press and certain Australian broadcasting stations. Too often broadcasts on political matters have been coloured by them in favour of the Liberal party. I take no- exception ti that practice. The fact that they do not give prominence to the views of the Australian Labour party does not entitle mi to condemn them. I cannot understand why honorable senators opposite fear that the company that now controls th, Melbourne Argus will unduly favour th, views and policies of the Australian Labour party.
– No honorable senator on this side of the Senate takes exception to the publication by the Argus of news items favorable to the Australian Labour party.
– I cannot understand why an attack has been made on British capital entering this country. In 1945, when the Labour Government was in power, capital was attracted to Australia from every part of the world. People sought to invest their capital in Australia and to use their technical skill in developing new industries. That influx of capital and skill was encouraged by the Labour Government and it was continued by the Government that is now in office. In my opinion, the Government is ill-advised to support this motion. It is the most anti-British and un-Australian motion that I have known to be presented in this chamber. For weeks honorable senators have met for only one and a half days a week and the Government is guilty of hypocrisy when it introduces a motion of this kind in the closing days of the sessional period. This afternoon an important motion was moved by Senator Byrne, but only a limited number of honorable senators were allowed to debate it. Now the Senate has before it a motion of the utmost importance from a diplomatic point. of view and one which offers the worst insult ever furnished by this Parliament to the British people. If honorable senators on this side of the chamber attempted to move a motion of this kind there would be Union Jacks all over the place on the Government side of the chamber. The last speaker said that the Labour party was a good party 30 or 40 years ago. That is typical of the Nationalist, Liberal and Australian Country party followers, who never say anything good about a Labour man until he is dead.
Senator Cormack made reference to Australian culture. If there is any culture in this country most of it was derived from the United Kingdom. Senator Cormack described the capital coming to Australia from the United Kingdom as refugee capital. That is not a fair statement. A number of wireless stations have been mentioned by honorable senators opposite as organizations that are under the control of the Macquarie broadcasting network. To my knowledge some of them do not come within that organization. Any attempt to interfere with the issue or transfer of broadcast licences would be opposed bitterly by honorable senators on the Government side. Their references to-night to what they describe as foreign capital indicate that they are acting in the interests of the Murdoch press.
– The motion seeks an expression of opinion from this chamber that it is undesirable that any person who is not an Australian should have any substantial measure of ownership of an Australian broadcasting station. The motion has come forward at the instance of the back-bench members of the Government and is designed to focus attention on the desirability of retaining radio control in this country for Australians. There was a time when the Labour party, which is now represented by the miserable speeches that honorable senators have heard from the Opposition benches to-night, rejoiced in supporting an objective which was nobly expressed in these terms -
The cultivation of an Australian democratic sentiment based upon the maintenance of racial purity and the development in Australia of an enlightened and self-reliant community.
They have since succumbed to the depredations of Russian socialism as expressed by Senator Morrow one week ago, and have adopted a foreign doctrine of socialization of the means of production, distribution and exchange.
– I rise to order. Has the honorable senator the right to refer to Senator Morrow as a Russian senator ?
– Order ! I have listened attentively to Senator Wright and, in my opinion, he has not transgressed any standing order.
– Having heard Senator Nash gnash his teeth in resentment of the surrender that he has made of the former noble objective of the Labour party to the Russian objective of the socialization of the means of production, distribution and exchange, I want to say that honorable senators have seen, from the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) and Senator Armstrong, who is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the greatest betrayal of both those objectives. Those twin exponents of the exploitation of capital have appeared midway between the two, and have expounded neither the socialist proposal of the Labour party nor its former proposal, which was the cultivation of an Austraiian sentiment and the development of a self-reliant community. They have stooped to the drains where they seek to collect support for their argument by endeavouring to categorize honorable senators on this side of the chamber as anti-British. What a spectacle, when honorable senators on this side of the chamber have to take such rebukes, based upon allegiance to Great Britain, from a party which would never train a man or raise a shot to defend the Empire as such, and who supported a defence policy to confine Australian manhood within the coastline of the Commonwealth ! Yet they have described honorable senators on this side of the chamber as anti-British. Let Opposition senators remember that London has been the centre of the international exchange for all foreign capital that seeks circulation.
– I rise to order. I take strong exception to the statement made by Senator Wright that I have never done anything to protect the country or fire a shot. I was a soldier before he was, and I ask that his remark be withdrawn.
– Order ! Senator Ashley has taken exception to the remark made by Senator “Wright on the ground that it is personally offensive to him. I ask Senator Wright to withdraw that remark.
– In deference to your ruling, Mr. President, I withdraw it. Allow me to make my position plain. The honorable senators who have claimed that they are supporters of British sentiment are the same people who preserve the policy of opposing the raising of forces for the defence of this country outside its boundaries.
– I rise to order. 1 have never opposed the raising of forces in this country. I have gone on the platform to appeal for men, and I ask what that thing has done for the defence of Australia.
– Order! There has been too much cross-fire in this debate and I suggest that Senator Wright should return to the matter now under discussion. I said earlier that I hoped we would have a happy evening; I trust that honorable senators will not disappoint me. The Senate is superior to the individual and we are now debating a matter which may ultimately be of great importance to this country.
– As mildly as I can, and without offending Senator Ashley and his colleagues, I wish to submit the view that, over the years, London has established itself as the commercial centre of the world. The mere fact that a gentleman named Bartholomew has domiciled himself in London for some motive or other, does not establish him as British.
– Now the honorable senator is showing himself in his true colours.
– I am merely stating for the benefit of honorable senators an undeniable legal principle which was given expression by the highest judicial tribunal in the land in 1916, when, for the purposes of World War I., the true nationality of a company which, although registered in London, was largely controlled by Germans, had to be determined. Mr. Bartholomew’s codirectors rejoice in the names of P. Zee and S. Bolem. If they have no affinity with the Levant or some other such place, then I may even be wrong about Mr. Bartholomew. He may be as British as any of us. I am merely drawing attention to the possibilities. The argument that, because payment is made by a cheque drawn upon a London bank, the capital is necessarily British, cannot be sustained. I remind the Senate that, about six months ago, the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues referred several times in this chamber to the influx into this country of what they termed “ hot “ money to exploit a possible alteration of the exchange rate; yet to-night, both the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy, Senator Armstrong, have defended the acquisition by means of such money, of numerous commercial radio stations ! Surely this reversal of the Opposition’s attitude is remarkable. In 1942, the late Mr. J. A. Beasley introduced the Australian Broadcasting Bill into the House of Representatives. In the course of his second-reading speech, he said -
The war has emphasized the value placed upon broadcasting by our enemies. For years, in their preparations for hostilities, they have not neglected to give to it a place almost equal to that accorded to their other preparations. They have used it for the purpose of maintaining the morale of their own people on the one hand, and encompassing the destruction of their foes on the other hand. In the years that preceded the outbreak of hostilities, they established throughout the world a most elaborate espionage system, which enabled them to obtain from various sources information that could be relayed from their stations in order to mislead and lower the morale of the people in countries in which the accuracy of their assertions could not be checked. Further, they have used the system in order to lower the resistance of neutral countries by means of specially selected pronouncements, in which connexion Quislings have been employed. For this class of work they have succeeded in obtaining the services of men with an appropriate accent; but in spite of all their efforts, accents will not win the battle of wave-lengths that is progressing throughout the world.
It is not inappropriate to remind honorable senators who, as recently as last night had the privilege of listening to an informative talk on war dangers by no less a person than Lieutenant-General
Sir Horace Robertson, that the control of broadcasting can play an important part in national security. The mere fact that capital stems from London does not necessarily mean that it is British capital, or is controlled by British people. It is highly undesirable that we should permit a substantial measure of control of our broadcasting system to be acquired by persons who are not Australians, whether they be Bartholomews, Egyptians, Persians or Russians. I thought that Labour was opposed to monopolistic control of any kind. In fact, that principle is embodied in the. Broadcasting Act, which prohibits any person from controlling directly or indirectly any more than eight radio stations.
– Why does the Government not take some action if that provision has not been observed?
– Senator Gorton has submitted a motion for the deliberative judgment of a responsible collection of parliamentarians. The Senate now has an opportunity to reinforce the Government with a definite expression of opinion. If Senator Nash were to discharge his proper functions in this chamber instead of making so many unthinking interjections, he would give some serious consideration to whether it .is in the interest of national security that control of our broadcasting system should be in the hands of persons who are not Australians. However, I do not propose to be diverted from my main argument. As I have said, the Labour party has always professed antagonism to monopolies of any kind. The Opposition should look to its spear-head of attack on this motion. Neither the Leader of the Opposition nor Senator Armstrong said one word in deprecation of monopolies. On this occasion, the Liberal party is in the forefront of a campaign against the improper establishment of monopolies, especially by persons who are not Australians. A licence to operate a broadcasting station is an intangible asset. In some respects it resembles a hotel licence, but, of course, it lacks the real and fluid assets of such a licence. In some respect, too, it resembles a bookmaking licence - another very profitable privilege which stems from governmental beneficence. The granting of a radio licence is the prerogative of the Government. It is appropriate that the Parliament should express an opinion as to whether a licence, not merely to develop the physical assets of this country for the rewards to which private enterprise is entitled under a grand economic system, but also to mould public opinion, should be the subject of monopolistic control, and particularly monopolistic control by people who are not Australians.
– It ill becomes any member of this chamber to use language such as that used by Senator Wright to-night. What was the honorable senator’s contribution to the defence of this country? He attacked another honorable senator.
– Whom did he attack ?
– He attacked Senator Ashley. I remind Senator Wright that Senator Ashley made his contribution in the South African war as did another of my colleagues, Senator Cameron.
– Senator Wright made his contribution during the last war.
– All that Senator Wright has done has been to assert that Labour has made no contribution to the defence of this country.
– I have never said such a thing.
– The honorable senator is merely raising false issues to hide the real one.
– I know that I am getting under the skin of Government senators, because they have no case.
– Nonsense !
– Senator Kendall should keep quiet.
– Is that a threat?
– Yes, it is a threat. This motion, and a similar motion in the House of Representatives, have been introduced merely for propaganda purposes. It is evident that Senator Gorton, who moved the motion in this chamber, has much to learn. In 1942, Senator Ashley, who was PostmasterGeneral in the Labour Government that was then in office, introduced a regulation to provide that the consent of the Postmaster-General must be obtained to the proposed sale of a broadcasting station, or any shares in it. As far as I know, that regulation has never been repealed. All that supporters of the Government have been .able to do during the debate on the motion has been to raise balloons. Had Senator Gorton been aware of that regulation, I am sure that he would not have moved the motion that is now before us. He has resorted to propaganda to try to prevent a British company from buying out the Macquarie broadcasting network. I should like to know who is behind this move.
I do not believe in monopolies. Apparently, the honorable senator believes in press monopolies and picture theatre monopolies, and he is apparently against the investment of British capital in this country. I remind him that Labour has always encouraged the investment in this country not only of British capital, but also of American capital. Although it has been reported that the Government intends to seek another dollar loan apparently it considers that only Australians should be permitted to control Bclass broadcasting stations in Australia.
– Is the honorable senator against Australians owning and controlling Australian broadcasting stations ?
– I am not oneeyed, and I have always acted in the best interests of my adopted country. The motion before us is anti-British. I jim not concerned about which company holds the shares in the Macquarie broadcasting network, because they are all monopolies.
– And they are all opposed to Labour.
– There are no B-class broadcasting stations in the United Kingdom.
– Does the honorable senator consider that there should be no B-class broadcasting stations in this country?
– That would be a bad thing for Australia. Senator Gorton has limited himself to broadcasting.
– That is what th, motion is about.
– Why has the Government adopted an anti-British approach to this subject? Labour has always welcomed British capital to this country to establish and further the interests of industry. British capital has been invested in Australian banking and motion picture companies, as well as in gold-mining projects. I noticed particularly that the honorable senator made no reference to the Murdoch press or any other press in this country. I suspect that there is something more behind the motion than meets the eye. I repeat that the Postmaster-General already has power to approve or reject a transaction such as the one that we are discussing.
– The Minister has no power in connexion with the transfer of shares.
– He has power in relation to the transfer of shares in, or the transfer of, a broadcasting station.
– The honorable senator is wrong.
– Senator Gorton should not be so presumptuous. As I have said before, he still has a lot to learn. The Government should not have permitted this debate while so much business remains to be dealt with, particularly in view of the fact that debate was gagged this morning on a motion that was moved by Senator Byrne to adjourn the Senate to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. A lengthy debate on this motion now before us was not warranted. Apparently, the PostmasterGeneral does not desire to exercise the power that is vested in him. I consider that it would be entirely wrong in principle for the Parliament to say that a certain person should not be permitted to purchase an Australian radio station. Following the line of reasoning that has been advanced by Senator Wright, if the motion were agreed to there would be nothing to prevent the Australian Communist party from purchasing the Macquarie broadcasting network.
– I did not say that.
– Many members of that political party are Australians, and consequently there would be nothing to prevent it from, purchasing that radio network to use foi- propaganda purposes. Yet the Government has contended that the recent referendum failed because the Australian Labour party is an instrument of the Australian Communist party. I remind the Senate that I am not a fascist. I am a democrat. Supporters of the Government have stated from time to time that the Australian Communist party is financed by Russia. Apparently what the Government says is that it does not wish to allow British interests to buy out the Macquarie radio network, but is prepared to allow the Communist party to do so. It is very well for Senator Guy to laugh. I remind the honorable senator that if the Government dispensed with Trans-Australia Airlines there would be nothing to prevent Russian capital from coming into this country and buying out Australian National Airways Proprietary-Limited. The result might well be that a few weeks before the outbreak of war there would not be a single commercial aeroplane in this country. Members of the Opposition from time to time have been accused of being anti-British. I suggest that the motion now before the Senate is the most anti-British matter to come before this Parliament. I remind honorable senators opposite that British capital is invested in this country in trading banks and gold mines, and that no question has been raised concerning the source of that capital. It seems to me that there is something sinister behind this motion. Because it has been moved by a supporter of the Government, the debate has been allowed to continue for a long space of time. Yet, when Senator Byrne moved for the adjournment of the Senate in order to discuss a most important matter, the debate was gagged.
I oppose this motion. I remind honorable senators that the regulations made under the broadcasting legislation of 1942 still apply and that under those regulations the Postmaster-General may refuse to approve of the transfer of ownership of a radio station. I suggest that Senator Gorton should study those regulations. If he does so he will ascertain the power which the PostmasterGeneral possesses under them. If he had done so before moving this motion, the Senate might have been saved several hours of debate.
– A great deal of heat has been engendered ‘by a very simple proposition. It has been interesting to experience at first hand the enthusiasm with which some members of the Australian Labour party have defended monopolies, power, capital and privilege. Especially is it interesting when one appreciates that the display of enthusiasm was completely unnecessary. The motion before the Senate is a simple one. In order to remind honorable senators opposite of its terms, I shall re-state it. It reads as follows: -
That, in the opinion of the Senate, it is undesirable that any person not an Australian should have any substantial measure of ownership or control over any Australian commercial broadcasting station, whether such ownership or control be exercisable directly or indirectly.
Honorable senators opposite are either in favour of the motion or against it. They must declare themselves. They must decide whether, in their opinion, it is desirable that a most intimate vehicle for the forming of public opinion and a most powerful vehicle of propaganda should be in the hands of people who owe no allegiance to this country and whose sole and only interest in it is the making of money. As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has said, they are interested in a “ commercial proposition “. My colleagues on this side of thi.’ chamber consider that such a state of affairs is undesirable.
If honorable senators opposite vote against the motion they will be saying, in effect, that such a state of affairs is desirable. I do not propose to debate the matter along personal lines, although, from what Senator Vincent has said, some of the persons involved appear to be interesting, to say the least. However, such considerations are entirely beside the point. Were they angels with haloes, the principle would be the same.
It is most important that public opinion should be moulded by people who owe allegiance and loyalty to this country. Because each one of us learns 11is prayers at his mother’s knee, that is where his loyalty lies. In order to learn the first elements of citizenship, we approach an authority that owes allegiance to this country.
The Leader of the Opposition strayed from the track completely. He tried to make it appear that involved in this very simple question is the consideration whether one wants or does not want to see outside capital invested here. Of course we want outside capital invested here. The Government wishes to see investments in this country by British, American, and other peoples of the free world. They, with us, have a common purpose and an interest in the development and growth of Australia. The Government desires that our natural resources, which are shrieking out for development, should be fully developed so that in due course Australia may become a real power for good in a free world. But the development that will result from the venture now under discussion is an entirely different matter.
The Leader of the Opposition also referred to trading banks, shipping companies, oil companies, and newspapers, t suggest that there are two aspects of this matter. In regard to banking, it is true that since the 1945 banking legislation which was introduced by a Labour government, no person or corporation may operate a bank without special authority from the Governor-General. Should an attempt be made to run a financial institution described as a bank, the institution and those associated with it are liable to a penalty of £5,000 a day. However, that is merely by the way. The important thing to remember is that the control of our banking policy and our banking systems is in the hands, of the Treasurer. For that reason, I suggest that there is no fear of anything inimical happening in relation to banking.
As far as newspapers, insurance companies and shipping companies are concerned, the position is that if any group of persons has sufficient capital to enter into such a commercial enterprise there is nothing to prevent them from doing so. Theoretically, there need not be any limit to their activities. But there is an actual limit to the number of broadcasting stations which may operate, because radio frequencies impose a limit. Should saturation point be reached, no more broadcasting stations could be licensed. Each frequency band would be allocated and if more than a certain number of stations attempted to operate at the one time their broadcasts would be running into one another.
The suggestion has been made bv honorable senators opposite that there is behind this motion a desire to wreak vengeance on a newspaper which has been hostile to the Government. Nothing could be more foolish, more childish and further from the truth. I suggest that many other things could have been done by this and other governments in the past if they wished to wreak vengeance on anybody. Honorable senators opposite should remember that there is still in this country an element known as public opinion and a sense of public decency which no government dare outrage. Were that not so, Labour governments might very well wreak their vengeance on those who oppose them. All Australian governments have some respect for public opinion, although I may say that the Chifley Government did not often show it.
I do not propose to debate the matter at great length. The point is not whether the Government wants overseas capital to be invested in Australia. Of course it does. Nor is it a matter of whether the Government wishes to conduct a vendetta against any organization or group of people. The simple question is whether, in the opinion of the Senate, it is desirable that any person not an Australian should have any substantial measure of ownership or control over any Australian commercial broadcasting station, whether such ownership or control be exercisable directly or indirectly.
– Would the Minister explain what is meant by “ not an Australian “ ?
– In that context, I should say that an Australian would mean an Australian citizen or a person who owes loyalty to Australia. If the Opposition opposes the motion it must consider that it is desirable that such a delicate, powerful and direct vehicle for propaganda and the moulding of public opinion should be in the hands of persons other than Australians. I do not wish to commit any one except myself, but I feel confident that if this motion be agreed to the Government will give close and careful and proper study to it.
– The motion before the Chair is a remarkable one, and it has led to a very remarkable discussion. It is as follows : -
That, in the opinion of the Senate, it is undesirable that any person not an Australian should have any substantial measure of ownership or control over any Australian commercial broadcasting station, whether such ownership or control be exercisable directly or indirectly.
It would have been helpful if the honorable senator had said what he meant by an Australian. An Australian may be a person born in Australia. Bie may be one who has come from the United Kingdom, but has not necessarily accepted Australian nationality under our laws. After a certain period of residence here such a person is entitled to enjoy all the rights and privileges of citizenship, to exercise the franchise, and to enjoy social services benefits. Even a person who is born in a foreign country, may after a period of residence here, become entitled to the rights and privileges of Australianborn citizens. He will be called upon to pay taxes and will be in every way subject to the laws of the country. There is only one organization of which he may not become a member - the Australian Natives Association, which insists that its members be native-born Australians.
This motion, we have been told, was brought forward on the initiative of Government back-benchers, and only at this late hour has a Minister risen to support it. Are we not, therefore, justified in assuming that the motion is an expression of revolt among back-benchers in the Senate and the House of Representatives against the inactivity of the Government ? They have become disgusted because of the inertia of the Government regarding what they believe to be an important matter. If the Government really wished to prevent the investment of overseas capital in radio broadcasting stations in Australia, the Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony) could have exercised the authority which he undoubtedly possesses under regulations promulgated by Senator Cameron when he was PostmasterGeneral.
– Yes, and enforced, too.
– I am sorry that the Government, by applying the gag, will prevent Senator Cameron from telling the Senate exactly what was done when he was Postmaster-General. Honorable senators opposite are protesting, with smug hypocrisy, against the investment of British capital in a particular industry. They profess to be alarmed at the possibility that public opinion in Australia will be moulded by outside influences, but they have uttered no word of protest against the importation of foreign printed material which is having an important influence upon the minds of children. Now, when one group of British capitalists proposes to compete in Australia against other groups of capitalists, protests have been voiced by Government supporters. The Government is too cowardly to atttack the proposal directly. It is hiding behind a motion sponsored by its own back-benchers. I always understood that honorable senators opposite stood for free enterprise and for the right of every one to invest his capital where he wished. All this talk about what is likely to happen in Australia because a certain company has taken over some radio stations is just so much “ hooey “. I regard radio broadcasting as the great illusion, in that it has very little, if any, effect in the moulding of public opinion. Those who have invested their capital in broadcasting stations have done so, not because of the opportunities provided for disseminating political propaganda at election time, but in order to earn profits by broadcasting advertisements for firms which support the Government, and which defraud the people by evading taxation of the vast sums of money spent on advertising. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber have every reason to suspect that there is something sinister behind this attack by Government supporters on a British company. One newspaper in Victoria had the temerity to oppose the Government’s referendum proposals. Some one has suggested that the newspaper is favorably disposed towards the Labour movement. As a matter of fact, members of the executive of the Labour movement in Victoria have quarrelled with that newspaper, and have refused to accept it as the exponent of Labour ideals and Labour policy. The newspaper has pursued its own course, and has tried to present to the people both aides of controversial questions without undue emphasis on the party angle. However, in doing so, it has offended the Government, which is now seeking to stifle criticism. Does not that savour of nazi-ism and fascism which, in other countries, has muzzled the press?
– Order ! There is nothing in the motion about the press.
– Much was said by members who support the Government about the influence of the press in forming public opinion. However, if you rule against me, Mr. President, I have no option but to. accept your ruling, although I very much regret that you should have given such a ruling.
– I rise to a point of order. In view of the honorable senator’s insolence to the Chair, I propose to move that he be no longer heard.
– Order ! Senator Sheehan will proceed.
– I cannot believe that I transgressed your ruling, Mr. President, when I pointed out that honorable senators opposite had referred to the value of the press in educating public opinion. I am forced to the opinion that opposition to the purchase of certain broadcasting stations arises from the fact that the Government and its supporters believe that an organization has come into existence which they will not be able to control. In the past, the Government has exercised considerable influence over the Macquarie broadcasting network, which has disseminated propaganda favorable to the Government.
Debate interrupted.
page 2887
– Order! In con formity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Question put. The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)
AYES: 20
NOES: 28
Majority . . . . 8
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
page 2887
Debate resumed.
– When the debate was interrupted I was directing attention to the fact that this motion was prompted by the fear in the minds of Government supporters that the privilege now extended by the Macquarie network to the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and representative spokesmen of the Government to make weekly broadcasts to the nation would be withdrawn. I do not know whether it has been suggested that if the Macquarie network comes under the control of M.P.A. Productions Proprietary Limited that privilege is likely to be withdrawn. The Australian Labour party believes that such a privilege should be extended, not only to the Prime Minister and the members of the Government, but also to representative spokesmen of the Opposition. In the past we have had difficulty in achieving that desirable objective. I do not know whether or not the Australian Labour party is likely to receive favours from the new company. Undoubtedly, like other capitalist organizations, it will be interested solely in earning profits for its shareholders, whoever they may be.
There has been a great deal of criticism in the press of the practice of certain members of this Parliament making attacks upon the character of individuals under the cloak of parliamentary privilege. To-day a very vicious attack was made by honorable senators opposite upon the character of certain persons whom I do not know but who have no opportunity to defend themselves. This debate has been a most unfortunate one. Government supporters have not only decried the introduction of British capital to Australia, but they have also attacked the character of certain residents of the United Kingdom. How will the representatives of the British Parliament who are now visiting Australia react to character assassination of the kind that has been indulged in by honorable senators opposite to-day? Through the years Australians have been noted as believers in fair play to all men and women. In the past we stoutly upheld the principles of freedom of action and freedom of speech. Unfortunately, we have arrived at a stage in our history when, for petty political purposes, honorable senators opposite are prepared to jettison those principles in order to vent their spleen on a great Australian newspaper. If the Postmaster-General believed it to be wrong for a group of persons to secure control of certain broadcasting stations, why did he not exercise the powers that he undoubtedly possesses to prevent it from doing so? Why did he allow negotiations to continue until this late hour and then, through the medium of back-benchers in this Senate and in another place, launch this bitter attack upon those -persons? This is one of the most cowardly discussions that has ever taken place in an Australian Parlia ment. The Government will rue the day on which it allowed a debate of this kind to be initiated by its supporters. It is not astonishing that the people are losing confidence in the industries of this country when the Government objects in this way to the investment of new capital in an important Australian industry. Things have reached a sorry pass when a motion such as this has the wholehearted support of honorable senators opposite. I trust that better counsels will prevail among the ranks of Government supporters and that the Government will realize its responsibilities to this great and as yet undeveloped country and welcome the introduction of new capital that will enable its industries to prosper and expand.
– What sort of capital ?
– British capital, for preference. Capitalists generally are interested, not in the source from which capital is derived, but in the profits that it may earn. Australian investors undoubtedly are prepared to invest their money where it will earn the highest profits. I hope that the Government will think twice before it acts on the principles outlined in this motion. I do not believe that any group of persons should own and control means for the dissemination of news. If I thought that the new company would attempt to establish a monopoly in broadcasting I should wholeheartedly support the motion. Even if the deal is clinched and M.P.A. Productions Proprietary Limited acquires certain Australian broadcasting stations, its news broadcasts will still have to compete against those of the Murdoch interests as well as those included in the national broadcasting service. No monopoly is concerned in this matter. I hope that as a result of the discussions in this chamber, the Government will alter its attitude and tell the world that Australia is prepared to be fair to the people who want to come to this country. It would be wrong to carry this motion on the eve of receiving a symbol from the British House of Commons.
Motion (by Senator McLeay) put -
That the question be now put.
The Senate divided. (Tub President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)
AYES: 29
NOES: 22
Majority . . 7
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put -
That the motion (vide page 2863), be agreed to.
The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)
AYES: 30
NOES: 22
Majority 8
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
page 2889
Debate resumed from the 22nd November(vide page 2471), on motion by Senator O’SULLIVAN -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– This bill is designed to alter the Beer Excise Act. On a perusal of the measure and after reading the Minister’s secondreading speech, it appears clear that the bill is primarily a machinery measure. It deals with the treatment of duty stamps when the rate of duty is altered; it corrects an anomaly regarding the delivery of beer by publicans when they sell beer in casks, and it makes one or two other relatively formal amendments. Although the bill is mainly formal and the Opposition has no real objection to the details that it contains, we on this side will vote against the measure as a protest against the imposition of a very drastic penalty duty on this commodity. The duty is nearly twice as heavy as it was; it has been raised from 4s. 7d. a gallon, where it had remained since 1942, to 7s. 2d. a gallon. An 11-oz. container, which retails at1s., includes 57/8d. duty. A 7-oz. container, which retails at 9d., includes 3¼d. duty, and a 4-oz. container, which costs 5d., will pay 21/6d. duty. On a bottle of ale, selling at 2s. 4d., the duty is more than 50 per cent., and totals1s. 2½d. This duty forms a part of additional taxation amounting to £472,000,000 that has been levied by this Government since it took office. The Government has roped in every class and element in the community. This is sectional taxation. Not everybody in the community drinks beer. not even many of those who drink alcoholic beverages. Those who do not drink beer escape this taxation entirely.
– And properly so.
– I am putting to the Senate that there are many people who prefer to drink beer but are being driven to drink cheap wine as the result of the imposition of this duty. Cheap wines are much more deleterious than is the amber ale. Of course, the bill may have the effect that the Government desires of reducing the consumption of this commodity, but beer is an exceedingly popular beverage, not only with males but also with a great number of ladies in the community. In fact, it has become almost a national beverage. In view of the few joys that are available to the people of Australia under this Government, this increase of beer excise is to many the unkindest cut of all.
– It will not stop people from drinking beer.
– That is not the story that I have heard from people engaged in the trade. I am informed that previous increases of the price of beer have resulted in a relative reduction of consumption. I am afraid that the Treasurer will get very little revenue out of we personally under this bill. The Labour party has decided to oppose the bill, even although it is purely a machinery measure, as a protest against the Government’s action in stepping up the rate of duty so sharply.
. - in reply - The remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) were very interesting, but they had nothing to do with the bill. This is not a taxing measure. It is purely administrative. It gives legislative effect to a practice that has been followed by the Department of Trade and Customs for a considerable time.
Question put -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)
AYES: 30
NOES: 22
Majority . . . . 8
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
Sitting suspended from 11.40 p.m. to 12.20 a.m.(Thursday).
Thursday, 29 November 1951
page 2890
Debate resumed (vide page 2863).
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned,
page 2890
Debate resumed from the 21st November (vide page 2357), on motion “by Senator Spooner -
That the bill be now read a second time.
.- On behalf of the Opposition I move the following amendment: -
That all words after “That” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “the bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide that all persons in receipt of eight units or less shall be included within the scope of the measure and in order that further consideration might be given to representations by Public Service organizations “.
The bill contains many features that are most acceptable. The purpose of the amendment is not to express dissatisfaction with those features, but to achieve a number of other purposes. Substantial representations have been made by the Public Service organizations, and it is the desire of the Opposition that their proposals and suggestions should be further considered, if they have not been already considered fully by the Government. That might obviate the necessity to bring down amending legislation in the not-far-distant future. Many features of the bill are acceptable to the Public Service associations. The amending superannuation legislation that was brought down last year increased the value of each superannuation unit, in the case of superannuitants receiving eight units or less of pension, from £32 10s. a year to £39 a year. The bill before the Senate proposes that a similar increase shall be given to public servants who have contributed for more than eight units. The object of the 1950 amendment was to give an additional benefit to offset the increased cost of living. This bill has a similar object. Like many other proposals of the Government, it indicates the mounting effect of inflation. The purpose of my amendment is to emphasize the” fact that the new rate of £39 a year, which will apply generally, is really insufficient in relation to the recipients of eight units of pension, or less than eight. The unit rate was increased to £39 a year last year in respect of eight units because the cost of living had risen. Now that the cost of living has increased still further, we consider that the unit rate for eight units or less should be increased from £39 to approximately £52 a year. This view is supported by the Public Service associations.
We support pro tanto the proposed amendments of sections 31 and 32 of the principal act to provide for an increase of the amount payable to the child of a pensioner under sixteen years of age. We also support the proposal to enable the re-employment of superannuated public servants so that they may earn £429 a year, or 50 per cent, of their superannuation rate, whichever is the greater. This is a very good idea. It will enable the re-em pi oy ment of officers whose skill should not be lost to the Commonwealth. We support the Government’s proposal to make that provision retrospective.
The Public Service organizations have also submitted quite a number of proposals about the constitution of the Superannuation Board in relation to personnel and the term of office of the representative of the superannuated officers. They have asked that provisions be inserted in the Commonwealth legislation in relation to widows of pensioners similar to those in the New South Wales act. They suggest that the rate should be substantially increased, and that the conditions should be improved. The Public Service associations are particularly disturbed at the proposed amendment of section 13 of the principal act.
Another aspect of the matter that concerns the Public Service associations is the proposal to increase the salary ranges or groupings which will require officers to contribute for a higher rate of pension. At the present time, in the lower grades, the salary differential is £52 a year. The proposal is to increase it to £62 a year. This will result in a contributor having to contribute for additional units as the cost of living increases. Very properly, public servants argue that, merely because they receive increases of salary, as a result of the increased cost of living, they should not be therefore required immediately to pay increased superannuation contributions. That may impose a financial obligation on an officer that is beyond his means. They realize, of course, that ultimately they will receive higher pensions.
Many young ex-servicemen with young families are finding it particularly difficult to live on their salaries. They are the officers who will be most affected by the new proposals. The Public Service associations suggest that, in certain cases, contribution for additional units should be optional. Officers in good financial positions could then, if they so desired, take out additional units, but officers who were financially embarrassed because of domestic or financial obligations, or who were in financial difficulties, would not be compulsorily required to undertake additional superannuation obligations. The Public Service organizations are conscious of the necessity to maintain the financial and actuarial position of the fund. Naturally, they do not desire to prejudice their own position by putting undue and unbearable financial obligations and burdens on the fund. They consider that the proposals in their submissions are not so extreme that they should not be adopted, because it will not be beyond the capacity of the fund to carry them out. The matter has been approached in a spirit of co-operation by the associations, and that is why the Opposition sincerely commends its amendment to the Government.
I have not seen a copy of the latest annual report of the Superannuation Board. I feel that in- all matters such as this, and particularly when we are debating the budget proposals, the departmental reports should be made available beforehand, so that honorable senators can bring to a discussion of the Estimates an appreciation of the operations of departments in the preceding year. In the absence of those reports, the effectiveness of our debates is limited. I know that there are certain difficulties about printing, but if this suggestion could be implemented, especially in connexion with the Auditor-General’s report, we could approach our problems more intelligently and more successfully. I commend the amendment to the Government, and ask that it be sympathetically considered by the Senate.
– I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
– If the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) so desires, he may speak to the amendment without prejudicing his right to reply later to the general debate.
– The amendment is directed towards those who are receiving the benefit of eight units or less of superannuation. The purport of it has been conveyed to the Government by the High Council of the Commonwealth Public Service Organizations, and it has received the Government’s careful consideration. Only recently the value of each of the first eight units of superannuation was increased from £32 10s. to £39 per annum. The bill now before the
Senate proposes to increase similarly the value of units in excess of eight. The amendment suggests that as it is now proposed to increase the value of units in excess of eight, it is equitable to increase further the value of the first eight units, because the persons concerned are on comparatively low income levels. The Government was not able to accept the submission of the High Council of the association. The basis upon which it rests its decision is that many of those who have retired and who are now in receipt of superannuation to the value of eight units or less are entitled to claim certain social services benefits. The possibility is that a further increase of value of the first eight units would be offset by a corresponding reduction of the amount of social services benefits to which such persons are entitled. For that reason the Government considers that it would not be logical to increase the value of those units.
Retired public servants in receipt of eight units of superannuation or less will benefit under the provisions of the income tax legislation which is at present before the Senate. Honorable senators will recollect that that legislation pro.poses to exempt from income tax income up to £234 per annum which is received by persons of pensionable age. On those grounds, the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment.
– I regret to hear the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) intimate that the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment which has been moved by Senator Byrne. It is not my intention to debate the bill at great length, although it concerns a very important matter. I would be prepared to agree with the decision of the Government if this measure were being discussed in normal times. I appreciate that comparatively recently the Government enacted legislation to increase the value of the first eight units of superannuation. In effect, the bill now before the Senate seeks to increase the value of units to which public servants in receipt of higher salaries have contributed. If the present times were normal, the purchasing power of superannuated persons would be far greater than it is at the moment. However, we are living in abnormal times. Because of the rapid increase of the cost of living, public servants on the lower superannuation pensions will suffer a great disability. The Minister has stated that some of those public servants may be able to take advantage of social services benefits. I have no doubt that a number of them are old enough to obtain age pensions provided that they survive the means test. However, many of them who have had a little property left to them or have purchased property during their working years, find that the possession of such property precludes them from entitlement to age pensions.
I appeal to the Minister to endeavour to persuade the Government to review the position of superannuated public servants who have contributed for less than eight units of superannuation. If that review is made during the coming recess, I suggest that when the Parliament meets again in the new year amending legislation can be introduced.
Question put -
Th at the words proposed to he left out (Senator Byrne’s amendment) be left out.
The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.) Ayes . . . . . 22
AYES: 0
NOES: 27
Majority . . 5
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 2893
Debate resumed from the 27th November (vide page 2722) on motion by Senator Spooner -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– Some time ago the Government promised that it would reduce taxes of every kind, but unfortunately it has not been able to keep its promise. The Government deliberately wasted the broadcasting time yesterday afternoon in discussion of other matters so that the Opposition’s criticism of its proposals in relation to income tax and social services contribution would not be broadcast, since the broadcasting of the proceedings was discontinued at 11 o’clock last night. “We are therefore placed in a position that we are, in effect, merely talking for talking’s sake because we are not obtaining for our views the publicity that is necessary if we are to direct the attention of the people to the Government’s unfulfilled promise. This bill provides, as previous similar bills have provided, that the income tax and social services contribution are to be lumped together in one amount. The tax rate has been increased by 10 per cent., and that will apply to the social services contribution, too. That is a snide way of increasing the tax burden on the people, particularly on those who did not previously pay income tax, but paid only social services contribution.
The Government has resorted to a variety of methods for getting more money from the people. Last year, the Treasurer collected, in addition to ordinary income tax, 20 per cent, of the gross income of wool-growers. Now, that scheme has been abandoned, but the growers will never get back the amount that was taken from them, although they were told at the time that if they were able to meet their 1951 income tax assessments in full, the 20 per cent, levy would be refunded to them. The Government, having got the money, has now altered the method of assessment, so that the growers will be required to leave the money that is due to them in the hands of the Treasurer as an offset against next year’s provisional tax. A total of about £45,000,000 is due to the wool-growers, and an additional £47,000,000 is to be taken from them because of the alteration of the tax rate.
The Government has also altered rue averaging system of income tax assessment which applied to primary producers generally. “We have been told that primary producers will be given the option of staying under the averaging system, or of going on to the year-to-year method of assessment, but Ministers have carefully refrained from saying that the choice will be given to only some primary producers; not to all of them. Only those in receipt of £4,000 a year or less will have the option. As I have said, the Treasurer will take more money this year from the primary producers because the method of assessment has been altered; and, in addition, an extra 10 per cent, is to be collected on the total amount of tax due. Some time next year some of the primary producers will be given an opportunity to say whether they will be assessed under the averaging system, but all of them will he assessed this year on the year-to-year basis.
Another amendment of the act will allow coal-mining companies to dedue from their incomes money spent on the development of their properties. For impart, I cannot understand why all minme companies were not given this exemption in the first place. Of course, gold-mining companies have for some time past been exempt from income tax payments, and the same provision should apply to copper-mining companies. There is at present a grave shortage of copper for smelting. There is no shortage of copper ore in Australia, but, apparently, mining companies were not satisfied with the returns obtainable, and ceased to produce. This bill makes provision for the exemption from taxation of expenditure of capital in connexion with coal mines. I think that that is a good idea and the Opposition will not oppose it.
– The matter that I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) is related to the subject of exemptions from income tax. Great damage has occurred in New South Wales country areas as the result of fires. I have received correspondence from persons in the Coonamble district, where great damage has been done by bush fires, concerning the position of graziers who, although they have saved some of their stock have no feed and will be compelled to sell them. When a property is sold for closer settlement income tax is assessed on the basis of the value set out in the owner’s books. I suggest to the Minister that this principle should apply to the sale of breeding stock which would not have been sold but for the damage to the properties.
– The proceeds of a sale for closer settlement are distributed over a period of five years for income tax purposes.
– That may be the case. One of my correspondents points out that the book value of his breeding ewes is £1 and that they may now sell for £4. As taxation would have to be paid at the rate of 10s. in the £1, he would lose from 30s. to 40s. on every sheep sold. If he desired to purchase similar ewes in twelve months time he might have to pay up to £5 for them. The correspondence that I have received refers to about half a dozen properties of which I can provide details for the Minister. One correspondent stated that not a fence, house, pump or bore installation had been saved on some properties and that hardly any stock had been saved in some instances. This is a tragic state of affairs. The Minister should consider granting an exemption from taxation in order to afford some relief to those who have suffered this disaster and encourage them to restock their properties. Exemption is provided in the act in regard to scholarships and the pay and allowances of soldiers and probably the Minister will agree to an amendment which would provide for an exemption to be granted in the cases that I have mentioned. Alternatively, perhaps such provision could be made by regulation.
– in reply - I think honorable senators will agree that one of the difficulties of taxation law and its review is that so many complications and ramifications usually surround each problem that only a very imprudent man would venture an opinion, let alone give a decision, on them without a good deal of research. 1 think the provisions of the act in relation to cases such as the honorable senator has mentioned might not be as drastic as he supposes. The losses would be incurred in the course of trading activities. If the sheep were burnt and lost their value would be deductible-
– In certain cases sheep may have been saved but their feed may have been burnt out.
– I should not care to express a view on that matter immediately. It is a subject on which the Commissioner of Taxation would have to make a decision. It appears to me that the circumstances approximate those of a clearing sale in connexion with which there are special provisions in the act. I shall note the representations of the honorable senator and bring them to the notice of the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden).
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
Tn committee:
The bill.
– I refer to proposed new section 23b which provides for the exemption from taxation of the pay and allowances of members of the forces from the date on which they leave Australia. Fourteen days after returning to Australia they again become liable for the payment of tax unless they are re-allocated for active service outside Australia. During World War II. there were several operational areas in Australia. It will be recalled that certain areas of Australia that were subjected to enemy bombardment were regarded as active operational areas. Will the exemption from, income tax be extended to members, of the forces who are posted to operational areas inside Australia ? The elimination of the benefit to fourteen days after arrival in Australia appears to be rather niggardly, especially as it applies to servicemen who, after a comparatively short stay in Australia, are posted back to an operational area. If a serviceman remains in Australia for three months before being posted back to an operational area he should be granted exemption for the full period of his stay.
Proposed section 23c relates to the exemption of certain incomes derived from the sale of gold and provides in part -
For the purposes of paragraph (o) of section twenty-three of this Act, a dividend paid to a person wholly and exclusively out of income which is exempt from income tax by virtue of this section shall be deemed to be income derived by that person from the sale of gold obtained from the working of the mining property in Australia . . .
I assume that as a mining company is exempt from income tax in respect of income derived from the sale of gold, so also is the income of a shareholder of the company derived from dividends resulting from gold sales.
– The provisions of the legislation relating to servicemen are based on tradition, as is always the case in income tax legislation. The principle in this legislation was originally established during World War II. Exemp-tions are granted to cover the areas of hostilities that at present exist.
– Will not the exemption apply to operational areas inside Australia ?
– No. Whatever may ha ve been the position during World War II., there are in truth no operational areas in Australia at the present time, and accordingly there is no point in the honorable senator’s proposal.
– At any time we may have operational areas in Australia.
– The exemption will not be extended to servicemen posted to stations inside Australia. As to what may happen at some future date, the honorable senator is posing a hypothetical question to which it is not customary for Ministers to reply.
– Will the Ministor deal with my request that the exemption period of fourteen days be extended in certain circumstances?
– I have already answered that point by saying that this provision is in accordance with traditional practice. In the past, an exemption for fourteen days has been regarded as fair and reasonable. To the honorable senator and to me fourteen days may not seem a very long period, but those who have had experience in and responsibility for caring for the armed forces regard it as fair and reasonable. If the period were extended, undue benefits may be conferred upon servicemen who are stationed in Australia for brief periods, or upon’ those whose duties require them to go to and from combat areas outside Australia.
The second point made by the honorable senator relates to income derived from dividends from gold-mining companies. To the extent that the income of the company is exempt, upon distribution to shareholders it is also exempt in the hands of the shareholders.
– In his second-reading speech, Senator Wright endeavoured to assist me by saying that the graziers generally would not be affected by the repeal of the averaging provisions because the averaging system applies only to those whose incomes do not exceed £4,000 a year. A grazier who is taxed at the rate of 10s. in the £1 would certainly not be affected by the repeal of the averaging provisions. I have appealed for justice only for those graziers who have suffered from the recent bushfires and who have been compelled to sell their stock in circumstances similar to those whose holdings have been acquired for war service land settlement purposes. 1 hope that the Minister will make representations to the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) along the lines that I have indicated.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
SALES TAX BILLS (Nos. 1 to 9) 1951.
Debates resumed from the 15th November (vide page 2059), on motion by Senator Spooner -
That the bills be now read a second time-
.- The Opposition had intended to state its views at length on these measures-
– It is very difficult to hear you, senator.
-I am sorry to hear the honorable senator croaking again. I assure him that I do not want to croak in the same water-hole as he croaks in. I desire to draw the attention of honorable sentators to a statement that was read by Senator Robertson in which she quoted the views of some economist or professor. I am not much concerned about the gentleman’s identity because he did not seem to understand much about our economic position. According to Senator Robertson, this gentleman said that the Australian standard of living is only one-quarter of 1 per cent. higher than it was in 1939.
– That is correct.
– If that economist’s statement is correct, then it certainly reflects no credit on this Government, because in 1939 there were about 500,000 unemployed persons in Australia. If our standard of living is only one-quarter of 1 per cent. higher than it was then, the worst that the Opposition has said about the Government has been fully justified. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber desired to traverse at length the sales tax increases on items that the Government has classed as luxuries, but the lateness of the hour has prevented us from doing so. Those responsible for the imposition of increased sales taxes were certainly not family men because they have indicated that they have had no experience of family life. If they have, then they are inhuman because it is a pleasure for any father or mother to try to see that the children-
– Spare us the icecream !
– When Senator Vincent was praising the state of affairs in Communist Russia, I interrupted him. The President then informed me that I should have had more common sense and that I ought to go back to school. I make the same suggestion to Senator Vincent. It is unfortunate that the Opposition has not more time to discuss this most important legislation. Six hours were wasted in the Senate this afternoon in debating something that the Government will no doubt turn to its advantage at the next general election. The gallup poll that was held last week has apparently created a fear in Government circles that it will not retain office after the next general election, and therefore it is now attempting to get control of our national broadcasting system. Although honorable members on this side of the Senate agree to some increases, they definitely oppose any increase of sales tax on many of the items detailed in this legislation. However, because of the lateness of the hour I shall say no more about the matter except to enter that protest on behalf of the Labour party.
Question put -
That the bills be now read a second time.
The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)
AYES: 29
NOES: 19
Majority . . 10
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Bills read a second time.
In committee:
Sales Tax Bill (No. 1) 1951.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (Imposition of tax).
– I wish to refer to paragraph (c) of the proposed new section 4, which relates to the Fourth Schedule of the Sales Tax (Exemption and Classifications) Bill. This schedule includes the token or slot-machines which are known as “ one-armed bandits “. They are placed in the same category as the women’s shopping bags to which I referred yesterday. Totalizator equipment is also included in the schedule. Does the Government believe that women’s shopping bags should be subject to the same degree of taxation as slot machines and totalizator equipment? I do not think that that is equitable and I ask the Minister to study that section of the schedule. The Fifth Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemption and Classifications) Bill includes powders and foot creams on which there is a 50 per cent. tax. They are for the treatment of skin diseases and should be under the category of medicinal items.
– I have to confess that the honorable senator puts me at some disadvantage in that the points raised by him are applicable to the bill that was passed yesterday by the Senate. As a result, I have not the detailed notes which would have enabled me to reply fully. This bill fixes the rates of tax, and the Senate cannot amend it. There is a wide field for argument about which articles should be subject to a particular rate of sales tax. Generally speaking, the schedules have been in existence for a number of years. As a result of the experience that has been gained over the years, articles which it is considered should be subject to a particular rate of tax have been grouped together. There is no way of increasing the rates of sales tax and also of avoiding criticism. The Government must do the best that it can do, having regard to the circumstances. Although the rates of the tax have been increased substantially, there has not been a great deal of variation in the grouping of the articles.
– I oppose clause 3 of the bill, under which sales tax will be continued. The fact that sales tax has been in operation for some time does not mean that the committee should agree to its continuance. The conditions that existed when the tax was instituted do not obtain now. It was instituted during a depression, with the object of raising additional revenue. At that time, incomes were low, and the government of the day was confronted with grave difficulties in finding sufficient money to carry on the government of the country. Now the country is affluent. We are in a period of inflation, and the Government is talking in terms of taking from the people some of their surplus spending power in order to combat inflation. That is the object of increasing the rates of sales tax. But the increases will not have an anti-inflationary effect. On the contrary, by causing an increase of the prices of articles in the “ C “ series index, upon which the basic wage is determined, they will cause the basic wage to rise. Then prices will be increased further. We shall go round in a circle. and shall not achieve what the Government has set out to achieve. The evils of inflation will be accentuated. I oppose the clause lock, stock and barrel. It is time that the Government abolished the sales tax. It is an obnoxious tax upon articles that are necessary for the maintenance of the standard of living to which the Australian people are rightfully entitled.
– I notice that, in the fifth schedule, the Government starts at the head of a woman and finishes at her feet. I am puzzled to know why it has taken such a dislike to the ladies. Sales tax is to be imposed at increased rates upon practically every article that women use, from hair lotion to leg tan. Some women cannot afford to buy stockings, but the Government, in order to make sure that they will pay their full share of the sales tax, has increased the rate at which the tax is imposed upon the leg tan that they use as a substitute for stockings. Could anything be meaner than that? No woman who could afford to buy stockings would use leg tan. Those women who cannot afford to buy stockings, use leg tan in an effort to make it appear that they are wearing stockings. The Government, making doubly certain that no revenue will be lost to it, has increased also the rate of sales tax upon stockingless cream. I am speaking on behalf of the many young women who cannot afford to buy expensive stockings. Every preparation that they can use to colour their legs to make it appear that they are wearing stockings is subject to an increased rate of sales tax. Why has the Government vented its spite upon the weaker, or the fair sex? I object also to the imposition of higher rates of tax on items required by menfolk, such as shaving cream and razor blades. I assure the Minister that I shall not contribute much revenue to the Treasury through the tax on razor blades. Whereas previously I used a blade once and threw it away, now I sharpen it and use it a dozen times. However, the men have been let down lightly compared with the ladies, probably because the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) is afraid of the men. I should like to know why he has singled out the ladies for these vicious impositions.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill No. 1 accordingly agreed to.
Bills Nos. 2 to 9 - by leave - taken as a whole, and agreed to.
Bills reported without requests; report adopted.
Thirdreading.
Motion (by Senator Spooner) pro posed -
That the hills be now read a third time.
– I object to these bills being read a third time. The sales tax legislation is among the most important with which this Parliament is called upon to deal. It has a profound effect on the whole economic life of the people of this country and therefore I disapprove strongly of the manner in which the Minfor National Development (Senator Spooner) curtailed the discussion of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill yesterday. Members of this chamber have a very responsible function to discharge. Unfortunately, the Senate has adopted the practice of meeting on only two days a week for the greater part of the sessional period. The result is that, in the dying hours of the period, honorable senators are called upon to deal in haste with measures that are of tremendous importance to the people of this country. I take strong exception to attempts by Ministers to push legislation such as this through the Senate without an adequate opportunity for debate. The sales tax is an iniquitous imposition. Because it is an indirect tax, many people do not know that they are paying it. All they know is that the prices of commodities that they wish to buy have increased substantially. I shall vote against the motion for the third reading of the measures now before the Senate because [ believe that they impose an unfair burden on the people of Australia, particularly in these days of currency deprecation.
. -I am surprised at the manner in which the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) and the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) have juggled with the items on the notice-paper. They have called on an item here and an item there, and it has been most difficult for honorable senators to understand what has been going on. The Government did not have the courage to call on the Sales Tax Bills while the proceedings of the Senate were being broadcast yesterday because it knew that the voice of Labour would have been heard by the people, opposing the imposition of higher rates of tax merely to provide a budget surplus. The Government’s tactics to-night have been most unfair to the Opposition. I do not deny the Government the right to give priority to measures that it believes to be urgent, but there is no justification for juggling with the business of the Senate as Ministers have done on this occasion. I hope that in future more consideration will be shown to the Opposition, and that all honorable senators will have adequate notice of the order in which the business of the Senate is to be taken.
. -in reply - The rearrangement of the notice-paper, to which Senator Ashley has referred, was effected solely with the object of meeting the convenience of departmental officers who are in attendance to assist Ministers. As a rule bills appear on the notice-paper in the order in which they are introduced, but it would be undesirable to interpose in a number of cognate measures others that relate to different subjects. It is far preferable to deal with cognate measures in succession and thus enable departmental officers concerned with such subjects to withdraw. Senator Ashley flatters himself when he says that the Government deliberately refrained from proceeding with the debate in these bills earlier this sitting when the proceeding of the Senate were being broadcast. I know of nothing in the budget which it would not be to the advantage of the Government to ventilate to the greatest possible degree. Indeed, the more measures arising out of the budget can be discussed when proceedings of the Senate are being broadcast, the stronger will the Government’s position become. However, I point out that the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Dr. Evatt) had the advantage of commencing his secondreading speech on the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill at 8 o’clock, which is regarded as the prima donna broadcasting hour. Therefore, Senator Ashley’s claim that the Government deliberately postponed discussion of these sales tax bills until the broadcast of proceedings in this chamber was concluded is absolutely groundless.
As I said yesterday, the budget will achieve the objectives which the Government has designed it to achieve. Already the budget has been injected as a wholesome ingredient in the economy, and as the months pass by that fact will become more apparent. I repeat that nothing would delight me more than an arrangement whereby all debates in this chamber could be broadcast, because such broadcasts as are actually made usually contain foolish statements of the kind that Senator Nash has just made. Thus, such broadcasts are serving to increase the strength of the Government from month to month. Senator Nash and Senator Sheehan, said that the Government should withdraw the Sales Tax (Classifications and Exemptions) Bill under which it is proposed to raise revenue accounting to approximately £117,000,000. I shall not worry how often the proceedings of the Senate are broadcast if, during such proceedings honorable senators opposite make utterly irresponsible and foolish statements of that kind. I shall never be in a funk on that score so long as the Opposition make such grotesque statements.
Question put -
That the bills be now read a third time.
The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)
AYES: 30
NOES: 18
Majority . . . . 12
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Bills read a third time.
page 2900
– I move -
That the bill be now read a third time.
Honorable senators will recall that this bill has been debated at length, and that the third reading was postponed because it was necessary for the Senate to deal with the Income Tax and Social Services Assessment Bill before it could deal finally with this measure.
– On the motion for the second reading of this measure, the Opposition recorded its protests against the Government’s proposals to increase the incidence of income tax and social services contributions. Having regard to the additional taxes that are to be imposed contrary to the promises of the Government to reduce taxes, the Opposition will vote against the third reading.
Question put -
That the bill be now read a third time.
The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)
AYES: 30
NOES: 18
Majority . . 12
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time.
page 2901
Debate resumed from the 22nd November (vide page 2467), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -
That the bill he now read a second time.
. - The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan), when he delivered his second-reading speech, intimated that an opportunity would be granted to honorable senators to debate the proposed duties before the expiration of the validation period. The bill seeks to validate duties that have already been imposed and are to be effective until the 31st October, 1952. Some of the increases of duty are of particular interest to the Opposition, because they have been imposed solely for the purpose of raising additional revenue. In view of the Minister’s undertaking that an opportunity will be given to the Senate to debate the details of those duties before the expiration of the period, the Opposition will not now delay the passage of the bill.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 2901
Debate resumed from the 22nd November (vide page 2467), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– As the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) intimated in his second-reading speech, this bill, which deals with excise duties, is complementary to the Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1951. This measure was not debated in the House of Representatives, because an undertaking was given similar to that given on the Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2)’ 1951. That undertaking is not included in the second-reading speech which the Minister delivered in this chamber. If he will assure the Senate that the undertaking given by the Government in the House of Representatives applies to the Excise Tariff Validation Bill 1951, the Opposition again will not delay the passage of the bill.
– I unhesitatingly repeat whatever assurance was given by my colleague in the House of Representatives.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 2901
Debate resumed from the 22nd November (vide page 2470), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– This bill has the support of the Opposition. Its purpose is to ensure that tea sold with the benefit of subsidy shall not be exported unless the difference is made up in duty. It is a proper measure.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 2902
Debate resumed from the 22nd November (vide page 2470), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– This is a measure to carry on the arrangement whereby the Commonwealth purchases tea in bulk and in advance, and sells it to the consumers in Australia at a lower price than cost, the difference, in effect, being made up by subsidy. That procedure was initiated by the former Labour Government. The Opposition considers that it is proper for the Government to continue that procedure, and raises no objection to the measure. We do not necessarily approve of the exact constitution , of the proposed new board, but we consider that the broad principles of the bill are correct. For that reason, we raise no objection to its passage.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 2902
Debate resumed from the 27th November (vide page 2718), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– This measure deals with relatively formal matters, including the adjustment of penalties and the adoption of the Australian coat of arms in the design of the seal. It is a measure which gives some pleasure to the Opposition. Altogether, the variations effected by it are of a machinery nature. They excite no opposition from us.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 2902
Debate resumed from the 22nd November (vide page 2468), on motion by Senator McLeay -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– This is one of three measures which will have the effect of exempting certain classes of wool from the contributory charge. The remaining two measures are the Wool (Contributory Charge) Bill (No. 1) 1951 and the Wool (Contributory Charge) Bill (No. 2) 1951. The Opposition does not object to their passage. I shall not proffer comment on the other two bills.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 2902
Debate resumed from the 22nd November (vide page 2468), on motion by Senator McLeay -
That the bill be now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 2902
Debate resumed from the 22nd November (vide page 2468), on motion by Senator McLeay -
That the bill be now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 2903
Debate resumed from the 23rd Novem ber (vide page 2650), on motion by Senator McLeay -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– The bill provides for increases of the salaries and expenses of members of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The chairman is to be paid at the rate of £600 a year and the other members are to be paid at the rate of £400 a year. Members will also be paid according to a new scale of. fees for days upon which they attend meetings of the commission. The chairman will receive £6 6s. a day, each other member will receive £5 5s. a day, and each deputy of a member will receive £5 5s. a day. Having regard to the importance of their work, the commissioners certainly will not be overpaid at those rates. The Opposition has no objection to the new scales, and it supports the bill.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 2903
Debate resumed from the 27th November (vide page 2716), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– The purpose of the bill is to promote the administrative efficiency of the Public Service. It also provides for a variation of the present requirement in the publication of lists of officers and employees of the Service. There is nothing in it to which the Opposition takes exception. Although we consider that certain improvements might well have been included, we do not propose to discuss them at this stage.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 2903
Debate resumed from the 27th November (vide page 2717), on motion by Senator Spooner. -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– The bill will cure an anomaly and will confer a benefit. It has the support of the Opposition.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 2903
Debate resumed from the 27th November (vide page 2719), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– This is a hardy annual. I noticed one sentence in the second-reading speech of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) that had a familiar ring. The honorable gentleman said -
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.
I recollect that the former Labour Government made such declarations each year for a period of several years. The task of transferring the regulations and orders to the statute-book has been delayed by the heavy pressure of business upon the Parliamentary Draftsman and his staff. I am sensible of the nature of the draftsman’s difficulties, but it intrigues me to hear again the sentence that the Labour Government used on a number of occasions. I wish the Government well in its efforts to have that legislation permanently placed upon the statue-book. The other comment that Iwish to make concerns the economic organization regulations, which are referred to in the Minister’s second-reading speech. I understand that at least one aspect of those regulations is at present under attack in the High Court of Australia. I think that it is true to say that the Government has re-enacted a fresh set of economic organization regulations under the Defence Preparations Act.
– Is the honorable senator referring to capital issues control ?
– Yes.
– The attack that has been initiated in the High Court concerns regulations made under the Defence Preparations Act. The old regulations were repealed and new ones enacted under that act.
– DoI understand the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) to say that the litigation which has been commenced at the instance of Marcus Clark and Company Limited concerns the Defence Preparations Act ?
– Yes.
– I should be obliged if the Attorney-General would inform the Senate of the progress that has been made with that litigation and when a decision upon that very important matter is likely to be made.
– I am a little embarrassed by the question because I am not the Minister in charge of the bill. I cannot tell the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) exactly when the case will be determined. My guess is, however, that it is unlikely that it will be determined this year.
– Has there yet been a hearing?
– Not yet.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 2904
Bill received from House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Spooner)read a first time.
–
That the bill be now read a second time.
The war service homes scheme was introduced in March, 1919, and since that date to the 30th June, 1951, a total of” 75,500 homes has been provided at a total cost of £86,874,000. Up to the 30th June, 1940, a total of 37,385 homes wasprovided. Very few homes were provided during the war years, but 37,920 were erected from the 1st July, 1945, to the- 30th June, 1951.
Very rapid increases of expenditure have occurred each year since the 1st July, 1945. The record of £25,071,000 was reached in 1950-51. During 1950-51 the War Service Homes Division built or financed no less than 11.6 per cent. of all new homes built in Australia. This is regarded as a most important contribution to promoting stability in the community, which is particularly desirable under existing conditions.
Despite the inescapable, but enormously increased, commitments for defence requirements and other high priority expenditure, the Government has decided to provide £27,000,000, exceeding the record for 1950-51, to meet war service homes expenditure during 1951-52.
Homes are provided in four categories, namely -
Homes may be built according to standard plans provided by the division at a reduced rate, or plans specially drawn by the division, or plans submitted by the applicant prepared by a private architect or other competent person. Tenders are invited by the division, or the applicant may introduce his own builder.
The most important operations of the division are the first two, which cover group and individual building. The other two, which relate to existing properties, do not add to the overall housing position of the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, over recent years, theexisting property activities which cover purchase of homes and discharge of mortgages have increased out of proportion to new building, and an effort to restore the building programme is being made in the amendments provided for in the bill. There is evidence that ex-servicemen, in purchasing existing properties, often pay more than valuation with a view to obtaining early occupation of a home, despite advice concerning the true value.
The bill provides for a substantial increase of the maximum loan available for building under the act. This will enable building programmes to be again resumed at the rate which hadbeen attained before building costs rose so rapidly. Applications are being received at the rate of 2,000 a month, and in an endeavour to meet the demand every effort is being made to give priority to the building of individual and group homes by increasing the maximum loan to £2,750 for this purpose. For the purchase of existing properties, the maximum loan will remain at the present figure of £2,000, but assistance under this heading will not be given where the total purchase price exceeds £3,500. The practice of discharging mortgages will be discontinued for other than new properties.
It is felt that these provisions will give the most equitable distribution of the very considerable amount provided in the budget and will encourage the most desirable form of home-building programme. The bill also provides that members of the forces who served in Korea and Malaya will be eligible to apply for assistance to purchase homes. Provision is also made for a new basis for determining the amount of deposit required. This provision will overcome anomalies and at the same time ensure that the maximum deposit for a reasonably priced home will be within the means of an applicant of average means.
Debate (on motion by Senator O’Flaherty) adjourned.
page 2905
Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.
page 2905
Bill received from the House of Repre- ‘ sentatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) read a first time.
page 2905
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) read a first time.
page 2905
The following papers were presented : -
Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for Postal purposes - Bland, New South Wales.
Norfolk Island Act - Ordinance- 1051 - No. 6- Norfolk Island Public Hall.
Public Service Act- Appointments - Department -
Postmaster-General’s -E. A. P. George, G.R. M. Grant, J. F. Hamilton, W. J. Laurie, L. Matveyeff, G. G.Reed, F. W. Smith, V. S. Thompson.
Repatriation - G. E. McDonald.
Senate adjourned at 2.57 a.m. (Thursday).
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 28 November 1951, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1951/19511128_senate_20_215/>.