20th Parliament · 3rd Session
The President (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 13
Acknowledgement by Her Majesty the Queen.
– I desire to inform the Senate that, on the 16th February last, accompanied by honorable senators, I waited upon Her Majesty the Queen at Government House and presented to her the Address-in-Replyto Her Majesty’s Speech on the opening of the Third Session of the Twentieth Parliament, agreed to by the Senate on the 15th February.
Her Majesty was pleased to make the following reply: -
I thank you for your Address.
Would you please convey to all Honorable Senators my appreciation of the kind and loyal sentiments to which the Address gives expression, and say too that both my husband and I are most grateful for their kindly references to our visit to Australia. 16th February, 1954.
page 13
-by leave - Honorable senators will have heard with deep regret of the death of the Honorable King O’Malley, the last surviving member of the First Commonwealth Parliament. Mr. O’Malley died in Melbourne on the 20th December last at the advanced age of 99. He was elected to the House of Representatives for the State of Tasmania at the general elections in 1901 and, upon the division 1954, adjourned to a date and hour to be to meet on Wednesday, the 7th April, 1954, of that State into electorates, for the division of Darwin. He represented that division continuously till 1917. He was a member of the select committee on oldage pensions in 1904, and of the royal commission on the same subject in 1905-6. He was Minister for Home Affairs from April, 1910, to June, 1913, and from October, 1915, to November, 1916. He was a member of the Royal Commission on Powellized and other Timbers in 1914.
Apart from being a whimsical and colourful personality during a most interesting and exciting period of our history, Mr. O’Malley was an original and constructive thinker. He was born in Canada, spent his youth in the United States of America, and his adult life in Australia. In any country, in any age, he would have made his mark. His name will always be associated with the creation of our National Capital, with the construction of the TransAustralian railway and, not the least of all, with the establishment of the Commonwealth Bank. His death removes from the scene of his activities the last survivor of our first National Parliament. The occasion should serve to remind us of our progress towards a fuller and more mature nationhood and of our deep indebtedness to the men who laid the foundations upon which we of our day are building. I move -
That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death of the Honorable King O’Malley, member of the first Commonwealth Parliament and Commonwealth Minister, places on record its appreciation of his meritorious public service and tenders its sincere sympathy to his widow in her bereavement.
– On behalf of the Opposition, I second the motion and commend its terms to all honorable senators. I also join with the Minister for Trade and Customs in the thoughts that he has expressed. The death of Mr. King O’Malley has removed probably one of the most picturesque personalities that have ever appeared on the political scene in Australia. We of the Australian Labour party revere his memory, because of his fundamental belief in and adherence to the principles of our party, his forward thinking, his great fighting capabilities and, above all, his very great Christian and human qualities. As the Minister has indicated briefly, Mr. King O’Malley played a major part in securing the establishment of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. To nobody more than him was it due that that bank came into existence, with great advantages to the prosperity and development of this country, as I am sure every honorable senator will acknowledge.
A very useful life, devoted, in all its active years to the service of fellow citizens, has ended. It received a very fruitful reward by being allowed to continue to the extraordinary age of 99 years. I recall that when I listened not very long ago to Mr. King O’Malley giving his reminiscences on, I believe, the Guest of Honour session broadcast by the national radio stations, I was amazed that a man of his age and physical frailty should have been so vigorous in his outlook. The mental vigour that characterized him throughout the whole of his political life was with him to the end. That was another blessing vouchsafed to him. I join with the Minister in expressing great regret at his passing, which removes the last link with the members of the first National Parliament. I extend to his relatives who survive him the sincerest sympathy upon the death of so great a national figure.
Question resolved in the affirmative, honorable senators standing in their places.
page 14
– Has the Minister for Trade and Customs received a request, made on behalf of the Australian fish canning industry, for reference to the Tariff Board of a threat to the industry caused by the importation of salmon from overseas? Is the Minister prepared to grant such a request? Have any restrictions on the importation of fish been relaxed recently? If so, will the Minister supply details of the relaxations and the sums involved?
– The matter raised by the honorable senator has been the subject of discussion with my colleagues from Tasmania. A year or so ago, the industry to which he has referred made an application to the Tariff Board but, before completion of the hearing, the applicants withdrew the application and, in the circumstances, no alteration was recommended by the hoard. I have not received a request for a re-submission of the matter to the board, but if such an application comes to hand I shall certainly give consideration to it. If, in our opinion, a prima facie case exists for an alteration of the tariff, the application will be forwarded to the Tariff Board immediately, with a request for a speedy hearing. It is true that there have been casings of the restrictions on the importation of fish, as of all other commodities. As the honorable senator knows, since Mardi, 1952, when the import restrictions were imposed in their full rigidity, there have been four or five relaxations of them. The Government promised at the time that the import restrictions were solely for the purpose of correcting the position that had developed in connexion with our overseas funds and balance of payments ; they were not to be regarded as a means of protection for Australian industry. Both sides of the chamber expect the Tariff Board, as the proper tribunal, after a full and adequate hearing, to advise the Government upon tariff matters. If an industry considers that it has a claim or a case for a further hearing by the Tariff Board, I have no doubt that that hearing will be accorded to it.
page 14
– Will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General inform the Senate whether that Minister has yet had an opportunity of studying the objections lodged by some postal unions against the proposed introduction of a new telegraph system known as Tress? Is he able to inform honorable senators of the value and efficiency of the new system? In the event of the objections that I have mentioned being overruled, has the Minister given consideration to providing alternative employment to approximately 500 specially trained telegraphists who, it is expected, would be displaced as a result of the introduction of the new system ? As it would involve an expenditure of about 1,000,000 dollars, will the Minister cancel the tenders that have been invited for such installation, pending a thorough examination of the system? Will the Minister convene a conference between the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and the unions concerned with a view to utilizing their specialized, knowledge in this field ? ls it true that the department has not. made an independent examination of the proposal, but has merely accepted the advice of the manufacturers? Is it considered that the introduction of thi* innovation, at heavy expense, would enable the department to reduce the cost of telegraph services to the public?
– I shall be very pleased to direct the attention of -the Postmaster-General to the questions that Iia ve been asked by the honorable senator, and request the Minister to furnish him with a reply as early as possible.
– Will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General inform the Senate whether the PostmasterGeneral has been informed that due to the Brisbane Mail Branch of his department being inadequately staffed, the sorting and delivery of mail, including mail from overseas and from other States, is constantly delayed for many hours? If the Postmaster-General has not been so informed, will he cause an investigation to be made in order to ascertain the truth ?
– I shall certainly ask the Postmaster-General to investigate this matter and let me have a reply to the honorable senator’s question.
– I desire to ask the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral a question concerning the apparent policy of the Postal Department to review country mail services when existing contracts for those services expire and to curtail the frequency of such services in order to effect savings in expenditure. This policy must naturally evoke strong protests from the country residents affected. In common with other sections ‘ of the community country residents find it increasingly necessary, in these modern days, to keep in touch with the business world. As many country residents do not have the benefit of telephone communication I believe that such a policy as I have mentioned cannot be justified. I ask thai, the Postmaster-General cause an investigation to be made into this matter, keeping in mind the facts that I have brought, forward this afternoon.
– I shall bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Postmaster-General and obtain a considered reply to it.
– Can the Minister representing the Postmaster-General say whether a quantity of steel rails was forwarded to Western Australia recently by or on behalf of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department for use as telephone poles in the Kalgoorlie area ? If so, from which State or States have they been obtained? What is the weight of the total consignment? Are the rails being forwarded by ship to Fremantle and then a further 370 miles by road to Kalgoorlie? If /so, what will be the freight and handling charges for each ton delivered at Kalgoorlie or other destination? What would the charges have been if the rails had been sent by ship to Fremantle and then by rail to Kalgoorlie or other destination, or entirely by rail by the Trans-continental Railway?
– I shall bring the honorable senator’s question to the attention of the Postmaster-General and obtain a reply.
page 15
– The question that I shall direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture is of great importance, to many small war-time wool-growers. A case known as the Poulton case was recently before the High Court of Australia, which was decided against a Mr. Poulton. a dealer in wool, in relation to his entitlement to payments from the Joint Organization Authority. According to press reports, it is expected that an appeal will be made to the Privy Council, and until such appeal has been determined payments from the Joint Organization will have to be withheld. Will the Minister inform me (a) How far has such appeal to the Privy Council been carried? (b) Has any decision been given; if so, what was the decision? (c) Has the time allowed for the lodging of an appeal expired? (d) If not, when will it expire?
– I know that many people are interested in this matter. Without going into details, we have not received any advice that Mr. Poulton has lodged an appeal to the Privy Council. In view of the number of technical points raised by the honorable senator, I should be pleased if he would place his question on the notice-paper, when I shall obtain a considered reply for him.
page 16
– Can the Minister for Shipping and Transport inform the Senate whether any Commonwealthowned ships have been sold to Chinese firms ? If so, what are the names of those firms? Have any Commonwealth ships been withheld from sale to Chinese firms for fear that they might fall into the hands of Communist China?
– No Commonwealthowned ships have been sold to Chinese firms. As the remainder of the honorable senator’s question contains a high degree of propaganda, I shall not reply to it.
– Is the Minister, for Shipping and Transport satisfied with the paltry reduction of 2s. a ton that is to be made in interstate shipping freights? Has the Minister given any consideration to the effect that this miserable reduction of 2s. a ton will have on the price of a ton of potatoes shipped from Tasmania to the mainland or a ton of sugar from Queensland? What effect will this insignificant reduction have on the cost of living and the budget of the Australian housewife? Will it do any thing else than provide a mathematical problem for schoolchildren in determining the fractional .benefit bestowed?
Will the Minister give consideration to placing some Commonwealth ships in competition with private shipping, particularly between Tasmania and the mainland, with a view to reducing interstate freight rates by at least £1 a ton and thereby returning to the people some of the large surpluses that have been made in recent years by the Commonwealth Shipping Line?
– To any one who had made a close examination of shipping freights, charges and profits, it should be obvious that Senator Ashley could not have run the Commonwealth Shipping Line as well as he did his own private business. I think that the representatives of the Government have an obligation to the taxpayers. The usual procedure when considering reductions or increases of shipping freights is to hold a conference of representatives of the Australian Shipping Board, the Australian Steamship Owners Federation and independent owners. The officers of my department are able and expert, and after close analysis of their figures concerning shipping freights, profits, and so on, I am satisfied that the freights charged, particularly in respect of the Tasmanian service, to which the honorable senator referred, are reasonable. Tasmania is in a peculiar position in that it relies mainly on shipping, and in order to give adequate services, ships trading between Brisbane and Hobart have, on occasion, incurred small losses. I suggest that the extravagant statements that are being made about excessive freight rates are not in keeping with the facts. It may interest Senator Ashley to know that a recent examination conducted by my department disclosed that of the freight of £7 10s. a ton, £4 18s. lid. represented loading and unloading charges and the wages of crews. If the honorable senator will examine a report that I propose to issue later, I think he will be satisfied that the freights are not excessive.
– Can the Minister for Shipping and Transport inform the Senate of the sum of money expended on subsidies in connexion with the running of the steamship Taroona between Tasmania and the mainland, and can he also say whether there is any likelihood of this subsidy being increased?
– I suggest that the honorable senator place his question on the notice-paper. It is well known that such a subsidy has been paid during the last three years, but I am not in a position to inform the honorable senator of the actual figure involved. The question of providing a subsidy in future is a matter that I shall have examined. I am pleased to be able to inform the honorable senator that Tasmania has received more assistance from this Government in regard to shipping services than it has received from any government since federation.
– Is it not a fact that about two years ago, two ships were sold to Carroll and Son of Hong Kong and that after certain work had been done by that firm in Sydney, the ships were held up by the Government and Carroll and Son were not allowed to take delivery? Is it not true also that a claim was submitted by this firm upon the Government for the holding up of those ships?
– Is the honorable senator referring to Commonwealth ships or privately owned vessels?
– To Commonwealthowned ships.
– From memory, they were not Commonwealth ships, but if the honorable senator will put his question on the notice-paper, I shall give him a considered reply.
– Will the Minister for Shipping and Transport say whether the Commonwealth shipping line is still on the market if a suitable buyer should come along, or have the vessels been temporarily withdrawn from sale for a couple of months?
– That question has already been asked by another honorable senator, and I have said that I shall make a considered reply to it.
page 17
– Is the Minister for Repatriation able to explain why there are such extraordinarily long delays in the hearing of appeals to War Pensions Entitlement Tribunals? I point out that in many instances several months elapse, after rejections of claims by the department, before appeals are heard.
– The reason, naturally, is that there are now more appeals coming forward than previously. Until recently, there were two appeal tribunals. However, I found that the work of the tribunals was becoming burdensome, and I am glad to be able to inform the honorable senator that a further tribunal has been appointed. With the three tribunals, we should be able to handle the number of appeals which are coming forward. Naturally, those now outstanding will be dealt with much more quickly.
– That is, if the appellants live long enough.
– The position is not getting out of hand at all. Appeals will be dealt with even more expeditiously than previously with the assistance of the additional tribunal to which I have referred.
– My question is addressed to the Minister for Repatriation. I have received a lot of correspondence from ex-servicemen of World War I. about the refusal of entitlement tribunals to accept their illnesses as due to war service. One man has told me that he was given medical treatment by the Repatriation Department until 1937, when, under, some new scheme, the treatment was discontinued. He appealed against the decision, but was told by the tribunal that his appeal had been rejected and was advised that if he could produce any fresh evidence, he could make another application. Most of us know that it is impossible for exservicemen to get fresh evidence that their illnesses are due to their war service. Will the Minister .say whether the Repatriation Act provides that the onus of proof in these cases is on the Repatriation Commission or the ex-serviceman concerned ?
– The Repatriation Act provides that the onus of proof shall be on the Commission. If the honorable senator will give me details of the case he has in mind, I shall be very glad to do all I can to assist the ex-serviceman concerned.
page 18
– Is the Minister for National Development aware that the Western Australian Government has announced its intention of calling tenders for the erection of a multiple block of fiats at Subiaco for which the Australian Government recently refused to provide finance under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement as the project was considered to be outside the purpose of the agreement? Is the Minister aware of the source of the funds that the Government of Western Australia now proposes to use for the erection of those flats? Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient safeguards exist to prevent the expenditure on this project of money advanced by the Commonwealth to the exclusion or limitation of homebuilding for families, which is the real purpose of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement?
– I have seen newspaper reports to the effect that the Western Australian Government proposes to invite tenders for the erection of a block of flats at Subiaco. I am not certain whether the Western Australian Government has informed the Australian Government directly that it proposes to proceed with the construction of the flats. I have no information as to the source of the funds that will be used for the project, nor have I any knowledge of the method by which the Western Australian Government proposes to finance the work. I believe that expenditure of about £500,000 will be involved. The Australian Government informed the Government of Western Australia that it did not consider the Subiaco flats qualified as a housing project under the terms of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. This Government asked for an assurance that the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Fund would not be used for the erection of the flats, and such an assurance was given by the Western Australian Government.
page 18
– Has the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs read a report that was published in the press to-day to the effect that the
United States of America had asked Australia and New Zealand to join in a declaration of warning to China on the question of Indo-China because- they are signatories to the Anzus pact? In view of the disturbing situation in IndoChina and South-East Asia, will the Minister inform the Senate whether other sections of the British Commonwealth of Nations have been invited to join tie United States of America in discussing the matter? I refer particularly to the Mother Country, Great Britain. Will the Minister convey to the next meeting of the Anzus Council the growing concern of the Australian people at the implication that they may become involved in the war in IndoChina which the French people do not. wish to prosecute further themselves ?
– I read a report in the press to-day along the lines that the honorable senator has mentioned. I am informed that the Minister for External Affairs proposes to make a statement to-day in another place upon matters related to the subject of the honorable senator’s question, and I hope to be able to repeat that statement in the Senate later to-day. In the circumstances, I suggest that honorable senators should reserve similar questions until that statement has been made.
page 18
– In a recent issue of the magazine Aircraft, sharp criticism of Australian defence arrangements was made by Sir Donald Hardman, former Chief of the Air Staff. Sir Donald Hardman stated that undue emphasis was placed on sea power, and claimed that the security of Australia rested with air power. He was even reported as having said -
The Air Force in this country, whether for defence or offence, is the only force worth while.
As the article has brought into the open the completely divergent views held by service chiefs, and as the soundness or otherwise of the views expressed by Sir Donald Hardman vitally concern the people of Australia, will the Minister representing the Minister for Defence comment upon the statements?
– I am aware of the statements that hare been made by Sir Donald Hardman. Coming from a former Chief of the Air Staff, the views he expressed on the value of aircraft in defence are quite understandable. His comments have been brought to the notice of the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Air and I am sure that they will be given earnest consideration.
page 19
– Will the Minister for National Development lay on the table of the Senate a summary of tenders for contracts for the new section of the Snowy Mountains scheme showing the names of the tenderers and the amounts of the tenders?
– I think the answer to that question should be “ No “. I. should like to consult my professional officers, but I think that the proper procedure to adopt is to announce details of the successful tenders. That will make public the terms and conditions under which the contracts are to be let. I do not think it would be right to make public details of the unsuccessful tenders. That is the private business of the tenderers. They have made their offers, and when they see the successful tenders announced, they can make comparisons with their own offers and reach their own conclusions. I do not think we can do more than announce the successful tenders.
– When Mr. Jack, the Chairman of the New South Wales Water Conservation Authority and Mr. Enticknap, the New South Wales Minister for Water Conservation, interviewed the Minister for National Development in Sydney some time ago with a view to persuading the Commonwealth to finance the construction of the Blowering Dam and charge the cost to the New South Wales Government, did the Minister for National Development express his approval of that proposition and did higher Commonwealth authority veto it? Is it a fact that the New South Wales Minister for Water Conservation requested the Commonwealth to make available to the New South Wales Government 500,000 dollars from the Commonwealth dollar pool to enable that Government to have plans for the Blowering Dam prepared by the American Bureau of Reclamation, the body that prepares plans for the Snowy Mountains Authority, and that that request also was refused by the Commonwealth ?
– Both of Senator Ashley’s statements were incorrect. When I interviewed Mr. Jack and Mr. Enticknap two years ago, or twelve months, or eighteen months ago-
– The Minister does not seem to know much about .the matter.
– I know much more about it than does the honorable senator. To the best of my recollection, that interview was not related to the provision by the Commonwealth of finance for the construction of the Blowering Dam. The interview followed a request by the New South Wales Government that, in view of the magnitude of the proposed engineering works, and the technical construction problems, that would be involved, the Commonwealth would permit the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority to do the work on behalf of the New South Wales Government, provided that the costs were met by that Government. In effect, the New South Wales Government said, “ In the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority you have a first-class body ; will you let it do this job for us ? We will pay the cost, as though we were actually doing the work ourselves “. I said, that the Commonwealth would agree to that request. That offer still stands; it has not been vetoed. The second request was for the Commonwealth to provide the overseas currency in order to enable the New South Wales Government to request the American Bureau of Reclamations to prepare the plans of the Blowering Dam. I said that the Commonwealth would do so, and that offer still stands.
page 19
– To enable members of Parliament to be better informed on the latest developments in atomic power and the hydrogen bomb, will the Government consider making available the services of one of our toplevel experts to address a meeting of both Houses of the Parliament on this subject ?
– I shall convey the honorable senator’s request to the Prime Minister.
page 20
– Can the Minister for Social Services say at what stage in the curing of tuberculosis the special tuberculosis allowance ceases to be paid? When an aged person who has been treated for tuberculosis in a sanatorium is declared to be cured, must he revert to the age pension or is there some additional period of time during which payment of the tuberculosis allowances continues so that the recipient may become re-adjusted to the lower standard of living necessary to an existence on the age pension ?
– The intention of the tuberculosis allowance is that a sufferer from this disease should be free from anxiety about finance during the period of his sickness and convalescence. Speaking from memory, the payment continues until the recipient is fit to resume his occupation. I regret that I am unable to answer the portion of the honorable senator’s question relating to age pensioners, but if the honorable senator will put the question on the notice-paper I shall obtain, a reply for her.
page 20
– I should like to ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration a question about two recently published statements by the Minister for Immigration. On the 14th March, the Brisbane week-end press published a report, under a Melbourne dateline, that the Minister had denied that the Secretary of the Department of Immigration, Mr. Heyes, had gone overseas because of the Government’s concern at the dwindling rate of immigration to Australia. The Minister is reported to have stated that “ any suggestion that the Government was worried about a falling off in migration to Australia is untrue “.
I should like to know whether that report is correct and whether that attitude of rather studied indifference to the dwindling immigration rate represents the considered view of the Government. If the Minister has been reported correctly, how can he reconcile that statement with another statement made in an address to the Good Neighbour Council of Victoria, and broadcast in the Australian Broadcasting Commission news bulletin at 7 p.m. on the 16th March, to the effect that some major industries were asking for additional workers through the immigration programme, that big developmental projects going ahead throughout Australia called for a greater supply of labour, and that in some cases all labour needs could not be satisfied? If the Government is not concerned about the dwindling rate of immigration, how does it propose to solve the employment problem in this country?
– I feel that the honorable senator has misinterpreted the first statement to which he has referred. It does not seem to me to be a statement that indicates an attitude of studied indifference to this problem. The rate of immigration for this year has been stepped up. ‘ The second statement to which he has referred is indicative of the amazing progress and development that is taking place in this country at the present time and that has absorbed virtually all the labour that is available. I shall direct the attention of the Minister for Immigration to the statements to which the honorable senator has referred and ascertain whether he wishes to make any comments on the matters that have been raised.
page 20
– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, by pointing out that the world surplus of wheat is causing alarm in all wheat-producing countries and that the United States Government has stabilized the price of wheat in America. Does the Australian Government propose to hand back to the Australian wheat-growers the £9.000.000 now in the wheat stabilization fund, so that Labour’s wheat stabilization scheme. known as the Pollard scheme, will be difficult to implement when this Government is defeated on the 29th May? Is not the Government pursuing a policy of poverty amidst plenty poverty in policy and plenty of confusion?
– It is obvious that that is a propaganda question. I ask the honorable senator to place it on the noticepaper.
page 21
– In view of the world-wide increase of knowledge of atomic power, will the Minister for National Development consider the possibility of incorporating atomic generating stations in the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme ?
– When Professor Messel proffered that suggestion in the newspapers a few days ago and I was asked to comment on it, I said it was an interesting suggestion. I do not think I can make any other comment at the moment. At first glance, it seems an attractive proposition to integrate peak load electric power from the Snowy Mountains scheme and base load power provided by atomic power stations, but it must be remembered that the Snowy Mountains scheme has been planned on the basis of integrating its peak load power and base loads generated by State electricity commissions. The incorporation of atomic power stations in the scheme would entail a major reorientation of the present programme for the generation of electricity. I am not prepared to express an opinion offhand on such an important matter.
page 21
Reports on Items.
– I present reports of the Tariff Board on the following subjects : -
Circuit breakers or switch units for use at voltages of 1,000 or over.
Titanium oxide and titanium white.
Ordered to be printed.
page 21
– I present the following reports of the Public Accounts Committee : -
EleventhReport - Joint Coal Board - Plant and Equipment.
Fourteenth Report - Supplementary Estimates and Variations Under Section 37” of the Audit Act 1901-1953 for the year 1952-53.
page 21
Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) agreed to -
That the days of meeting of the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, be Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of each week; and that the hour of meeting, unless otherwise ordered, be 3 p.m. on Tuesday and Wednesday, and 11 a.m. on Thursday.
page 21
Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) agreed to -
That on all sitting days of the Senate during the present session, unless otherwise ordered, Government business shall take precedence of all other business on the notice paper, except questions and formal motions, and except that general business take precedence of Government business on Thursdays, after eight p.m.; and that, unless otherwise ordered, general orders of the day take precedence of general notices of motion on alternate Thursdays.
page 21
Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) agreed to -
That, during the present session, unless otherwise ordered, the sittings of the Senate, or of a committee of the whole Senate, be suspended from 12.45 p.m. until 2.15 p.m., and from 6 p.m: until 8 p.m.
page 21
Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) agreed to -
That, during the present session, unless otherwise ordered, at 10.30 p.m. on days upon which proceedings of the Senate are not being broadcast, and at 11 p.m. on days when such proceedings are being broadcast; the President shall put the question That the Senate do now adjourn which question shall be open to debate; if the Senate be in committee at that hour, the Chairman shall in like manner put the question That he do leave the chair and report to the Senate; and upon such report being made the President shall forthwith put the question - That the Senate do now adjourn - which question shall tie open to debate: Provided that if the Senate or the committee be in division at the time named, the President or the Chairman shall not put the question referred to until the result of such division has been declared; and if the business under discussion shall not have been disposed of at such adjournment it shall appear on the noticepaper for the next sitting day.
page 22
Motions (by Senator 0’Suli.ivan) agreed to -
STANDING ORDERS Committee.
That « Standing Orders Committee be appointed, to consist of the President, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Chairman of Committees, and Senators Brown, Guy, Kendall, McKenna, Nicholls and Vincent, with power to act during recess, and. to confer with a similar committee of the House of Re 1 1presentatiives. .
Libras y ‘ Committee.
That a Library Committee be appointed, to consist of the President and Senators Arnold, Cole, Kendall, McCallum, Robertson and Tangney, with power to act during recess, and to confer or sit as a joint committee with a similar committee of the House of Representatives.
That a House Committee be appointed, to consist of the President and Senators Armour, Aylett, Critchley, George Rankin, Wedgwood and Wordsworth, with power to act during recess, and to confer or sit as a joint committee with a similar committee of the House of Reppresentatiives, .
That a Printing Committee be appointed, to consist of Senators Benn, Gorton, Hannaford, Sandford, Scott, Seward and Toohey, with power to confer or sit as a joint committee with a similar committee of the House of Representatives.
page 22
– I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate and from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate nominating, in accordance with Standing Order 86a, Senators Arnold, Byrne. Guy, Seward, Vincent, Willesee and Wood as members of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.
Motion (by Senator O’SULLIVAN - by leave - agreed to -
That a Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances be appointed, to consist of Senators Arnold, Byrne, Guy, Seward, Vincent, Willesee and Wood, such senators having been duly nominated in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 3Ba.
page 22
– Pursuant to Standing Order 28a, I lay on the table my warrant nominating Senator B. Courtice, Senator J. A. McCallum, Senator T. M. Nicholls, Senator J”. O’Byrne, Senator R. W. Pearson and Senator I. A. C. Wood a panel to act as Temporary Chairmen of Committees when requested so to do by the Chairman of Committees or when the Chairman of Committees is absent.
page 22
Motion (by Senator O’sullivan) - by leave - agreed to -
That, during the unavoidable absence of the Deputy President, the President be authorized to call upon any one of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees to relieve him temporarily in the Chair, without a.ny formul communication to the Senate.
page 22
– Pursuant to Standing Order 38, I hereby appoint the following senators to be the Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications: - Senator K. McC. Anderson, Senator D. C. Hannaford, Senator A. Hendrickson, Senator P. J. Kennelly, Senator A. R. Robertson, Senator C. W. Sandford and Senator R. H. Wordsworth.
page 22
Bill received from House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator O’sullivan) read a first time.
Senator O’SULLIVAN (QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs) [4.41. - I move -
That the bill be now read n second time.
The bill now before the Senate incorporates two separate tariff resolutions which were introduced on the 15th February, 19541. From the bill itself, and also from the comparative statement already in the hands of honorable senators, it will be seen that the major amendments provide for the imposition of higher duties on certain cotton sheetings, various paper and paper products and motor vehicle gear box and differential assemblies and parts thereof. Other proposed variations relate to cotton pillow cases and sheets, metal-working lathes, inserted type machine tools, tool tips composed of cemented carbides, files and rasps, thermostats, hypodermic needles and bequeathed articles. All the amendments under consideration, excepting that which provides for the duty-free admission from all sources of certain bequeathed articles, emerge from the adoption by the Government of recommendations made in comparatively recent reports by the Tariff Board. Copies of the board’s reports covering these proposed amendments have already been made available to honorable senators.
Before proceeding to give a brief outline of the major amendments contained in this bill I wish to emphasize that the Government’s policy is to provide reasonable and adequate protection for efficiently conducted Australian industries. The grant of protection is, of course, conditional upon the economics of the industry being investigated by the Tariff Board. Inquiries conducted by the Tariff Board are open to the public and it is competent for any interested party to tender evidence for the consideration of that board. This procedure ensures that the interests of all sections of the community are adequately protected. As I previously indicated, the major amendments in this bill provide for increased protection on certain cotton sheetings, paper and paper products and motor vehicle gear box and differential assemblies and parts thereof. At this stage I do not propose to discuss these amendments at length but if any further information is desired by honorable senators with respect to these or any other amendments contained in the bill I shall endeavour to make such information available.
Protective duties of 4d. per lb. and 15 per cent, ad valorem, British Preferential Tariff, and 5d. per lb. to 8£d. per lb., plus 15 per cent. Most-Favoured Nation are proposed with respect to plain or matt-woven cotton sheetings, 37 inches or over in width but not exceeding 100 inches in width, of a weight not less than 4 oz. a square yard and not more than 7 oz. a square yard, of the type ordinarily used in the manufacture of bed sheets or pillow cases. At present the production of this cotton sheeting in Australia is confined to one manufacturer, Australian Cotton Textile Industries Limited, of Adelaide, South Australia. The funds employed by the Australian company are in the vicinity of £1,200,000, and in June, 1949, when peak production had been reached, about 1,100 employees were engaged.
There was no criticism of the quality of the local product at the Tariff Board’s inquiry into this industry. The board reached the conclusion that in choosing cotton sheeting and pillow cloth for its main production, the company selected the field with greatest possibilities of success because of the steady and large demand in Australia for these materials which can be made in long runs and in a limited range of qualities. In an announcement published widely throughout the Australian press on the 31st March last the company announced that the adoption by the Government of the Tariff Board’s recommendations will enable it to restore maximum production and employment and to cater for the major portion of Australia’s sheeting requirements to a high standard oi quality. The reduced costs resulting from the anticipated increased output are being passed on to the public in reduced prices for the company’s products ranging u] to 10s. 6d. a pair of double bed sheets and lOd. each on pillow cases.
On various classes of wrapping paper.and paper boards the duties have bee increased. The paper industry is, a: honorable senators are aware, of considerable importance in the overaeconomy of Australia. The industry i located in all States of the Commonwealth. Capital employed is approximately £22,000,000 and direct employment is given to approximately 5,000 operatives.
There has been considerable development in the industry in recent years, but due to various causes, such as the decline in overseas selling prices and the high costs involved in the extension of manufacturing programmes, some sections of the industry have, for some time past, been at a disadvantage in the marketing of their products in Australia. The protection now proposed is designed to remove this disadvantage and to enable the industry to reorganize on a sound basis. The industry will be again subject to review by the Tariff Board in two years’ time.
The third major amendment is that relating to transmission gear box, differential and driving axle assemblies and parts therefor, covered by item 359 (f)(3). Under this amendment it is proposed to extend tariff protection to the assemblies mentioned, when produced for original equipment purposes. Honorable senators will, of course, be well aware that automotive gears for replacement purposes have been manufactured in Australia for many years, and the expansion of manufacture into the original equipment field is no more than a natural growth of that industry. The Australian gear industry was fully investigated by the Tariff Board and the board was satisfied that there is sufficient productive capacity in Australia to enable the local manufacturers to supply efficiently and promptly the requirements for transmission assemblies used in motor cars and ‘light and medium trucks.
The Tariff Board pointed out in its report that it would be unwise for thelocal industry to spread its activities over too wide a range and, accordingly, recommended that the protective duties should not ‘apply to transmission assemblies for use in trucks of a gross vehicle rating of 10 tons and upwards or for use in vehicles which are sold only in small numbers on the Australian market. This recommendation has been adopted by the Government.
Further, I Should like to mention that it was realized that some little time would naturally elapse before the local gear manufacturers could meet the bulk of requirements in the protective field and action has, therefore, been taken to allow into Australia, at concessional rates of duty, all transmissions which were in transit from overseas manufacturers, or in bond in Australia, on the 16th February, 1954. In addition, I have announced through the press that applications for the concessional admission, of transmission assemblies will be considered where evidence can be produced that sincere efforts, have been made to obtain requirements locally but because of technical or other reasons the Australian manufacturers are, for the time being, unable to meet those requirements. This course will, I feel sure, allay any fears honorable senators may have that” the new duties are likely to be imposed without good purpose.
The protection which it is proposed to extend to this most important national industry is designed primarily to allow that industry to become more fully established and it is the Government’s intention to ask the Tariff Board again to review the protective needs of the local gear industry when a greater volume of production has been achieved.
In case honorable senators are in any doubt as to the scope of the new duties I should like to make it clear that transmission assemblies for tractors are in no way affected by the amendments now before this chamber. I commend the bill to honorable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator Critchley) adjourned.
page 24
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator O’sullivan) read a first time.
, - I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The bill before honorable senators affords additional protection to two Australian industries, namely, those associated with the manufacture of high voltage switchgear and of titanium oxide and titanium white. In each instance the proposed rates of duty are based upon recommendations recently made by the Tariff Board. The comparative memorandum, already in the hands of honorable senators, sets out in concise form the old and proposed new rates of duty. The relevant Tariff Board reports were tabled by me to-day.
The manufacture of switchgear in the lower voltage ranges has been undertaken in Australia for many years, but the industry has now expanded into the higher voltage field. There are five wellknown electrical engineering companies engaged in the production of this equipment. Capital employed in this manufacture is approximately £500,000, and direct employment is given to some 200 operatives. Indications are that in the near future projected expansion programmes will increase substantially the employment and capital requirements of the industry. The relevant Tariff Board report indicates that the local industry has the capacity to fulfil the Australian requirements for switchgear of capacities in respect of which it is now proposed to accord tariff assistance. I might mention that both the manufacturing and using industries in Australia reached agreement concerning the field to be covered by protective duties. The proposed amendment is, in line with that agreement.
As regards titanium oxide and titanium white, I point out that these pigments are principally used in the production of paints for interior and exterior purposes. Production of titanium oxide is a new industry in Australia. Manufacture is located in Tasmania. Capital investment is approximately £750,000. Employment is directly given to some 200 operatives. Demand for titanium oxide is principally for the rutile type, but some demand, principally for interior purposes, exists for the anatase type titanium oxide. As titanium oxide of the anatase type is not at present produced in Australia, it is proposed to admit importations of this type of oxide under concessional by-law.
The industry has, in recent times, been subjected to intensive competition from overseas and the proposed duties are designed to enable it to meet that competition provided the local industry operates under conditions of maximum effort and efficiency. I commend the proposed amendments to honorable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 25
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator O’ Sullivan) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
As honorable senators know, action is being taken under the Customs Tariff Bill 1954, introduced by me earlier to-day, to accord protection to the Australian manufacture of transmission gear box, differential and driving axle assemblies and parts therefor. Accordingly, it will be appreciated that it is necessary to make similar provisions under the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Act to ensure that the new measure of protection will apply, in a like manner, to importation of transmission assemblies from Canada.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 25
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator O’sullivan) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill before the Senate is to vary the special tariff treatment which has applied to certain wrapping papers of New Zealand origin. This amendment is complementary to the action that is being taken under the Customs Tariff Bill to accord increased protection to Australian wrapping paper manufacturers.
Debate on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 26
Motion (by Senator Spooner) - by Leave - agreed to -
That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act 1930-1051 and for other purposes.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
Standing Orders suspended.
Second Beading.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to provide increases in monetary benefits payable to employees of the Commonwealth or to their dependants for injuries sustained or diseases contracted in the course of employment. The last increase in monetary benefits was made towards the close of 1951. Since August, 1951, the basic wage Las increased from £9 9s. to £11 16s. a nd the Government considers it equitable that legislation should be brought down to increase the benefits under the act. The amounts proposed in the bill provide for full recognition of the increase in the basic wage. I do not propose at this stage to deal in detail with the increases proposed in the bill as full information will be available to honorable senators in committee but a brief reference to the major benefits may assist honorable senators to appreciate the nature of the increases proposed.
The payment to an employee during in- capacity will be increased from £6 to £8 15s. a week. A married employee will receive in addition £2 5s. a week in respect of his wife in lieu of £1 15s., and for a dependent child £1 a week in lieu of 15s.For an incapacitated employee with a wife and one dependent child the weekly amount payable, therefore, will be £12 in lieu of £8 10s. at present.
Provision is made under the Third Schedule of the act to compensate employees who suffer injuries resulting in the loss of a specified part of the body, &c. The maximum payment under this schedule will be raised from £1,750 to £2,350 with proportionate increases for minor injuries. Where death results from an injury or disease, the maximum amount payable under the act to a dependant of a deceased employee is £1,500 and £75 for each dependent child. These amounts will be raised to £2,350 and £100 respectively. The maximum amount to meet the cost of funeral expenses will be increased from £50 to £60. The present maximum to meet the cost of medical treatment in relation to. an injury or disease is £150. This will be increased to £200 but the act empowers the commissioner in any case of exceptional circumstances to approve of payment in excess of the stated amount.
The act specifies a limit in excess of which payment may not be made to an incapacitated employee in respect of an injury or injuries caused by one accident. The limit will be raised from £1,750 to £2,350. Where, however, compensation is payable for a specified injury under the Third Schedule to the act, weekly payments made during incapacity are disregarded. The maximum does not apply where the injury results in the death or the total and permanent incapacity of the employee. Provision is made in the bill for the increased benefits to have effect from the 1st January, 1954. The bill also provides for some minor amendments of a drafting character. Explanations of these and any further information requested by honorable senators will be given when the bill is in committee.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 26
Motion (by Senator Spicer) - by leave - agreed to -
That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Patents Act 1952, and for other purposes.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
Standing Orders suspended.
Secondreading.
Senator SPICER, (Victoria - Attorney-
General) [4.30.] - I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
Two recent judicial proceedings, onein the- High Court and one in the Privy Council, have disclosed a technical defect in Australian patent law. Over a period of almost 50 years, successive commissioners of patents have exercised a wide discretion in correcting mistakes in documents relating to patent applications and proceedings, and in permitting tha amendment of these documents in other respects. In this regard Australian practice has been broadly similar to that of the United Kingdom. It now appears that neither the existing Patents Act and Regulations noi” the new ones which will replace them on 1st May next are in. terms wide enough to cover,, in it3 entirety, the Patent office practice thus established. This, as the Government is aware, could cause unnecessary inconvenience, anc! even hardship, in the business community. The Government is accordingly taking the first available opportunity to place the practice of the past f>0 years on a. secure footing. Of necessity, applications for letters patent frequently involve correction or amendment of one or more of the various documents which are required to be lodged in connexion with the application. The patent registration system is not, of course, unique in this respect. In almost every registration system, the occasion for amending documents will occur and power to correct or amend is part and parcel of the system.
The matters involved in the bill are of a technical character but I shall explain as briefly as I can the general nature of the difficulty that has arisen. The view expressed by a majority of the Justices in the High Court in Martin’s ease in October, 1953, left little room for doubt that regulation 147 of the Patents Regulations 1912 is invalid. This regulation had hitherto been relied upon as authorizing amendment of documents in a large number of cases. The majority view in Martin’s case was that the regulation was beyond the regulation-making power conferred by the act. In February last, the Privy Council refused an application by the patentee for leave to appeal. Therefore, the majority view that regulation 147 is invalid still stands. The Patents Act 1952 will come into operation on the 1st May next, but the existing act, that is, the Patents Act 1903-1950, will continue to apply to all the documents connected with some thousands of applications for patents that have been lodged under that act.
In regard to applications under the existing legislation, therefore, it becomes desirable to remove any doubt as to the validity of amendments made in reliance oil regulation 147 and to make provision for amending documents connected with the applications still to be dealt with under the present act. Those matters are provided for in clauses :5 and 6. It is necessary to ensure also, as clause 7 does, that no hardship will be caused by reason of the absence of a power to amend between the date of the High Court decision and the commencement of this legislation.
So far as the Patents Act 1952 is concerned, the Patent Law Review Committee, whose recommendations formed the basis of that legislation, recognized the possible invalidity of regulation 147. Accordingly, section .117 (a) was included, giving express power to mak<a regulation in the terms of regulation 147. Such a regulation has, in fact, been made and would ordinarily come into operation, with the act, on the 1st 31 ay next. However, regulation 147 has been treated by successive commissioners or patents as authority for the making of an amendment in any class of documents fi-, long as the amendment is not inconsistent with some express provision in the act relating to the amendment of that class of document. But the opinion was expressed in the Privy Council that, if the act made any provision at all, however limited, for the amendment of a class of documents, a regulation in the terms of present regulation 147 would not permit the making of any other amendment whatever in a document of that class.
The bill removes, both in regard to th> existing act and the new act, the further defect disclosed in the Privy Council proceedings. It will be noted that clauses 4 and 6 will authorize .the making of regulations providing for appeals from decisions of the commissioner on applications for amendment. Regulations an1 contemplated providing for notice of oppo sition to be given to the making of an amendment and for an appeal to bc brought to the High Court against the commissioner’s decision. Persons interested in the amendment will, therefore, be afforded every opportunity of puttingforward their views. The members of the Patent Law Review Committee, which prepared the 1952 act, agree that amending and validating legislation is both desirable and urgent. They are supported by the Institute of Patent Attorneys of Australia. Clearly, in the light of the judicial proceedings to which I have referred, neither the existing act nor the now act can be permitted to remain as they now stand. The amending bill will give secure statutory authority for a long-standing practice. It is entirely non-controversial in character and I commend it to honorable senators.
– In. view of the decision of the High Court in Martin’s case in October last - the case which interestingly enough dealt with Biro pens and ink - it was quite clear, as the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) has said, that the law had to be amended, not only for the future, but also to validate alterations that had been made by the various commissioners of patents during the last 50 years. The Opposition considers it desirable that this action should be taken. There is only one matter to. which I propose to direct the attention of the Attorney-General. It relates to clause 3, which simply provides that section 159 of the principal act is repealed. Upon reference to that section, I find it is the provision which permits a -commissioner of patents to correct a clerical error or obvious mistake in the register, patent application, &c. Then, the second sub-section provides” that when a request for an alteration of that kind is made, the commissioner must give notice to people whose interests may be affected by the alteration and who may wish to lodge an objection to the making of an alteration. Such persons are entitled to a hearing before the commissioner decides to make the alteration. Then, in the final sub-section, provision is made for an appeal to an appeal tribunal. I point out to the Senate that those are very important statutory rights conferred under the Patents Act. There is the right to a notification if any interests are likely to be adversely affected, the right to lodge an objection, the right to be heard before the commissioner, and finally the right of appeal. That section, as I have said, will be entirely repealed by this legislation. The Attorney-General has indicated that it is proposed to incorporate the appeal provisions in regulations. He said -
It will be noted that clauses 4 and (i will authorize the making of regulations providing tor appeals from decisions of the commissioner on applications for amendment. Regulations are contemplated providing for notice of opposition to be given to the making of an amendment and for an appeal to be brought to the High Court against the commissioner’s decision.
I should be happier if that contemplation were placed on a firmer basis, and some assurance were given by the AttorneyGeneral that the regulations will emphatically confer rights at least equal to those specified in the existing legislation. With due respect to the draftsman, I suggest that it might have been better if the substantive rights had been preserved in the statute rather than left for incorporation in regulations, which, as everybody knows, are alterable with considerable ease. The rights would be on a rauch firmer foundation if they .remained in the statute.
We recognize the need to eliminate the flaws to which attention has been drawn by the High Court and by the Privy Council in its refusal of an appeal against a. decision of the High Court. I trust that the Attorney-General will appreciate the importance of the point that I have made. I realize that there must be some flexibility in determining matters such as objections and appeals and I know that regulations do provide more flexibility than do provisions enshrined in statutes.
– What is the appeal tribunal under the present act?
– The High Court.
– Reference is made in this measure to a body called the “ Appeal Tribunal
– The appeal tribunal is referred to in section 159 of the existing act and the Attorney-General has foreshadowed that appeals will lie to the High Court.
– The appeal tribunal is the High Court.
– That is so. My sole criticism of the measure is the removal of the statutory provision for the rights to which I have referred, and the leaving of those rights to be dealt with by regulation. However, I have no vital objection to that procedure and I shall not vote against the bill because of it. It is purely a question of form, but I personally would prefer the rights to remain established in the act. I should appreciate an assurance from the AttorneyGeneral that there will be no doubt about the establishment of those rights by regulation.
– I appreciate the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). Upon examination, the honorable senator will find that the matter is not of as much significance as it first appears to be. Under section 159, the only amendments authorized are amendments to correct a clerical error or obvious mistake in the register, &c. The provision is limited to amendments of that kind and it is a curious matter of history that provision was made in the act for such amendments. When one turns to section 177 of the 1952 act - the act recommended by the Patent Law Review Committee - one finds that provision is made for the passing of regulations - for providing- for the amendment of a document for the amendment of which no provision is made in this act.
The whole matter of amendment in the wider sense therefore was left to regulations. Not merely was it left to regulations, but also no provision was made for regulations providing for appeals. In other words, appeals in relation to amendments were not expressly contemplated anywhere in that portion of the act. The draftsman has eliminated the section about clerical errors, and dealt with the whole matter of amendments in one provision. He has made that provision one under which regulations may be made foi amendments and under which regulations may be made providing for appeals and so on.
– Was section 119 material to the High Court’s decision?
– No. The thing that was material from this point of view is that provision of existing section 177 which gives power to pass regulations - for providing for the amendment of a document for the amendment of which no provision is made in this act.
The difficulty that has arisen is caused by the fact that the Privy Council has indicated very clearly recently that that language means that if in the act there is any kind of provision, no matter how insignificant, for the amendment of a particular class of document, this does not authorize the making of regulations for any other kind of amendment, notwithstanding that the commissioner has been operating under a provision of this kind for nearly 50 years and has frequently made the kind of amendments that are necessary.
– Will the AttorneyGeneral explain why, if the appeal tribunal is the High Court, the expression “ Appeal Tribunal “ is used in clause 4 and the expression “ High Court “ is used in clause 6?
– The 1952 act, which is about to come into operation, was framed on the basis that an appeal tribunal, as it was called, would be created. The High Court is the appeal tribunal. In drafting this bill, the draftsman had to deal with the position that would arise under the act about to come into operation, and also with the position that arose under the old act, in order to deal with a number of existing applications that- bad not been finalized. Under the old act, there is no appeal tribunal. Therefore, in dealing with that class of application, he has said that the appeal is to the High Court, but in dealing with applications under the new act, he has said, quite properly, that the appeal is to the appeal tribunal.
I assure Senator McKenna that regulations of the kind indicated in my secondreading speech will be introduced. I .do not think honorable senators need have any fear in relation to this matter. It is the kind of thing on which, quite naturally and very properly, we consult the professional associations that deal with this very technical subject. The Senate can rest assured that the regulations issued will make adequate provision for appeals to the High Court.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 30
Motion (by Senator McLeay) -by leave - agreed to -
That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Seamen’s Compensation Act MM 1-53, and for other purposes.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
Standing Orders suspended.
Secondreading.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The Seamen’s Compensation Act came into operation in 1911, and since that year it has been amended on four occasionsin 1938, 1947, 1949 and 1953. The act applies to all seamen engaged in interstate trade and commerce except masters, mates, engineers and radio officers who are eligible for compensation benefits under their respective awards. Seamen in the intrastate trades are covered by State workmen’s compensation acts. On each of the previous occasions on which the act has been amended, the monetary benefits have, where necessary, been varied to bring them into line with corresponding benefits prescribed in the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act and various State compensation acts. Since the 1953 amendment, the monetary benefits provided under State compensation acts have been appreciably increased, and the Government desires to increase the benefits under the two Commonwealth compensation acts to a level at which, on an average, they will compare not unfavorably with corresponding benefits provided under State legislation.
The existing weekly payments, lump sum payments, maximum compensation, &c., prescribed by the Seamen’s Compensation Act are identical with corresponding sums provided under the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act, which applies to employees of the Commonwealth Government, and during this session bills will be introduced to amend the two acts to provide similar increases in the various monetary benefits. The monetary benefits prescribed in the Seamen’s Compensation Act can be grouped into three categories, that is, incapacity payments, death payments and medical expenses. I propose to deal with them in that order, and to indicate briefly the increases of the various payments proposed in the bill.
With regard to incapacity payments, the existing weekly compensation payment is £6 and it is proposed that this rate be increased to £8 15s. The additional weekly payment in respect of a wife or female dependant is to be increased from £1 15s. to £2 5s., and the weekly payment in respect of each dependent child will rise from 15s. to £1. Thus, provision is made in the bill for an increase in the weekly payment to an incapacitated seamen, with a wife and one child under the age of sixteen years, from the existing amount of £8 10s. to £12 an increase of over 40 per cent. The corresponding payments provided under State compensation acts range from £10 to £12 7s. a week. The weekly rate for a minor is also to be increased from £4 10s. to £6 10s. For certain specified injuries, lump sum payments are prescribed. At present, they range from a maximum of £1,750 for major disabilities such as loss of sight or loss of both limbs, to £105 for the loss of the phalanx or joint of a toe other than a great toe. It is proposed that the maximum lump sum payment be increased to £2,350, with proportionate increases in the lump sum payments for other injuries specified in the Third Schedule to the act.
The existing maximum amount of compensation payable in respect of an injury or injuries caused by any one accident is £1,750, and it is proposed to raise this amount to £2,350. This sum, however, is not the maximum in all cases. In the case of total and permanent incapacity, the amount of compensation payable is unlimited, whilst in the case of an injury that results in death or in one of the major specified injuries, any weekly payments made in respect of the injury are disregarded in determining the amount of the lump sum payment finally to be made. 1 turn to death payments. Under the existing legislation, the amount of compensation payable where death results from an injury is £1.500 if the seaman leaves any dependants, plus £75 in respect o.t: each dependent child under sixteen years of age. It is proposed to increase these amounts to £2,350 and £100 respectively. Then the compensation payable to dependants of a deceased seaman will he higher than the corresponding amounts prescribed in five of the six State compensation acts, as the comparable amounts payable under such acts range from £1.300 and £50 in Queensland to £2,500 and £100 in New South “Wales. Provision has also been made to increase the amount payable in respect of funeral expenses from £50 to £60. This amount is payable whether or not a seaman leaves dependants, and compares favorably with corresponding amounts prescribed in State compensation legislation. Where death results from an injury in respect of which a lump sum payment has been made in redemption of weekly payments, it is provided under the existing law that the adjustment to be made in consequence of such payment shall not reduce the amount of compensation finally payable to dependants below £200. In this bill, it is proposed to increase this minimum to £400.
The amount that may be paid in respect of medical expenses is being raised from £150 to £200. These expenses are paid in addition to compensation, and in exceptional cases the Minister may authorize payment of an amount, in excess of the amount stated.
In paragraph (13) of the First Schedule to the act, it is provided that where agreement cannot be reached between an employer and a seaman as to the seaman’s condition or fitness for employment, the prescribed authority, on application by both parties and on payment by the applicants of the prescribed fee, not exceeding £2, may refer the case to a medical referee. The maximum of £2 lias not been varied since 1911, and under existing conditions it is inadequate. It is proposed, therefore, to omit the limit from the act and to leave the amount of the fee to be prescribed by regulation.
Provision is being made for the amendments to take effect from the date on which the act receives the Royal assent, instead of after the usual interval of 28 days. Therefore, seamen and others concerned will receive the increased payments earlier than would ordinarily be the case. It is considered that the increased monetary benefits provided in the bill will represent appropriate compensation in existing economic conditions, and they are recommended for the favorable consideration of all honorable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 31
Motion (by Senator McLeay) - by leave - agreed to -
That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Dairy Produce Export Control Act 1924-1953.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
Standing Orders suspended.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
During the past fifteen years, that is, since the outbreak of World War II., Australian butter and cheese have been sold to the United Kingdom under intergovernmental contracts. The normal processes of marketing have been suspended. Instead of competitive buying and distribution by commercial houses in the United. Kingdom, the trade has been entirely in the hands of the British Ministry of Food. Although there have been difficult, and in some respects unsatisfactory, negotiations over prices, the Australian industry has faced no problem of disposal during this period. Indeed, Australia has been urged, because of food rationing in the United Kingdom, to supply more and more butter and cheese under the contract arrangements. In these circumstances, there has been no need or opportunity for the use of trade publicity and the improvement of merchandising or distribution. THe whole of the Australian exportable surplus, with the exception of an agreed “ free quota “, was placed at the disposal «f the United Kingdom Government. Producers simply sold butter and cheese to the Australian Dairy Produce Board, which was appointed as agent of the Commonwealth Government, and received payment immediately. The board was recouped by the Ministry of Food on the presentation of the shipping documents to .the Commonwealth Bank.
However, as from the 8th’ May, 1954, rationing of butter and cheese will end in the United Kingdom and prices will ;be left to find their own levels. The machinery of government importation and distribution, except that required to fulfil residual contract obligations, will be quickly dismantled. The current bulk contract with the United Kingdom does not expire until the 30th J.une, 1955. An Australian delegation will open negotiations with the Ministry of Food in London this month regarding the respective obligations of the two governments during the balance of the contract period. But, subject to these negotiations, the ordinary proceses of commercial buying will be resumed in the United Kingdom as rapidly as circumstances permit.
It is because of these developments that close attention has been given to the marketing arrangements which will apply to Australian butter and cheese sold in the United Kingdom in the future. The’ industry fully expects severe competition not only from other suppliers of butter and cheese but also from the margarine industry, which is steadily improving its product and expanding its sales. I may add that there are no large export markets for butter and cheese outside the United Kingdom.
Following detailed discussions with the Australian dairying industry a plan has been formulated which will assist the industry to meet the difficult situation in prospect. This plan involves the appointment of the Australian Dairy Produce Board as a central marketing organization selling to the United Kingdom. The plan was originated by the Australian Dairy Produce Board, which is already established as a central marketing organization as agent for the Australian Government for handling the detailed work in connexion with the bulk contract with the United Kingdom. However the plan is fully endorsed by the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation, which is .the main producers’ organization, and by manufacturers and exporters. The purpose of this bill is to provide the legal basis for the introduction of the plan, which I shall now briefly describe.
The bill provides that all butter and cheese destined for export to the United Kingdom must be handled by the board either as principal or agent. Of course the board will use the services of existing export houses to carry out the physical handling, storage, and shipment of the produce, as it does now. But -the board itself will determine selling policy, appoint agents in the United Kingdom, and pool the proceeds of sales for distribution to the producers concerned.
Lest it should appear that the plan will involve a regimentation of the industry in a way never experienced before, I should like to emphasize that the plan is really nothing more than a continuation of a method of trading with the United Kingdom which has operated for many years in relation to bulk contracts. The main variation from the existing procedure is that the Australian Dairy Produce Board will in future control distribution and selling policy in the United Kingdom, instead of the British Ministry of Food. The act as it now stands does not provide for the pooling of export returns, nor for the board to be the sole exporter of butter and cheese to the United Kingdom as either agent or principal.
The bill enables the board to purchase, in its own name, butter and cheese intended for export to the United Kingdom. But purchases by the board will only be made where the owner requests finance from the board. The terms of purchase will provide that the owners may repossess their produce prior to export on re-payment of the finance made available to them by the board. In other eases it may act as agent.
It is proposed that the board will obtain finance for its operations from the Commonwealth Bank by means of an advance guaranteed by the Australian Government as at present. The Commonwealth guarantee will be safeguarded by the operation of the butter and cheese equalization scheme administered by the Commonwealth Dairy Produce Equalization Committee Limited. In other words, should the rates of advance exceed the ultimate realizations the deficiency would be recouped by the Dairy Produce Equalization Committee Limited. The Commonwealth is also protected by the provision in the bill that the rates of advance payable by the board must be approved by the Minister.
These are the main features of the marketing plan for which the bill provides. This plan is confidently proposed by the Government in the knowledge that it is fully supported by the industry which, indeed, originated it. Because the Government is convinced that the future welfare of this vital export trade to the United Kingdom depends on vigorous marketing policies, it is happy to strengthen the industry’s hands in this manner, and feels confident that its proposals will be readily accepted by honorable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 33
Motion (by Senator McLeay) - by leave - agreed to -
That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Egg Control Export Act 1947-1953.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
Standing Orders suspended.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The Australian egg export industry is one of several, all greatly dependent on the United Kingdom market, which are now emerging from the shelter of government buying and re-entering the arena of competitive trading for the first time since the war. After such a long period of contract selling it is to be expected that the process of readjustment would be far from simple. In this instance the marketing problem is complicated by the existence of a highly competitive situation in the United Kingdom market and the immediate prospect of United Kingdom import restrictions on egg pulp during the period, perhaps two years, required by the United Kingdom Government to dispose of the stocks of pulp it is now holding. The situation calls for strength in the marketing of Australian eggs and hence for maximum co-operation in the industry.
The United Kingdom has already abolished distribution and price controls over eggs. As from the 1st January, 1954, imports from sterling sources have been unrestricted. The remaining controls will be reduced as rapidly as circumstances permit, though the quantitative restriction on imports of pulp will remain in force for some time.
Although the current contract with the United Kingdom does not expire till May, 1954, it was agreed that instead of establishing fixed contract prices for last season’s exports of shell eggs, open market prices should apply. The Australian industry was quite unprepared for the shock it received over the behaviour of the market. Due to a number of factors, but especially to the unusually favorable production conditions in the United Kingdom and Europe, prices fell to disastrously low levels at one stage the wholesale price of Australian eggs was1s.10d. sterling a dozen with the result that instead of improved prices the average price for the season was no less than 25 per cent below the price received in the previous year under the contract with the British Ministry of Food. The loss might well have been greater but for the fact that the Australian Egg Board, as the sole marketing authority, was able to regulate sales to ensure the best possible returns. As a foretaste of the future this experience was anything but reassuring.
It is against this background that discussions with the industry on the future marketing of eggs have been conducted. An agreed plan has now been formulated which is acceptable to the Government, and the purpose of this bill is to provide the legal basis for its operation. The essence of the plan is that the Australian Egg Board should be established as a permanent trading authority with power to sell eggs and egg pulp as agent for the State egg marketing boards.
The Australian Egg Board was set up on the 1st January, 1948, to facilitate marketing, and to administer the details of the bulk contract arrangements with the United Kingdom on behalf of the Commonwealth. This board has regulatory powers rather similar to those exercised by other marketing boards, but its present trading authority derives from its status as agent of the Australian Government for the purposes of administering the inter-governmental bulk contract with the United Kingdom.
The position of the Australian Egg Board in the future of egg marketing has been the subject of lengthy examination in the Australian Agricultural Council and in a series of conferences between Commonwealth representatives and representatives of the Australian Egg Board, the Egg Producers Council, and State egg boards. All States except New South Wales have expressed a desire for ‘ cen?tralized marketing, under the Australian Egg Board, which they insisted should be reconstructed to provide for direct State board representation. New South Wales, which is the major exporting State, accounting for about half the total Australian exports, asked to be free to sell independently. There was, therefore, a problem of working out a scheme to which all parties could give their strong support.
In accordance with its policy of consulting with the interests concerned, and of making every endeavour to reconcile its own responsibilities in relation to export trade with the expressed wishes of the industry, the Australian Government has taken a leading part in seeking a solution to the problem. I can state that the plan which has now been hammered out meets the wishes of the industry and all State governments affected, including New South Wales. I shall describe it briefly.
In the first place the bill provides for the reconstruction of the Australian Egg Board. The State egg marketing boards will be directly represented on it. The Victorian, South Australian, Western Australian and South Queensland boards will have one representative each and the New South Wales board, in view of the importance of New South Wales as an exporting State, two representatives. Tasmania is not mentioned because Tasmania dies not export eggs, but the question of Tasmanian representation will he reviewed should Tasmania develop a standing as an exporting State.
The method of selection of representatives of the respective State boards on the Australian board will be determined by the State government concerned. This method of selection will permit the nomination of any member of a State board.
In addition to the representatives of State boards there will be a Commonwealth Government representative, who will be chairman of the board, a member with commercial experience but not representing any commercial interests, and a member representing employees engaged in the handling, grading and processing of eggs. In the case of the employees’ representative there is provision for consultation with the appropriate union, as in the past.
Secondly, the Australian Egg Board will be empowered to continue as the sole exporting authority if the State boards desire it. The Australian Egg Board, as agent of the State boards, would conduct selling operations and operate an export pooling scheme. This authority to act for all States is exercisable, however, only if all the State boards agree. Should any State not wish to participate in the pooling scheme the Australian Egg Board may act as a pooling agent for the exports of those States which want the scheme. No State board will be compelled to join the pool against its wishes.
If the Australian Egg Board should operate a pool in which all States do not participate, the bill provides that the representatives of any non-participating State shall not be entitled to vote upon pool matters, nor even attend discussions of pool matters, without the approval of the members of the pool.
Thirdly, the Commonwealth will assist in the provision of finance by guaranteeing advances made to the Australian Egg Board by the Commonwealth Bank for the operation of the pooling scheme. This is an important Commonwealth aid to marketing. The Commonwealth is protected in this guarantee by virtue of the provision in the bill which states that the rates of advance payments made by the Australian Eze Board to the State boards must be approved by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. Of course, the Australian Egg Board will not finance the operations of a State board which elects to remain outside the pooling; scheme.
That is the plan which the bill authorizes. The Australian Egg Board, under its regulatory as distinct from its trading powers, will determine the various export marketing conditions which would need to be observed by any State selling outside the pooling scheme. These matters include minimum selling prices, quotas for egg pulp, if required, freight arrangements, overseas advertising and selection of overseas agents.
As I have said, this plan has been formulated after lengthy consultation with the industry organizations and State governments. All parties are now fully agreed upon its details. It is proposed, however, that the plan will be reviewed after a reasonable trial period of about two years.
In the light of experience in this trade in the pre-war period, a scheme facilitating co-operative effort and the elimination of unnecessary competition in the United Kingdom market amongst sectors of the Australian industry could have been supported without any unusual market circumstances providing a reason for its introduction. In to-day’s conditions of trading the strengthening of marketing methods by the co-ordination of selling policy must be regarded as imperative.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 35
Motion (by Senator O’sullivan) proposed -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– I wish to bring a matter of importance before the Senate. During debate on the National Health Service Bill I was denied an opportunity of speaking owing to the action of the Government in gagging the measure through this chamber. I now desire to refer to the operation and effect of the bill since it became law. The last Labour Government was prompted to provide a national health plan by the obvious need to remove from the minds of the sick the fear of inability to pay for medical attention. In recent years medical science has progressed far in advance of the social provisions that have been made for applying that knowledge for medical treatment of the community. Medical attention in its advanced stages often requires costly X-rays and other services which are beyond the reach of the average person. The Menzies-Fadder health scheme is a piecemeal scheme which has failed to reduce the cost of medical attention. It has also failed to provide all the medical services and the medicine for which people have been paying in taxation. In fact, the scheme has added to the burden of taxation by making it necessary to contribute to hospital funds and medical benefits funds. Yet even the contributors to such funds have to pay fees in excess of the fund benefits and the Government subsidy. The medical health scheme makes no provision for persons who suffer from chronic illness. Such people are compelled to join a medical benefits fund in order to become eligible for the government subsidy although they cannot collect any benefit from the fund. Many people have been paying taxation since 1946 for the government subsidy which they must now join a benefits fund in order to receive.
A sum in excess of £100,000,000 has been paid in taxation each year for the purpose of providing social services. Compulsion has been viciously applied to persons with chronic illnesses who must join a benefits fund from which they can receive no benefit. In recent weeks, because of the season that is approaching. Ministers have been babbling over the air and making statements in the press lauding the health scheme of the Menzies Government.
Government Senators. - Hear, hear !
– Those statements have placed honorable senators opposite in an invidious position because they were loud in their protests against the health scheme that was proposed by the Labour Government. The applauding of the scheme of the Menzies Government by honorable senators who said. “ Hear, hear “. illustrates their hypocrisy and cant. Honorable senators opposite screeched about the ‘welfare state and described every attempt by the Labour Government to introduce a health scheme as another dose of socialism. They complained about the huge expenditure involved in the scheme. They promised to get rid of socialism. They were supported in their campaign by the medical profession. The British Medical Association would not do anything to assist the scheme of the Labour Government. It openly campaigned against the scheme, which it described as socialization of the medical profession. It claimed that ii opposed the scheme because the Labour Government would force its members to fill in forms. The doctors said that they did not want to work for the Labour Government but that they wanted their freedom. Then came the general election campaign of 1949. The doctors became politicians. They were going to get rid of the terrible national health programme, which they described as socialism. They were going to put an end to the welfare state and restore freedom of enterprise. But what happened? The Menzies Government put Sir Earle Page in charge of the Department of Health. Sir Earle Page is a shrewd politician, and he made sure that in the distribution of benefits the medical profession got priority and generous treatment. The Liberal party and the Australian Country party had attacked every proposal by the Labour Government for the provision of medical and hospital benefits which they claimed “were too expensive. But since the present Government took office it has given the chemists and the doctors everything that they asked for. Sir Earle Page has displayed a reckless disregard for the cost of his scheme. When the Labour party proposed to return to people by way of benefits what they had paid out in taxation, the Liberal party and the Australian Country party became hysterical in their references to the welfare state and government extravagance.
One strange development has been the somersault of the doctors. The members of the British Medical Association are now more regimented than they would have been under the scheme of the Labour Government. Under the Menzies scheme their conditions can be changed at any time by regulation. They now fill in forms which they said they would never fill in. Their only compensation is that they are ordered around by Sir Earle Page instead of the Labour Government. Apparently the doctors do not mind socialization as long as the chief socialist is a member of the British Medical Association. The doctors are doing very well under this new socialism. The British Medical Association is well on the way to obtaining a complete monopoly of business in the collection of contributions for medical benefits at the expense of the friendly societies, because of the assistance that it is receiving from the Menzies Government. The Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited, which was set up by the British Medical Association, has eighteen members of the British Medical Association on its board of directors. Five other members are supposed to represent subscribers, but they have been nominated by members of the British Medical Association and they can be replaced at any time by that organization. They are not responsible to the subscribers. They are responsible to the doctors’ organization. Under the medical health scheme of the Menzies Government doctors all over Australia have been able to increase their charges. The 6s. which the Government pays to a patient in respect of each visit to a doctor has benefited, not the patient, but the doctor who has increased his fees by that amount.
– Can the honorable senator prove any instance of that?
– The British Medical Association is doing very well.
– Has the honorable senator any knowledge of the subject?
– A doctor’s practice which was valued at £5,000 prior to the introduction of the national health scheme of the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) is now worth £10,000. Yet, not even the Minister for Health knows what the scheme is costing the Commonwealth and the taxpayers. That does not concern him in the least. The Minister has never worried how much his plans will cost. The chemists have received all that they require and are satisfied. The British Medical Association, favoured by the Menzies Government in regard to the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited, is extremely happy.
Previous activities in this Parliament by Sir Earle Page and his colleagues were mainly directed towards the securing of subsidies for dairy-farmers. Now Sir Earle Page and his colleagues are exerting themselves in an endeavour to subsidize the doctors. Friendly societies which, for almost 100 years, have rendered yeoman service to the people of Australia, are being squeezed out of existence by the British Medical Association, which has its own organization. The Government has given no protection at all to the friendly societies, but has been most partial to the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia. Some time ago I produced in this chamber an advertisement, issued by that organization, depicting the outside cover of a brochure concerning health matters which had been issued by the Minister for Health. I suggested that that illustrated the association between the doctors of Australia and the Menzies Government. Within the last few weeks a letter has been circulated by the Liberal party to all doctors appealing for funds in consideration of the services that the Government has rendered to the doctors and the assistance which it has given in regard to the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia.
– Can the honorable senator produce a copy of the letter ?
– I shall produce a copy of it. Although the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia has been in existence for only eight years it has accumulated huge reserves. The balance-sheet presented at its sixth annual meeting on the 25th September, 1952, disclosed that the revenue for the previous year from New South Wales and Queensland amounted to £113,400, as against £39,400 for the preceding year. In 1953, revenue from subscriptions increased extraordinarily, £401,693 being received. The benefits paid out amounted to £166,909. Expenses were £52,377, which was more than 30 per cent, of the benefits paid out. The sum of £185,000, being the surplus of income over expenditure, was transferred to appropriation account.
– What is the organization going to do with that money?
– I shall tell the honorable senator what it is not going to do with it. These reserves will not be paid to subscribers to the fund, but will be used later to provide greater benefits for members of the British Medical Association. That is why we no longer hear representatives of that body talking about socialism. The British Medical Association now has no objection to being conscripted. It is thoroughly enjoying socialism and conscription under the Government health scheme. Every time a patient enters a doctor’s surgery the doctor knows that he can hold out his hand for a government subsidy. He is paid twice, first by the patient and secondly by the taxpayer. That the patient and the taxpayer are one and the same person does not concern the doctor in the least. Apparently, the British Medical Association considers that this is the right kind of socialism and is prepared to support a Minister for Health who will go down in history as the arch-priest of socialized medicine.
Since 1946, huge sums of money have been paid by the taxpayers for the provision of social services. Until the end of the financial year 1950-51, social services contributions were paid into the National Welfare Fund, but in that year the Menzies Government merged the National Welfare Fund with the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It also merged social services contributions with income tax payments. However, the pooling of those funds did not produce any reduction of taxation. The rate of taxation in respect of social services remain unaltered. At that time a taxpayer without dependents who earned £600 a year made a contribution of £45 a year for social services. Under the last budget, the taxation imposed on this group was reduced from £51 13s. to £43 19s., or a reduction of £7 14s. If such a taxpayer desires to be covered for full hospital and medical benefits he must contribute ls. 6d. a week to a hospital benefits fund and an additional ls. 6d. a week to a medical benefits fund, making a total of 3s. a week, or £7 16s. a year, which is more than the amount of the taxation reduction under the 1953-54 budget, about which the supporters of the Government are constantly babbling.
The merger of income tax payments and social services contributions represents a form of deception similar to that used by the Government parties in order to attain office in 1949 and 1951. The Page medical health scheme is splitting w ide open at the seams, revealing many abuses. The Government is trying to hush up these abuses until after the forthcoming general election, but throughout Australia there is ample evidence to justify a thorough probe of the scheme. The few prosecutions for conspiracy and swindling which have taken place already do not represent the full extent to which the taxpayers of Australia are being defrauded.
– I. rise to order. I ask you, Mr. President, to require Senator Ashley to withdraw the words “ conspiracy “ and “ swindling “. I rely upon Standing Order 418, which refers to the use of offensive words in relation to statutes and matters of that kind.
– Order ! Senator Ashley will withdraw those words.
– I wish to pay every respect to the Chair and the rules of this chamber. I submit that in view of the fact that prosecutions have taken place in respect of swindling, and as a case alleging conspiracy between doctor? and chemists in relation to this scheme is pending, I was justified in so commenting.
– I again rise to order. As the honorable senator said he was referring to a matter which is sub judice, I submit he should be asked to withdraw that reference also, *Mr. President, because it is obviously improper.
– I heard Senator Ashley use the word “ conspiracy “ and other words of a similar nature, but I understood him to be referring to certain professional people concerned with implementing the medical and pharmaceutical benefits schemes. I did not understand him to be referring to either House of the Parliament or its enactments but to abuse of such enactments by certain persons participating, in some form or other, in the Government’s health scheme. Standing Order 418 provides -
No Senator shall use offensive words against either House of Parliament or any Member of such House, or of any House of a State Parliament, or against any Statute, unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal, and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly.
I know from experience that crimes have been committed in connexion with these schemes. For instance, I recollect that recently a chemist was prosecuted and convicted in Adelaide. In addition, there ha ve been cases of collusion between participants in the schemes. In my opinion it is exceedingly proper to comment upon those facts. The question of whether matters are sub judice or not does not arise in respect of cases which have been already decided in the courts. I think that ‘Senator Wright was completely mistaken in raising a point of order on Standing Order 418. It would be disorderly if one were to reflect in offensive terms upon a provision or statute, but it would not be disorderly to say that a person, operating vadev a particular statute, had been found guilty of criminal conduct.
– I remind the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) of the context in which this assertion by Senator Ashley was made. The honorable senator asserted, first, that the Liberal party had sent round to doctors a letter promising that, in consideration for benefits which it, as a party in this Parliament, had bestowed upon the medical profession-
Senator Ashley interjecting,
– I am trying to remind the Senate of the context in which the objectionable words were used. Nobody but Senator Ashley would dream of interpreting the words except in their’ context. The honorable senator made that corrupt statement before the Senate.
– I rise to orderSenator Wright said that I made a corrupt statement to the Senate. I ask for a withdrawal.
– It is obvious that Senator Ashley was attributing improper motives and reflecting upon the- statute which is the basis of this scheme. He added that doctors were using it as an express benefit, conferred by the statute, whereby they could obtain one payment from the patient who visited them in the surgery and another from the taxpayers.
– That is correct.
– Then he said that the scheme gave rise to conspiracy and swindling. That is a direct reflection upon the statute which is the basis of this scheme. As to the reference by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) to convictions, I am reminded by him that one case was disposed of in Adelaide and another case, to which much greater publicity has been given, is sub judice. Therefore, it was most improper that reference should be made to it.
– Order ! Senator Ashley will continue.
– I shall not continue to press the point that I was emphasizing when I was interrupted. The wholesale and reckless distribution of antibiotics has menaced the health of the community. Those so-called lifesaving and disease-preventing drugs are free. ‘ As chemists charge the total cost of them to the Government, many instances of orders issued far in excess of legitimate requirements have been reported. In many cases, the maximum number of tablets has become the minimum prescribed. That has resulted in patients building up resistance to the drugs. They are then left without any protection in the case of grave and dire necessity. It also means that the taxpayers are paying out huge sums of money for drugs that are not essential to the patients. There is grave doubt whether some of those drugs can be used with perfect safety.
Under the Page health scheme, the public can no longer purchase a number of drugs that previously were sold over the counter by chemists. They include many drugs that are commonly used for women’s complaints and which were “bought by the half dozen. Now they are on the free medicine list and chemists are not permitted to sell them. The customer must go to a doctor, pay for a prescription and then obtain a supply of these tablets under the free medical scheme. That means that the patient has to pay at least 15s. for a prescription and then probably get a bottle of 30 tablets of which only a few are required. The taxpayer has to pay for the lot.
Although all taxpayers have paid social services contributions by way of taxation, they still cannot receive much benefit from the Menzies-Fadden health scheme unless they join a privately controlled benefits organization. Even when a person has joined a fund and become entitled to the payment of a government, subsidy, he or she may have to wait months for the organization to pay the benefit. In the case of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia, payments have been delayed from three to five months. I can prove that statement is correct. The British Medical Association, with the assistance of the Menzies-Fadden Government, is seeking to create a huge subsidy organization in the shape of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia. The Government has harassed friendly societies in their administration to the advantage of the doctors’ organization. Only recently a case arose which was brought under the notice of the Senate. A friendly society had engaged an insurance organization to enlist membership for the society. The administration of the Department of Health stopped that friendly society and refused to allow it to enlist the services of the insurance society to obtain members although it had obtained about 3,000 members for the organization. When restrictions are placed upon friendly societies and assistance is given to doctors’ organizations, it is not fair to the friendly societies or to the people of Australia.
The general public have not received any benefits from the Page health scheme because the amount of government subsidy has been absorbed in increased charges that have been imposed by the medical profession. Whereas doctors previously charged a fee of 10s. for a consultation at the surgery, they now charge at least 15s. That means that the government subsidy has become a subsidy to the doctors and not to the patients. Contributions to the medical and hospital funds under the Page health scheme are recognized as a severe form of indirect taxation on the people. A contribution of 6s. a week is the minimum tax that is imposed by those funds. There are grave doubts whether the Australian Government can constitutionally make membership of organizations a condition for the receipt of benefits from Consolidated Revenue to which everybody has contributed. I should like to have the eminent advice of Senator Wright on that point.
The MenziesFadden health scheme is of benefit to two sections only the doctors and the wholesale distributors of drugs. The patients and the taxpayers are receiving very little benefit. The principal defects are in the administration of the scheme. In an attempt to get away from departmental controls, the Australian Government has gone to the other extreme. It has handed monopoly control to persons with a vested interest in the scheme. Unless action is taken urgently, a grave national scandal will be exposed in connexion with this inefficiently operated scheme.
I will not be intimidated. I have already had visits from a representative of the Criminal Investigation Branch acting upon a complaint by the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia. I believe that a Queen’s counsel has been consulted with a view to the issue of a writ against me. The statements that I have made here I have also made outside’ the Parliament. I have no intention of taking up this matter under privilege. I have made statements publicly and they have been published in the press. I challenge anybody to deny the truth of anything that I have said. I do not believe in making charges against any organization or person under privilege, but I repeat I will not be intimidated. I have a duty to those who elected me to the Senate and to the people of Australia.
– I wish to comment upon one or two points that were made by Senator Ashley in the course of his long tirade. I would be interested to know the title of the publication from which he read. He said that doctors had been circularized by the political parties that form the present Government with a request for subscriptions to fight the forthcoming general election for the House of Representatives. A great many other people, including doctors, have been circularized by the Australian Labour party for the same purpose. Those for whom I wish to speak are the supporters of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party who are unfortunate enough to be tradeunionists also and have to pay a levywillynilly to the Australian Labour party, an organization that they do not want to support. Those are the persons on whose behalf Senator Ashley should lift his voice. It would be wrong to assume that there are not a great many of them in that situation. In Australia there are nearly 3,000,000 electors who voted for the Government and, obviously,, they cannot all be the idle rich. The vast majority of the electors who vote for the Government parties are trade unionists and they should not have to pay from their earnings to support the Australian Labour party.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 40
The following papers were presented : -
Atomic Energy Act - Australian AtomicEnergy Commission - First Annual Report, and financial accounts, for period 17th April, 1953, to 30th June, 1953.
Australian National University Act -
Statutes-
No. 13 - Faculties and Faculty Boards.
No. 14 - Staff Superannuation.
No. 15 - Convocation Amendment No. 2..
Census and Statistics Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954, No. 14.
Coal Industry Act - Joint Coal Board - Sixth Annual Report, and AuditorGeneral’s report on accounts, for year 1952-53.
Commonwealth Bank Act -
Appointment - A. G. M. White.
Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954, No. 9.
Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954,. No. 19.
Conciliation and Arbitration Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954,No. 17.
Customs Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules- 1954, No. 21.
Customs Act and Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules- 1954, Nos. 10, 16.
Dairying Industry Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954, No.15.
Defence Act - Royal Military College - Report for 1952.
Defence. Transition (Residual Provisions) Act - National Security (Industrial Property ) Regulation-Orders - Inventions and designs (11).
Distillation Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954, No. 23.
Elections, 1953 - Statistical Returns showing the voting within each Subdivision in relation to the Senate Election, 1953, viz.: -
New South Wales.
Queensland.
South Australia.
Tasmania.
Victoria..
Western Australia.
Excise Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1054, No. 22.
Explosives Act - Regulations - Order directing the Berthing of a Vessel.
Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act - Regulations - StatutoryRules 1954, No. 11.
Lands Acquisition Act - .
Land,. &c., acquired for - Australian Stevedoring Industry Board purposes - Gladstone, Queensland.
Defence purposes -
Blacksmith, New South Wales.
Broken Hill, New South Wales.
Cairns (Edge Bill), Queensland.
Denman, New South Wales.
Fishermen’s Bend, Victoria.
Glenbrook, New South Wales.
Greenbank, Queensland.
Rockbank, Victoria.
Williamtown,New South Wales.
Williamtown (Boat Harbour), New South Wales.
Windsor, New South Wales.
Department of Civil Aviation purposes -
Broken Hill, New South Wales.
Cairns, Queensland.
Eagle Farm (Brisbane), Queensland.
Eagle Farm (Brisbane Airport), Queensland.
Maryborough, Queensland.
Mascot, New South Wales.
Moree, New South Wales.
Moruya, New South Wales.
Postalpurposes -
Cavendish, Victoria.
Cobboco, New South Wales.
Cobdogla, South Australia.
Frankston, Victoria.
Gol Gol, New South Wales.
Huonville, Tasmania.
Keerang, New South Wales.
Macksville, New SouthWales.
Meningie East, South Australia.
Miner’s Creek, New South Wales.
Terka, South Australia.
Tulla, New South Wales.
Valla, New South Wales.
Wakool, New South Wales.
Warrnambool, Victoria (2).
Stirling North to Leigh Creek North
Coal-field Railway purposes - Port Augusta, South Australia.
Land disposed of under Section 63 - Return showing manner of disposal.
Nationality and Citizenship. Act - RegulationsStatutory Rules 1954, No. 24.
Navigation. Act - Regulation - Statutory Rules 1954, No. 13..
Norfolk Island Act -
Ordinances - 1954 -
No. 1 - Ordinances Revision,
No. 2 - Auctioneers.
No. 3 - Gun Licence.
No. 4 - Registration of Births, Marriages and Deaths-.
No. 5 - Sale of Food.
No. 6 - Slaughtering.
No. 7 - Motor Car.
No. 8 - Judiciary.
No. 9 - Birds Protection.
Regulations - 1 954 -
No. 1 (Brands and Marks Ordinance).
No. 2 (Census Ordinance).
Northern Territory (Administration) Act - Ordinances - 1 953 -
No. 22- Mining (No. 3).
No. 23 - Hospitals and Medical Services.
No. 24 - Wards’ Employment.
No; 25 - Workmen’s Compensation.
No. 28 - Licensing (No. 2).
No. 27 - Special Purposes Leases.
Regulations) - 1953-No. 14 (Motor Vehicles Ordinance). 1954 - No.1 (Encouragement of Primary Production Ordinance).
Papua and New Guinea Act - Ordinances - 1953-
No.1 - Probate and Administration’ 1952.
No. 5 - Animals and Birds Protection (No. 2) 1952.
No. 12 - Ordinances Revision 1952.
No. 14 - Ordinances Interpretation (No. 2).
No. 22 - Poisons and Dangerous Substances 1952.
No. 23- Aliens 1952.
No. 24 - War Surplus Material.
No. 25 - Customs.
No. 27 - Volcanic and Seismic Disturbances.
No. 29- Sale of Meat.
No. 32 - Ordinances Interpretation.
No. 33 - Criminal Code Amendment (Papua) Ordinance Amendment.
No. 34- Health (Papua).
No. 36 - Testator’s Family Maintenance.
No. 37 - Probate and Administration.
No. 38 - Public Holidays.
No. 39 - Workers’ Compensation.
No. 40 - Housing Loans.
No. 41- Excise (Beer) . Tariff.
No. 44 - Seamen (Unemployment Indemnity ) .
No. 48 - Criminal Code Amendment (New Guinea). ‘
No. 49- Criminal Code Amendment (Papua).
No. 50 - Customs Tariff Surcharge.
No. 51 - Customs Tariff (Papua);. ‘
No. 52 - Customs Tariff (New Guinea).
No. 58 - Aliens.
No. 59 - Native Labour.
No. GO - Customs (Cocoa Export) Tariff.
No. 61 - Customs (Rubber Export) Tariff.
No.62 - Native Apprenticeship.
No. 63 - Customs (Rubber Export) Tariff Ordinance Amendment.
No. 67 - Stamp Duties.
No. 68- Motor Traffic.
No. 73 - Fire Prevention.
No. 74 - Instruments.
No. 76 - Extradition (New Guinea).
No. 78 - Land (New Guinea).
No. 81 - Stamp Duties (No. 2).
No. 87 - Instruments (No. 2).
Patents Act - Regulations- Statutory Rules 1954, No. 18.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954, No. 20.
Public Service Act -
Appointments - Department -
Attorney-General’s- F. J. Gaffy, G. F. Gilfelt, H. S. Quinn.
Civil Aviation - A. D. Y. Allison, K. G. Beetson, J. W. Chamberlain. L. S. Chesterfield, W. E. Court, M. L. Doube, E. Felmingham, B. E. Hack, J. R. Hahn, L. J. Hart, N. G. Hatcher, F. E. Heggie, A. J. A. Pierce, M. J. Russ, S. W. Sambell, E. G. Shelton, J. M. Simpson, I. S. Smith, H. W. Snartt, F. H. Staton, C. D. Walker, R. J. West, M. R. Weston.
Defence- H. A. Critchell.
External Affairs - M. M. Creith.
Health - A. R. Docking, P. A. Wills.
Interior - T. M. Austin, H. J. Belson.
Repatriation. - A. J. T. Aram, A. H. Campbell, A. J. K. Dawborn, J. M. Lawrence, A. Madden.
Shipping and Transport - D. McKay, H. B. Rayson.
Supply - A. S. Bennett,U. M. Burns, E.R. A. Landers, A. R. Warwick.
Trade and Customs - F, H. Youden.
Works- B. J. Byrnes, E. M. Fraser, F. C. W. Salmon.
Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954, No. 12.
Public Service Arbitration Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator,&c. - 1954 -
No. 6 - Australian Journalists’ Association.
No. 7 - Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association.
No. 8- Federated Clerks’Union of Australia.
No. 9 - Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association and others.
No. ‘10 - Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association..
No. 11 - Electrical Trades Union of Australia.
Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government (Administration) Act -
Ordinances - 1 954 -
No. 8 - Careless Use of Fire.
No. 7 - Liquor.
No. 8 - Aborigines Welfare.
Regulations - 1954, No. 2 (Police Ordidinance) .
Superannuation Act - Superannuation Board Twenty-eight Annual Report, for year 1949-50.
Senate adjourned at 5.57 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 7 April 1954, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1954/19540407_senate_20_s3/>.