Senate
21 October 1952

20th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 20th Parliament
  3. 1952

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

page 3352

QUESTION

FLINDERS BY-ELECTION

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Having regard to the fact that the Prime Minister himself asked that his Administration be judged on its record by the electors of the constituency of Flinders, and, because of the crush i ugly adverse judgment of those electors, I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether he will indicate which of the following factors, or a combination of them, were responsible for that judgment: (o) the broken promises of the Government; (b) the disastrous effects of the Government’s economic policy; (c) the general incompetence and lack of leadership of the Government; (d) the Government’s policy of sacrificing the vital and payable assets of the nation? Alternatively, will the honorable senator say in what way thE Government interprets the result of the by-election, and what changes of its present policies it proposes to make?

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

– If the honorable senator were not so young he would not be so rash. I suggest that he consult some of his more senior colleagues concerning this matter and I think he will learn then what happened after the electorate of Flinders was lost on a previous occasion hy a distinguished Australian, who is now Lord Bruce. Although Labour succeeded in winning that election, it was defeated at the subsequent election, and was out of office for many years. I suggest that the honorable senator would do well to ponder over the sequela to its previous victory in the Flinders electorate.

Senator COLE:
TASMANIA

– In view of the adverse vote recorded against the Liberal party candidate “at the Flinders by-election will the Government give immediate attention to the problem of government instability that may arise after the forthcoming Senate elections? Will consideration be given to making new constitutional provision for the resolving of deadlocks between the two Houses of the Parliament ;o ensure stable administration?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– If ever the honorable senator is called upon to share in the responsibility of government he will bo many years older.

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– As the Minister for Trade and Customs has acknowledged that Lord Bruce, when he was leader of the anti-Labour parties, had been defeated in the Flinders electorate at a previous general election. I now ask the Minister whether Lord Bruce, who has been accorded a seat in the House of Representatives this afternoon as a distinguished visitor, is visiting Canberra in the capacity of chief mourner or principal undertaker for the anti-Labour parties ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I am sorry that I cannot extend to the honorable senator any more comfort than hp himself can find in the result of the recent by-election.

Senator SHEEHAN:
VICTORIA

– Did the Minister representing the Treasurer notice the leading article in to-day’s issue of the Sydney Morning Herald, which makes direct reference to the defeat of the Government candidate in Flinders? That article suggests that Sir Arthur Fadden should consider requesting the allocation of some lighter portfolio than that of Treasurer. Has the Minister any statement to make about the possibility of such a re-arrangement?

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

-! read the leading article in the newspaper referred to, and although, normally, I have a great respect for its leading articles, I point out that no newspaper can be right all the time. In this instance, I am quite confident that the views it has expressed are not those of the public generally.

page 3353

QUESTION

HARTNETT MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED

Senator SEWARD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address the following questions to the Minister representing the Prime Minister : - 1. Did the Minister see the statement in the Canberra Times of the 18th October to the effect that 42 creditors of the Hartnett Motor Company Limited have been compelled to agree to defer payment of accounts until the arbitration proceedings against Commonwealth Engineering Company Limited for breach of contract have been determined? 2. What is the reason for the delay in finalizing the arbitration proceedings? 3. In view of the fact that the Government has a majority representation of directors on the board of Commonwealth Engineering Company Limited, will the Government take active steps to finalize the claims for damages by the company? 4. If not, why not?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I have not seen the press report referred to by the honorable senator, but I shall make a point of reading it, and I shall bring the matter to the notice of the Prime Minister.

page 3353

QUESTION

ARMED FORCES

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

– I address the following questions to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army: - 1. Will the Minister for the Army, before authorizing the holding of another tattoo on tho Exhibition Grounds, Brisbane, which artadjacent to the Brisbane General Hospital, cause the hospital authorities to be interviewed in order to avoid shock and inconvenience to the hospital patients? 2. Will he arrange to have special leave granted to university students who wish to attend supplementary examinations at a time when they are serving their periods of national service training? 3. Will the Minister also arrange the period of national service training of university students so that the period to be served in the training camps will coincide with the university vacation ?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I shall direct the attention of my colleague, the Minister for the Army, to the suggestion that the hospital authorities should be consulted if, as the honorable senator has stated, patients suffered shocks as the result of the tattoo. I am quite certain that the period of national service training of university students is arranged so as not to disturb their courses of study. I am equally certain that special arrangements are made for the granting of leave to them from national service training camps in order to attend examinations.’ However, I shall make inquiries about the matter, and if my assertions have been incorrect I shall advise the honorable senator of the position.

Senator VINCENT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– By way of explanation of a question which I address to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army, I point out that cadets from the Royal Military College, Duntroon, who come from the eastern States receive free rail warrants for travel to their homes during term vacations. Cadets from Western Australia are unable to travel to their homes on such warrants because of the distances involved. Will the Minister consider the provision of air travel for West Australian cadets during vacations?

Senator SPOONER:

– I have an impression that, some time ago, a similar suggestion was made in relation to cadets at the Royal Naval College at Jervis Bay who wish to return to their homes in Tasmania. I have no doubt that there is a well-established principle concerning this matter in operation in the service departments, but I shall ask the Minister to consider it and see whether he is prepared to review the present policy.

page 3354

QUESTION

PRIMARY PRODUCTION

Senator CHAMBERLAIN:
TASMANIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture seen press reports of statements by a prominent officer of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, in which a comparison has been made between the rate of food production in Australia and New Zealand, which favoured New Zealand? In view of the necessity to increase food production in Australia, will the Minister cause inquiries to be made in order to ascertain why Australia’s food production is lagging behind that of New Zealand?

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

– I have not seen the report to which the honorable senator has referred, and I thank him for directing my attention to it. I shall have the matter examined and obtain a considered reply for the honorable senator as soon as possible.

Senator McMULLIN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Minister for Trade and Customs a question relating to the grant which was made recently to the States by the Commonwealth Government for furthering the work of rural development. Would the Government consider inviting a leading rural extension expert from the United States of America to advise upon organizational and technical aspects of rural extension work in Australia?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The suggestion of the honorable senator is well worthy of examination and I shall bring it to the notice of the Prime Minister.

page 3354

QUESTION

IMPORT RESTRICTIONS

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for Trade and Customs inform the Senate whether it is not a fact that the same percentage restriction on imports of goods in certain categories was applied to both small and large importers, and that small importers were thereby penalized ? Will the Minister review this aspect of import restrictions with a view to assisting the small importers to maintain their businesses in spite of their unequal struggle against possible monopolies ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The policy of import restrictions was founded on quotas of commodities rather than on individuals. The Government did not pick out an importer and inform him that he may import only a specified percentage; the types of commodities that the importers handle were put on a percentage basis, according to various categories. The “ B “ categories suffered an SO per cent, cut ; the “ A “ categories suffered a 60 per cent, cut; and a third category came under administrative control according to the high priority accorded to it. If the honorable senator has in mind any specific instances in which he considers that injustices have been done, or in connexion with which there are anomalies, I shall be happy to consider them. There have been occasions on which I have been able to correct anomalies and remedy injustices that have been brought to my notice.

page 3354

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– On the 8th October, Senator Robertson asked me a question concerning the issuing of a special stamp to honour the pioneer women of Australia.

The Minister acting for the PostmasterGeneral has now furnished me with the following information : -

A 3iA. postage stamp, portraying a boy scout, will be issued on the 19th November, 1952, to commemorate the Pan-Pacific Scout Jamboree, which is to be held at Greystanes, New South Wales, from the 30th December, 3952, to the 9th January, 1953. The programme of postage stamp issues for 1053 is ii heavy one and will fully tax the resources of the Commonwealth Note Printing Branch, which produces Australian stamps. However, the matter of issuing a stamp featuring «. pioneer woman will be considered when the programme for 1954 is being framed.

page 3354

QUESTION

TRADE

Senator ASHLEY:

– I preface a question to the Minister for Trade and Customs by referring to the forthcoming economic conference in London, which I understand will be attended by our Prime Minister and other Ministers. Will the Minister say whether it is the intention of the Australian Government to take the initiative at that conference with a view to revising those provisions of the Ottawa Agreement which react against Australian manufacturing industries when applications for tariff protection ave being considered by the Tariff Board? Will the Minister also state whether it is the intention of this Government to agree to any change in the existing arrangements relating to trade in manufactured goods between the United Kingdom and Australia before such matters are fully considered by the Parliament ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I have not had an opportunity to peruse the agenda of the forthcoming economic conference in London. In fact, I do not know whether one exists. However, I assure the honorable senator that matters which affect the economic welfare of Australia will be well looked after and that full consideration will be given to methods by which Australia’s interests may be best served and preserved.

page 3355

QUESTION

TEXTILES

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I preface a question to the Minister for National Development by stating that a recent report of the Central Office of Information of the British Ministry of Information, dated January last, discloses that Australia is second only to Canada in respect of imports of textiles from the United Kingdom. Will the Minister inform the Senate whether he proposes to ensure that Australia shall not be swamped with textiles from the United Kingdom as the outcome, of the conference which will be held in London next November ? I point out that textile goods worth £15,717,808 sterling were imported by Australia from the United Kingdom during the period under review by the report to which I have referred. Will the Minister take special action to ensure that the precarious position in which most sections of the textile industry in Australia have now found themselves is not further prejudiced by people who are eager to make good fellows of themselves in London at the expense of the textile workers in ‘Australia ?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I do not know what happens on Senator Sheehan’s side of politics, but I suggest to the Senate that this would be the first time that representatives of this side of politics went to the United Kingdom as Australia’s representatives with the intention of making good fellows of themselves at the expense of their fellow Australians. I have quite a high opinion of the honorable senator and did not think that he was capable of making a suggestion such as this. The subject having been raised in such a manner, I do not propose to pursue it.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for Trade and Customs indicate to the Senate whether the Government has decided to continue, or is it likely that there will be a continuance of, the placing of government contracts with Australian textile factories, so that Australian textile workers may be continuously employed? Is it the intention of the Government to let contracts for textiles for defence purposes to Australian firms, or is it the policy of the Government to let such contracts to overseas firms?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I am not aware of any outstanding requirements of the commodities which the honorable senator has in mind. I am confident, and he may share my confidence, that when the Department of Supply, or the government department operating through that department, has occasion to order commodities that are capable of being manufactured in Australia, preference will be given to Australian suppliers.

page 3355

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator FINLAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister representing the Treasurer inform the Senate whether any agreement has been made between the Australian Government and the State governments for expediting the building of homes for aged and invalid pensioners?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– This matter has been considered on a number of occasions over the years. There is not the slightest doubt that one of the best actions that the Government could take in the field of social services would be the provision of homes for pensioners. I think that some provision has already been made for this purpose under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. However, the view of the Commonwealth has always been that housing is a function of the States and the Commonwealth has not been prepared to extend its field of social services activities in that direction, having regard to its big obligations in relation to other social services.

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for Trade and Customs inform me whether there is any truth in the press report of a statement by the honorable member for Bass (Mr. Kekwick) that the hostel at Mowbray Heights in Tasmania, which i3 at present not in use, is to be used to relieve the housing shortage in that State? If the Commonwealth has decided to make this gesture, have the necessary arrangements been made with the Tasmanian Government, and if so when will the hostel be made available?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I am not aware of the circumstances of the matter to which the honorable senator has referred, but I shall ascertain the position and provide the honorable senator with a reply in due course.

page 3356

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– On the 23rd September, I directed the attention of the Minister representing the Minister acting for th? Postmaster-General to the fact that Sydney to Adelaide air mail, posted after noon in Sydney, took one day longer in transit than Adelaide to Sydney air mail. On the 7th October, the Minister was good enough to furnish a reply stating that, to remedy the defect in the Sydney to Adelaide service, the Postmaster-General would consider the use of the TransAustralia Airways Convair aircraft, which leaves Mascot at 4 p.m. and arrives at Parafield later that evening. I am informed that, to date, the service has not been improved, and that although use is made of the 4 p.m. aircraft to carry the mail from Sydney to Melbourne, the mail is held in Melbourne until the following morning, when it proceeds to Adelaide and reaches that city only in time for afternoon deliveries. I am further informed that an Australian National Airlines or a Trans-Australia Airways service could be used if the PostmasterGeneral so desired to carry the mail to Adelaide on the same evening as it arrives in Melbourne. Will the Minister please give immediate consideration to the use of either of those services for the carriage of air mail as South Australian business and commercial interests regard the matter of great importance.

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I shall bring the honorable senator’s question before the Minister acting for the PostmasterGeneral immediately and ascertain whether the Sydney to Adelaide air-mail service can be improved in the manner suggested.

page 3356

QUESTION

URANIUM

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In view of the great interest shown by all Australians in the development of our uranium deposits, will the Minister for National Development inform the Senate of the total number of such deposits that have been reported throughout the Commonwealth? How much money has been paid out by the Commonwealth to the discoverers of uranium deposits? Have any uranium finds been reported by prospectors in Western Australia, and if so what rewards have been paid to them?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I am not prepared to say how many discoveries of uranium have been made throughout the Commonwealth. I do not think it is desirable that such information should be made public. I shall ascertain for the honorable’ senator the amount of money that has been paid to discoverers of uranium. To the best of my knowledge no discoveries have been made in Western Australia, and therefore no payments have been made in that State. However, I shall verify that matter, and if I am incorrect I shall let the honorable senator know.

page 3356

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator AMOUR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture inform the Senate when the profits arising from the operations of the Joint Organization will be paid to graziers who have left the wool industry?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– I shall make inquiries and inform the honorable senator as soon as possible of the result. I direct his attention to the fact that the “Wool Realization (Distribution of Profits) Bill, which relates to this matter, is now before the Senate.

page 3357

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator ASHLEY:

– Will the Minister representing the Treasurer state whether it is a fact that the Government is providing 800,000 dollars for the purchase, from the United States of America, of a ship or barge which is being brought to Australia by a company or companies for the purpose of transporting loaded lorries to and from the ports of Australia? Is there any valid reason why the vessel could not have been built in Australia, thereby saving dollars and giving employment to Australian workmen? Why has this huge amount of dollars been provided for this purpose at a time when it is not possible to secure dollars to finance the purchase of cranes and other plant and equipment sorely needed for the speedier turn-round of ships?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I have only a very slight knowledge of this matter through having seen passing through my department some papers in which the approval of the Capital Issues Board was sought to obtain the required authority for this project. I understand that the proposition has been very closely examined and that the view is accepted that the vessel will make a substantial contribution to the relief of traffic congestion in the ports and on the roads. I have no doubt that such a vessel could be built in Australia, but I understand that the vessel is readily available in the United States of America and can be brought here promptly, thus saving us from waiting for some years for the construction of a suitable vessel in Australia. In reply to the last part of the honorable senator’s question, I am not aware that there is a shortage of dollars for the purchase of equipment used in port handling work.

Senator AYLETT:

– Will the Minister representing the Treasurer say whether dollars were provided for the purchase of that vessel?

Senator SPOONER:

– My recollection is that permission was obtained to receive dollars. However, if my recollection is incorrect, I shall inform the honorable senator of the facts.

page 3357

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator WEDGWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Will the Government investigate the desirability of providing, through the Commonwealth Office of Education, special education and rehabilitation facilities for mentally retarded children ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I understand that something on the lines suggested by the honorable senator is being done at the present time. I shall cause inquiries to be made and acquaint the honorable senator of the result.

page 3357

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN PRISONERS OF WAR

Senator O’BYRNE:

– In view of the fact that Australian prisoners of war, who were held by the Japanese during the last war, are to receive an amount of £32 as compensation for their sufferings as the result of the sale of certain Japanese assets in Australia, despite the payment to Canadian prisoners of war of more than £750, and to Herr Krupp, the German war criminal, of £50,000,000 by way of compensation, will the Minister for Trade and Customs inform me whether any compensation has been paid to the Australian Government by the Government of Burma for the construction of the Burma railway, which was carried out by Australian prisoners of war, and in the building of which the lives of so many Australians were lost, and, if so, whether such compensation could also be paid to former Australian prisoners of war who were in the hands of Japanese?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– In answer to the first part of the question, as far as I am aware, the Australian Government is the only Government that has made money available from its own resources to former prisoners of war. It is the responsibility of the captor nation to make money available for that purpose. It so happened that Japanese funds in the United States of America and Canada were very much greater than those in Australia. I understand that assets of the Japanese in those countries wore liquidated and devoted by the respective governments to relief of former prisoners of war of the Japanese.

page 3358

QUESTION

KOREA

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

– The New Zealand Government proposes to send a parliamentary delegation to Korea to investigate the conditions under which its soldiers are serving in that country. Will the Minister for Trade and Customs indicate whether the Australian Government has considered the sending of a similar Australian delegation to Korea during the forthcoming parliamentary recess? If this matter has not been considered, will the Government consider it?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I am not aware whether any consideration has been given to the proposal. I shall make inquiries and inform the honorable senator of the result.

page 3358

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OIL REFINERIES LIMITED

Senator ARMSTRONG:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the decision of the people of Flinders at the recent by-election in that electorate, will the Leader of the Government intimate whether it is prepared to withdraw for further consideration the bill to dispose of the Commonwealth’s assets in Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– Definitely, no.

page 3358

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact, as reported in Western Australian newspapers and attributed to the authorities at Wanslea Children’s Home, that owing to the high cost of hospitalization and medical fees, many mothers, urgently in need of hospital treatment, are unable to afford it, and thus are unable to avail themselves of the facilities for the care of their children as offered by the home?
  2. If so, and as this has a serious effect on their health, will the Minister consider giving further financial benefit to mothers requiring hospital treatment; also will he consider giving financial assistance to institutions such as Wanslea to enable thora to carry on their important work?
Senator COOPER:
CP

– I have received from the Minister for Health the following answers: -

  1. The institution referred to is not administered by the Commonwealth, and the financial position is not known.
  2. The responsibility for matters of this kind rests solely with the State Government.

page 3358

QUESTION

LAND SETTLEMENT OF EX-SERVICEMEN

Senator FINLAY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

  1. How many applications have been received from returned soldiers for participation in the land settlement scheme?
  2. How many of the applicants have been accepted as suitable for land settlement, and how many have now been placed on the land?
  3. Is it a fact that some returned soldiers have been forced to forfeit their allotments? If so, how many, and for what reasons?
Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following answers : -

  1. Fifty-seven thousand, two hundred and fifteen.
  2. Thirty-seven thousand and ninety-four have boon classified by the States as being eligible and suitable, but it is not known how many of them are genuinely desirous of obtaining farms. Of this number, 5,569 have been allotted holdings and others are in occupation but have not been granted official title. Of these 5,569 settlers, 2,209 have been allotted their holdings since the 1st January, 1950.
  3. Settlers are granted title under State law and are responsible to the State Minister for certain covenants. I know that some exservicemen have been dispossessed for failure to comply with the conditions in their leases, and some have surrendered their holdings because of ill-health. I have no knowledge of the actual number involved but it is a very small percentage of those allotted farms.

page 3358

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator BROWN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice -

  1. What is the number of new Australians at present in the various migrant camps ?
  2. What is the average time that a new Australian remains at a migrant camp before being placed in employment?
  3. Ha vo any new Australians remained in camps for more than three months; if so, what is the longest period that any migrant hoa had to remain before .being placed in employment Y
  4. What is the cost.per week to the Government of keeping new Australians in migrant camps V
Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– The Minister for Immigration has supplied the following answers : -

  1. The number of migrants at present in reception and training centres awaiting placement into initial employment is 1,634.
  2. It is the aim of my Departments of Immigration and Labour and National Service that migrants should be required to remain at the reception and training centre for no longer than is absolutely necessary before passing out to employment. In the past, this objective has been achieved with little difficulty. During the past few months, however, changes in the employment situation have meant that in some cases there have been longer delays at the reception centre than we would ordinarily have desired. Nevertheless, movement out to employment of qualified tradesmen and experienced rural workers have proceeded at practically the same rate as hitherto. This is perhaps explained by the smaller number of .skilled migrants introduced during the recent period. The average time which migrant workers in these two categories remain in a reception centre would approximate from two to three weeks, which allows for usual processing on arrival and the completion of placement and movement arrangements. In normal circumstances, a similar period is generally involved in the case of unskilled workers although lately for the reasons already stated, there have been longer delays. This has been particularly so in regard to Italian unskilled migrants. In his statement on the employment situation to the House of Representatives on the 7th August last, my colleague, the Honorable P. A. M. McBride, who was then Acting Minister for Labour and National Service, explained why it hud not been possible to restrict immediately at the time the review of the immigration programme was announced, the movement of some 3,500 I till ian unskilled workers who were then in process of arriving in this country. It is this category that has been presenting the main problem in current placements. The same difficulty has not arisen in the case of Dutch unskilled workers whose placement lias been facilitated by the better knowledge of the English language possessed by many of them. Over all nationalities the average time unskilled workers remain under present conditions in a reception centre awaiting employment would be between six and eight weeks.
  3. At the present time there are 01 migrants who have remained in the reception and training centres for more than three months awaiting employment. That number would include those who, through sickness and other causes, have not been able to accept employment opportunities as they have arisen, but who will be allocated to employment when those disabilities have been overcome. The longest period that a migrant has remained at the reception and training centres awaiting employment is about four months.
  4. The average cost to the Government to maintain a migrant in a reception and training centre pending his placement in employment is approximately £2 9s. per week.

page 3359

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT LOANS AND FINANCE

Senator AYLETT:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What is Australia’s total debt, Commonwealth and States, and the annual interest rate thereon?
  2. What is the total debt of each State taken over by the Commonwealth and the annua) interest thereon?
  3. What is the total overseas debt owing to (a) Great Britain; (6) United States of America; and (o) any other countries, if any, and the total annual interest thereon?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Treasurer has furnished the following information : -

  1. Public debt at the 30th June, 1952-

Interest liability on debt as at the 30th June, 1952 -

Average rates of interest, £A.2 14b. 6d., £st» 3 3s. 8d., 4.04 dollars.

  1. The total debt of each State taken over by the Commonwealth, under the provisions of the Financial Agreement, and annual interest liability thereon was as follows: -
  1. See answer to No. 1 - there are no other countries in which debt has been incurred by Australia.

page 3360

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standings Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The bill embodies proposed amendments to the Customs Tariff 1933-1950 which have operated for various periods during the course of the present parliamentary session. The proposed amendments cover a comprehensive range of goods, and are consequent upon -

  1. the adoption, in broad principle, by the Government of recommendations made by the Tariff Board, after full public inquiry, as to the level of protection which the board considered should be accorded to various Australian industries ;
  2. the Government’s 1951-52 budget proposals, under which the duties on goods covered by some revenue items in the tariff were increased ;
  3. concessions accorded by Australia to various countries during the course of the international trade talks held at Torquay during 1950-51; and
  4. the necessity to define more clearly, for purposes of administration, the intention of existing items in the tariff.

The principal items affected by Tariff Board inquiries are those relating to textile furnishing and upholstery materials, moquettes - of the kinds used for upholstery, dress gloves, lathes, woodworking machinery, electrically operated portable hand tools, chain pulley blocks, internal combustion engines, various hand tools, phenol, record changing devices for gramophones and other talking machines, fork lift trucks, plastics, and oil and water colour paintings.

In the second group the amendments relate to beer, spirituous liquors, tobacco, cigarettes and cigars. As I have already indicated, these goods are subject to revenue duties and the increases in the rates of duty that were made in connexion with the 1951-52 budget. Corresponding increases have also been made in relation to like goods produced in Australia and which are dutiable under the excise tariff. These increased excise duties will come up for discussion in another bill.

The third group covers a somewhat wide range of commodities in respect of which concessions were accorded by Australia, on a reciprocal basis, to various countries during the course of the international trade talks which were held at Torquay in 1950-51. The concessions, generally, are of a minor nature and I feel confident that in no instance will they occasion detriment to any of our established industries.

The fourth group covers amendments to the existing wording of several items in order that they will more clearly express the intentions of the Parliament when such items were originally inserted in the tariff schedule.

A memorandum showing the proposed duties compared with those at present provided for in the Customs Tariff 1933-1950, has been circulated to honorable senators, from which they will readily be able to ascertain the differences between the proposed amendments and the related provisions in the Customs Tariff 1933-1950. If further information is required by honorable senators with respect to any of the proposed tariff amendments in the bill, I shall endeavour to make it available when the relevant item is under consideration. Honorable senators will observe that the memorandum also gives similar particulars with respect to amendments proposed in the Excise Tariff 1921-1950, the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933- 1950 and the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1934-1950. The relevant bills to give effect to these amendments will come up for consideration at a later stage.

Debate (on motion by Senator Courtice) adjourned.

page 3361

EXCISE TARIFF BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now .read a second time.

This bill, in the main, covers the excise amendments associated with the Government’s 1951-52 budget. The principal items affected are those relating to beer, spirituous liquors, tobacco, cigarettes and cigars. In each instance, an increase of the excise duty is proposed, details of which are shown in the comparative memorandum already circulated to honorable senators. Equivalent increases on like imported goods will be considered by honorable senators during the debate on the Customs Tariff Bill 1952.

Other amendments in this excise bill provide for the delivery of spirits free of excise duty for use in the manufacture of medicinal preparations for use in universities ; the elimination of the excise duty on concentrated grape must; and an increase of 2d. a ton on coal, not being flic property of a State government. As honorable senators are aware, revenue obtained from the excise duty on coal is utilized to meet the payment of longservice leave to the miners engaged in 1 1 at industry.

Debate (on motion by Senator Courtice) adjourned. [I Ofl]

page 3361

CUSTOMS TARIFF (NEW ZEALAND PREFERENCE) BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The amendments contained in the bill before the Senate relate to corsets, locomotives, other than locomotives operated by electrical storage batteries, oil engines not exceeding 100 brake horse-power, and cinematographs. Each of these amendments is complementary to the principal Customs Tariff Bill, which has already been considered by honorable senators. They are necessary in order to maintain the Commonwealth’s trade treaty commitments with New Zealand.

Debate (on motion by Senator Courtice) adjourned.

page 3361

CUSTOMS TARIFF (CANADIAN PREFERENCE) BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is complementary to the main Customs Tariff Bill which has already been brought before the Senate. The only amendment relates to fork lift and elevating platform trucks; it is consequent upon a Tariff Board recommendation covering these goods and is necessary in order to maintain the margin of preference which is accorded to Canada in favour of these particular vehicles.

Debate (on motion by Senator Courtice) adjourned.

page 3362

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill has, as its objective, the validation of collections of customs duties made under the provisions of Customs Tariff Proposals No. 5 which were introduced on the 29th May last, and were in operation until superseded by Customs Tariff Proposals No. 6 of the 25th September last. The latter proposals incorporated the amendments previously included in Customs Tariff Proposals No. 5, and likewise those included in all other earlier customs tariff proposals introduced during the present sessional period. Collections of duties under Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, were validated by Act No. 51 of 1951.

The Senate has already had before it the bill which incorporated the amendments contained in Customs Tariff Proposals No. 6, but as that bill, when enacted, will give legal effect to those amendments as on and from the 26th September, 1952, it now becomes necessary to validate the collections of duty made prior to that date under Customs Tariff Proposals No. 5. The bill is purely a machinery measure and is designed to achieve the purpose which I have indicated.

Debate (on motion by Senator Courtice) adjourned.

page 3362

EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The circumstances necessitating the introduction of this bill are the same as those associated with the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1952 which has already been introduced in this chamber. This bill provides for the validation of collections of excise duties made under Excise Tariff Proposals No. 3 which were introduced in another place on the 29th May, 1952. These, and earlier proposals, introduced during the present parliamentary sessional period were, however, superseded by Excise Tariff Proposals No. 4 of the 25th September, 1952.

The collections of duties under Excise Tariff Proposals Nos. 1 and 2 were validated by Act No. 52 of 1951, and the Senate has already had before it the bill covering the amendments contained in Excise Tariff Proposals No. 4. That bill, when enacted, will give legal effect to those amendments as on and from the 26th September, 1952, and in such circumstances it is necessary to validate the collections of excise duty made prior to that date by Excise Tariff Proposals No. 3. Honorable senators will readily appreciate that the bill is essentially a machinery measure.

Debate (on motion by Senator Courtice) adjourned.

page 3362

STATES GRANTS BILL 1952

Bill received from House of Repre sentatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to authorize the payment, during the current financial year, of special grants amounting to £15,934,000 to South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. The payment of these grants has been recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in its nineteenth report which was tabled in the Senate last week. In its nineteenth report, the commission has adopted the same general principle and methods as in recent years. The general principle followed is that of financial need which has been expressed by the com mission in the following terms: -

Special grants are justified when a State through financial stress from any cause is unable efficiently to discharge its functions as a member of the federation and should be determined by the amount of help found necessary to make it possible for that State by reasonable effort to function at a standard not appreciably below that o[ the other States.

In applying this principle, the commission makes a detailed comparison of the financial position and practices of the claimant and the non-claimant States. When making this comparison, the commission takes account of such factors as the relative efforts of the claimant States in raising revenue, and the levels of expenditure in the claimant States compared with the non-claimant States. As in recent years, the commission has adopted a balanced budget standard as the starting point for its calculations. It is, of course, impossible for the commission to make precise estimates of the special grants required to preserve due relativity with the non-claimant States in the year in which the grants are to be paid. To meet this difficulty, the grants recommended by the commission are divided into two parts.

One part of the grants represents the commission’s estimate of the current financial needs of the claimant States. This part of the grants is treated by th« commission as an advance payment which is subject to adjustment by the commission two years later when it has had the opportunity to examine in detail the audited budgets of the States for that year. The other part of the grants recommended by the commission each year represents a final adjustment of the special grants recommended two years previously. Thus, in its nineteenth report the commission has made precise calculations of the special grants to which it considers the claimant States were entitled in 1950-51, and has compared those calculations with the advance pay ments made in 1950-51 in order to arrive at a final adjustment. The special grants recommended for payment in 1952-53 are, therefore, made up as follows: -

It will be noted that the grants recommended for payment to South Australia and Western. Australia this year were arrived at after deducting amounts of £257,000 and £159,000 respectively. These deductions represent the amounts by which the advance payments made in 1950-51 exceeded the financial needs of those States in that year as finally assessed by the commission. The special grants recommended for payment in 1952-53 are substantially greater than the special grants paid last year, the amount of the increase for each State being South Australia £1,785,000, Western Australia £2,953,000 and Tasmania £674,000, making a total increase over 1951-52 of £5,412,000. If account is taken of the tax reimbursement and special financial assistance grants, the total increase in revenue grants to the claimant States this year is estimated at £S/712,000.

In its nineteenth report, the commission has indicated that it has been particularly difficult to forecast with any accuracy the amounts of the special grants which might be justified for 1952-53. In particular the commission mentions the uncertainty which exists about the future of wages and other costs and about the revenues of State enterprises. At the same time the commission points out that under its procedures the advance payments which it recommends for 1952-53 will be subject to adjustment two years hence when all the facts relating to 1952-53 become known. The commission has listed a number of factors accounting for the increased financial needs of the claimant States in 1952-53. The more important of these factors include increased expenditure on social services, the effect on the State of budgets of basic wage adjustments, and the effect on Western Australia’s finances of the prolonged rail strike in that State.

The special grants recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission each year have always been adopted by successive governments and the present Government considers that the commission’s recommendations should be adopted again this year. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 3364

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL 1952-53

Dissent FROM President’s Ruling.

Debate resumed from the 11th September (vide page 1266), on motion by Senator McKenna -

That the ruling of the President, viz.: - “That the Appropriation (Works and Services) Bill 11)52-53 is a bill which the Senate may amend”, be dissented from.

Senator MeKENNA (TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition) [4.10]. - The bill to which this motion was directed has now passed through all its stages in this chamber. I have already given notice of my intention to move another motion which will enable the substantive matter at issue to be dealt with by the Senate without putting your own ruling at issue, Mr. President. In these circumstances, I move -

That the order of the day be discharged.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has adopted this course. 1 rise only to record my definite view that the motion is being properly discharged.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3364

LOAN (INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT) BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 24th September (vide page 1945), on motion by Senator .Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– This bill authorizes the borrowing of 50,000,000 dollars from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. This is the second loan that Australia has had from that bank. The first loan of 100,000,000 dollars was obtained in August, 1950. The loan proposed in this measure, therefore, will bring our total borrowings in two years to 150,000,000 dollars. The Opposition does not oppose the bill, but we shall take this opportunity to offer a few ideas that may be helpful, if not to the Government, at least to the nation. I notice that whereas the 100,000,000- dollar loan was for 25 years at an interest rate of 4^ per cent., the 50,000,000-dollar loan is for only twenty years, and the interest rate has been increased to 4f per cent. The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) said in his second-reading speech that the chief reason for the increase of the interest rate was that American investors were the main source of the bank’s funds, hut I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the bond rate in the United States of America during the last twelve months has ranged from 2 per cent, to a little more than 2$ per cent.

Senator Spooner:

– Is that for shortterm borrowings?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– For any terms. I can give the Minister a complete list if he so desires. There is another point in relation to the proposed loan that I should like the Minister to clarify. The Commonwealth is accepting an obligation to pay % per cent, on all undrawn loan funds, commencing from the beginning of the loan. Does that mean that we shall be committed to pay that rate of interest on all undrawn amounts as from the 8th July of this year? If that is so, I assume that a similar provision applied to the 100,000,000-dollar loan which was authorized in August, 1950. Although more than two years have now elapsed since authority to borrow that money was granted, only two-thirds of the total sum has been drawn. It would appear, therefore, that in connexion with that loan we are already paying f per cent, on a substantial amount of undrawn money. In addition, we shall have to pay the same rate of interest on whatever amount of the 50,000,000-dollar loan is undrawn as from the 8th July of this year. I make that point strongly because after all we are dealing with an organization that is described as the “ International Bank for Reconstruction and Development “. One could expect the authorities of the bank not to add onerous burdens to borrowing nations, and to do everything possible to enable borrowers to derive the greatest possible advantage from their loans. Whether the charging of interest on undrawn funds is the normal international banking practice I do not know, but it is certainly not the normal private banking practice. When an overdraft limit is fixed for a private company by its bank, it is not charged interest on the amount of money that it does not use.

One of the difficulties of legislation of this kind is that when it comes before the Parliament, it is usually too late to do anything about the arrangements that it seeks to validate. We are virtually asked by the Government merely to put our stamp on the measure, and I do not think that we can do very much about its contents. However, I suggest that the provisions of the loan agreement which imposed an obligation on the Commonwealth to pay ^ ‘per cent, interest on undrawn funds should be given further consideration. Judging by the rate of drawing on the 100,000,000-dollar loan, the loan provided for in this measure will not be fully drawn for a considerable time. We must remember, too, that circumstances are changing. Because of the change of the economic scene in this country, many items that needed the highest priority a few months ago, no longer call for high priority. I do not suggest for a moment that the loan should not be obtained, but I believe that the people of the Commonwealth should be made aware of the burden that will be placed upon them by its repayment. The Minister said that from 1957 onwards, annual payments of interest and principal combined will amount to approximately 4,500,000 dollars a year. On both loans, the annual charge will be nearly 12,000,000 dollars a. year. Payments at that rate will continue until 1972, when the 50,000,000-dollar loan will be repaid. In view of our very difficult dollar situation, the Government is accepting a very heavy dollar obligation indeed , by undertaking to pay the loans off at the rate of 12.000,000 dollars a year. Obviously, there will be a need for the most careful scrutiny of the purchases from dollar funds.

The Minister surveyed in his secondreading speech the allocation of funds from the 100,000,000-dollar loan. He said that 29 per cent, of the loan had been allocated for the purchase of tractors and other agricultural equipment. That was by far the largest single item. The Minister suggested that, although many of our needs could be met by sterling countries or by Australian manufacturers, certain types of agricultural and land settlement machinery would still be required from dollar countries.. The fact remains, however, that in Australia to-day there are thousands of tractors that cannot be sold. It is conservatively estimated that 10,000 tractors, valued at more than £9,000,000, are awaiting buyers. In New South Wales alone there is efficient harvesting and tillage machinery capable of planting 4,500,000 acres of wheat this season, but actual plantings will amount to 20 per cent, less than last year when 2.500,000 acres were sown. The availability of agricultural machinery is not the principal factor that is retarding wheat production. There are at present available very substantial numbers of tractors, some of them of the best European makes. Whether production of wheat has declined because of high taxes or because growers are dissatisfied with the price obtained for their product, the fact remains that the areas planted to wheat this year are very much smaller than in the past. Speaking from memory, the acreage planted this year is only one-third of that planted twenty years ago. That fact must constitute a serious problem for any government.

The Government must most carefully scrutinize the expenditure of the proceeds of this loan. It must ensure that materials and equipment which can be manufactured in Australia if proper encouragement is given to Australian manufacturers shall not be imported from the United States of America. I agree with the views expressed by Senator McMullin in a statement issued this morning in which he advocated the use of Australian beef for the purpose of securing dollar credits. The Government must explore every possible avenue of obtaining dollars. In the last twelve months the position has worsened to the degree that the Government is short not only of dollars but also of sterling. The remedy for that situation lies in increased production and in the limitation of dollar spending to the financing of imports of capital equipment which will enable us to make in Australia to-morrow the equipment and machinery that we have to import to-day.

Senator Wright:

– Does not the honorable senator advocate the transfer of Australian industries to the dollar areas?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I believe that they should be transferred wherever it is possible to do so. We should encourage Australian industries to establish branches in the dollar area. Already Davis Gelatine (Australia) Proprietary Limited, and Nicholas Proprietary Limited - the manufacturers of Aspro - have established branches in the United States of America. Australian concerns should be encouraged to establish branches in the United States of America so that we may be able to import produets from the United States of America without having to find the physical dollars with which to pay for them. I thank Senator Wright for his most helpful interjection.

The list of goods to be financed by this loan must be very carefully scrutinized. Because of inflation the physical amount of work done for a given expenditure is not as great as it was in the past. In this loan an amount of 17,000,000 dollars has been earmarked for agriculture and land settlement. I trust that farmers will be able to afford to pay for the agricultural equipment that will be received from the expenditure of that money. At present there is a large volume of American agricultural equipment in Australia which the primary producers are not able to buy. A similar position exists in relation to requirements for the production of electricity. The State Electricity Commission of Victoria has recently cancelled orders for electrical equipment which was almost unobtainable twelve months ago. The commission is hawking stocks of unwanted copper rod among the electricity undertakings in other States. A great change has taken place since the negotiation of the first loan of 100,000,000 dollars. I approved of that loan only because we could not have managed without it. Since the negotiation of this second loan an extraordinary change has taken place in this country. The Government should scrutinize most closely the list of items which the loan is intended to cover in order to make certain that the greatest possible value is obtained from money expended in the United States of America. I see no prospect of the dollar position improving in the near future. During the last two or three years the dollar position has drifted. Whether the drift will be arrested I do not know. On present indications there seems little likelihood that it will be arrested within the next year or two.

I commend the Government for having decided to include in this loan provision for the importation of additional diesel locomotives. These locomotives have proved a. good investment in the past. The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) told us in answer to a question last week that the diesel locomotives previously imported had paid for themselves in less than two years. That is a miraculous achievement. Every encouragement should be given to the importation of additional locomotives of that type. I conclude by reminding honorable senators opposite that there is a positive as well as a negative approach to this matter. I do not want to be misunderstood when I say that the borrowing of dollars is the negative approach. In the circumstances, that course may be necessary, but it cannot be denied that the most positive approach to the problem is to encourage American industries to establish branches of their activities in Australia and to make in this country the goods that we now have to import and to encourage Australian industries to produce in this country goods and commodities for the importation of which dollars must now be expended.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Western Australia

. - It is, indeed, a very rare and extremely pleasant experience for a measure to be supported by both sides of the Senate. I was particularly interested in the remarks of Senator Armstrong. The honorable senator referred to the increase of the interest rate on loans obtained from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development by $ per cent, during the last two years. The increase is, I believe, in consonance with the trend of interest rates, not only in the United States of America, but also throughout the world. It is completely irrelevant for the honorable senator to compare the interest rate payable on a loan issued by the International Bank with the local investment rate in the United States of America. Whatever interest rate we may be prepared to accept for our own bonds, surely we should not be prepared to accept the same rate for bonds issued by the South American Republics, or by Malaya or Egypt. It is of interest and of importance to remember that the interest rate charged by the International Bank includes 1 per cent, commission levied by the bank for the purpose of building up reserves to carry on and extend the valuable work which that organization is doing. Reference was also made to the commitment charge of $ per cent. When the International Bank accepts commitments of this magnitude to assist a. nation it is only reasonable that it should impose a commitment charge, because it has to hold on call huge sums in order to enable it to make advances to other countries.

Senator Armstrong:

– Is not a trading bank in Australia in exactly the same position as the International Bank?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– There is no real analogy between the position of the International Bank and that of the Australian trading banks. The International Bank must at all times have available huge sums for loans to which it is committed and for countries requiring assistance.

The decision of the Government to obtain a further loan from the International Bank is merely a logical continuation of the policy it embarked upon two years ago, when it successfully negotiated a dollar loan for this country. That loan, and the one which we are now discussing, will be applied to developmental purposes in this country during the next five years, and is therefore a fulfilment of the pledge made by the antisocialist parties at the general election in 1949.

During that election campaign the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) pointed out that one of the limiting factors of Australia’s economy was its acute shortage of capital equipment and plant of dollar origin, which was seriously reducing our exports to dollar countries. Because of that disability the self-sufficiency of our economy was impaired. One consequence of our election to power at that general election was that Australia obtained the loan of 100,000,000 dollars for the development of reproductive industries. The proceeds of that loan were allocated to essential reproductive industry and development. The proceeds of this new loan will be allocated similarly and in the following manner : - Land settlement, 17,000,000 dollars; goldmining, 8,000,000 dollars; iron and steel production, 1,000,000 dollars ; electric power, 4,000,000 dollars; railways, 2,000,000 dollars; road transport, 7,000,000 dollars; production of non-ferrous metals anc! industrial minerals, 2,000,000 dollars; and industrial development, 9,000,000 dollars. Our national economy will receive a great fillip from this expenditure. The successful negotiation of this new loan means that the flow of machinery and capital equipment from dollar sources will enable us to continue uninterrupted, many well advanced projects and, in addition, to establish and develop many new ones.

As the agreement with the International Bank restricts the purchase of goods from dollar areas to those which are unprocurable in the sterling area, it will, in accordance with Australia’s traditional policy, benefit British manufacturers. The repayment of the amount borrowed will not impose any grave hardship upon us, because the loan virtually provides its own sinking fund. After the deferment period of five years provided in the agreement, the interest on the loan, which will be met from Consolidated Revenue, will cost approximately £2,000,000 a year; which means that our annual commitment for interest on this and the preceding loan will amount only to approximately £5,250,000. Because of the substantial increase that our production will show as the result of the inflow of capital equipment goods. I have no doubt’ that we shall be able, without undue hardship, to discharge the annual interest bill.

The large number of industries that will benefit directly from this additional loan is most impressive. In the State of Western Australia, which I have the honour to represent, land development and closer settlement in the south-western area will be enabled to proceed at an increased rate. The production of fat lambs, wool, beef, wheat and tobacco will be substantially assisted. It is expected that the production of coal from Collie will increase in 1954 by as much as 400,000 tons a year. The construction of the new steel rolling mills at Kwinana will be expedited, and a power station at South Fremantle to generate 50,000 Kilowatts will be equipped with plant purchased by money from this loan. The production of lead in the Northampton district will increase, as will also the production of pyrites at Northam. An adequate supply of those chemicals is essential for the production of fertilizers. The mining of asbestos at Wittenoom Gorge will be assisted considerably as will antimony mining at Blue Spec. The industrial development programme includes production of industrial chemicals, coal gas, petroleum and other products. Also, the importation of earth-moving equipment, which is so necessary for land settlement and development, will be of great assistance in increasing production. There will be a greater output of industrial chemicals and the food processing, engineering and other industries will benefit.

From the national point of view, the successful negotiation of this additional loan will benefit Australian industries greatly and will increase the production of those commodities which we require for our own consumption, quite apart from the favorable effect that it will have on our trade balances overseas. This new loan will be as refreshing to our economy, which is suffering from a shortage of capital, as a breath of fresh air. I whole-heartedly commend the bill.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– I regard the proposed legislation ratification of this loan as another step in the Americanization of Australia. This process was first introduced by antiLabour administrations after World War I., and it has steadily continued. As Senator Armstrong has already pointed out, Australia does not really need an additional dollar loan at the moment. In fact, the Government’s purpose in obtaining this additional loan is to repay the interest on the loan of 100,000,000 dollars, which it obtained from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in 1950. Despite that loan, which has not all been expended, our general economic condition has not improved.

Senator Spooner:

– Why has not all the loan been expended

Senator CAMERON:

– I could suggest various reasons to the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner)- The plain fact is that, despite the previous loan of 100,000,000 dollars, our industrial condition has not improved. On the contrary, official statistics show that unemployment has increased, and approximately 28,000 persons are now receiving unemployment benefit. In every State of the Commonwealth important public works, which were undertaken as the result of the Government obtaining the dollar loan, have been discontinued. Our economy is going from bad to worse, and it seems probable that before long we shall find ourselves in the position that confronted us in 1930, when our creditors were able to dictate all-round reductions of wages and standards of living. One painful consequence of that dictation was that hundreds of thousands of workers were reduced to the level of the dole. I foresee a similar situation arising as a consequence of the economic policy of the present Government.

The Minister for National Development said, in his second-reading speech, that this new loan would enable Australia to manufacture much of the industrial equipment that it needs. We do not need to purchase industrial plant from the

United States of America, because most of the plant that we require can bs manufactured either in Great Britain or in our own country. As an example of our production potential I remind honorable senators that Australia successfully produced aircraft engines during the recent war. notwithstanding the contention of many experts that it was beyond our technical capacity. The aircraft engines which we manufactured were at least equal, if not superior, in performance to those imported. For that, reason I cannot understand why the Government contends that we need to import tractors and other agricultural machinery to stimulate primary production. We already possess the necessary plant and sufficient skilled workers in this country to manufacture such machinery in excess of requirements.

Another factor that the Government should bear in mind is that the price of those capital goods that it contemplates purchasing from the United States of America is constantly increasing. Early in 1946 the United States Government made a loan to the United Kingdom Government of approximately £1,100,000,000 sterling, but within a few months the purchasing power of that loan was reduced by approximately one-third, because American prices increased by more than 30 per cent. Furthermore, the United States Government, imposed certain conditions in the loan agreement with Great Britain, which required the Government of that country to expend a substantial portion of the loan on goods that it did not require. There is no guarantee that we shall get our money’s worth. If prices should be increased after the loan has been granted, obviously the purchasing power of the loan would be lessened. As I have already pointed out, such a state of affairs developed after Great Britain had obtained a loan from the United States in 1946. It seems to me that the Government’s policy is to shackle Australia with another debt that it will be practically impossible for this country to redeem. I am reminded of De Witt’s famous comment when a similar situation developed and was extolled in Holland in the thirteenth century. Obviously, to the degree to which our currency has been inflated and capital destroyed the national debt of this countryrepresents fictitious capital. The workers have been told repeatedly that Australia must not repudiate its national obligations. The national shackles are designed to keep the workers in a state of subjection, and of working hard in order that, interest may be paid to the bond-holders.. During the period that immediately preceded World War II. international tradedegenerated into ruthless and cold warfare. Since the war Australia has incurred huge debts that it may he” impossible for us to repay. The United States of America now proposes to control the economy of the world. “Mr. Colin Clark, who is acknowledged to be one of Australia’s leading economists, was reported in the Brisbane CourierHail of the Sth May, 1950, to have stated -

It is with the deepest regret that I watch the approaching fulfilment of a prophecy which [ wrote in November, 10S0, in an article in Economic Record, to the effect that Australia could only go on in the way she waa going foi another 2 or 3 years before American economic help would have to be sought, and that thecondition of such assistance would he theappointment of an American commissioner with powers to control banking policy and the budget >n Australia. 1 do not think that any member of this chamber could doubt Mr. Colin Clark’s qualifications as an economist. I remind honorable senators that he expressed that opinion after the present Government had been in office for about a year, and his assessment of the probable outcome of the Government’s policy was accurate. The provisions of the schedules to the bill will operate in favour of the United States of America. Section 7.01 of Article VII. reads, in part -

Enforceability. The rights and obligations of the Bank and the Borrower under the Loan Agreement and the Bonds shall be valid and enforceable in accordance with their terms notwithstanding the law of any state, or political sub-division thereof, to the contrary.

Apparently the Government intends to> subjugate all our constitutional rights tothe interests of American creditors.

Section 2.01 of Article II. provides -

The Bank agrees to lend to the Borrower, mi the terms and conditions hereinafter in this Agreement set forth or referred to, the sum of fifty million dollars ($50,000,000), or thu equivalent thereof in currencies other than dollars.

Therefore we have no guarantee that we shall receive the amount of the proposed loan in dollars. We may receive it in the currency of an Asiatic country that is not worth the paper on which it is printed. There is no guarantee that the international Bank shall not pay us, for example, in the currency of a bankrupt state. Paragraph (c) of section 5.01 of Article V. provides, in pari; -

  1. . . On the part of the Borrower, such information shall include information with respect to financial and economic conditions in the territories of the Borrower and the international balance of payments position of -the Borrower.

This means that the International Bank shall have the right to inquire into all aspects of our business, as well as the policy of the Australian Government. In effect, it will become an overseer, and Australia shall have to conform to the conditions that it lays down. Section 5.02 of Article V. provides, in part -

It is the mutual intention of the Borrower and the Bank that no other external public debt shall enjoy any priority over the Loan by way of a lien on public assets.

The effect of that provision will be that the United States of America will enjoy priority over Great Britain, from which country we borrowed extensively some years ago. Although Government senators continue to pay lip service to the Mother Country, this bill will provide for the further Americanization of Australia, to the detriment of Great Britain. When Sir Auckland Geddes, who had been the British Ambassador to Washington, returned to England in 1924, he stated in an address to the English Speaking Union that America, assisted by the Dominions, was gradually undermining the economic position of Great Britain. Two years later, on the 12th November, 1926, Mr. S. M. Bruce - who is now Lord Bruce - who was then Prime Minister of this country, stated in effect that Australia would continue to borrow from America. On the 22nd November, 1926, the Washington Post stated that thereafter it would be America’s policy to deal with the Dominions independently of Great Britain, whilst H. Bywater, a former leading British naval expert, has pointed out that ever since 1921 the American financiers have progressively undermined Great Britain’s naval power.

I have pointed out that the bill will further Americanize this country. That opinion has been expressed also by a number of men in responsible positions. The purpose of the bill is to authorize the raising of a loan, which will increase our national debt. The Anzus pact was signed independently of Great Britain, and the proposed loan will strengthen further the position of the American financiers. The Minister stated in his second-reading speech -

The interest charge on the present loan - 4J per cent, for 20 years - is higher than the charge of 4i per cent, for 25 years which applied in the case of the 1950 loan. The reason why the International Bank has been obliged to raise interest charges on its more recent loans is that the bank itself has had to pay higher interest charges to raise funds to lend to its member countries. As in most other countries, there has been a general upward movement of interest rates in the United States, and it is, of course, mainly by issuing bonds to American investors that the bank acquires the dollar funds required to continue its lending operations.

The United States of America commands approximately 33 per cent, of the voting power on the board of the bank, whilst Australia commands 2 per cent., and Britain approximately 13 per cent. Some of the small countries of the world have practically no vote at all. Obviously, private bankers of America are trading under the name of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Their object is to build up debts which will be practically unpayable and so to control the policies of debtor countries. The debtors are to be allowed to pay only the interest which, in our case, as Senator Armstrong has pointed out, amounts to approximately £12,000,000 a year. In my opinion, that payment is quite unnecessary. The Government is approaching a position similar to that which existed in the 1930’s, when American creditors told the United Kingdom Government that it must reduce its expenses; otherwise they would not continue to finance it. They demanded a substantial reduction in the cost of social services. That was in 1931. As honorable senators no doubt recall, the then British Labour party split on that issue. Those who read the autobiography of the late Lord Snowden will learn something of the terrific pressure that was applied in England to deprive the unemployed persons of the dole and to reduce the cost of social services. I suggest that that will again be the attitude of American creditors. They will say to Australia, in effect, “ In order to meet your commitments you must reduce your governmental expenses, particularly expenses incurred in connexion with social services “. lt will be a case of history repeating itself. I consider that it is my duty to inform honorable senators of this matter. When the “ showdown “ comes they will not then lie able to say that they were not warned.

Loans from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development are not. in the best interests of the people of Australia ; they are of benefit only to bond-holders in America, who thus obtain the right to exploit and impoverish, in an indirect way, the workers of this country.

Senator SCOTT (Western Australia) 5.5]. - I was somewhat amazed by some of the remarks made by Senator Cameron. For instance, the honorable senator stated that we should not borrow this 50,000,000 dollars from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, that we should not develop this country, that we have here all the machinery that we need, and that if that is not so, such machinery is available from the United Kingdom. I inform honorable senators from New South Wales and Victoria that the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme would never have been commenced if 100,000,000 dollars with which to purchase heavy bulldozers and other equipment which was necessary for the development of that project bacl not been borrowed from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. I remember that in 1950 heavy equipment for the project was brought to Canberra, and an exhibition of its capabilities was given to members of the Parliament. That equipment included international tractors - I think they were known ab D 18’s. They were completely new to Australia, but are now being used by the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. I do not say that the Australian Labour party did not commence that scheme; indeed I know full well that it was a Labour government which officially opened the project. I maintain, however, that it could not have been carried forward had it not been for the fact that the present Australian Government obtained a loan from the International Bank forReconstruction and Development approximately two years ago. ;

Senator Cameron referred to the interest rate and spoke disparagingly of the fact that the Government proposes to pay an interest charge of three-quarters of 1 per cent, on the sum of money which remains undrawn from time to time. I point out to the honorable senator that if he goes to an insurance company, for instance, and borrows £10,000, that sum is paid into his bank account and he is obliged to pay interest on it from the clay on which it is paid in, whether he uses it or not.

Senator Armstrong:

– In that instance the money leaves the control of the bank, but money which is lent by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development does not leave the bank.

Senator SCOTT:

– We could have the whole amount paid to us if we wished, but we should be obliged to pay interest on the whole sum, even though we did not want to use it all straight away. Instead of doing that we shall take the money from the bank as we require it and pay interest at the rate of three-quarters of 1 per cent, on the sum which we do not use. I suggest that that is better than to pay interest on the whole amount.

In practically every country of the world, higher rates of interest are now being paid in order to attract money. Before the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development is able to lend this money to Australia, it must first obtain it. The only resources open to it are investors. Because it has been necessary for the bank to pay higher rates of interest on the money which it has borrowed to lend to us, we must now pay + per cent, more than we paid two years ago.

Senator Cameron also stated that, by borrowing this sum, the Government will increase our national debt. Of course it will. It will do so for the purpose of developing the country. Australia is a very young country, and money is essential if it is to be developed. The history of the United States of America reveals that approximately 100 years ago that country borrowed large sums of money from Great Britain for the development of its natural resources. To-day, it is probably the richest nation in the world. I suggest to honorable senators that if we ^proceed with the development of our country with the aid of loans from the International Bank, future generations of Australians will be able to say, “ Look at Australia to-day. What a wonderful nation it is “. An essential part of our i defence programme is the encouragement Itf immigrants to this country. If our “population increases and large developmental works are undertaken to meet such increased needs, money will be required.

I wish to refer particularly to the fact that this bill proposes that a part of the loan will be expended on the southwestern areas of Western Australia. Honorable senators will notice in the first schedule to the bill the following proposal relating to the agriculture and land settlement programme appears: -

Western Australia: Land development and closer settlement in the south-west designed to increase production of fat lambs, wool, dairy produce, beef and tobacco.

Senator Sheehan:

– And the United States of America will not buy the fat lambs when they are available!

Senator SCOTT:

– The United States of America has no opportunity to buy our fat lambs. With the exception of 3 per cent., they all go to the United Kingdom under the terms of the meat agreement which we have with that country. Honorable senators who represent Western Australia will be aware of the vast potentialities of the south”western corner of that State. I believe that it compares more than favorably with any other part of the Commonwealth.

Senator Aylett:

– What do we need from the United States of America in order to develop that area?

Senator SCOTT:

– We need from the United States of America heavy bull.dozers -with which to clear the land, because “rt is very heavily timbered. After World Wax I the Western Australian

Government undertook the task of clearing the heavily timbered areas of the south-western portion of the State. Men were paid to ring-bark trees with axes. Each man was given a horse with which to haul trees, some of which grow to 200 and 300 feet high. I remind Senator Aylett that when some of the trees in the Karri country fall they cover an acre of ground. At the present time, the Western Australian Government is using two large bulldozers, imported from the United States of America under the previous dollar loan, to clear land in connexion with its war service land settlement scheme.

Senator Aylett:

– They could have been obtained here or in England.

Senator SCOTT:

– I suggest that the honorable senator should study these matters. If he did so he would know that it is not possible even now to buy in Australia a sufficient number of 100 horse-power bulldozers. At the time of which I am speaking - 1950 - it was not possible to obtain them at all from other than dollar areas.

Senator Tangney:

– Let the Government break tip some of those big estates.

Senator SCOTT:

– That is a clever interjection. I suppose it is personal.

Senator Tangney:

– I did not know that the honorable senator had a big estate.

Senator SCOTT:

– I have not a big estate. I have a very small estate.

At Rocky Gully, the State Government has been clearing between 17,000 and 20,000 acres of land a year with bulldozers that have been imported from the United States of America under the terms of the previous dollar loan. The bulldozers are coupled with what is called a “highball”. This is pulled through the jarra’h forests and it clears up to 70 acres a day. Without such equipment it would take one man about twelve months to clear 70 acres of this land. This money is needed in Western Australia for land settlement, the development of the dairying industry, the fat-lamb and wool industries, and the beef and tobacco industries. Without such a loan as this we cannot go ahead. lt has been estimated that this loan will make it possible for the development of underground mines by enabling three private companies at Collie to purchase equipment which will increase their annual production by 400,000 tons by 1954. The loan will also make possible the purchase of a new steel rolling mill with a capacity of 50,000 tons of steel a year. This mill has been needed to enable industrial expansion in Western Australia. The establishment at Kwinana of a distilling plant costing between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000 by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Limited, the erection of the steel rolling mill, and the construction of a cement factory, will start an era of great industrial expansion in Western Australia. All the minerals necessary for the development of a steel industry exist in that State, which also has the only chromite deposits in Australia as well as large quantities of manganese. We have more iron ore than any other State of the Commonwealth.

Senator Sheehan:

– Senator Pearson and Senator Laught will not agree with that statement.

Senator SCOTT:

– There is ten times as much iron ore in Western Australia as there is in South Australia. In addition, there are large deposits of manganese, chromite and iron ore - the basic needs of industry. Western Australia also has large deposits of columbite, which is a mineral that is used in the production of jet aircraft engines because it stands a greater heat than any other mineral but carbon. Its price has risen during the lust three weeks from £1,400 a ton to over £3,400 a ton because it is so urgently needed.

I am pleased that a portion of this loan will be used for the purchase of diesel-electric locomotives and other rolling-stock. Within the last twelve months the Government has put dieselelectric locomotives on the TransAustralia line, and they have cut operational costs on that railway by 75 per cent. They can run from Port Pirie to Kalgoorlie without stopping; they do not have to stop every 50 miles to pick up water or coal. They save a day on the journey and cost only a third as much to operate as steam locomotives. If we are to ‘progress with our railway systems in Australia we shall have to follow the modern trend and purchase more dieselelectric locomotives. They are the answer to our rail transport problems.

I believe that no other nation in the world has the same number of miles of road to maintain in proportion to population as Australia has. The road transport systems of Western Australia and of South Australia have been overburdened with vehicles. Because of the metal trade strike in Western Australia, the roads in that State are breaking up. I arn pleased that the Government has made provision for the acquisition of machinery for road construction such as power graders, bulldozers and large tractors. Because there is a large areE in Western Australia that is not served by rail, the Government has decided to make dollars available for the importation of heavy road transport vehicles, in Western Australia, large diesel trucks carry from 20 to 30 tons of ore a distance of 270 miles. One company alone is carrying ore to Meekatharra at the rate of 500 tons a week. I believe that this country can expand only by using the currency of other countries in order to develop its resources. We must develop our secondary industries including gold mining so that we shall not be totally reliant on wool to pay our overseas commitments. Wool brings us 70 per cent, of our national income. If the price of wool crashes, we crash. The United States of America wants gold which has sold at a fixed price since 1940. Although the cost of production has gone up three times, the selling price of gold has risen only twice since that year. One increase was brought about by the devaluation of sterling and the other by allowing gold to be sold on the free dollar market.

I congratulate the Government on having been able to borrow this money. A Labour government would not’ have been able to borrow it. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) went to the United States of America and obtained a loan of 100,000,000 dollars. This year the President of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development visited Australia and decided that it was a good investment. The Government will continue with the development of this country if the Labour party ceases to interfere with its efforts and tells the truth instead of indulging in propaganda. I support the hill.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

.- The purpose of the bill before the Senate is, primarily, to borrow 50,000,000 dollars from the Bank for International Reconstruction and Development. If one equates the Australian £1 with the dollar one finds that one Australian pound equals approximately 2.23 dollars. Therefore, when the loan has been negotiated by the Government, Australia will have a credit of £23,000,000. At present, I am inclined to the opinion that the loan is somewhat necessary. Some commodities which Australia requires for its economic progress cannot be obtained within the sterling area. But I will not admit that present circumstances will operate for any length of time. Why is this loan necessary? Why has Australia to apply to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for I* n:ds with which to purchase goods on the American market? Admitting that some of our requirements must be obtained from the United States of America, why can we not buy direct from that country as we do from Great Britain? The answer is, of course, that, the United States of America does not require sufficient quantities of our goods to enable us to establish the credits that we need in that country. Our exports to the United States of America are negligible. I do not know what the solution of this problem is. Apparently the United States of America is unable to solve it - assuming that that country wants to solve it at all. America’s economy is virtually independent. There is no need to import raw materials, and American markets are largely sufficient to absorb American production. The United States of America may be regarded as a world in itself. However, as Senator Cameron has pointed out, in spite of this economic self-sufficiency, America suffers from u n employment. Just prior to the outbreak of World War Lt., unemployed in the United States of America numbered approximately 12,000,000. One honor able senator has suggested that we could export meat to the United States of America, but I do not agree that our dollar problem could be eased very much in that way. In fact, we are rapidly reaching the stage at which meat production in this country will not be sufficient for our own requirements. We are exporting to America limited quantities of ingredients used in the hardening of steel, but our dollar earnings from that source are negligible. They are about on par with our earnings from the export of crayfish tails.

Senator Ryan:

– And orchids.

Senator BENN:

– Yes. We are exporting limited quantities of those luxury items, but our dollar earnings from them are far from sufficient to enable us to buy the heavy equipment and other commodities such as drugs that we need. An alternative to making direct purchases from the United States of America would be to buy dollar goods through some other country that has a favorable balance of trade with the United States of America. But, at present, I do not know of any country that would be willing to accept our goods in return for American-made equipment. Before World War II.. of course, Australia relied on Great Britain for dollar funds to buy motor vehicles, machinery, and equipment, but to-day Britain requires all its dollar funds for its own purposes. Is there any other way out of our difficulty? I believe that there is. A conference should be held of all member nations of the British Commonwealth to ascertain each country’s requirements of goods which, hitherto, have not been ma(ir. within the Commonwealth. Then >; serious endeavour should be made to produce those /roods within the Commonwealth. If the needs of the British Commonwealth countries for ten. twenty, or even 50 years ahead could be determined, it would be worth while undertaking th« production of those goods in the sterling area: I should prefer that they be manufactured in Australia, but at least, it should not be necessary to go to dollar countries for them. We may yet be forced to do as I have suggested. The United States of America has not solved its currency problems. Perhaps it has no currency problems of any magnitude because of the degree of economic selfsufficiency that has been achieved in that country, but, to other nations, international trade is necessary in varying degrees. Without international trade Australia could not dispose of its primary products.

The first outstanding fact in connexion with this measure is that interest and redemption payments on the 50,000,000- dollar loan will have to be met by the Australian tax-payers. Those charges are inescapable. The loan is not a gift or a bounty. It has to be repaid and interest charges on it must be met. The subject of interest rates has been dealt with adequately by other speakers and I shall not refer further to that matter now. The second outstanding fact is that it will provide £23,000,000 worth of credits in dollar countries for Australia. The third outstanding fact is that the Australian Government itself will not require ali of the £23,000,000 worth of goods for its own use. The Commonwealth is curtailing its activities in the field of production. It is not embarking on any nation-wide enterprise. That is in accordance with the Government’s policy. The fourth outstanding fact is that the State governments, local governing authorities, and semi-government instrumentalities will not, together with the Commonwealth, absorb all the credits that will be made available under this loan.

Senator Spooner:

– Private enterprise will require some of the goods.

Senator BENN:

– I am coming to that. There will be a balance left after the Australian Government, the State governments, the local governing authorities, and the semi-government instrumentalities have obtained their requirements. In other words, the Commonwealth Treasury will become a central bank for private enterprise, and will import machinery and other goods for the use of private enterprise. In fact I believe that the real purpose of the loan is to provide a central bank for private importing companies. The Australian public, of course, will be required to foot the bill for the loan. As I said earlier in my remarks, the Australian taxpayer will have to redeem the loan and meet the interest charges upon it. The final outstanding fact is that private importers will purchase their dollar credits on the basis of the Australian £1. In other words they will receive £1 worth of credit for every £1 in cash. I believe, therefore, that this loan has been negotiated by the Australian Government for the benefit, largely, of private importers. I leave that matter there.

What is the history of Australian loans at home and overseas? One loan begets another loan. Not long ago we received a loan of 100,000,000 dollars from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Now we have another loan of 50,000,000 dollars. I venture to say that in six or twelve months another 50,000,000 dollars will be required. Why are those loans necessary? We have been told that machinery is to be purchased in the United States of America. But machinery wears out. In the not-distant future further dollar loans will be even more necessary than they are to-day because there will be wide demand for spare parts for machinery already imported.

Some of the matters mentioned by Senator Scott were, I am sure, of interest to Western Australians. He spoke of the establishment of steel rolling mills in that State and he dealt also with interest rates. He said, too, that when the Labour Government was in office, it was not able to negotiate a dollar loan. He did not 3ay whether that Government had found it necessary to try to borrow dollars, or whether in fact it wanted to do so. I remind the honorable senator that, under Labour’s administration, all internal loans were successfully floated at interest rates which did not exceed 2$ per cent. This Government, however, has raised the interest rate to £4 15s. per cent, in an endeavour to float internal loans successfully. Whilst I have stated certain objections to the bill, I join with other members of the Opposition in supporting it.

Sitting suspended from 5.^5 to 8 p.m.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– Obviously the Opposition is in a dilemma about this bill. Senator

Armstrong, who is Deputy Leader of the Opposition, said that the Opposition would support the measure. He then proceeded to offer fair criticism of certain of its provisions. Then Senator Cameron, who apparently also intends to vote for the bill, offered several very substantial reasons why, in his opinion, the bill should not be supported by him. I do not know how many Opposition senators feel as Senator Cameron does about the measure, but obviously his views were quite contrary to those expressed by ‘Senator Armstrong. From the notes I made of Senator Cameron’s speech it would appear that he opposes the measure on three broad grounds. First, he described the loan as a step in the further Americanization of Australia. Secondly, he said that the capital goods associated with this loan could be obtained from Great Britain. Thirdly, he said that, in any event, the loan is not necessary. I propose to make some observations on those objections to the measure. T gather from statements by Senator Cameron at different times that the United States of America is anathema to him. I can quite understand his viewpoint because that country is the great bulwark of free enterprise and as such, thoughts of it arouse the wrath of the honorable senator. I suggest that he has allowed his antiAmerican feeling to cloud his reason. He has suggested that the dollars that will be obtained from this loan will be provided by the United States of America when in fact, as he well knows, they will be provided by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Senator Cameron:

– Where does the bank obtain the dollars?

Senator VINCENT:

– I shall answer that question later. I remind the honorable senator that we could borrow francs, pesos or any other foreign exchange, had v.-e desired to do so. I shall leave it to Senator Armstrong to explain to his friends why we did not borrow francs.

There are some points about the International Bank that are worth remembering. First, Australia is a shareholder in the hank and was one of the subscribers of the initial capital with which it was founded. The funds available to the bank caine, in part, from its initial sub scribers. The Australian Government that was in office when the bank was established was, as Senator Cameron well knows, the Chifley Government, of which he was a member. The second point to remember about the bank is that 4.8 nations subscribed to its capital and are shareholders in it. The third point worthy of notice is that. Australia is represented on the board of the directors of the bank. Finally, the bank was especially formed for the purpose of granting loans to member nations.

The purposes of the bank, as set out in the United Nations Tear-Book 194S-49 read inter alia : -

To assist in the reconstruction and development of territories of members by facilitating the investment of capital for productive purposes, including the restoration of economies destroyed or disrupted by war, the reconversion of productive facilities to peace-time needs, and the encouragement of the development of productive facilities and resources in less developed countries.

Since 1947 the bank has loaned millions of dollars to its member nations. In 1947, France borrowed 250,000,000 dollars from the bank, the Netherlands 195,000,000 dollars and Denmark 40,000,000 dollars. In the following year, Chile borrowed 16.000,000 dollars for hydro-electric development, and the Netherlands borrowed 12,000,000 dollars for the purchase of commodities. In “J 949, Mexico borrowed 34,000,000 dollars for electric power development, Brazil 65,000,000 dollars for the construction of a hydro-electric scheme, Belgium 16,000,000 dollars for the construction of steel mills at Liege, and India 44,000,000 dollars for the development of its railway systems.

Senator Aylett:

– They all borrowed dollars which came from the United States of America.

Senator VINCENT:

– Apparently the honorable senator cannot understand why we should borrow dollars instead of francs. He should have a talk with Senator Armstrong on the subject. I a?k Senator Cameron, and others who think like him in regard to this loan, whether, because of political bigotry, which is an entirely irrelevant circumstance, we should refuse to borrow from our own bank? Are we to be left out in the cold because of childish political bigotry ?

Senator Cameron has also contended that the capital goods covered by this loan could be obtained in the United Kingdom. I gather from the interjections that other Opposition senators agree with him. To carry that proposition to its logical conclusion would entail a loan of sterling from Great Britain. As every one knows, Great Britain is grievously short of foreign exchange. In those circumstances, how would Great Britain finance the purchase of these capital goods? Does Senator Cameron suggest that we should bleed the Mother Country still further to enable us to secure these goods and that the English people, who are already short, of food, should tighten their belts still further so that we may prosper? So much for the argument that these capital goods could be obtained from Great Britain.

Opposition senators interjecting.

Senator VINCENT:

– I gather from the interjections from Opposition senators that the views expressed by Senator Cameron are shared by a substantial section of the Opposition.

Finally, Senator Cameron suggested that, in any event, we should not borrow at all. Those who contend that the borrowing of dollars in the present circumstances is unjustified are obviously opposed to a policy of full employment. I should be delighted if Mr. Cahill, the Premier of New South Wales, were present in this chamber to hear the views of honorable senators opposite on this matter. These dollars are necessary for two reasons. First, we must accelerate food production in Australia because we have what I regard as an international moral obligation so to do. The world, in particular Great Britain, is grievously short of food, and this Government has properly accepted its responsibility to stimulate food production. That, in a nutshell, is the basic reason why we need this loan. In consonance with the principles established in the Colombo Plan, the Government is committed to another plan for the assistance of relatively backward countries. The second basic reason why we need this loan is to enable us to accelerate the development of the production of basic commodities for political reasons. If we do not populate this country over-populated countries will suggest that they undertake the task for us. It is impossible to accelerate our development without the assistance of outside capital. No country has ever been developed along the lines envisaged in this measure without the assistance of outside capital. A study of economic history during the last 100 years will reveal that in every instance outside capital was required for the purpose of accelerating the development of relatively backward countries. The United States of America, Canada, India, South Africa and Australia, and all the southern countries of South America obtained many hundreds of millions of pounds of British capital for the purposes of development. The economic history of the United States of America in the 19th century makes interesting reading. One hundred years ago that country was in the same position as Australia occupies to-day in relation to the rest of the world. It was s minor power; but it had no qualms about borrowing foreign capital. I have in my hand a most interesting book, The Migration of British Capital to 1875. written by the eminent economist, Leland Hamilton Jenks. The author refers at great length to the manner in which British capital was used in the development of the countries that I have mentioned. The work embodies the considered opinion of that very eminent economist concerning the problems that confronted the United States of America during the last century, which are, I suggest, those which confront Australia in this century. Jenks states -

Capital W:ls no unknown article in the United States. What American did not own his farm, his forge, his schooner? But the annual surplus arising from his farm and schooner and force could almost without exception be fully employed in the further exploitation of those tools. Hence the promoterpoliticians, who perceived the advantages, whether public or private, which could accrue from the building of highways, canals and railroads, turned to foreign capital, filtered through the public treasuries for support.

I suggest that that observation has considerable significance for Australia to-day.

Jenks’s work sets out in detail the enormous flow of British capital into the United States of America during the last century. Between 1860 and 1876 Great Britain advanced to that country more than £70,000,000 for the construction of railways alone. The fundamental contention advanced by Jenks is that if foreign capital had not been introduced to the United States of America, the development of that country would not have proceeded .at such an extraordinary pace. In fact, it would be merely a second-rate power to-day.

I agree entirely with Senator Annstrong in regard to Australia’s need to obtain this loan. To those who object to it, I say that if we do not develop Australia we are virtually inviting India. China and other eastern nations to occupy our country. An important aspect of this loan arrangement which was not referred to at great length in the second-reading speech of the Minister and has not been emphasized in the discussion that has already taken place, is the subject of its repayment. In his second-reading speech the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) stated -

The terms and conditions of tin- present loan to Australia are in line with those of recent international bank loans to other countries. Interest and capital payments on this and our previous international bank loan are well within our capacity to repay.

I regard this matter, which Senator Benn and Senator Armstrong have already referred to, as of considerable importance. I think that in respect of borrowing transactions, a nation is not in any different position from that of an individual. A nation, like an individual, should always ask itself : “ How can we repay this loan? “ The two loans which we have received have to be repaid at the maximum rate of £5,200,000 per annum. But the International Bank will not accept Australian bank notes in discharge of our obligations. It insists on repayment in dollars. Unfortunately, we are woefully short of dollars, and there is no immediate prospect of our obtaining a substantial dollar balance. In fact, we have at present an adverse trade balance with the United States of America of 90,000,000 dollars. 1 believe that we can obtain dollars only by selling goods and commodities to the United States of America and countries in the dollar area. We must earn sufficient dollars during the currency of this loan to repay, not only the £5,200,000 annually required for repayment of this loan, but we must also earn additional dollars to correct our adverse trade balance. I also point out that there is a distinct possibility that we may not find markets in either Canada or the United States of America for the additional goods that we hope to produce as the result of this loan. For one thing, the United States of America may not purchase from us as much wool as it has purchased in the past.

In the course of a speech concerning this loan which was delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) on the 9th July last, he stated -

The loan will be used for the import of capital goods and equipment needed for development programmes in the following fields; agriculture, and land settlement, coalmining, iron and steel production, electric power, railways, road transport, and manufacturing industries.

Whilst there is no doubt that the loan will serve to increase the production of the commodities referred to by the Prime Minister, it does not follow that our excess production of those commodities will be purchased by countries in the dollar area. That possibility leads me to the conclusion that the only practicable way in which we can hope to repay the dollar loan is by increasing our production of gold.

It is absolutely essential for Australia to increase its production of gold. In the years prior to World War II. Australia produced 1,200,000 ounces of gold per annum, but since the recent war the production of gold had declined, and it is now only about 700,000 ounces per annum. The explanation of the decline of gold production is not that no new gold deposits have been found. On the contrary, there are still plenty of gold deposits to be exploited. Although gold production may not appear to be related directly to this bill, it is obvious that the production of even an additional 500,000 ounces of gold annually would enable us to repay this loan within ten years, instead of the period of 25 years mentioned in the bill, and I think that that is a very important consideration.

The present Government has done everything’ possible to obtain an increase of the price of gold in the world’s markets, but the fact remains that gold-miners and companies are not prepared to increase their efforts. I am not permitted in debate on this bill to discuss in any detail the subject of increased gold production, but I remind the Government that the suggestions which have already been made to it by the industry are calculated to double the production of gold within the next three or four years. I emphasize my view that unless the production of gold is increased substantially we shall experience the greatest difficulty in repaying the loan. I shall be pleased if the Minister will indicate, in the course of his reply, the view of the Government on this matter.

Speaking broadly, I think that the loan is vitally necessary to Australia’s development for three reasons. First, it. will enable the political parties in office to carry out their announced policy of stimulating primary production. The increased export of foodstuffs will contribute towards the peace of the world. Secondly, the loan will enable the Government to implement its policy of maintaining full employment. Thirdly, it will contribute, indirectly, towards the defence of this country by encouraging an increase of our population. For those reasons, I support the bill.

Senator RYAN:
South Australia

– The supporters of the Government have failed entirely to deal with one important matter. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 3379

OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATION’S

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 18th Sep tember (vide page 1653), on motion by Senator Cooper -

Thatthe bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

.- The Opposition is par ticularly pleased because the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) made it abundantly clear in his secondreading speech that none of the principles of the act of 1946, which was introduced by a Labour administration, will be altered. Most of the beneficial legislation that we enjoy to-day was introduced by the preceding Labour Administration, and if the Government sufficiently recognized that fact in drafting the legislation that it brings before the Parliament, it would receive more cooperation from the Opposition.

The administrative authority established under the act of 1946 has functioned most successfully. It has made a profit of more than £400,000 since its inception, and about twelve months ago it was able to reduce the cost of its services to member nations of the British Commonwealth. Unfortunately its achievements may not prevent it from being “ desocialized “ by the present Administration.

The bill makes provision for the inclusion within the scheme of a number of nations that were not formally recognized when the original act was passed. and provides, amongst other things, for the inclusion of representatives of Pakistan and Ceylon on the board of control. It also provides for the withdrawal from that board of the representatives of certain other nations. The proposed alterations also set out certain financial obligations concerning the “ common user “ system in respect of submarine cables and radio systems. It is set out that the profits shall be shared by the Commonwealth countries in proportion to the annual revenue that they derive from the operation of the telecommunication service. The bill seeks to niter the remuneration of the chairman from £3,500 per annum to £2,500 per annum with the proviso that he shall receive an additional £1,000 per annum when he is situated away from his home country. It prescribes a new standard for entrance to the service of the commission, which is a very good provision. The present telecommunications legislation, which was introduced by a former Labour Government, prescribed an entrance examination in the light of the conditions of those days, when there were plenty of jobs available and only relatively few lads seeking positions. It ensured the maintenance of a high standard. The bill implements a recommendation by the Telecommunications Commission to the effect that any lad who passes the leaving certificate examination, other school leaving examinations, or the Public Service entrance examination, may be admitted to the service of the commission. It also meets one of the problems that arose in relation to furlough when the Telecommunications Commission took over a branch of Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited. The Opposition approves of the furlough provisions of the bill, and also the raising of the retiring age of women employed by the Telecommunications Commission to 60 years. The Opposition supports the bill.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– in reply - [ appreciate the manner in which the bill has been received by the Senate. As Senator Armstrong has pointed out, it will bring the telecommunications legislation into line with present-day conditions. If any honorable senator would like any further information about the provisions of the bill, I shall be happy to supply it at the committee stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3380

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITIES BILL 1952

Second READING

Debate resumed from the 23rd September (vide page 1836), on motion by Senator Spicer -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition supports this very important measure. For that reason, despite its importance, I shall be brief. The bill purports to confer upon High Commissioners in this country the same diplomatic immunities and privileges that are enjoyed by foreign ambassadors. The very proper condition that attaches to the extension of those privileges to High Commissioners is that the corresponding countries shall deal with us upon a reciprocal basis. In other words, the bill does not propose that we shall, without any other consideration, grant diplomatic immunity and privileges to High Commissioners from other countries. There is the real consideration that those countries shall extend to our High Commissioners in their areas the same measure of diplomatic immunity that we concede.

I avoid a temptation to embark upon a discussion of the very necessary basis for some form of diplomatic immunity. I merely point out to the Senate that, without some such protection, an ambassador in a foreign country could be subjected to every conceivable kind of persecution and prosecution. The broad concept is that he is there as the representative of his sovereign country, and although the idea is now outmoded from the point of view of international law, there still remains some element of the concept that when he moves about a foreign country he carries with him some portion of his own country. There is still some element of that concept in the situation.

On behalf of the Opposition, I ask the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) to interest himself in several matters. Having regard to the almost unlimited extent of diplomatic immunity, I consider that there ought to be some protection for persons who are wronged by diplomatic representatives, their officials, and their staffs. As I have already indicated, the immunity is an exceedingly wide one. It extends, not only to protection against civil actions, but also to protection against criminal process. I need say no more in order to demonstrate its particularly great widthand importance. If one of our citizens is wronged by an ambassador of another country or a member of his staff, he has no recourse to a court once diplomatic immunity is claimed, and the person who has been wronged is left to make representations to his own country, which in turn makes representations to the foreign government. First, there is no liability established by a court or tribunal, the judgment of which would be readily accepted both in his own country and abroad. Secondly, there is no expert assessment of the damage suffered. The absence of those two elements makes it extremely difficult for the Australian Government to negotiate on a firm basis with any foreign government. Furthermore, there are all the difficulties and even the injustice of a long delay in settling a moral, if not a perfectly legal and just claim. The whole process is slow and completely uncertain. It depends upon goodwill, the energy with which the cause is prosecuted from our own country, and the degree of enthusiasm with which it is received abroad. The common case, of course, is the one in which a diplomatic representative injures a citizen of our own country by perhaps driving recklessly. The whole sphere of motor accident cases is involved, and if immunity is claimed when that representative is sued, the unfortunate person who has been injured, perhaps through the negligence of the diplomatic representative, is non-suited and can proceed no further with his claim in the courts of our own country. In England, an arrangement has been made between the Foreign Office and the ambassadorial representatives that immunity will be waived in all such cases. I point out that that has been done, not as a matter of law, but as a matter of arrangement.

Senator Spicer:

– I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to accident cases?

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, motor accident cases, which present the most common cause of difficulty, or, to put the matter on a lower level, the most likely cause of complaints. If our Department of External Affairs could negotiate an arrangement such as the one that has been made in England, whereby diplomatic representatives agree to submit to the law of our country in those matters, where they take out third party insurance policies and waive all claims to immunity, I think the great objection to diplomatic immunity that one encounters amongst the uninformed members of the community would be eliminated.

I suggest, also, that it may be advisable to establish a screening committee, composed of persons of the calibre of the

Solicitor-General, to screen claims that our citizens might have against ambassadors or their staffs in order to determine whether a prima facie case could be made out, and that when sponsorship of the claim is given by the committee the Common weal th ought to be sueable as a nominal defendant. Although I do not urge the appointment of such a committee, I suggest that in that case the Commonwealth ought to be liable, and that it then ought to present its claim to the foreign government through the usual diplomatic channels. By this means liability could be determined, and there could be eliminated any matters in connexion with which it was considered there had been no negligence on the part of an ambassador or members of his staff. It would also be possible to determine through a court of our land the. proper measure of damages, and I believe that two of the most difficult elements in a settlement between countries would be eliminated. If the Attorney-General would concede that point, it is quite clear that we should need to seek reciprocity by other countries. It might be possible to consolidate the diplomatic immunities that have grown up traditionally and by precedent into a fixed body of international law. Conceivably, it might be possible to utilize the machinery of the United Nations to achieve some of the arrangements that I have mentioned. It is a matter that would have to be arranged between all countries. It should not be attempted ex parte by one country acting alone. On behalf of the Opposition, I support the general proposition that high commissioners from British Commonwealth countries should not be in a worse or more disadvantageous position than the ambassadors from foreign countries in the matter of immunity to enable them to perform their duties without fear or favour. Subject to these observations, the Opposition supports the measure.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– in reply - I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) for his comments and suggestions, which I shall certainly take into consideration. Of course, the bill will enable a high commissioner to waive his immunity if he sees fit to do so. I think that there may well be some difficulty in determining the ultimate liability in an accident case in which a high commissioner might be involved, simply by reason of the fact that he himself, in such a suit, could not be called as a witness. There may be some difficulty in regard to the kind of machinery to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred. I think that there is much to be said for the view that if our community, in common with other communities, provide immunity for a diplomatic representative, the whole burden of such immunity should not fall on an unfortunate citizen who may suffer as the result of action by that diplomatic representative. I fully appreciate that that approach to the matter supports the suggestions which the Leader of the Opposition has made.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator LAUGHT (South Australia) [8.47. - I am somewhat concerned about the definition of the word “family” to which reference is made in clauses 5 and 8. Clause5 (1.) provides that -

Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, a person who is -

a member of the family ofa chief representative :

a member of the staff of a chief representative; or

a member of the family of a member of the official staff of a chief representative, is entitled to the immunity from suit and legal process to which he would be entitled if the chief representative were an envoy.

I should like the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) to explain the meaning of the word “ family “ in that connexion. I am conscious of the fact that this country is extending its diplomatic relations abroad, particularly in the Asian countries, and that we may expect Asian countries to extend to us the courtesy of sending diplomatic representatives to this country. As I understand the word “family”, it means, in this country, a man, his wife, and children. From experience whichI gained abroad during World War II.. however.I understand that in Mohammedan countries the word has a very wide meaning and includes first, second and even third cousins. I should like the Attorney-General to assure me that the word has a limited meaning in this bill, and that immunity will not be provided for a number of people who would not be considered members of a family in this country.

I should also like the Minister to inform me whether diplomatic representatives and their families and staffs are obliged to register in this country. If that is not the practice at the present time, I think that such action should be considered, because the people of this country are entitled to know exactly which persons will enjoy the diplomatic immunity referred to in this measure.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I point out to Senator Laught that the immunity can be claimed only by a person who is in this country with the representative. That, in itself, is a. limiting factor, whatever meaning may be attached to the word “ family “. The immunity will extend only to those members of the family of the chief representative whom he brings to Australia with him.

Senator Guy:

– It will also extend to the families of his staff.

Senator SPICER:

– Yes, but the limitation enters into the picture all the time. We do not propose to extend the immunity to the whole family of the ambassador, but only to those members of his family who accompany him to Australia and live with him here in his diplomatic home. I am not prepared, offhand, to state the definition which a court might attach to the word “ family “. I should think, however, that in our statutes it will be understood to have the Australian mean ing and not that which might be attached to it in another country. In my opinion, it would at least include the wife and the children of the ambassador. I am not prepared to say that it would not go a little further and extend also to some other near relatives. However, I do not think that the honorable senator has any real cause for misgiving in connexion with this matter. In relation to the other matter referred to by him, I inform him that no provision is made for registration of the members of the family of a chief representative, but in fact the Department of External Affairs has a record of such members who are with the representatives here in Australia.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 3383

NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 8th October (vide page 2623), on motion by Senator Spicer -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– This bill is a development of legislation introduced by the Australian Labour party in 1948. To my mind, the bill now before the Senate will improve the principal act because it proposes to make a concession to new Australianswho volunteer to serve in the Australian armed forces. It will reduce the statutory period of five years, which they are obliged to spend in Australia before they are entitled to naturalization, by the period of time which they spend in the forces. Thus, if a new Australian enlists in the Australian armed forces, the time that he spends in Australia before his enlistment is divided by onehalf. Instead of having to be in Australia for five years before he is entitled to be naturalized, if he enlists immediately on arrival and spends two and a half years in the forces he can then be naturalized.

The bill also proposes to allow those who serve in the Citizen Military Forces a concession for the time they spend in those forces, so that for every four weeks of service they will receive a credit for five weeks when the time finally comes to work out the period of residence for naturalization purposes. To illustrate the matter by taking an extreme case, if a new Australian serves four years in the Citizen Military Forces he is entitled to apply for naturalization. He thus earns a rebate of one-fifth of the prescribed period. In my opinion, this is an excellent development. I understand that if a man enlists in the armed forces of the

United States of America he is entitled to naturalization rights forthwith. I am sure that all honorable senators will agree that if a man is prepared to risk his life in the service of his new country, that country should be prepared to move some distance along the way to meet him by allowing him to have the full benefits that naturalization confers. The Opposition will not vote against this measure.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I understand that this bill has been introduced for the purpose of tidying up legislation introduced during the regime of the Labour Government, in which the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), who was then Minister for Immigration, was very much concerned. The main part of the bill deals with the enlistment of aliens in the armed forces. Proposed new sub-section (2a.) of section 15 provides as follows : -

A person who has served in the Defence Force of the Commonwealth or in the armed forces of a country other than a foreign coun try shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have resided in Australia or in the other country .

I believe that the word “ foreign “ pro vokes much criticism by persons in other countries. In these days of changing political affinities it is often difficult to know who is a foreigner and who is a friend. In my opinion, the word “ foreigner “ is outdated and is objectionable to many people who think that they are stigmatized when it is applied to them. We should endeavour to eliminate it from the language, particularly in bills such as this.

Clause 3 of the bill reads as follows : -

Section sixteen of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph(a) of sub-section (1.) the words “ in the prescribed manner “.

That clause refers to the granting of Australian citizenship rights, which is a high honour. I suggest that it should not be brought to the level of an application at a police court office for a licence to drive a motor car. In my opinion we should impress upon persons who are being naturalized that they are taking a very important step in their lives. If possible, that step should be marked by some specially significant act, rather than that it should amount to the mere placing of a rubber stamp on a document. The ceremony that is held could, perhaps, be less complicated than the elaborate one which used to be held. J3ut there should be some ceremonial marking of the change of status of people from other parts of the world who accept the high honour and responsibility of Australian citizenship.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– in reply - The term “ foreign country “ is defined. It docs not include a trust territory, a State or territory which is or becomes a protectorate or protected State for the purposes of the act of the Parliament of (lie United Kingdom known as the British Nationality Act 194S, the New Hebrides or Canton Island. The definition appears in the principal act and the draftsman has used the same language in wording the amendment in this bill.

  1. explained the reason for the elimination of the word “ prescribed manner ‘’ from section 16 of the act in my secondreading speech. The words have been considered to be unnecessary and the legal advisers of the Government have recommended that they be eliminated. They in no way affect the requirements of the act which call upon the alien to take the oath of allegiance when he becomes naturalized. A section of the act pro- vides that the taking of an oath may be accompanied by a proceeding which will impress upon applicants the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship. The act also sets out the precise wording of the oath of allegiance. It has been considered inadvisable that the type of ceremony at which oaths are to be taken should bo prescribed by regulation since the type of ceremony appropriate at one time and place may be unsuitable at another and if a form of ceremony were required by regulation it would be necessary to amend the regulation in order to have a different type of ceremony. The Government’s legal advisers, therefore, have advised that these words are unnecessary.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time. hi, committee:

The hill.

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

– Proposed new section (2a.) (&) of the act states that if during the period of eight years immediately preceding his application for nationalization a person has voluntarily rendered continuous fulltime service iii a country other than a. foreign country, and was liable for service beyond the limits of that country, each four weeks of that service shall he deemed to be eight weeks’ residence in that country. If a person has served in the forces of a country other than a foreign country he must have served in the forces of a British country and would appear, therefore, to be British. If he were already a British subject why would he want to become naturalized in this country?

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– Such a person may be a citizen of some country which is not a foreign country and yet not be an Australian citizen. I think that I said, during the course of my secondreading speech, that this concession was to be available in respect of past service as well as future service but in the case of service in the force of a British country other than Australia the concession would apply only for service within the eight years preceding the application for naturalization. The draftsman has used language consistent with the language of the main act to provide that kind of a concession.

Senator Kendall:

– Then, under the act, an Englishman is a foreigner?

Senator SPICER:

- Senator Kendall has overlooked the fact that many aliens in Australia may have served in British forces as aliens before they came to Australia. Under the provision to which he referred they are entitled to the benefit of the service that they rendered in the British forces before they came to Australia.

Senator WORDSWORTH (Tasmania) “9.8]. - -From proposed new section (2a) it appears that a person can serve in the permanent forces of the Commonwealth before he is naturalized. Can a man of eighteen years perform his compulsory service before he is naturalized and would that service benefit his application for naturalization ?

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– Yes. My recollection is that the national service legislation makes special provision with relation to aliens. Under this legislation their service is taken into account for the purpose of determining their qualifying period for naturalization.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bil] read a third time.

page 3385

TRADESMEN’S RIGHTS REGULATION BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 9th October (vide page 2751), on motion by Senator Spicer -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– The purpose of this bill is to amend the act which was introduced by the Curtin Government in 1946 and was amended in 1947. Under this hill certain provisions of the act will remain in force until 1955. The bill reminds one that the greatest co-operation was given by trade unions and registered tradesmen in Australia in expanding Australian industry in time of war. In order to meet the emergency brought about through the shortage of thoroughly trained personnel, many tradesmen undertook to instruct persons who were not qualified in their trade. From 1930, through the depression years, there was such a decline in secondary industry that when the war broke out Australia had 50,000 fewer tradesmen than it required. Men who came to be known as “ dilutees “ had to be trained as boilermakers, sheet metal workers, electrical mechanics and other types of tradesmen in order to permit industry to carry on the war effort. Regulations were introduced to meet the emergency and in 1946 the Labour Government incorporated them in the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act. In 1947 that act was amended in order to give the “ dilutees “ the protection that the Government considered that they should have.

The Opposition does not oppose the measure. I commend the Government for having conferred with those people who are most likely to be affected by this legislation before introducing it. If the Government follows this procedure on other occasions it will find that the cooperation for which it has asked so often and which the Opposition desires to give it will be forthcoming. The Australian Council of Trades Unions has for a considerable time been endeavouring to have the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act continued. In this it has been supported by the Metal Trades Union. The Government has now introduced a bill for that purpose and seeks the Opposition’s support for it. The Senate is supposed to be a States House, and the original intention was that it should be a non-partisan house of review. I hope that Senate Ministers will do their best to impress upon the Government the advisability of consulting union representatives before introducing measures affecting the industrial movement. This practice has not always been observed in the past, and as a result, we have been called upon to consider some very vicious legislation. If the Government fails in any negotiations that it may undertake with union representatives, then, of course, in accordance with the democratic practice, the will of the Parliament muse rule. However, if the Government show3 no desire to be co-operative, then it cannot accuse the industrial movement of unjustifiably failing to co-operate, nor can it condemn tradesmen, who are just as proud as is any other section of the community of their service to the nation, for endeavouring to protect their own interest. The Opposition will strongly resist any legislation that it considers to bc inimical to the interests of working men, particularly if no endeavour has been made by the Government to consult first with union representatives.

One of the purposes of this bill is to make provision for Korean and Malayan veterans to have the same protection and advantages as returned service personnel received during and after World War II. It will also confirm the arrangements that have been operating under which the various trades committees have considered the qualifications of immigrant tradesmen. Many immigrants claim to be tradesmen, and it is necessary to have some authority to make whatever check is possible upon their qualifications. That is the task of the trades committees. Any one who has viewed this legislation thoroughly and rationally will agree that whilst it is necessary in the present circumstances, it is not desirable. In considering this bill, it is perhaps as well that we should analyse the position that has arisen in our secondary industries, particularly the heavy industries. Many tradesmen formerly employed by big industrial organizations of whose services we were very glad during the war, are now joining the ranks of the unemployed. We on this side of the chamber are not in a position to say whether or not a war is likely in the near future, but we believe that every precaution should be taken to ensure that our secondary industries shall not be caught again as they were at the outbreak of World War II. In 1939, some of our heavy industries were so short of skilled tradesmen that it was not, possible to train the apprentices needed to ensure continuity of the work of those undertakings. If the Government wants to be sure of having sufficient skilled workers should a national emergency again arise, it should not allow large numbers of skilled tradesmen to walk the streets looking for work. An effort should be made to retain in all vital secondary industries, sufficient tradesmen to instruct apprentices in accordance with the apprenticeship regulations of the various States. Unless that is done, the outbreak of another war might once again necessitate the introduction of large number of dilutees into skilled trades. Our engineering industries faced a desperate position at the beginning of World War II. In fact, had war broken out a year or so earlier than it did, our secondary industries would never have been able to reach the pitch of production that was required of them. The dilutee tradesmen, of course, did the best that they were capable of doing, but the absence of adequate instruction caused serious losses of materials which, because of the acute war position could not be made good by the United Kingdom. Not until the United States of America came into the war was the material situation eased.

The Government has adopted the wise course by leaving to expert committees the task of determining the fitness of dilutees for tradesmen’s certificates after they have served for seven years at a trade. However, apart from that aspect of the matter, I believe that every endeavour should be made to encourage young men to enter the skilled trades as apprentices and eventually to become craftsmen. Many more skilled men are necessary if this country is to be developed to the degree that is essential both for peace and war.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– This measure recalls to my mind the discussion that took place at the end of World -War II. about the danger of saturating the engineering trades with too many Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme trainees. This measure deals also with the dilutees who entered the trades in war-time when our essential secondary industries had to be expanded rapidly. The dilution of our trades in those days is being reflected now in wide-spread complaints about poor workmanship. Unfortunately, too many workmen believe that “ near enough is good enough “. That is not the spirit of the old craftsman who took an interest and pride in his job. His aim always was to produce something that would be a credit to him, and any lowering of the standards that have been set in past years by Australian tradesmen is to be deplored. We must be careful not to saturate our trades with men who have not gone “ through the mill “. I am sure that every honorable senator knows what I mean by that expression. A young man becomes an apprentice and is instructed by a craftsman. He makes mistakes at times, as every man does, but if he is a willing worker and a good learner he eventually inherits from his instructor that pride in workmanship which is so important to the maintenance of high standards. When a man enters a trade later in life his ideas are more set and his approach to his work tends to be more casual than that of the apprentice in his formative years. I believe, therefore, that any unlimited extension of the dilution provisions would bo a retrograde step. It was, of course, essential that provision should be made for the entry to trades of men who, during their years of war service, missed their opportunity to become apprentices. Under this measure ex-servicemen, who have served in Korea and Malaya, will be able to enter the dilution trades. In considering this hill, however, we must be mindful of the fact that if any trade is saturated with workers who have not undergone the normal thorough course of training, there is grave danger that standards of workmanship will be lowered. Unfortunately, to-day many lads who normally would be only too eager to become apprentices are drifting into labouring jobs of all kinds because of the high wages that they can earn. They want to be men before they are boys. Thus, on the one hand we have st reduced intake of apprentices to the trades, and on the other hand an increased flow of older men with set ideas. This must have the ultimate effect of reducing the standards of craftsmanship which have distinguished so many of our trades in the past. I hope that this bill will not have the effect of further saturating our trades. Rather do I hope that it will result in the tightening up of standards. The bill provides that dilutees, who have been employed in a trade continuously for seven years, shall have the status of tradesmen. That is a fair proposal, but some limit should be set to this legislation. It should not be extended indefinitely. If we are to continue to make special provision for new categories of ex-servicemen, we may bc unable to resist further concessions with the result that we shall never again be able to match the craftsmanship standards of older generations.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I do not desire to debate this bill at length. As has already been indicated, the Opposition accepts the measure. As one who played some part in the implementation of the provisions of the principal act during the war, not as a member of the Senate, but as an organizer of an industrial union, I agree that the bill has a very worthy objective. Honorable senators will applaud the fact that the Australian Council of Trades Unions and its components, the engineering and other unions have agreed to the principles contained in this measure, which were initially adopted during a period of acute labour shortage, in order that there shall be made available to the community skilled workmen whose services are required to enable the development of Australia to proceed. These skilled workmen did not have the benefit of apprenticeship in the trade in which they were engaged during the war when the shortage of man-power compelled the governments of the day to depart from the customary practice of employing in skilled occupations only those who had served an apprenticeship in them. Many of these dilutees attained great efficiency in the trades with which they were associated. Some of them who exhibited a natural aptitude for the work, even excelled many of those who had served the normal period of apprenticeship. With the falling off of war work following the cessation of hostilities many of them reverted to the semi-skilled work in which they were formerly employed.

The bill gives tradesmen’s status to dilutees who have been employed in tradesmen’s work for seven years and are still so employed. What is to happen to those who, having played their part during the war years, have gone back to the unskilled or semi-skilled occupations in which they were formerly employed? Will they, too, be given an opportunity to gain tradesmen’s status? If they are given such an opportunity we need have no fear that standards of workmanship will deteriorate because ample safeguards have been provided in the measure to ensure that standards of workmanship shall be maintained. A trade committee will be established to ensure that only those with the requisite skill and ability shall be employed as tradesmen. But for these safeguards, the trade union movement would have objected to the legislation.

The Senate should take cognizance of the fact that it is necessary to pass this measure largely because an insufficient number of apprentices is available to meet the requirements of industry. That is not the fault of the Government, nor is it a matter with which this chamber can deal. The rates of pay of apprentices are fixed by wages boards and industrial tribunals. It is not the fault of the Government or of the Parliament that the rates fixed by such tribunals are not sufficiently attractive to induce young nien to sign articles of apprenticeship. Senator O’Byrne has directed attention to the fact that alarming numbers of young men are now engaged in what are known as dead-end occupations. Because of the high wages offered, many parents have placed their boys in dead-end occupations instead of apprenticing them to a trade. It is the duty of employers not to oppose the arguments advanced by industrial advocates before the industrial tribunals for an increase of the wages paid to apprentices. In the past there has been a tendency on the part of employers to use apprentices as a cheap labour force. As the result of the improved technical education provided by the State governments young lads quickly become adept in the use of tools in the trade or calling for which they are trained. Many of them show remarkable aptitude early in their apprenticeship training and advantage is taken of their skill by ruthless employers. It is grossly unfair that the representatives of the employers should repeatedly suggest that the wages of apprentices should be kept to a minimum. Reasonable rates of pay should be provided in order that young men may be induced to sign articles of apprenticeship. Australia is on the verge of great developments, and it is essential to our progress that we should have a large trained work force. As Senator Cooke has said, during the war when the governments of the day established huge munitions factories, they were forced to introduce the trade dilution scheme because of the shortage of skilled men. I trust that the Government will profit from the lessons learned during the war and ensure that an adequate labour force shall be available to undertake work necessary for the development of Australia. To-day, during the consideration of another measure, we discussed the need to import certain machinery. We have the coal, steel and other basic requirements to enable us to manufacture that machinery in this country; all we need is the necessary skilled labour. I trust that in the near future it will no longer be necessary for Australia to import-

Sen alor Sheehan. machinery and that the necessary skilled labour force will be available to undertake the works that are necessary for our development.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3388

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 15th October (vide page 3077), on motion by Senator Spicer -

That the bill be now read a second time

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– The principal purpose of this bill is to enable prospecting and mining to be undertaken on native reserves in the Northern Territory. It is well known that these reserves contain an enormous area of auriferous land. To date no person has been allowed to enter the reserves to search for minerals. Such knowledge as we have of them is gleaned from the reports of police inspectors who have entered the reserves in search of natives, and from the specimens brought out by the natives. The purpose of the bill in conjunction with legislation submitted to the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory is to enable the ores on the reserves to be mined under proper supervision. It also provides that a royalty shall be levied on ,any minerals won and that these royalties shall be paid into a trust fund to be administered for the benefit of the aboriginal native inhabitants of the Northern Territory. Enormous royalties may become payable in respect of metalliferous deposits discovered in the Northern Territory, but it is vitally important that the method of distributing those royalties shall benefit the natives. The Opposition is particularly concerned, that the Government should scrutinize most carefully any proposal for the distribution of the funds for the benefit of the natives. Instead of making payments as at present, it might be preferable for the Government to expend the royalties received by them, or a substantial portion of those royalties, on the improvement of their education, more particularly to provide adequate technical education and instruction in handicrafts.

The natives should be encouraged to pick up and bring in for examination any specimens of metalliferous ore that they think may prove of value. After all, the Australian aborigines possess extraordinarily keen powers of observation, and after they have been shown ore specimens of the kind required, they can be relied upon to detect similar ores on their reservations.

The bill provides that money paid by the Government in royalties shall be paid into a trust fund to be expended by the administration on behalf of the natives, and the Opposition heartily agrees with that principle. We, therefore, offer no objection to the passage of the bill which represents a start in the right direction.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3389

ALIENS BILL 1952

Second Beading.

Debate resumed from the 16th October (vide page 3213), on motion by Senator McLeay -

That the hill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– On behalf of the Opposition I announce that we support this measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3389

STIRLING NORTH TO BRACHINA RAILWAY BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 14th October (vide page 2973), on motion by Senator McLeay -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

– The Opposition raises no objection to the passage of this bill, because its passage is necessary to implement the recommendation of the royal commission which investigated this matter. Although the present railway route has been of immense value in the development of the northern part of South Australia, and particularly in the carriage of coal, livestock and goods, its operation has resulted in economic loss because of the terrain through which it passes. The new route proposed in the schedule to the bill should result in substantial, and continuing, savings. Unfortunately, one consequence of the diversion of the route will be that the railway will no longer pass through Quorn, and I take this opportunity to express our appreciation of the splendid service rendered over many years by the business people and the railway men in that centre. In bad, as well as in good times, they have enabled that vital railway line to continue functioning. I pay tribute to the railway staff engaged in the maintenance of the railway line for the magnificent service that they rendered during the recent war, when they were called upon to work for long periods under bad conditions in order to maintain and service an outworn track. When the new line is completed many of them will be transferred to Port Augusta, which is a seaport town, and will be one of the important centres in this country in the future. This will not be the first occasion on which railway men and residents of Quorn have been uprooted. In 1926, when the maintenance of this line was taken over from the Government of South Australia by the Commonwealth, many small local businesses had to close in consequence of the transfer of railway personnel from Quorn to Port Augusta and Peterborough.

The Premier of South Australia announced recently in the State Parliament that consideration would be given to the amount of ‘compensation to be paid to all those railway workers who were transferred from Quorn to Port Augusta. When legislation to alter the railway route was first introduced to this Parliament some time ago, the then Labour Minister for Transport assured the people of Quorn that proper compensation would be paid to them for the loss and inconvenience they suffered because of the diversion of the railway line. I trust that those promises will not be overlooked by the present Government. Although the preliminary work has already been undertaken, my personal opinion is that the new railway line will not be completed before another three years or more have elapsed.

Finally, in supporting the measure I desire to emphasize on behalf of the Opposition that we expect the Government to deal sympathetically with railway employees and residents of Quorn, who have been called upon to make a big sacrifice in the interests of the improvement of o.ur transportation system.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– As Senator Critchley has pointed out, the proposed diversion of the railway will result in more efficient and economical transport because the terrain through which it will pass is much more suitable for speedy and economical haulage of goods and passengers than the present route. Many years ago the present railway line, which has a narrow 3-ft. 6-in. gauge, was constructed from Adelaide to Oodnadatta, which is a distance of 688 miles. That was a magnificent expression of faith in the future by the people of the then Colony of South Australia. However, the permanent way has become very worn and parts of it have been washed away by floods. The railway along the new route will be of the standard gauge of 4 ft. Si in.

I think that it is worth while inviting the attention of honorable senators to one important aspect of the new route, which will run from the sea-board to the Leigh Creek coal-field and will play its part in the plan recently announced by Mr. Playford, the Premier of South Australia, for the generation of increased electric current. Mr. Playford stated recently that the Electricity Trust of South Australia undertook the supply of electricity to an additional 9,836 consumers last year. That is the largest increase of consumers of electricity in any one year in the history of South Australia. It is apparent that the trust is developing very rapidly, and it is essential that adequate supplies of coal from the Leigh Creek field shall be made available to the trust. The South Australian Government has decided to establish a power station at Port Augusta just north of Stirling North, from where the proposed railway will commence. It is expected that the proposed power station will be in operation by early in 1954.

I hope that the proposed new railway, which will be in effect a spur line, will be constructed as soon as possible. Senator Critchley has referred to the effect that its construction will have on Quorn. J sympathize with the honorable senator, because I know of the struggle that the townspeople have had to maintain Quorn since the railway workshops were moved when the new railway line between Port Pirie and Port Augusta was opened. I agree with the honorable senator’s contention that either the Commonwealth or the South Australian Government should make provision for the welfare of the people of Quorn, which will be by-passed. I should like to refer ako to the town of Hawker which will be by-passed when the proposed railway has been constructed.

Senator Critchley:

– I included the district.

Senator LAUGHT:

– I understood the honorable senator to include the district. Hawker is an outpost that has played a very important part in the pastoral development of South Australia. I pay tribute to the efficiency of the Commonwealth Railways, which have operated under grave disabilities in that area. Many trains carrying coal run daily in both directions over the 170 miles section of the old narrow gauge railway line. They are rarely late. An excellent method of changing train crews is in operation, and the Commonwealth Railways are maintaining a very efficient service between Leigh Creek and Quorn.

I hope that provision will be made for the transportation of cattle over the proposed new railway line. The town of Marree is a convenient centre from which to truck cattle to the south. It is about 45 miles from Leigh Creek. I consider that it would be advantageous to extend the proposed railway line to Marree, so that cattle from western Queensland and the north of South Australia could be transported straight through on a standard gauge railway line. I believe that the proposed railway line will be the forerunner of another railway line which will enable the expeditious transport of meat from those areas to the southern markets. Probably in the future slaughter houses will be established either at Port Augusta or Port Pirie, on the sea-board, which will facilitate the export of meat. It is unfortunate that the towns and districts that I have mentioned will be affected disadvantageously by its construction. 1 consider that the construction of the proposed railway line will be a step in the right direction because, amongst other things, it will enable the expeditious transportation of coal to Port Augusta and Adelaide for the generation of electricity. Its construction will greatly benefit the State of South Australia, which I have* the honour to represent in this chamber. I support the bill.

Senator MAHER:
Queensland

, - The purpose of the bill is to implement an agreement that has been made between the Commonwealth and the South Australian Government. I assume that its objective, also, is to fulfil a provision of the Northern Territory Acceptance Act 1910 that the Commonwealth undertook to construct a railway from the railhead in Sou th Australia to Darwin. I am not very happy about some features of the bill. In the first place, i. consider that copies of the report of the royal commission should have been distributed to honorable senators when the bill was introduced. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) has been good enough to make a copy of the report available to me, but it is unfortunate that a map of the district through which it is proposed to construct the railway does not accompany the report. Honorable senators have not been supplied with sufficient information about the project on which to judge the wisdom of the proposed expenditure at present. I understand that no time limit for the construction of the north-south railway to Darwin is mentioned in the Northern Territory Acceptance Act, but that the understanding was that the project should be undertaken when the increase of population and production in the portions of the country through which the 2,000 miles of line would run was warranted.

As the railway line now proposed will run parallel to the existing 3-ft. 6-in. gauge railway line, I have grave doubt whether the proposed expenditure is warranted. I do not consider that a 3-ft. 6-in. gauge railway line is necessarily inefficient. Indeed, there are about 6,000 miles of 3-ft. 6-in. gauge railway line in Queensland, including a considerable length of railway over which coal is carried. On a number of occasions, urgently needed supplies of coal have been hauled from the Callide field to Brisbane, a distance of about 500 miles. I understand that the estimated cost of construction of the proposed railway line will be £11,000,000. If we are to approach a consideration of the matter on a practical basis, how can the proposed expenditure of such a vast sum on this project be justified at present? There is no reference in the report of the royal commission or in the Minister’s secondreading speech to its length, but I believe from conversations that I have heard in the lobbies that it will be 150 miles. Why should we expend such a large amount on this project in preference to other public works that would be of greater value to the nation? As money is very hard to get at present, we should not indulge in extravagant expenditure on a luxury project. Why should we authorize the construction of a standard gauge railway of 150 miles to run parallel to an existing 3-ft. 6-in. gauge railway line? Would it not be far better, from the point of view of the taxpayers, to recondition the existing line, which is a part of the line to Alice Springs? None of the present break-of-gauge difficulties will be overcome by the construction of the proposed railway. I understand that the railway line from Adelaide to Port Pirie is of 5-ft 3-in. gauge; the section between Port Pirie and Port Augusta is the standard 4-ft. 8$-in. gauge; and that the line from Port Augusta to Leigh Creek and on to Alice Springs is of 3-ft. 6-in. gauge. The con>struction of the proposed railway line for 150 miles along a route west of the Flinders Range will not reduce the number of breaks of gauge which cause inconvenience in connexion with the transportation of cattle and primary produce from Alice Springs to Adelaide.

According to the report of the royal commission the estimated cost of one section of the proposed railway will bp £5,543,000. An extra expenditure of about £600,000 will be necessitated if rail’s and fastenings have to be imported. Therefore, the approximate cost of construction of that section will be more than £6,000,000, on the basis of the report of the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner of the 15th December. 1.949, that was furnished to the t lien Minister for the Interior, Mr. Johnson. Much water has passed under the bridge since 1949 and I think that any practical person would agree that an estimate of the cost of construction, based on present-day charge^, would be at least £12,000,000. I consider that when a bill is introduced to authorize the construction of a project involving an expenditure, according to the Minister, of about £11,000,000. up-to-date estimates and maps should be circulated to honorable senators to assist them to consider the measure. The bill goes beyond providing for the construction of a railway to Leigh Creek. 1 1, provides for the expenditure of ari additional amount on the construction of another section of railway. However, due to .the lack of a map, I am unable to follow the proposed route of that section. The Minister has stated that an expenditure of £5,000,000 will be involved, based on the report of the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner of 1949, and that further necessary expenditure will raise the total estimated expenditure on the proposed new railway line to £11,000,000. I hope that the Minister will explain the reason for the proposed additional expenditure. I take it that the existing railway will remain. I am open to correction on that point, but I understand that, at the royal commission, the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner stated that he would maintain the line to Hawker. I am not conversant with the towns along the line, but it seems to me that there will be a duplicated line in the hands of the Commonwealth, and that the old State line, or a part of it at any rate, will also be maintained. If there is sufficient money in the Treasury for such expenditure we have more money than I thought we had. I do not think that we can afford the luxury of parallel railway projects for 150 miles in any part of Australia, including South Australia.

My approach to matters of this kind is “ first things first “. I do not wish to deny to my colleagues from South Australia the benefits of progressive railway development, or fulfilment of the original agreement concerning the Northern Territory, but I believe that such projects should be undertaken only when the population and wealth of the area warrant them. I have great respect for the fine men who come to the Senate and the House of Representatives from South Australia, and I also have great respect for the Premier of South Australia, Mr. Playford, who has done such a grand job for his State. I am only too pleased to do everything in my power to help South Australia, but the conditions that at present exist in the Northern Territory must be considered. Some months ago I had the privilege to visit the Northern Territory as a member of a. parliamentary delegation. On that visit I traversed, with my colleagues, many hundreds of miles of country where dead cattle littered the landscape. Hundreds of cattle were standing and waiting for death. Mr. Schmidt, of Alroy Downs Station, has stated that 10,000 cattle died on one run. That was typical of other properties in the area. Enormous economic losses are being sustained in the Northern Territory. We cannot afford to lose so many head of cattle. ‘Countless public men and committees of inquiry have recommended the construction of a railway line from Newcastle Waters into Queensland.

Opposition senators interjecting,

Senator MAHER:

– I do not wish honorable senators to misunderstand me. If such a railway line terminated at Adelaide, .Sydney or Melbourne I should still support it, because its construction would enable us to save thousands of cattle from the effects of drought. We could then get them to areas where there is ample feed, and where they may be marketed and thus contribute to our beef production. Urgent projects such as that have been discussed for many years, but nothing has been done about them. No action bas been taken to construct a railway line into that great belt of fertile country for the purpose of bringing cattle south when drought descends on it and also to open up the Northern Territory for general development. Recently I asked the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) to obtain from the Administrator of the Northern Territory an estimate of the losses of cattle in the territory during the drought which has dealt such a severe blow to the north. The statistics are not vet to hand, but when they are available I have no doubt that they will disclose a very sorry story. That ia why I say that, irrespective of where such a railway line might terminate, the project to which ] have referred is most essential.

The bill before the Senate deals with an agreement between the Commonwealth and the South Australian Government, which I am bound to support. However, in my opinion, it is an agreement which is bad in principle, in view of the fact that Australia is not in a position to finance a luxury railway project such as I believe the proposed railway to be.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I do not desire to oppose the bill, .but my colleague, Senator Maher has put forward some interesting aspects in regard to the extension of the railway line. In bringing forward certain matters, I think that tho honorable senator-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! 1 listened with a great deal of interest to Senator Maher, but I suggest that the bill deals with a limited railway line. I do not propose to allow Senator Wood to extend his remarks to projects other than that contemplated by the bill. The measure does not provide for the extension of a railway line into Queensland. It seems to me that the honorable senator is confusing the issue, and I ask him to deal with the specific subject to which the bill refers.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

PAPERS.

The following papers’ were presented : -

Public Service Act - Appointment - Department of Works - E. S. Barker.

Public Service Arbitration Act - Determination by the Arbitrator- -1952 - No, 67 - Amalgamated Engineering Union,

Repatriation Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1952, No. 88.

Seat of Government (Administration) Act - Variation of the plan of lay-out of the City of Canberra and its environs, dated 17th October, 1952.

Senate adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 October 1952, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1952/19521021_senate_20_220/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant