Senate
14 April 1954

20th Parliament · 3rd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 20th Parliament
  3. 1954

The President (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 190

PETITIONS

The PRESIDENT:

– Before calling for petitions, I wish to state that yesterday I accepted a motion that a certain petition be incorporated in Hansard and taken as read. The motion was agreed to without debate. There is some doubt whether that motion was in accordance with Standing Order 96, which provides that the only questions which may be entertained by the Senate on the presentation of a petition are: -

  1. That the petition be received;
  2. That the petition be read;
  3. That the petition be printed.

Other motions mentioned are not relevant to the present circumstances. Standing Order 97 provides that -

No Senator shall move that a Petition be printed unless he intends to take action upon it and informs the Senate thereof.

As we appear to be receiving a number of petitions on the same subject, I suggest to the honorable senators presenting them that if one of the petitions has already beenread in the Senate, time will be saved by moving merely “ That the petition be received “.

page 190

PUBLIC SERVICE

Petitions

Senator ARMSTRONG presented six petitions, signed by a total of 393 employees and officers of the Commonwealth Public Service, claiming that justice has been denied to Commonwealth public servants during the last four years, and that they are suffering the most serious injustice due to decreases in the relative value of their marginal rates, and praying that the Parliament take action to rectify such injustice by granting immediate increases of marginal rates to all Commonwealth public servants.

Senator ANDERSON presented a petition signed by 35 officers and employees of the Commonwealth Public Service on the same subject.

Petitions received.

page 190

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Petition - Questions

Senator ARMSTRONG presented a petition signed by 109 officers of the Commonwealth Public Service praying that the Parliament direct the PostmasterGeneral’s Department not to proceed with a proposal to purchase a new telegraphic system named Tress.

Petition received.

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

I desire to ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General a question concerning the apparent policy of the Postal Department to review country mail services when existing contracts for those services expire, end to curtail the frequency of such services in order to effect savings in expenditure. This policy naturally results in 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 rest of the community. This need is increased, not decreased, and as many country residents do not have the benefit of telephone communication, I believe that such a policy cannot he justified.I ask that the PostmasterGeneral cause an investigation to be madeinto this matter keeping in mind the facts thatI have brought forward this afternoon.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– The PostmasterGeneral has furnished me with the following information in reply to the honorable senator: -

The general policy of the department is that rural mail services as well as their scope and frequency shall be based on the needs of the residents concerned, even though in many cases the cost of providing the service is much in excess of the revenue derived. There has been no basic alteration of that policy, but reviews made usually when tenders have been invited for the continuance of services have at times disclosed instances - (1) Where the tenders for the service at the existing frequency could not he obtained; (2) Where the amount of business an,d the number of people to be served had declined ; or ( 3 ) Where the cost of providing the service had increased to a prohibitive extent.In these instances some variation in the frequency of the mailservice has been unavoidable. Nevertheless the overall picture of mail services in rural areas continues to be one of expansion and development and this is indicated by the fact that throughout the Commonwealth during the four years ended the 31st December, 1953, 308 new services were established and 564 were extended in range. The honorable senator may be assured that careful and sympathetic consideration will continue to be given to the postal needs of rural communities and that road mail services will not be reduced in frequency or otherwise varied unless it is clearly in the public interest that this should be done.

Senator SEWARD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Last week I sought certain information from the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. As I have not received that information, I now direct two further questions to him. Can he inform me what total tonnage of steel beams has been or is being transported by road on behalf of the Postal Department from Fremantle to points between Southern Cross and Kalgoorlie? What was the cost per ton of carrying those goods from Fremantle to Southern Cross, and what is the average cost per ton for transporting the whole consignment ?

Senator COOPER:

– I shall endeavour to obtain that information for the honorable senator before the Senate rises to-day.

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister representing the Postmaster-General inform the Senate whether it is true that postal and telegraph revenue decreased by more than £1,000,000 in the last financial year, compared with the previous financial year, despite the fact that charges have been increased, in many instances by 100 per cent., since the Menzies Government came to office? What steps does the Government intend to take in an effort to reduce the losses that - are being incurred by the costly postal services? Does the Minister consider that the imposition by the Menzies Government of the vastly increased charges for postal services has contributed to the present position?

Senator COOPER:

– As the honorable senator was a Minister in the previous Labour Government, he should realize that his question relates to government policy. However, I shall direct the attention of the. Postmaster-General to the question, and see whether he cares to inform the honorable senator of any steps that the Government intends to take in the matter.

page 191

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Some time ago I raised with the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services the question of disabilities in connexion with ; the building of certain homes at East Payneham in South Australia. I remind the Minister that when the matter was discussed previously in this chamber, he told me that I was irresponsible. I am informed that the Minister has received a report from three independent architects. Will the Minister obtain a copy of that report and table it in the Senate, or is it possible for me to obtain a copy?

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

– I shall convey the honorable senator’s request to the Minister for Social Services and furnish him with a reply.

page 191

QUESTION

ROAD SAFETY

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

– On the 8th April, Senator Critchley directed a question to me with regard to conferences between Commonwealth and State road traffic authorities upon the question of uniform traffic laws, with a view to reducing the number of fatal road accidents in Australia and the appalling loss of life that they cause. I now have the following information in reply to the honorable senator : -

  1. The helpful and co-operative attitude on the part of all interests represented has resulted in very satisfactory progress being made at conferences of the following widely representative bodies established by the Australian Transport Advisory Council: - Australian Motor Vehicle Standards Committee,’ Australian Uniform Road Traffic Code Committee, Australian Road Safety Council. The committee dealing with vehicle standards has met on nine occasions and has completed the drafting of regulations covering essential basic vehicle provisions in such matters as maximum lengths, weights, height, carrying capacity, lighting, braking and other mechanical efficiencies. In addition to ensuring a greater safety factor, the standards will eliminate many conflicting State requirements which have had an adverse effect on design production and operating costs.
  2. Four conferences representative of all State and Commonwealth interests associated with motor vehicles use have been held. Agreement has been reached by all States and Territories on over 150 items of uniform traffic law such as penalties for major traffic offences, speed limits, right hand turns, rules at intersections, qualifications of drivers, &c. As also is the. case in respect of vehicle standards, certain of the recommendations coincide with laws already in existence in some of the States. In several instances, recommendations have been implemented -by States and Territories while others are awaiting introduction into legislation as the opportunity presents. The work of both committees ls continuing with enthusiasm. 3.. The Australian Road Safety Council continues to conduct a vigorous educational and public relations campaign on a national scale by means of newspapers, radio stations, posters, booklets, films and other media of mass communication. Fatalities ou Australian roads have progressively decreased during the past three years. In 1953 the total was 1,86:1 which was 120 less than in 1952 and 123 less than 1951. This reduction has been achieved notwithstanding that Australia’s fleet of motor vehicles has increased by more than 177,000 over the past two years and petrol consumption has jumped by 12 per cent, over the same period. The special campaign, on the theme “ Let courtesy reign on the Queen’s Highway “ conducted by Australian Road Safety Council during the Royal Tour was highly commended and the courtesy theme will be continued. In May next, the Council has convened a national conference to discuss the question of road accidents and youth. This conference will bo widely representative both geographically and technically and will be the first of its kind to be held in Australia.

page 192

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for Shipping and Transport say whether the Government has arranged to terminate the operations of the Commonwealth Handling Equipment Pool in Brisbane in the near future, and also to terminate the services of the employees engaged, with that pool?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– The answer to the honorable, senator’s question is, “ No “.

page 192

QUESTION

SECURITY

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Prime- Minister been drawn to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday, the 12th April, that within the last two weeks two Japanese boats, each of 600 or 700 tons, had been located about 45 miles west-north-west of North West Cape in Western Australia, and that with them was a fast freighter of between 6,000 and 7,000 tons? Are security measures being adopted to ensure that these vessels are on legitimate business? In view of the tragic happenings off the coast of Western Australia before World War II., when seemingly innocent Japanese pearlers were ultimately found to be engaged on much more sinister operations, is the Navy doing everything to ensure that those experiences will not be repeated ?

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

– I have not seen the report referred to by the honorable senator, but I can assure her that our security services and the defence services are fully aware of the steps necessary to protect Australia, and that those steps are being taken.

page 192

QUESTION

IRON AND STEEL

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for National Development say whether it is a fact that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited works at Newcastle have been short of scrap steel for some months and that the effect of that shortage has been to increase costs by necessitating the use of raw ores? If that is the position, will the Minister take steps to prohibit the export of scrap steel from Australia ?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The answer to the first question is, “ No “. Officers of my department are in close touch with the position and they have not reported any shortage at Newcastle. I have spoken to senior officers of the company, who have told me that they are purchasing scrap at the level at which they purchase it customarily. I agree that, if scrap were not available, production costs would rise. The permits that were granted for the export of scrap metal on a quota basis are practically exhausted. I believe the policy of exporting scrap metal on such a basis can be continued without detriment to the requirements of Australian manufacturers:

Senator KENDALL:
QUEENSLAND

– In view of the accumulation of steel at both Port Kembla and Newcastle, does the Minister- for Shipping and Transport consider that wharfage and general port facilities at those ports are adequate to cope with the increased production of steel products?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– I am not satisfied with the berthing facilities at either Newcastle or Port Kembla. As honorable members will appreciate, the control of those ports is within the jurisdiction of the New South Wales Government. It, is true that there are considerable accumulations of processed steel at the ports, and many purchasers in other States have been making inquiries about the probable dates of delivery. It is quite obvious that the loading facilities at both ports are inadequate and, in some instances, primitive. This matter has been referred to the responsible authority in New South Wales, and certain promises have been made, but I regret to inform the Senate that very little has been done to remedy the situation. It is tragic that there are not adequate loading facilities at those important ports. As the production of processed steel at both Newcastle and Port Kembla will doubtless increase enormously during the next few years, I intend to take up this matter again with the responsible authority.

page 193

QUESTION

TASMANIA

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Has the Minister representing the Prime Minister seen, the latest statistics issued by the Acting Commonwealth Statistician, which reveal big differences between income groups in New SouthWales and Victoria and those in Tasmania ? Is he aware that, although 47 of every 1,000 people in Victoria and 42 of every 1,000 people in New South Wales have incomes of over £700 a year, only 28 of every 1,000 people in Tasmania are in receipt of such incomes? In view of the position that exists in Tasmania, where the basic wage is pegged at 14s. below the cost of living index figure and the cost of living is higher than in any other State of the Commonwealth, will the Government give special consideration to tackling this pressing problem in order to give justice to the people of that State ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I have not seen the figures referred to by the honorable senator. A possible reason why incomes are lower in Tasmania than in New South Wales is that a socialist government has been in power for longer in Tasmania than in New South Wales. However, at the rate at which New South Wales is going at the moment, unless it changes its government it will, so to speak, soon catch up with Tasmania.

page 193

QUESTION

EGGS

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture say whether the Government has decided to subsidize egg producers in Australia? If it has done so, what sum has been allocated for the purpose ?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– In view of the drastic fall of the price of shell eggs that occurred during the last season, the Government has decided to make a special grant of £250,000 to the Australian egg producing industry.

page 193

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– As the distribution of millions of pounds of joint organization money earned by small woolgrowers ten years or more ago is being held up pending a decision in the Poulton case, will the Minister consult with the legal advisers of the parties resisting Mr. Poulton’s appeal to the Privy Council, and, for that matter, with Mr. Poulton’s legal advisers also, in order to ensure that the distribution of the money, or at least the major portion of it, will take place regardless of the apparent dilatoriness of Mr. Poulton in prosecuting his appeal?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– I have discussed this matter with officers of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture, who are very concerned at the delay to which the honorable senator has referred. The matter has been referred also to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, who, I am pleased to say, has resumed duty. I shall discuss the point raised by Senator Laught with the Minister at the first available opportunity.

page 193

QUESTION

CEMENT

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Supply. Is it a fact that there is an acute shortage of cement at the present time? If so, what steps does the Government propose to take to increase supplies of this most important

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I shall refer the question to the Minister for Supply and obtain a reply as soon as possible.

page 193

QUESTION

RAIL TRANSPORT

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– On the 8th April, Senator Tangney asked me a question concerning refrigerated vans on the Transcontinental Railways. I am now able to inform her that two provision stores vans are being built under contract in Sydney. The first is ready for despatch from Sydney to Port Augusta, and the second will be ready for despatch within four weeks. On arrival at Port Augusta, the vans will be fitted with necessary facilities, including refrigerators. It is expected that both vans will be in service within three months.

page 194

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator PALTRIDGE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -

  1. How many applications for war service homes finance were outstanding on 31st December, 1945, 31st December, 1953, and 31st March, 1954 (a) in Australia, and (6) in Western Australia?
  2. What has been the average monthly rate of applications in each of the post-war years (a) in Australia, and (b) in Western ‘Australia?
  3. When is it anticipated the rate of applications will have reached its peak ?
  4. At what date were war widows admitted to the scheme and for what number in each year since admission has finance been provided (a) in Australia, and (b) in Western Australia?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Minister for Social Services has supplied the following information in reply to the honorable senator’s questions : -

  1. –
  1. It is probable that the rate for 1952-53 is the peak and that this will continue for practical purposes for the next three to five years, but this will depend on the extent and nature of other finance, cost of erection and many other factors. At the end of this period there will probably be a gradual decline.
  2. War widowswere included as eligible persons in the original act and many acquired homes. In 1951 their income under the Repatriation Act were improved and this enabled those who were not able to undertake employment to accept the responsibility of homeowners. The statistical information requested is being obtained from the State branches and the senator will be advised whenit is available.

page 195

APPRENTICES

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– I lay on the table of the Senate the following paper : -

Commonwealth-State Apprenticeship Inquiry - Report of Committee, March, 1954

This committee was set up by the Minister for Labour and National Service pursuant to a decision of the Premiers’ Conference in September, 1950. The chairman of the committee was Mr. Justice Wright, and the members comprised four persons drawn from State technical education authorities, two representing employers’ associations and two representing trade unions. Copies of the report are not immediately available, but will be made available to honorable senators at a later date.

page 195

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

SenatorO’ SULLIVAN . - I lay on the table of the Senate the following paper : -

Australian National University Act - Australian National University - Report of the Council for 1952, together with financial accounts.

Honorable senators will note that the statement of income and expenditure has not been signed by the Auditor-General. It will be recalled that the AuditorGeneral has already brought this matter to the attention of the Senate in his supplementary report for the year ended the 30th June, 1953. I should like to inform the Senate that immediately the Auditor-General’s views were brought to the attention of the Council of the University, the council engaged the firm of accountants which audits the accounts of the Sydney University and, as a result, a specialist in systems control is advising the council on the form of the university stock and equipment control.

page 195

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA

– I present the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, relating to the following work: -

Proposed erection of Commonwealth Offices at Phillip-street, Sydney, New South

Wales

page 195

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1954

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 13 th April (vide page 179), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– Before examining the technical aspects of this bill, perhaps the Senate should consider the importance of superannuation in the Commonwealth Public Service. The original legislation relating to superannuation was introduced in 1922 and this is the nineteenth time that the Parliament has been called upon to consider amendments to it. The Superannuation Act compels all permanent members of the civil service to contribute to the Superannuation Fund or to make contributions under the provident sections of the act. Therefore, how this Parliament legislates in relation to superannuation must have a serious effect on every permanent officer of the Public Service. Therefore, it behoves honorable senators to be very careful in legislating on this subject and to relate the provisions of superannuation legislation to the economic times in which they live. It would be easy for honorable members, after merely glancing at the provisions of the bill, to say that it provides a fair return to civil servants for their contributions. It would be easy to take the attitude that the civil servants have to pay into the fund because there is no way that they can avoid doing so except by resigning their means of livelihood. But it should be remembered that the intention of this bill ought to be to reward members of the Public Service for having given a lifetime of service to the Commonwealth and for having forgone advantages that they might have received had they not been bound in loyalty to the service of the Commonwealth. They would be able to command high wages and good conditions, according to the economic position of the country. The public servant is bound by law to contribute to the superannuation fund and so help to provide for his own pension. At the same time, he contributes to the pensions of other members of the community, because be must pay the same rate of tax as any one else. However, because of the operation of the means test, in many instances public servants are not entitled to the age pension. It can, therefore, be seen that the public servant occupies a peculiar position in the community.

The public servants of Australia have been affected most adversely by inflation. In addition, a previous amendment of the act in 1951 had a detrimental effect on their position, as will .one of the amendments proposed by this legislation. In 1922, when the act was first introduced, the age pension was 15s. a week. At that time the unit of superannuation was worth 10s., which meant that if a public servant were contributing for one unit of superannuation he would be entitled to a pension of 10s. a week when he retired. The basic wage was then £4 a week. Today, the age pension is more than four times greater than it was then, and the basic wage is more than three times greater. The unit of superannuation, however, is worth less than twice as much as it was at that time. It appears that there has been a tendency on the part of governments to overlook the disadvantages suffered by public servants.

Senator Wright:

– Did the honorable senator say that the basic wage is now four times as much as it was in 1922 ?

Senator WILLESEE:

– No, I said that it was more than three times as much as it was then.

The bill before the Senate proposes to increase the valine of each unit of pension by 2s. 6d. a week, or from 15s. to 17s. 6d. a week. It also proposes to increase the allowance for dependant children by 2s. 6d. a week. In my opinion, those increases are not really satisfactory, having regard to the present economic situation. The act calls for a complete overhaul.

The Minister stated, in the course of his second-reading speech, that it was proposed to adjust, from £62 to £65, the nuit of salary which attracts an additional unit of pension. In 1922, when the legislation was introduced, a unit of pension had to be taken out for every £52 of salary. At that time, salaries were increased by annual increments of £12, so that when an officer’s salary had increased by £52 per annum he was obliged to take out another unit of superannuation. That provision remained .unaltered until 1951, when the act was amended by this Government to make the figure £62. Now it is proposed to amend it again. The effect will be that public servants will attain a greater age before they are able to take out additional units of superannuation. As with all insurance, the older the applicant for insurance cover, the more costly it is for him to insure. So it is with superannuation. On the higher salary ranges the position will be reached where it will be impossible for officers to .afford additional units. In 1922, a public servant who received a salary of £676 per annum would have contributed for thirteen units of pension and would have been entitled, on retirement, to a pension of £6 10s. a week. In 1947, because of the increased value of the unit, his pension would have been £8 2s. 6d. a week. In 1951, due to the amendment of the act which had the effect of increasing the unit of salary which attracts a unit of pension from £52 to £62 a year, he would then have been eligible for only ten units and would have received a pension of £7 10s. a week. After the value of the unit had been increased to 15s. in 1951, if his entitlement to thirteen units of pension had been preserved, hi3 pension would have been £9 15s. a week. When this bill becomes operative, the pension payable for ten units of superannuation will be £8 15s. a week. I think that this matter should be carefully examined when a comprehensive survey of the act is made.

Perhaps the most serious aspect of this legislation is that the entitlement of widows has not been altered since 1922. That, to me,- is .a matter of paramount importance. Although provision can be made for sickness and age, sudden death cannot be anticipated. In many instances widows are left with heavy responsibilities without warning. A public servant, with heavy commitments, such as a mortgage on his home, may die without a minute’s warning, so that the whole burden of those ‘commitments is thrown on to the shoulders of his widow. Of course, the plight of the widow of a civil servant is worse than that of other widows because her husband could not take advantage of the high pay which other workers’ ‘were able to earn in seasonal occupations: Hewas tied down to a. relatively low wage and was denied the opportunities avails able to persons outside the service:

There is another bad feature. Employees exercising their furlough rights, almost invariably decline to take their long-service leave when it falls due. They adopt the attitude that if they do not take it, the money will be available in the event of their death as a free insurance policy for the protection of the widow. In the event of death while still in the service, a lump sum is drawn. That practice is costly for the Treasury and it defeats the purposes of the Commonwealth Employees Furlough Act. If a public servant takes his long-service leave at the end of twenty years’ service when he is- in his 30’s, the cost is less to the Treasury than it is if the man dies in later years when his salary is double or even quadruple the payment that he received when he was younger. The practice also operates against efficiency because the public servants concerned do not receive the mental and physical rest that is afforded by long-service leave.

I cannot urge too strongly the need for provision to protect the widows. A study of statistics will reveal that the payments that many public servants put into the superannuation fund merely provide their widows with, sufficient income to deprive them of the widows’ pension that is payable from the National “Welfare Fund. That rankles in the minds of public servants who believe that the means test operates more harshly against them than it does against any other section of the community. I suggest to the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) that if any priority treatment is to be given,, it should be given to the widows. At present they receive half the pension that would have been payable to the husband upon his retirement under the Superannuation Act. That is only one reason why I believe there should be a general survey of the legislation and possibly a new Superannuation Act.

I had expected that many of the matters to- which I have referred would have been dealt with in the measure that is before the Senate. I have had long experience of the activities pf the Public

Service; and the. approaches that have been made through tha High Council! of Commonwealth Public Service organizations. Its work has been done intelligently and its representations have been well presented. Much preliminary work has been done through the- Public Service in Canberra. Knowing that, I expected that there would have been a more radical approach to this measure. Section 50- of the Superannuation Act makes provision for a pensioner who has been superannuated because of ill health but is subsequently brought back into the service. The right to recall such an employee is given to the Superannuation Board. If a person becomes too ill to perform his normal duties, he can be placed on superannuation, but later he may be called upon to undergo a medical examination, and if he is fit, the authorities can draft him -back into the service. That is an arbitrary provision. The Superannuation Act states -

If suitable employment is offered to him, at a salary not less than two-thirds of his salary at the time of his retirement, or at such salary as is agreed upon between him and the Public Service. Commissioner, the Board may cancel the pension and thereupon it shall cease: to be payable.

Therefore, the authorized bodies have complete direction of employment in such cases. It would be reasonable to assume that if the Superannuation Board recalled’ a person who had been superannuated for some time, the employee would be drafted back into the branch of the. service for which he was trained. If ha were an employee of the Treasury and had accountancy qualifications, one would assume that he would be drafted back into that section. But the Commonwealth Public Service Act provides that if a person is over 50 years of. age, he cannot be re-admitted to the Public Service. Therefore, the two measures are incompatible. The provision is ridiculous, but nothing has been done about it. In the Minister’s second-reading speech he stated -

A number of minor machinery amendment. are included in the bill to provide for simplification of administration of the Superannuation Act, and I propose to explain those provisions in detail when the bill is being dealt with in committee.

I hope that the Minister will do that so that honorable senators on the Opposition side will not be required to rise on every clause to seek information. I have studied several minor matters that are relevant hut they are too involved to receive attention in a second-reading speech. The Opposition is not opposing the bill, nor is it putting forward any amendments. In the dying hours of the 20th Parliament, I would be unrealistic if I asked for the bill to be withdrawn and redrafted. I hope, however, that my suggestions, and the intelligent representations that have .been made by interested organizations, will be incorporated in an amended act in the near future, so that justice will be done to a body of persons who are rendering a great service to Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

.-Clause 4 of the bill deals with the medical examination of employees. If a person upon joining the Public Service is accepted by the Public Service Board and passes a medical examination, is that a prima facie case for his admission to the provisions of the Superannuation Act?

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

– Yes. I am in some difficulty upon another matter that has been mentioned by Senator Willesee. As the honorable senator has stated, my secondreading speech was prepared in contemplation of some further explanation in committee. I assure honorable senators that I have adequate information at my disposal, but this is a technical hill, and F would be wearying the Senate if I read all the material that has been supplied to me. However, I am not certain of the particular points in which Senator Willesee may be interested.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– The Opposition is at a disadvantage. Specific reference was made to this matter in the second-reading speech of the Minister. I did not check the clauses of the bill against the act as closely as I might have done because I thought that I would have harassed the Minister by seeking detailed replies. I thought therefore that I would wait to see what those minor amendments were. I think perhaps because of the specific promise that was given in the Minister’s second-reading speech, that the explanations should be given. However, I should be satisfied if I could get copies of the explanations.

Senator Spooner:

– I am willing to make the information available to the honorable senator if that would satisfy the Senate.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– The Senate has a duty to perform. As Senator Willesee has pointed out, the Minister said in his second-reading speech that the committee stage of the bill would give an opportunity for real examination. We are all interested in what has been clone with the superannuation of public servants, and I should like the explanations to be given.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Aus tralia

– I draw the attention of the Senate to the injustice that is perpetrated upon widows of public servants. The act provides that the rate of pension payable to a widow shall be 50 per cent, of her husband’s pension. Apparently there is a belief that when a bread-winner dies, the rent of a home, rates and taxes and so on are automatically halved. The truth is, of course, that such charges remain at their former level, and the necessity to meet them out of a half pension imposes severe hardship on a widow. Domestic overhead expenses are not halved when a husband dies. I should like consideration to be given to increasing the pension payable to a widow from 50 per cent, to 62£ per cent. That would be in keeping with our own retirement benefits legislation.

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

– The Public Service superannuation scheme is, of course, actuarily based, and the act provides for the payment of a 50 per cent, pension to a widow. However, representations have been made to the Government that the pension payable to widows should be increased from one-half to five-eighths. In reply to those representations, the Government has stated that it will make a decision on them when the next actuarial investigation of the superannuation fund has been completed.

Senator Tangney:

– When is that likely to be?

Senator SPOONER:

– It was started in June, 1952, but it has not yet been completed.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

– The points that have been raised by .Senator Tangney and Senator Willesee are most important. Undoubtedly, the pension payments provided for widows and their dependants and for orphans are inadequate. I am surprised to hear that the investigation of the superannuation fund, which started in 1952, has not yet been completed. As Senator Tangney has pointed out, the overhead expenses of a household are not automatically halved on the death of a bread-winner. Half a pension is not sufficient to enable a widow to maintain a home and even five-eights of a pension would not be enough. I protest against the hardship that is being inflicted at present, and I deplore the delay in completing the investigation of the superannuation fund. I hope that steps will be taken to see that it is completed at an early date.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I have had brought to my notice the case of a government employee who has been temporarily retired on superannuation because of ill health. Although at times this man has felt fit enough to resume his employment, the government medical officer concerned has refused to give him a certificate to enable him to do so. After an absence of eighteen months, the man considered himself to be quite well enough to go back to work, but once again the medical officer would not agree to this, and advised him to remain off duty for a further six months. I should like to know whether provision could be made whereby, in such circumstances, a Commonwealth medical officer would be empowered to give an employee a certificate to enable him to draw the invalid pension in addition to his superannuation payments during his period of temporary invalidity.

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

– The honorable senator’s question involves technical considerations and I cannot answer it offhand. Frequently the citing of an individual case creates difficulties because of the terms of the relevant legislation. The honorable senator’s question relates not only to the Superannuation Act, but also to our social services legislation. He has asked, in effect, that a public servant who is temporarily retired because of illness should be given a certificate by a medical officer to enable him to qualify for benefits uncer another act of Parliament. Possibly such a case would be handled by different medical officers under the different legislation, but perhaps that would not be so because, from recollection, certificates are accepted from private practitioners under the Social Services Consolidation Act. It is not necessary for an invalid to go before a Commonwealth medical officer to obtain a pension unless objection is raised by the Department of Social Services. The department has an arrangement whereby it retains the services of medical practitioners. The way in which I am stumbling in my reply indicates the difficulty that I have in answering the question. If the honorable senator does not mind, I shall give an undertaking to ask the department concerned to write to him and explain the position.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– The Government Medical Officer would be really the only medical man fully acquainted with the physical condition of the officer in question. He would be the authority who would give the officer a certificate to qualify him for superannuation benefits, pending recovery. I am trying to establish the principle that if the Government Medical Officer gave, so to speak, the go-ahead in respect of superannuation payments, the officer concerned should be granted also an invalid pension, if he were otherwise eligible for it.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

. - Clause 3 proposes a series of amendments of section 4 of the principal act, the effect of which would be to eliminate the Gazette as the medium for the notification of certain acts. The present position, broadly speaking, is that if a person obtains full-time employment with the Public Service he is declared to he eligible to contribute to the superannuation fund, and an appropriate notification is inserted in the Gazette. I understand that the effect of the amendments proposed in clause 3 would he to eliminate the Gazette as the medium for such notifications. I assume that the Government envisages a notification in writing to the person concerned. Thousands of people contribute to the superannuation fund. I should like an assurance from the Minister that these amendments will not affect the right of those people to be informed of additions to the number of contributors, because the stability of the fund could be affected by a series of appointments.

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

– Employees of some governmental authorities which are not, strictly speaking, ,a part of the Public Service, are entitled, under certain conditions, to contribute to the superannuation fund. The present procedure is that the officer makes an appropriate application to the authority with which he is working. The authority certifies that he is employed under the prescribed conditions and that his employment will continue for, I think, at least a period of fifteen -years. Then the application is forwarded to the Minister concerned. If he decides that the officer is qualified to be a contributor^ to the superannuation fund, the decision is notified in the Gazette. The only alteration proposed of that procedure is that the notification in the Gazette shall be eliminated. The only purpose of the proposed elimination is to make the procedure less cumbersome. I do not think there is any substance in the point raised by the honorable senator that additional contributors might affect the position of the fund and, therefore, that other contributors should be notified when further contributors are admitted. The superannuation scheme is based on contributions by employee and employer, calculated actuarily. Therefore, the fund would not be affected by an increase or decrease of the number of contributors. The stability of the fund is ensured by actuarial examinations, which, speaking from memory, are made at five-yearly intervals.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– -From the actuarial point of view, that may be so, but I submit the Gazette is a very good medium for notifications that people are contributing to the superannuation fund. Notices in the Gazette serve many useful purposes. Let me give an example. If a person from outside the Public Serviceis appointed to a position in the .service after a certificate has been issued that there is no officer in the service who can do the job in question, a notification to that effect is always published in the Gazette. An appointment of that type is always a very controversial matter. Any public servant who thinks ‘he can do* the job properly can appeal against the employment of a person from outside the service, but his only source of information about the appointment is the notification in the Gazette. The effect of the amendments proposed in clause 3 may beto by-pass a very important principle. The superannuation fund can he compared with a mutual provident society. A series of additional contributors to the fund could disturb its stability. Therefore, I say it is important that all contributors should he informed of the appointment of new contributors.

Senator Wright:

– In which mutual provident society or insurance company does such a scheme apply?

Senator WILLESEE:

– In this instance, a group of people are contributing to a fund that is subsidized by the Government. One or two additional contributors would not affect the fund, but a series of new contributors might do so. I am only asking the Minister to consider the principle that is involved in this matter. The amendments propose that what is almost a legal document shall be by-passed. .The Gazette is used for thepurpose of notifying all kinds of important acts to the people of Australia.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

.. - I have never yet heard of a mutualprovident society notifying existing contributors that it proposes to accept new contributors. The people who must betrusted to safeguard the stability of the superannuation fund are the members of Parliament who review it from time totime on behalf of the Treasury, and the representatives of the Public Service.

I should like the Minister to explain the reason for the insertion in the bill of clause 29, which states that certain- persons named in the schedule shall be paid pensions at special rates. I should like to know whether those persons have been consulted on this matter. Why have they been removed from the general category of contributors?

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

, - Certain members of the defence forces who were retired prior to 1948, before they had attained the retiring age fixed for their rank, were granted special pensions. Provision has been made in the Superannuation Act from time +o time to increase those pensions, after other pensions payable under the Superannuation Act had been increased. The present amendment will enable those special pensions to be increased on the same basis as is proposed for pensioners under the act.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– Proposed new section 60aca makes provision in relation to officers who resigned from the Public Service in order to become candidates for election as a member of any House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth or of a State. As far as I can see, the only retrospective provisions of the bill relate to the increase of the value of a unit of pension by 2s. 6d. a week from the 1st January last. I point out that there are two separate kinds of contributors, namely, those who contribute for benefits under the Superannuation Act, and those who contribute for benefits from the Provident Account. The Provident Account scheme was introduced after World War II. to provide benefits for appointees who had gained technical knowledge during the war period and entered the Public Service later in life than the usual age of entry. It was not practicable to admit them to the superannuation scheme. In 1942, the Superannuation Act was amended to provide that public servants who resigned to contest an election for either the Federal ot a State parliament could, if defeated, be re-appointed to the Public Service within two months and retain their rights and privileges. The provident scheme was introduced after 1942. I understand that the bill under consideration seeks to amend the provisions of that scheme.

I have always considered that any person who wishes to stand for election to the Commonwealth Parliament, or to a State parliament, should be encouraged to do so. I therefore ask the Minister to consider back-dating the provision for the preservation of rights for two or three years, in order to safeguard the interests of the ten or twelve public servants who resigned before 1942 in order to contest an election, were defeated, and were subsequently re-appointed to the Public Service. They include men who were candidates of various political colours. Although the rights of members of the provident scheme who resign for the purpose I have mentioned will be protected henceforth, a small number of people will be penalized unless protection is granted retrospectively. When those people were re-appointed to the Public Service within two months of their defeat at an election, their contributions to the Provident Account were returned to them, and they ceased to be contributors. It would be relatively inexpensive to correct the anomaly.

Senator SPOONER (New South Wales - Minister for National Development) [12.141. - The bill puts contributors to the Provident Account on the same basis as contributors to the Superannuation Fund, and provides that the amendments shall operate retrospectively to the 80th March, 1951. Retrospective application of the provisions to that date covers the position of public servants who resigned in order to contest parliamentary elections, and subsequently returned to the Public Service.

Senator Willesee:

– The position in relation to them was examined ?

Senator SPOONER:

– Yes. The subjectmatter of the honorable senator’s representations has been covered by provisions in the legislation.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 202

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL 1954

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 13th. April (vide page 180), on motion -by Senator O’sullivan -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– The Opposition does not oppose this bill. During consideration of the Superannuation Bill 1922-1954 honorable senators engaged in a comprehensive debate on superannuation. In a way, the measure now before the chamber is complementary to that superannuation measure. In the words of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan), this bill seeks to make reasonable provision for defence personnel upon retirement, having regard to the variations in the cost of living since 1951, in order to ensure that they will receive pensions of approximately the same value as the pensions that were paid before inflation set in. The provisions of the bill apply particularly to those officers in the higher ranks who retire at 60 years of age, or close to that age, and who cannot qualify under the existing act for a pension in excess of £1,014 per annum. Under this bill, they will be able to contribute for units of pension in excess of 26, up to a maximum of 36. In the case of the Chiefs of the Naval, Military and Air Staffs, a maximum pension of £1,638 per annum will be payable. Of course, that is a substantial pension, which should be sufficient to enable those officers to maintain a standard of living approximately equivalent to the standard that they enjoyed whilst in the services. That is an excellent thing. I think that the underlying idea of our social legislation is that, when the country can afford to do so, provision should be made whereby officers approaching retirement will not be worried at the prospect of a lower standard of living. Retirement causes a tremendous break in a man’s life ; he has to re-adjust himself completely. Theoretically, a man is retired when he can no longer usefully perform the work on which he has been engaged down the years. Retirement should not entail the breaking down of the standard of living that, he has enjoyed during his working life. The Opposition does not oppose the measure.

Senator WORDSWORTH:
Tasmania

.- Although I support the bill whole-heartedy, I cannot allow this occasion to pass without making some comment, because I consider that the proposed pensions are not as favorable to servicemen as the pensions for which provision is made in the Superannuation Bill’ 1922-1954. There is a vast difference between civil public servants and service personnel; servicemen have not as much security in their employment as public servants. I speak in the light of my experience of 30 years in the defence forces, from which I have now retired. I remember on three occasions, when the strength of the forces was reduced, young servicemen were thrown onto the civilian employment market. That was a serious matter for them. After World War I. the services were reduced. That was to be expected because a war had just finished and there was no immediate prospect of another war. So men were thrown on to the civilian market from the services and they found it extremely difficult to get jobs. That happened again during the depression when the first economies were made. It happened again after World War II. It also happened in India when that country became self-governing. Hundreds of young men were thrown out of the Indian Army on to the civilian employment market and they were not fit for any civil employment.

It is not possible for a young man whose training has been specialized in the services for ten or fifteen years to be absorbed into the civilian market as soon as be leaves his service. He has been trained in destructive work, not in constructive work. No one will employ him. In view of the fact that the democracies are now seeking the reduction, if not the total abolition, of armament0, it is a wonder to me that young men still enter our services because if the democracies attain their objective the young lads at Duntroon, for instance, in five or ten years will bc thrown into the world with no profession or trade that they can use. The civilian employer will not receive them very kindly. It behoves the Parliament to allow these people to contribute at high rates for a pension which, if it does not compensate them for dismissal, will at least allow them to enjoy a. certain amount of financial stability. The rates of pension that have been provided for service personnel do not correspond very favorably with the rates of superannuation for public servants. A lieutenant-colonel in the Army and corresponding ranks in the Navy and Air Force, for instance, will receive a pension on retirement of £665 a year. The rank of lieutenant-colonel is the average rank at which army officers retire because the higher one goes in the Army the more quickly the neck of the bottle narrows. For every six lieutenantcolonels there is only one brigadier and for every ten brigadiers there is only one major-general. So the chances of getting to the top are remote. The efficiency of the services demands that men be retired at an early age. At the end of the war the age for the retirement of a lieutenantcolonel was 50 years. It is a miserable prospect for a man to be sent out into the world with a pension of £665 a year at the age of 50.

Senator Wright:

– It would do me.

Senator WORDSWORTH:

– I think that Senator Wright would be the last person on earth to accept such a pension at that age. An able seaman or a private, after twenty years service will receive a pension of £155 a year. That is very little, and he will have contributed a lot of it. It would be all right if he were a tradesman, but he is an unskilled worker whose country has had the best of his service. I maintain that he is not treated as well as the ordinary public servant. I suggest that when the Minister is reviewing this legislation in the future he should give more consideration to servicemen.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 203

ROYAL COMMISSION BILL 1954

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill follows upon the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) in the House of Representatives last evening. Since 1913, after the Privy Council had delivered a judgment upon the validity of certain aspects of the Royal Commission Act 1902, particularly in regard to the compellability of witnesses, it has been the practice of the Commonwealth Parliament to pass a specific act in respect of each royal commission appointed by it. This measure is in substantial conformity with that practice. Clause 3 of the bill clearlyexpresses the reasons for the measure, and I commend it to the Senate.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– The Opposition agrees with the purpose of this bill and will support it. However, there are one or two matters about which I wish to speak before the measure becomes law. First, I think that I should state in the Senate the views expressed by the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) last night, because they sum up the attitude of honorable senators on this side of the chamber in the matter. The right honorable gentleman stated that the Federal Parliamentary Labour party would support the fullest inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and the matters contained in, or relevant to, that statement. He said that if any person in Australia had been guilty of espionage or seditious activities, a Labour government would ensure that he was prosecuted according to law. He pointed out that not only has that been established Labour party policy, but also, that the Australian Labour party has acted strictly in accordance with that policy. The right honorable gentleman concluded by saying that a Labour government would see to it that no guilty person would escape and no innocent person be condemned, but that the whole matter would be dealt with free of all questions of party politics, and in accord.ance with the established principles of British justice.

The Prime Minister stated that this was a non-party political problem and would be approached as such. In the light of that statement, the Opposition wishes -to stress the importance of consulting the Leader of the Opposition at aM stages of the development of this, royal commission.

Senator Guy:

– The Prime Minister promised to do that.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Yes, but the point I wish to make is that something should be done to honour that promise. The terms of reference of the royal commission should be drawn up after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, and. the appointment of a royal commissioner should be decided in a similar manner. After all, security continues from government to government. In the past it was the understood thing that the- Leader of the Government should inform the Leader of the Opposition of important: and1 confidential security matters. I remember that when we’ first separated the present security organization from the body which operated under the Attorney-General’s Department, we obtained the services of specialists from the United Kingdom to advise us: Some of those specialists stayed in this country for many months. I remember particularly th.it one gentleman was here for almost eighteen months advising the Commonwealth on the establishment of this organization which became personally responsible to the Prime Minister. In those days we adopted the attitude that all political’ parties in this Parliament were undivided on questions of internal security. We appreciated that it was of tremendous importance that such matters should’ not be confined to the leaders of the Government, but should also be known to the- leaders of the Opposition, in order that there might be continuity of action against’ subversive elements in the community.

I cannot help wondering whether the publicity given to this matter has not come forward too rapidly. I sincerely hope that, the good sense and training, of the security people would have led them to garner all the information which they needed before the matter was announced publicly. If they did not do so, I suggest that it will not be possible to secure such information in the future in order to obtain criminal convictions against the persons named in the documents, because all the evidence will have been destroyed. I hope that the great opportunity which has been presented’ to Australia to clean out espionage has not been lost because of a too-precipitate action by the security people and the Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative..

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

page 204

PATENTS BILL 1954

Bill returned from House of Representatives with an amendment.

In committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ amendment) :

Clause 4 -

Section one hundred and seventy-seven of the Principal Act is amended by omitting paragraph (a) and inserting in its stead, the following paragraphs : - “ (aa) making’ provision for and in relation to appeals to the Appeal Tribunal from decisions of the Commissioner in relation to applications for amendment made under’ regulations made by virtue of the last preceding paragraph; “.

Souse of Representatives’ amendment -

Omit proposed paragraph (ora), insert the following paragraphs : - ” (aa) making provision for and in relation to the amendment of a patent for the purpose of correcting a clerical error or an obvious mistake; “ (06) making provision for and in relation to appeals to the Appeal Tribunal from decisions of the Commissioner in relation to applications for amendment made under regulations made by virtue of either of the last two preceding paragraphs; “.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Honorable senators will recollect that the bill which was passed by the Senate last week was designed to clarify the powers of the Commissioner of Patents to amend documents which pass through that office. After the bill passed through this chamber, attention was drawn, by some professional people interested in the matter, to the fact that the new bill did not expressly authorize the Commissioner of Patents to make amendments of patents themselves in cases where mistakes occurred as the result of clerical error or by reason of some other obvious mistake. The sole purpose of this amendment is to make it quite clear that regulations can be passed to authorize the Commissioner of Patents to amend a patent, but only when the amendment is called for by reason of clerical error oran obvious mistake.It seems desirable that that should be expressly stated inthe statute.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– The Opposition has no objection to this amendment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 205

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILIZATION (REFUND OF CHARGE) BILL 1954

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaMinister for Shipping and Transport · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is intended to authorize a refund to wheat-growers of the amount collected through an export tax on wheat shipped abroad from the 1951-52 wheat crop. Interest, which has been earned by the investment of these moneys, will be included in the amount to be refunded to growers. The refund will complete the operation of No. 15 pool, which included the wheat from the 1951-52 crop.

The tax on wheat exported from No. 15 pool was £9,166,000, and the tax proceeds were paid into the Wheat Prices

Stabilization Fund. This is a trust fund which was created to provide the money needed to meet any liability to wheatgrowers arising from the Commonwealth guarantee under the Wheat Stabilization Plan. The fund now holds only the amount collected from No. 15 pool, since refunds of tax to earlier pools have been made from time to time, and the tax collections in relation to the 1952-53 crop were suspended. The moneys in the fund were collected in terms of the Wheat Export Charge Act 1948. Under that act a charge was imposed on all wheat exported from Australia during, and after, the 1947-48 season. The maximum rate of tax was 2s. 2d. a bushel on the wheat, or wheat equivalent, exported, and as export prices remained high during the time in which the act was operating, the maximum rate applied to the wheat, now concerned, in No. 15 pool.

The Australian Wheat Board was the exporter of the wheat from the pool, and so was responsible for the payment of the export charge on wheat. It was responsible also, for payment of the charge applicable to the wheat content of flour exported from the pool because of the selling arrangement between the board and the flour millers. Under that arrangement, the board received the full export value of wheat used in the production of export flour; and the board then assumed the liability for the charge on the wheat equivalent of the flour exported. As a result, the tax on the 1951-52 wheat crop was met from the funds of No. 15 pool, and the payments from the pool to the wheat-growers were diminished in order to pay it. The wheatgrowers, therefore, provided the money which went into the Stabilization Fund out of the returns from the export sales of growers’ wheat. They did so through the Wheat Board, which, after selling the growers’ wheat, was obliged to divert part of the proceeds to the Treasury so as to form the trust fund.

There are two points of policy which have been declared on behalf of the Government time and time again. The first policy point was that the Government would not retain the money of the wheat-growers without their approval. The second point was that the Government would legislate for an extended wheat stabilization plan if that plan were approved by polls of wheat-growers, after the necessary agreement on details had been reached by the Australian governments.

In fact, no plan to extend wheat stabilization has been submitted to wheatgrowers. Failure on one detail, the fixing of the local price, and the refusal of the Victorian Government to agree with the other States on that detail, has prevented the growers from having a vote on an extended plan although all the other details of the plan have been agreed upon in the Australian Agricultural Council.

The Australian Government considered that it was desirable for the £9,000,000 in the old stabilization fund to be retained for the new plan. However, the Government has said this money should not and would not be withheld from growers for an unreasonable period. In these circumstances the Commonwealth Government announced last October that its undertaking not to retain the £9,000,000 indefinitely without the approval of wheat-growers, expressed through ballot,, could only be honoured if the matter were dealt with during the life of the present Parliament. Speaking for the Government, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture said at that time: first, that these moneys would be retained until the 31st March, 1954, giving six months for the States to reach agreement amongst themselves for a homeselling price and to conduct the ballot, and secondly, that if by that date a ballot had been conducted, and a stabilization scheme rejected by growers, or, if by that date a ballot had not been conducted by the States, then the Commonwealth would legislate to return the £9,000,000 to the growers.

The Government set a limit to the time within which the approval of the growers to the retention of their money could reasonably be sought. That time has passed and the Government now returns the money. Notwithstanding the repayment of the £9,000.000, the Government does not want to see the future security of the wheat industry prejudiced by the failure of the Victorian Government to date, to agree on the one outstanding detail of the stabilization plan. Consequently, the Commonwealth offer con- cerning the Commonwealth part in a stabilization plan still stands. The Australian Government will guarantee a return to growers of cost of production on 100,000,000 bushels of wheat exported in each year of the fiveyear plan; the growers’ contribution to the stabilization fund will be limited to a maximum of £20,000,000 which will come from an export tax, imposed when export values exceed cost of production and at a maximum rate of ls. 6d. per bushel.

The Australian Government is accordingly willing to legislate for this, its part of stabilization, if growers have approved the plan by ballot. This offer of the Government to stand by its previus promise under the Australian Agricultural Council plan cannot be held open indefinitely as the plan itself includes the crop recently harvested.

The passage of this bill will ensure the return to growers of ‘their £9,000,000 within the life of the present Parliament.

Debate (on motion by Senator Sheehan ) adjourned.

page 206

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE BILL 1954

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 13th April (vide page ISO), on motion by Senator McLeay -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– It is remarkable that a bill as important as the Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill, with so many implications, should have been introduced into the Senate so late in the life of the Twentieth Parliament. The Opposition would like to have had a wide debate on the measure because many aspects of the stevedoring industry might have been discussed under the heading of this bill. With that in mind, I move as an amendment to the motion for the second reading -

That all words after “ that “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - before this House gives final approval to the bill, there shall be appointed an investigating authority vested with power to report to Parliament as to the subject-matter of the bill, and especially as to the precise effect the proposed reduction will have upon (iti shipping freights, and (6) the efficient perform- ance by the Stevedoring Industry Commission of its functions and powers in relation to the provision of port and harbour facilities relating to shipping and stevedoring and to the provision of adequate amenities for those employed in or about the industry of stevedoring.”

The Opposition puts forward that amendment because it will give honorable senators on this side an opportunity to discuss a number of matters that are tremendously important to the stevedoring industry in Australia. The history of the stevedoring industry is well known. The Labour Government, in which Senator Ashley was the Minister concerned, had the responsibility of setting up the Stevedoring Industry Commission. That commission was set up because the waterfront industry had for years been a difficult one. It had been difficult because the men in the industry were working under conditions that were disgraceful in this modern age.

Mr. Justice Higgins said years ago that it was a turbulent industry. Such industries create trouble because men worthy of their salt will fight against unfair conditions and demand that they be placed on the level of other citizens. For many years, waterfront workers throughout Australia were in a had situation. The first movement forward was made in 1940. In the dying days of the Menzies Government of that period, I accompanied Mr. W. M. Hughes and Mr. Beasley, who was then the honorable member for “West Sydney, along the waterfront. Mr. Beasley was particularly affected because a large section of the waterfront area was in his electorate. We investigated the conditions under which labour was employed along the Sydney waterfront aud found it to be disgraceful.

Men lined the footpaths waiting for the foreman to select gangs for work. It was like a sheep sale. A foreman would pick out a man here and there until he had all he wanted. Then the men would scramble for the next doorway in a further search for employment. Starting time3 varied. Men who had not been selected at one end of Sussex-street would run to the other end seeking work, and those who missed there would run a mile across Pyrmont Bridge to another section of the waterfront. It was a degrading spectacle. Mr. Hughes gave some hope that a proper picking-up place would be established, but that Government was defeated and the succeeding Labour Government then began to establish conditions on the waterfront that enabled the men to apply for work in some semblance of comfort. Pick-up points were established at Pyrmont, Sussex-street and Miller’s Point, and a big step forward was taken.

The Stevedoring Industry Commission was set up and an endeavour was made to raise the standard of waterside employment. One objective was to remove the casual nature of the work as far as possible so that those who were engaged on the waterfront would have a stake in the community. An endeavour was made to bring peace to an industry that had had a troubled history. The standard of living and the conditions of waterside workers have improved considerably during the past ten years. However, there is still room for improvement. The Stevedoring Industry Commission has been responsible for some improvements. It set out to improve amenities and to provide a decent standard of living for waterside workers.

Apart from the human element, another great problem of the waterfront throughout Australia arose from the nature of the wharf facilities. That problem is too big for the States to handle. Only the Australian Government, with its preponderence of the national revenue, can move into that field to lift standards to modern levels. Senator Kendall asked a question in this chamber regarding the wharf facilities at Port Kembla and Wollongong and, in effect, suggested that one of the reasons for the lag in the export of steel from those places was the out-of-date nature of the port facilities there. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) admitted that that was so. On some wharfs, waterside workers could not use fork lifts in Sydney because the decking was so bad that it was more convenient to use the old two-wheeled trolley. When the first ships were operating in the Mediterranean in the earliest days of civilization, I have no doubt that the first piece of equipment that was conceived to move cargo was a trolley of. construction similar to those that are used on the Australian waterfront to-day. Unless wharf facilities permit the use of modern equipment, delays will continue. For too long the waterside workers have been blamed for many of these troubles. Several independent reports have been obtained in the last year or two, and they have shown that the waterside workers are the least factor in the slow turn-round of shipping. The problem is a big one because every day that a ship is delayed is a debit against the national economy. Every delay is reflected in rising freights and higher costs to everybody. The trouble does not end with the loading or the unloading of cargoes. “When the private shipper tries to take delivery of his goods from the wharf he finds great congestion. Goods that should be cleared in three or four hours frequently lie on the wharfs for two or three days. This is an important problem, and one which could be tackled if the Government were to accept the amendment that I have moved. The actual cost to the community of the outdated facilities on our waterfront cannot be assessed. But outmoded machinery is not confined to the wharfs, and we should ensure that ships built in this country are provided with the most modem cargo handling equipment because a properly equipped ship with efficient winches, cranes and other tackle, can often overcome bad wharf facilities. Our waterfront problem is one of the most serious confronting us to-day. We can no longer shelve our responsibility by saying that it is a State, problem. It is too big for the States with their restricted finance. It is a problem that should be tackled by the States and by the Commonwealth hand in hand. At the Port of Newcastle, for instance, the problem of loading and unloading cargo and keeping the wharfs free is tremendous as any honorable senator who has a. knowledge of the Newcastle waterfront will agree. But the cost of reorientating the wharfs would be substantial. So, I appeal to the Australian Government to be generous in its attitude to this problem. It is more than a State problem. It is a truly national problem.

I come now to shipping freights. According to a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), the reduction of the stevedoring industry charge from lid. a man-hour, to 6d. a man-hour should have enabled shipowners to reduce freight charges between Sydney and Melbourne by 2s. a ton. I remind the Senate that the charge applies not only to inter-State shipping, but also to overseas shipping and that the overseas companies too will enjoy the benefit of the reduced levy. The history of this Government’s inaction in the face of constantly increasing freight charges is sad. Instead of making sure that the benefit conferred by the reduced charge would be passed on, the Government has adopted a negative attitude. In effect, it has said “ We have reduced the levy on the shipowners; now we sincerely hope that the shipowners will pass on all of it in reduced freights “. But the reduction of freight charges has not been 2s. a ton as forecast by tha Prime Minister, but only ls. 6d. a ton. If there is one industry that can afford to reduce its charges, it is the shipping industry.

The overseas companies have discriminated unfairly against Australia in the fixing of freight charges. Within the last few months, the international shipping lines have increased their freight charges on the Australian run by 7^ per cent., but there has been no increase of freight charges to and from New Zealand and South Africa. The latter country is of course a very strong competitor with Australia in international trade, and the differentiation in freight charges means that the South African shipper can land his goods in Malaya for half the charge that is imposed on Australian goods. In a letter that the Minister for Shipping and Transport sent to me some months ago he admitted that whereas in 1949 Australia had 42 per cent, of the canned food trade with Malaya, we now have only 7 per cent. One of the main reasons for that reduction is the fact that freight charges are loaded against us. The action of the shipping companies is indefensible. They cannot justify the tremendous difference between freight rates in Australian services and those in services to other parts of the world. For instance, although Holland is three times as far from Hong Kong as Australia is, Dutch goods, mostly milk products, can be landed at that port cheaper than similar Australian products, mainly because the Dutch shippers have to pay only 60 per cent. of the freight charge that has to be met by Australian exporters.

Senator Henty:

– Ships are loaded at a reasonable rate in Holland.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I have just dealt with that point. Perhaps the ships are loaded a little faster in Holland than they are here, but surely the honorable senator will not seriously try to tell us that that factor alone enables the shipping lines to charge Dutch shippers only 60 per cent. of the freight charged to Australian exporters although Holland is three times as far from Hong Kong as Australia is. Such a suggestion does not add up in terms of common sense. The Minister for Shipping and Transport admitted that he has pleaded with the British Conference Lines for a reduction of freight charges, but that those shipowners had merely said, “ We are sorry, but we cannot do it”. The Government has approached this problem as if it were something completely outside its control and influence. But there is something that the Government can do about it. It can retain its own shipping line. While that line exists, it will stand as a barrier against the privateers or buccaneers of the shipping combine. British Maritime history makes interesting reading. The greatest pages of that history were written in the days of Drake, Hawkins and Frobisher. Apparently the descendants of those buccaneers are still in the maritime industry; but they do not go to sea in ships. They do their pirating in some little back street in the heart of London. Instead of preying on the Spanish galleons carrying gold for the Americas, they prey on the Australian public and anything that Drake, Hawkins and Frobisher may have got from the Spanish ships is nothing compared with what the British merchantile leaders of to-day are reaping from the Australian trade by making us pay too much in freight charges. The Australian Government must remain in the shipping industry if the depredations of overseas shipowners are to be checked. After all there are individual men in other countries who own whole shipping lines.For instance the Flotto Lauro line in Italy is owned by one man. Then there is Willi Wilhelmsen, who has been sending his Swedish ships to Sydney for the last 30 years. He is the sole owner of the line. Yet Australia as a country has no shipping of its own in the international trade.

It is time we realized that we are growing up. It is true that the growth has been somewhat retarded in the last four years, but we shall continue to grow up in spite of the Government, and we must take the responsibility of handling these tremendously important undertakings if we feel that the Australian people are not getting a reasonably fair go from international shipowners. It is not right that the Government should stand back and say that it cannot do anything. A statement should be made, not by a junior Minister or even by the Minister for Shipping and Transport, but by the Prime Minister himself on behalf of the Government stating unequivocally that, under no conditions, will the Commonwealth shipping line be sold. It is the oneprotection we have left against the privateers and we must not let it go. I have moved my amendment in the hope that it will give us an opportunity to discuss this matter at much greater length. We want to be convinced that the reduction of this statutory charge will not result in a lessening of amenities on the waterfront. Indeed, those amenities must be increased if we are to bring the waterfront industry up to the. level of other Australian industries and if the turbulence that has characterized waterfront employment for so many years is to give way to peace and contentment.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

.- I support the amendment. An examination of the Stevedoring Industry Act of 1949 reveals that the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board has certain statutory functions. Section 13 of the act provides -

The function of the Board shallbe -

topay attendance money to waterside workers;

to establish and administer employment bureaux for waterside workers;

to provide first-aid equipment, medical attendance, ambulance facilities, rest rooms, sanitary and washing facilities, canteens, cafeteria, dining rooms and other amenities for waterside workers;

The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) did not inform us in his second-reading speech of the general condition of the amenities provided for waterside workers throughout Australia, nor did he indicate whether the fund from which attendance money is paid was sound. Surely a Minister, when introducing a measure providing for a reduction of this statutory charge, should have produced actuarial evidence that the fund is in a position to meet all claims that are likely to be made on it for attendance money. He might also have given us some idea of the conditions that are likely to exist on the Australian waterfront in future. That is very important. I should think that it would be necessary to have at least £100,000 in the fund to meet any trend that may occur towards unemployment on the waterfront. While it is probable that imports to this country will increase between now and the end of June, and that the shipping industry therefore will be brisk, after that period we may be faced with a degree of unemployment on the waterfront. I should like to know from the Minister what will be the position of the waterside workers if there is insufficient money in the fund to meet claims for attendance money. I remind the Senate that the money in the fund does not come from Consolidated Revenue. The Stevedoring Industry Board must maintain the fund. The position of waterside workers in relation to payments for periods of idleness is unique. Other workers are entitled to the unemployment benefit when they are out of work. Attendance money is for waterside workers synonomous with the unemployment benefit provided under the Social Services Consolidation Act for other workers. Money for the payment of social services benefits is provided from Consolidated Revenue. I should like the Minister to elaborate this point, because it is most important to the waterside workers.

I am not convinced that satisfactory amenities for waterside workers have been provided at all ports. I can speak only of the amenities in Queensland, which I have had an opportunity to examine. I have seen all the amenities blocks provided for waterside workers between Brisbane and Cairns. I should say that the amenities in Queensland can properly be described as patchy. In some instances, the amenities are good, but in others they are only fair. Th-i blocks are not being maintained in a proper condition. They should be painted regularly and improved. From time to time, we hear of stabilization plans for primary industries, but the employment of waterside workers has not been stabilized. They are paid only for the time during which they are actually engaged, and they may go for several weeks without employment. Between 1930 and the outbreak of the second World War, there was grave unemployment on the waterfront throughout Australia, and that could occur again. I support the amendment. I believe a full investigation should be made to ascertain the condition of the * amenities provided for waterside workers throughout Australia and also to assess the ability of the fund to pay attendance money in the future.

Senator SEWARD (Western Australia) [3.3 . - I regret the haste with which this bill is being considered. It is reminiscent of what occurred in previous years. Last year, a similar bill was introduced into the Senate at about 5 a.m. on the last day of the session, when there was not time to consider it in detail. This bill is being rushed through the Senate to-day. I. direct the attention of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) to the fact that we have not yet received the last report of the Stevedoring Industry Board, which would guide us in the consideration of the measure. Last year, when the Government proposed to raise the levy from 4d. to lid., I said I was inclined to move that the figure be 6d. I cited figures to show that the sum raised by a 6d. levy would bo ample to pay the attendance money fixed by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. That has been borne out by the fact that now we are being asked to agree to a reduction of the levy to 6d.

The Minister, in his second-reading speech, has said that there is £300,000 in hand to pay for amenities. Apparently, a large sum was raised by the levy of lid. imposed last year. It is all very well to say we have ?300,000 in hand for amenities, but I recall an occasion when a representative of the Stevedoring Industry Board called on the manager of the Fremantle Harbour Trust and said he wanted to look at the amenities provided at that port. When he had seen them, he told the manager of the trust that he was not satisfied with them. When the manager asked what he proposed to do about it, he said, “ It is not our -job to provide ameniities. We have no property on which to erect amenity blocks “. If that is so, why on earth does the Board want this ?300,000? The whole thing is shrouded in secrecy.

I do not propose to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), and 1 want to say also that I shall not support bills of this nature in future if they are rushed through the Senate in a manner that does not give us time to consider them properly. I do not think we have been given enough time to consider this bill. It was introduced last night and it is being discussed to-day. Honorable senators have many duties to perform, and it is not always convenient or possible for them to study bills overnight. We should be given time to study all measures properly, so that the Senate can be what it is supposed to be, a house of review.

I have great sympathy with the waterside workers in many ways. I think they are entitled to proper conditions, as are any workers. I said last year, and I say again now, that the proper way in which to deal with this problem is to give the waterside workers a yearly wage. We cannot expect men to be content if they are working to-day and are unemployed to-morrow. Most waterside workers have wives and families to support. If they were paid a yearly wage and had security of employment, I venture to say there would be no need for attendance money. Their services would be available at all times, and ships would come to Australian ports in greater numbers than at present. I urge the Government to consider that proposition.

Senator Armstrong referred to the turnround of ships and methods of loading. In a previous speech in this chamber, I cited a classic example of loading methods at Fremantle. When I was on a Peninsular and Orient liner last year,’ I noticed the loading methods used in Port Adelaide. The men were loading sheepskins for nearly a whole day. Three bundles of skins were put in a sling. That was atrocious. Fancy putting three bundles of sheepskins in a sling that could hold nine or twelve bundles! If the slings had been loaded fully, probably the time taken to load the ship would have been halved. That is one of the things that requires investigation. There is no trouble at Port Adelaide about the use of fork lift trucks. The wharf from which the sheepskins were being loaded was quite good, and the men were using motor vehicles to shift the bundles of skins. It was simply a matter of tipping the bundles from a vehicle into a sling and putting them into the ship. If we settled the problem of continuity of employment on the waterfront to the satisfaction of the waterside workers, we could consider methods of increasing the rate of loading.

I want to investigate how the money raised by this levy last year has been spent, but I have been unable to do so because the report of the Stevedoring Industry Board has not been supplied to us. Last year, I explained that the administrative costs of the board had risen from 33 per cent, of total revenue in 1947-48 to 78 per cent, in 1951-52. I maintain that a great deal of this money is used to defray administrative costs.

Senator Ashley:

– What has this Government been doing?

Senator SEWARD:

– Never mind what the Government has been doing. I am concerned with what the Stevedoring Industry Board has been doing. If we were to abolish the board and give the waterside workers employment on a proper basis, bringing them into contact with the employers instead of permitting the board to come between the two parties, I think we should get far better results. I should like to know what percentage of the money raised by the levy last year has been eaten up by administrative expenses. Prior to this year, the sum spent on administrative expenses was greater than that spent on attendance money.

As I have already said, the board has £300,000 in hand for the provision of amenities. Senator Benn said he had examined the amenities provided in Queensland, and the best he could say was that they were patchy. Therefore, it is obvious that some are good and some are bad. That being so, I think £300,000 is a very large sum to hold in hand to bring patchy amenities up to a proper standard. I do not think very much money would be spent at Fremantle. The Government was over-optimistic when it insisted upon the imposition of a levy of 11½d. last year. That levy raised more money than was necessary, and now we are asked to agree to reduce it to 6d. A levy of 6d. may be too low or too high. We cannot say, because we have not got the report of the board before us. We cannot give proper consideration to the matter without it.

I shall support this bill, but I should have to consider carefully whether I should support another bill of this nature next year if it were rushed through the Senate in the closing stages of a session, when there was not sufficient time to consider it properly.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– This bill concerns the very important question of freight charges. As a result of the reduction of the levy, a small benefit will accrue to us in connexion with interstate freight charges. My support of the measure is governed by the fact that it proposes a reduction of a levy that was imposed last year at a rate that has not been justified. I am pleased that the levy is to be reduced from ll£d. to 6d. I am impelled by what my friend and colleague, Senator Seward, has said to refer to the fact that the accounts of the Stevedoring Industry Board for the year that ended on the 30th June, 1953, reveal that the revenue raised by the levy imposed in that year was £1,143,000, compared with £550,000 in the preceding year. Iti the same period, the administrative expenses of the board rose from £231,000 to £336,000, an increase of over £100,000. In that period, expenditure on attendance money increased from £301,000 to £775,000. It is apparent that the board is increasing its administrative’ expenses to a degree which, I hope, will impel the Senate eventually to undertake a complete examination of its activities. One passage in the second-reading speech of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) seemed to me to imply that the board would be continued in existence indefinitely. I hope that very serious consideration will be given to its activities.

Senator Armstrong’s remarks about overseas freights were really amusing. He asked us to accept a suggestion that an Australian shipping line could compete with the overseas vessels that provide shipping services to Australia. I wonder whether Senator Armstrong has studied the shipping history of this country between 1920 and 1930. During that period, there was an outcry about the increased freight charges that overseas companies had to impose to cater for the Australian trade. We reached a position where organized shipping lines were exposed to competition from, so to speak, catchascatchcan vessels operated by shipping companies that did not ordinarily cater for the Australian trade. Just before the Bruce-Page Government left office, a conference was convened of exporting interests, importing interests and shipping companies. The conference came to the conclusion - a conclusion that has been maintained steadfastly from then until now - that only by regularizing our overseas shipping trade could we obtain the most economical and efficient service for this country, without which we could not live. There was such a great degree of unanimity of opinion among all political parties on the matter that the proposals that the Bruce-Page Government had prepared to give effect to the recommendations and decisions of that conference were adopted by the Scullin Government when it came into office. Hansard records that Mr. J. H. Scullin moved an amendment to the Australian Industries Preservation Act, designed to prohibit anything in the nature of a combine applying to theagreement which still controls overseas shipping. The effect of the agreement has been that any element of force that has arisen from a combination of ship- , ping interests has been matched evenly, , by the exporter and importer interests in this country. I have been impelled to inject this comment into the debate in order to rebut the immature and ungrownup observations of Senator Armstrong. It is time that he grew up.

The Australian Labour party hopes that the Australian Stevedoring industry Board will be retained as the body charged with the responsibility of providing proper port facilities. The board’s report for last year shows that its expenditure on administration was £336,358 from revenue of approximately £1,100,000. I hope that the Government will take early opportunity to consider whether or not this Commonwealth body should provide waterside amenities. This is a fatuous objective, in view of the fact that the ports are owned and governed by State organizations and local marine boards. I hope that the Government will consider a proposal under which additional finance would be granted to those organizations for the specific purpose of enabling them to provide port amenities. Only then will the conditions under which wharf labourers work, and go to and from their work, be improved. [ am sure that this is an objective with which we all are in sympathy. I support the bill, because it will effect a reduction, of taxation. However, I hope that my remarks will not be construed as a signal for the continuation of this legislation, but as a plea for its reconsideration.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

. -I support the bill, because I agree with Senator “Wright that conditions on the’ waterfront are unsatisfactory. If this bill does not become law, I imagine that the Government will allow the position to drift from bad to worse. Does it not realize that there is a continuing conflict of opinion on whether the Government itself, or private shipping monopolies, should control the shipping industry? Up to date, the private shipping monopolies have called the tune, but the Government has hesitated to accede to their wishes because the Commonwealth still owns ships. “While this struggle for economic supremacy is going on, the Government must either take a stand against the shipping monopolies, or submit to their dictation, because ultimately, financial supremacy leads to political supremacy.

I shall refer now to the conditions of employment of waterside workers. As I was employed in that industry in the port of Fremantle some years ago, I have a good knowledge of the subject. I support the remarks that have been made by Senator Armstrong. In those days the waterside workers were treated as cattle. The right to decide whether or not they should be permitted to earn a livelihood reposed in one man, who selected men at random. Those who were not selected for a certain job were forced to endure conditions of semistarvation until the stevedores and shipowners were prepared to concede to them the right to work. To a degree, similar conditions prevail on the waterfront to-day. It is true that the conditions of employment of waterside workers have improved, but their employment is still subject to the consent of those who control shipping. If it does not suit the convenience of those . people to employ certain waterside workers, they are not employed. It was to meet this situation that the system of paying appearance money was introduced. This payment is a small measure of compensation to the waterside workers for the inconvenience and humiliation to which they are subjected.

I point out that the bill effects a reduction of the rate of charge. It does not necessarily follow that shipping freights will be reduced, because the shipping monopoly has a motto “ Minimum cost - maximum profits”. The lower the cost, the less does the worker receive. I believe that the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board’s reserve funds, amounting to between £300,000 and £500,000, should be expended on the provision of amenities, because there is room for considerable improvement of the conditions of waterside employment. The environment in which men work has an important bearing on their efficiency. If the conveniences and other facilities provided for them are obsolete, they do not put forth their best . effort. During the war period, I was. the Minister in charge of Aircraft Production in the previous Labour Government. I know from my experience in that capacity that when improved amenities were provided for workers in that field they increased their productive effort.

From time to time, the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) has attributed unrest on the waterfront to Communist influence. That is not true. The application of theory, in the absence of practical experience, is futile. I am sure that if the Minister were to study the conditions of the waterfront at first hand, he would change his views on the matter. I am convinced that, as a mouthpiece for the Government, the Minister loses no opportunity to air his prejudices. I consider that the waterside workers are entitled to the best possible working conditions. No opportunity should be lost to improve their amenities. Experience in all industries has shown that the best results are obtained from the men engaged on essentia] work only when they are happy in their environment. Waterside workers should be provided with protective clothing when handling commodities such as superphosphate, cement and lamp-black. The statement in connexion with waterfront employment that was issued recently by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) was misleading. The waterside workers are engaged in a key industry, and they perform essential work. In times of war, or other emergency, the nation depends on them to a greater degree than it does upon Ministers of the Crown and members of the white-collar brigade.

Senator KENDALL:

– Will the honorable senator explain why it was necessary for the Army to establish a docks operating company during World War II.?

Senator CAMERON:

– Senator Kendall should realize that much depends on management. If management ensures that the employees are properly treated, there is seldom any trouble; troubles arise only when the workers are treated as inferiors. When I was connected with a waterside workers organization, I never attributed improper motives to the employers unless the charge was warranted. I always tried to appeal to the better side of their nature. Likewise, when a strike occurred amongst the aircraft production workers, I spoke to them on a man-to-man basis. I found that, by extending to the workers the consideration to which they were entitled, a ready response from them was forthcoming. When the Government realizes that it is necessary to understand human engineering in the same way as we understand mechanical engineering then it will get the results that it wants. The Government is making a grievous mistake. If it understood the relationship between cause and effect its approach to these problems would be very different from that which is reflected in this bill. Anyhow, it is the Government’s responsibility and the Opposition supports the measure.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

.- I shall reply only briefly to the debate as the Senate has a big pro- . gramme to deal with. Senator .Seward said that more time should have been allowed for the discussion of this bill. I agree with him. But extraordinary circumstances have obtained during the present session of the Parliament. Under the Constitution, a general election , must be held shortly, and, as a result, it has been necessary to expedite our business. However, if honorable senators seek information as to how this money has been spent and what has happened during the last year, I invite them to examine the annual report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board for the period ended the 30th June, 1953. The report reveals that attendance money paid during that period amounted to £775,000. Import restrictions had a serious effect on the quantity of cargo carried during the financial year, and this necessitated the payment of increased attendance money. During the period mentioned, £39,714 was expended on amenities. Administrative expenses amounted to £336,357, making a total expenditure of £1,151,366. As import restrictions have been removed and conditions have improved, the amount paid in attendance money has decreased enormously and it is anticipated that if the levy mentioned in the bill is reduced from Hd. to 6d. it will provide sufficient funds to pay all charges. I assure Senator Benn, on behalf of the Government, that if there was not sufficient money in the fund to pay attendance money the Government would provide the necessary finance.

In spite of Senator Cameron’s appreciation of my ability, I have been very closely associated with shipping and shipping interests generally during the last four and a half years. I have no hesitation, therefore, in making the general statement that one of the reasons for the slow turn-round of ships and the low loading rate is that waterside workers are controlled by a Communist-dominated union executive in Sydney. Ninety per cent, of the members of the union are decent Australian Labour men. I do not think that there is one honorable senator in this chamber who is pro-Communist. But I cannot understand why, during the last twelve years, in any debate such as this, honorable senators opposite have not been prepared to say, quite bluntly, what a menace Healy and Elliott are to the industry. If we could get rid of those two men we should have a better turn-round of ships and a better chance of reducing freight rates.

If the amenities of wharf labourers are not as good as they should be I remind Senator Ashley and Senator Cameron that it was the Labour party-

Senator Ashley:

– I rise to order. The Minister for Shipping and Transport mentioned my name, but I have not spoken in this debate.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order.

Senator McLEAY:

– I claim that I have the right to refer to the mistakes that Senator Ashley made during the long period that he was a Minister. I cannot go into the details of all of his mistakes, but the great weakness of this board when it was established was that Healy and Roach, two of the best-known Communists in Australia, were appointed to it by the Labour Government. After eight years of a policy of appeasement, we are now reaping what Senator Ashley and the Labour Government- sowed. Perhaps Senator Armstrong is the greatest capitalist in the Senate, but if he had been employed by Healy to put the case of the Communists he could not have put it better than he did when he spoke on this bill. I know that the honorable senator hates the Communists, but for some unknown reason the Labour party has not the courage to state the real cause of the trouble. It is about time that somebody did that. The Labour Government, as I have said, appointed Healy and Roach to the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board and then had to remove them from that body. After close consideration of the position, the present Government decided that Healy and company must be removed from the industrial world altogether. But what support did the Government receive from the Labour party when it tried to implement its decision? Dr. Evatt defended the Communists in the High Court. When the matter was made the subject of a referendum, every member of the Labour party worked against the proposals of the Government. We are not suffering from the actions of 90 per cent, of decent waterside workers. It is only the few in control who are causing most of the trouble.

Senator Critchley:

– Is the Minister going to have a happy Easter?

Senator McLEAY:

– I endeavour to speak my mind whether it is Easter or any other time. As a matter of fact, Mr. Menzies has called a Cabinet meeting for Easter Monday.

The Opposition’s complaint that the wharf labourers have not sufficient amenities is only moonshine. What did the Labour Government do to provide additional amenities for waterside workers during its eight years of office? In any case, the harbours, with the exception of those in Queensland, are a State responsibility. Pi ve of the harbour authorities of Australia are controlled by Labour Premiers and it is the responsibility of the Labour governments concerned to provide up-to-date amenities for wharf labourers in keeping with Australian standards. Senator Armstrong said that the wharfs were not in as good condition as they should be. What is the reason for that? It is because they are under the control of governments. It is a fact that

Australian wharfs that are controlled by State governments have not been modernized, particularly in New South Wales, where they should be the best in Australia. In some respects, New South Wales wharfs are almost primitive. One of the reasons that the State governments are not prepared to spend money on the wharfs is that they do not consider that such expenditure would bring them any votes. State governments complain that they do not receive sufficient money from the Commonwealth to carry out essential works. It is not lack of money that has prevented them from carrying out these works, but their own failure to fix a suitable order of priority. If State governments would consider the modernization of wharfs in the light of their importance to defence and the production of steel they would come to the conclusion that the provision of adequate wharf facilities deserves a priority much higher than some of the projects on which they have already spent money.

The Australian Shipping Board, which is concerned with a third of the cargo entering Australian ports, has examined the subject of freight rates and, after conferring with the other bodies engaged in the industry, the board has stated publicly that if the reduction proposed in the bill is made there will be a reduction in freights averaging ls. 6d. a ton on general cargo. In some cases the reduction will be ls. 9d. a ton and in some cases only ls. 3d. a ton, but the average reduction will be about ls. 6d. So my reply to the Opposition’s claim that wharf facilities are inadequate is that they are controlled by State governments. The railways of Australia, which lost over ?20,000,000 this year, are also controlled by State governments. When private enterprise engages in road transport it has to make a profit or get out of business. The sooner the Labour party ceases to believe in transferring various services to the control of the Government the better off the taxpayer will be and the better the transport services of this country will be.

Senator Armstrong drew attention to overseas freight rates. The Government is interested only in coastal freighting. The profits that the Commonwealth shipping line has made during the past year are only moderate. They represent approximately 4f per cent, on the capital advanced by the Treasury. The Commonwealth shipping, line does not have to pay the taxation that is paid by its competitors, yet it charges the same freight rates as its competitors. Whether private shipping lines can make further reductions in their freight rates or not I do not know, but the Commonwealth shipping line could only make further reductions in freight rates at the taxpayer’s expense. I am not prepared to ask the taxpayers’ to foot the bill.

Senator Ashley:

– Boloney!

Senator McLEAY:

– The honorable senator is apparently giving expression to what is in his head. If the Commonwealth shipping line were to engage in overseas trade, the amount of ?6,000,000 which Senator Ashley lost in three years during his term of office as Minister would be infinitesimal compared to the amount that the Commonwealth shipping line would lose if it charged the same freight rates as its competitors. There are only two kinds of government business undertakings - expensive and very expensive, slow and very slow. There was none slower than that of which Senator Ashley was in charge.

Senator Armstrong took great delight in quoting from a departmental letter that was sent to him in connexion with freight rates between South Africa and Singapore compared with other rates. I notice that the letter which I gave to him was evidently passed on to Mr. Healey, because that gentleman referred to it in some pamphlets that were distributed in Sydney recently, one of which came into my possession. I have no objection to Senator Armstrong allowing Mr. Healey to obtain the letter, but it seemed to me that Senator Armstrong’s attitude was just as silly and unreasonable as was Mr. Healey’s. The comments of the honorable senator were designed for propaganda purposes.

On this question of overseas freights, it should not be forgotten that this is a very competitive world. If we wish to build ships in Australia, and we are building them, we must be prepared to pay 50 per cent, more than the price for which we could buy ships overseas. Ships which once cost the Australian people £250,000 now cost more than £1,000,000. In addition, the cost of repairs and loading and unloading charges are exceptionally high. At the same time, we have shorter working hours and penalty rates. Some one has to pay for it all, and the sooner we appreciate that fact the better. Senator Armstrong might well ask himself why African freights are so much cheaper than Australian freights. Is the honorable senator prepared to recommend to Mr. Healy that we should pay the same rates for loading and unloading as are paid in Africa? Is he prepared to suggest that we reduce our standards to those of Africa? He may be interested to know that the cost of loading a ship in Africa is 10s. a ton, whereas the cost of loading the same commodities in Australia is £3 a ton. Is he also prepared to suggest that employees in our shipbuilding yards should receive lower rates of pay? Matters such as those are not under the control of this Parliament but are decided by independent bodies, such as arbitration courts. The cheap gibes concerning the shipping companies bear no relation to the facts. The Australian Labour party should have sufficient courage to come out into the open on this matter. It should not allow itself to be hoodwinked, nor should it indulge in Communist propaganda. The Government will oppose this amendment, the purpose of which is to appease Mr. Healy.

Senator Ashley:

– The Standing Orders provide that when a Minister or any other member of the Senate makes a statement which reflects upon another member of this chamber, the senator about whom the statement has been made should be given the opportunity to make _ a personal explanation. I ask for permission to make an explanation regarding a statement made by the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay).

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. Iff. McMullin). - Senator Ashley may proceed.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– The Minister- for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) stated that a Labour government appointed two

Communists to the Australian Stevedoring Industry Commission. That statement was unfair. The appointments were made on nomination by the unions. They were not made by me.

Senator Henty:

– Who was the Minister at that time?

Senator ASHLEY:

– I was the Minister who dismissed those two members of the commission.

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA

– Who appointed them?

Senator ASHLEY:

– The Government appointed them because they were recommended by the workers in the industry.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– I rise to order Do the matters with which Senator Ashley is dealing come within the scope of a personal explanation ?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes. Senator Ashley is entitled to speak on the amendment. The Minister did not close the debate.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Having listened to the remarks of the Minister a few moments ago, one could be pardoned for thinking that he would like to see Australian waterside workers working for 10s. a day.

Senator GORTON:

– I rise to order! Will you rule, Mr. President, on the question whether Senator Ashley is making a personal explanation or not?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Senator Ashley is not now making a personal explanation but is speaking to the amendment. He is in order in doing so.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Senator Seward stated that those engaged in the waterside industry should have continuity of employment. I should like to know how the honorable senator would arrange to have ships enter port at regular intervals. There are approximately 6,000 waterside workers in New South Wales. On some days -all of those workers are employed, but at other times there is employment for only half of them. It was on account of the casual nature of the employment that the payment of appearance money was instituted. Prior to the payment of appearance money, in some instances waterside workers walked miles to get to the wharfs at half past six or seven o’clock in the morning because transport was. not available at that hour, only to find that their services were not required. I know that some of them used to walk from Parramatta to Sydney, sometimes to find that they were not needed. It was because of that state of affairs that the Labour Government instituted the payment of appearance money on a recommendation by Mr. Justice Poster, who had inquired into the industry. A levy was made for the purpose of providing appearance money and amenities on the waterfront.

Senator Benn referred to the provision of first-aid equipment, medical attention, ambulance facilities, dressing rooms, canteens, dining rooms and other amenities for waterside workers. The Australian Labour party is concerned that the provision of such amenities may be jeopardized by handing back to the shipowners the many thousands of pounds that have accrued from this levy. It Ls well known that the provision of amenities has been meagre since this Government came to office. I should like to know whether the provision of amenities is to be continued. The Minister stated a short while ago that the conditions on the wharfs in Sydney and other ports of Australia were almost primitive. I point out that the only improvement on the waterfront, as far as mechanization is concerned, was made by the previous Labour Government when it introduced the fork lift into the industry. Under that system, machinery does the heavy work so that the men are no longer required to work like donkeys.

The Minister also stated that it was the responsibility of State governments to provide proper facilities on the wharfs. I agree that that is so, but I contend that the financial responsibility rest’s with the Australian Government. However, this Government has denied the States finance for many activities.

Senator Henty:

– The States have had more money from this Government than they have ever had.

Senator ASHLEY:

– That may be so, but what will that money buy? That is the point. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) stated recently that he hoped that there would be a reasonable reduction of shipping freights consequent on the proposed reduction of the levy from lid. to 6d. I explained here the other day why there will be no reduction and I pointed out that a huge sum of money must be found for the use of the Liberal and Australian Country parties now that general elections are forthcoming. The provision of that money will not permit of any reduction in freights. It is worthwhile to ask how a reduction of 2s. a ton in the cost of transporting a ton of potatoes from Tasmania to Sydney would benefit housewives on the mainland, or how a reduction of 2s. in the cost of transporting a ton of sugar from northern Queensland to the southern States would help anybody in those States. In my opinion, freights should be reduced by £1 a ton at least.

The Minister stated that the taxpayers would have to pay for any reduction of freights by the Commonwealth Shipping Line. I wish to know what has become of the huge profits which the line has made. It is well known that every charge incidental to the industry has been made against it. Indeed, it has even been taxed in order to reduce its profits, the object being to make the profits appear as small as possible, in order to hoodwink the people. I suggest that if the Commonwealth Shipping Line were allowed to compete with other shipping companies for some of the lucrative trade, and were not engaged almost entirely in unpayable heavy traffic, it would make much more profit than it has made in the past. Such a profit by the Commonwealth shipping line would warrant a reduction of freights and would be an indication to private shipowners that they should reduce their freight charges. Recently 1 cited the case of Howard Smith Limited. That company made a profit from its ships last year 160 per cent, higher than the previous year. I have details of similar cases in the years since this Government has been in office.

The complaint is generally made that high wages and the slow turn-round of ships in the industry cause sea freights to be high. To-day I read a report of a statement by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) who said in another place that conditions in the waterside industry had improved throughout Australia. He said that the turn-round of ships was better and the average loading rate was higher. He eulogized the industry. Is that not an indication that freights should be reduced? The decrease certainly should be more than the recent insignificant fall of ls. 6d. a ton. The way the shipping companies dominate this Government, particularly in the matter of freights, is an insult to the intelligence of the people of Australia. If conditions have improved as much as the Minister for Labour and National Service has indicated, there is a good case for a big reduction of freights. In spite of that, the Minister for Shipping and Transport can talk only about Communists. He has told honorable senators what he did to the Communists and what he did not do. I have no sympathy with the Communists.

Senator Paltridge:

Senator Paltridge interjecting,

Senator ASHLEY:

– Nor have I had the same association with Communists as Senator Paltridge had when he was pulling beer. I have heard something about his record.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– The honorable senator can talk about it later.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I am prepared to do that, too. There was no need for the Minister for .Shipping and Transport to abuse the Australian Labour party as he did. There was no need for him to cast personal reflections upon me or Senator Armstrong. If I retaliate, the Minister should not be surprised. His methods are not conducive to the good conduct of this Senate, and I hope that the Minister will be more careful in future.

Senator HENTY:
Tasmania

.- Reference has been made in the course of this debate to the losses and profits of the Commonwealth shipping line and to the taxes that it pays and does not pay. It is important that honorable senators should have an accurate appreciation of the taxes that the Commonwealth shipping line does not pay. It is not called upon to pay wages tax on the earnings of its sea-going personnel or administrative staff. Consequently, in 1953, it did not have to pay wages tax totalling £39,312. That is the amount of wages tax payments that would have accrued to the Treasury had the Commonwealth shipping line been a public company. Wages tax payments that the line did not have to meet in 1952 totalled £32,461. The Commonwealth shipping line does not have to pay sales tax on commodities that are used for repairs and the revictualling of its ships. In 1953 it was relieved of the payment of £11,763 sales tax and in the previous year the remission of sales tax was equivalent to £10,049.

Honorable senators should gain a proper perspective of this matter so that they can understand how much the community is losing when it enters into the conduct of a public enterprise such as shipping. Before I proceed further along this line of discussion, I shall put Senator Ashley’s mind at rest by informing him that I will not refer to the calamitous period when he was the Minister for Fuel and Shipping. The community has lost a total sum of £707,403 because the Government became a public shipowner. In 1951 the losses of the shipping line were £554,219.

Senator Sheehan:

– Was it trading to Tasmania ?

Senator HENTY:

– It was trading all round Australia. The departmental record shows that the shipping line made a profit of £630,020, hut if it had been a public company, considerable sums would have been deducted from that amount. Wages tax would have amounted to £39,312. Sales tax would have totalled £11,763. The shipping line would have had to pay company tax totalling £202,381. Taxation of shareholders’ dividends would, have amounted to £112,969.

Senator ARNOLD:

– How could that have been paid if there had not been a profit?

Senator HENTY:

– That is the amount that a trading company would have had to pay on a profit of £630,020. In fact, in its trading last year, the Commonwealth Shipping Line was left with a profit of £263,595 without paying any interest at all. When the interest was charged by the Treasury, its loss was £90,944. Senator Ashley said that the Commonwealth Shipping Line paid taxes. That is entirely incorrect, and nobody knows it better than Senator Ashley.

At least, he should know it, and if he is ignorant of the fact after being the Minister in charge of shipping for some years, it is no wonder that the people rejected him. They showed good judgment. While a government concern is free of the charges and costs that private enterprise has to bear, a fair comparison between the two is impossible. Certainly it is not fair to compare a Commonwealth shipping line with a private company when the government enterprise is free of wages tax, sales tax, company tax, taxation on shareholders’ dividends and interest charges. The community would have been better off to the extent of £707,403 if it had not ventured into the shipping business.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– Senator Henty, who represents the island State of Tasmania, has complained that the Commonwealth Shipping Line made a loss in its early days.

Senator Henty:

– It is still making a loss.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– It made a loss in its early days before the Chifley Labour Government turned it into a payable concern. Senator Henty has failed to give credit to Senator Ashley, who, as Minister forFuel and Shipping, was responsible for that improvement in the shipping line’s finances. In its early years, the ships of the Commonwealth Shipping Line were sent to all the outlandish ports. They were compelled to carry the least payable freights. They were the tramps of the Australian trade. Before the line was founded, honorable senators from Tasmania continually pleaded with governments representing all political parties to improve the shipping facilities. They complained that the people of Tasmania were at the mercy of the private shipping companies. The Tasmanian senators were most consistent in asking for the establishment of a government shipping line. It ill behoves the honorable senators who represent Tasmania in this chamber now to condemn the shipping line that succoured their State.

Senator Henty has referred to losses. Surely he knows that if the Commonwealth Shipping Line did not exist and we returned to the arrangement that existed in the bad old days of untrammelled private enterprise, the role that he would be playing in this chamber would be different. It would be akin to that played by Tasmanian senators in the earlier years to which I have referred. I hope that honorable senators from Tasmania, in particular, will appreciate the position of their State and all that has been accomplished on their behalf because the Commonwealth Shipping Line has been in existence.

By innuendo, the Minister for Shipping and Transport has suggested that the Labour party condoned the offences of Communists. One of the most marked features of the intrusion of the Communist movement into Australian industry has been that when an agitation for improved conditions for the workers is brought under notice, a smear campaign is initiated. A person who brings forward a complaint on behalf of the workers is dubbed a Communist. It is regrettable that a man holding the responsible position of Minister of the Crown should, when asked by responsible senators that the money collected under this legislation should be utilized for the purpose for which the legislation was originally passed, dub those honorable senators “ Coms “ or “ Com “ sympathizers. That is indeed a tragic state of affairs and it reflects no credit on the Minister.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Armstrong’s amendment) be left out.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin.)

AYES: 25

NOES: 29

Majority 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

.- The Opposition has agreed to the bill being taken as a whole at the committee stage in order that I may deal with one or two aspects of the measure. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) was completely unfair to both Senator Ashley and myself in his second-reading speech. He seized upon the opportunity to make an electioneering speech. In the last six months or perhaps twelve months, the Minister who, up to that time could not make a speech in this chamber without referring to Communists on the waterfront, has been strangely silent on that subject. Apparently the imminence of the election has induced him now to resume his former activities in the hope of causing a scare about communism. I suppose he is entitled to do that, but he is not entitled to smear Senator Ashley’s good name and my good name in the process. He said that Senator Ashley, when Minister for Supply and Shipping, had appointed Healy and Roach to the Stevedoring Industry Commission and, in so doing, had done something that was pro-Communist and completely antiAustralian. It is true that Healy and Roach were the nominees of the industry for membership of the board, but of course Senator Ashley as Minister had to accept responsibility for their appointment. I point out, however, that those men were appointed when Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin were the Big Three and were very friendly. Those were the days when we could see in front of us many years of peace. I remind honorable senators also that when Healy and Roach acted as they did, it was Senator Ashley who put them off the commission. Surely one could reasonably expect some concession from honorable senators opposite for that action which completely proved Senator Ashley’s bona fides. But the Minister for Shipping and Transport, with an election of the House of Representatives imminent, is once more on the track he was on in 1949. He is trying to smear the Labour party as a Communist party or as an adjunct of communism. He even suggested that I had been in cahoots with Mr. Healy. In a letter sent to me some months ago the Minister admitted that freight rates were too high, and that his efforts to have them reduced had failed. The Minister has suggested that I passed the letter on to Healy. I did not do so. Healy is smart enough to read Hansard for himself. I did, however, circulate the letter amongst all members of the Labour party and among country newspapers. Freight charges to-day constitute one of the most important problems with which we are confronted. Senator Wright has emerged as the advocate for the conference lines.

Senator Wright:

– I rise to order. The committee has agreed to take this bill as a whole, but I submit that that does not entitle any -honorable senator to make a second-reading speech at this stage. The business of the Senate can only be impeded by such tactics, and I submit that Senator Armstrong is out of order.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– The Opposition agreed to the bill being taken as a whole to give me an opportunity to reply to misrepresentation, both by the Minister and by Senator Wright. I submit that I have not transgressed the rules by replying to that misrepresentation.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Reid).So far I have been a little lax. I have given Senator Armstrong certain latitude to which he is not strictly entitled under the Standing Orders. He may not make a second-reading speech at this stage, and I ask him to confine his remarks strictly to the terms of the bill.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– The bill deals with the imposition of a stevedoring industry charge, and I submit that I am entitled to refer to the effects of the imposition of that charge. If, in so doing I mention the name of some honorable senator who spoke in the second-reading debate, that cannot be avoided. As I have said, Senator Wright has revealed himself as the advocate of the conference lines. But they do not need his advocacy. They have much better advocates at their disposal. If the honorable senator really believes that the shipping companies are not reaping excessive profits clearly he does not know the true position. A Minister has stated in the House of Representatives that shipping freights are unduly high. I reiterate my objection to the attempt that the Minister made to make a complete electioneering speech on this measure. Apparently his remarks on this occasion were the start of a smear campaign that is to be carried on until the elections. I should have thought that, having succeeded with a smear campaign in 3949, the Government parties would not use it again, but apparently they consider it to be such a good hare that they are going to run it again. I take this opportunity to dissociate myself from Mr. Healy or any other member of the Communist party.’ My only desire is to do the right thing for this country, and to do it through the medium of the Australian Labour party, to which I am proud to belong.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– It is proposed to reduce the levy from 11-Jd. to 6d. That proposal raises the question whether, if the reduction were made, the Stevedoring Industry Board would be able to function properly. There are doubts about the efficiency of the board. At times, the port? of this country are the centres of a number of industrial disputes. The waterside workers are not always responsible for those disputes. Many of them are local disputes, often caused by the lack of tolerance or understanding in a representative of the board. At times, the disputes are due to forces outside the control of the shipowners, the board or the waterside workers. In my opinion, one of the chief reasons for discontent among waterside workers is the casual nature of their employment. They have no continuity of employment. In addition; the amenities provided for them are worse than those provided for workers in any other Australian industry. Conditions and amenities in primary industries, for example, have improved greatly. At one time, shearers lived in tents, but now employers are compelled to provide them with decent huts and food of good quality.

I should say that working conditions on wharfs are worse than in other places. In the summer, a wharf is not a bad place. There is the water and the sun, and things are dry. But in winter, the men suffer from the cold and the damp. They have to work in the open all the time. To my mind, the whole atmosphere of the waterfront is primitive. I suggest that the purpose in establishing the Stevedoring Industry Board was to create a better atmosphere on the wharfs and to achieve a closer liaison between the shipowners and the waterside workers, but now it is proposed to reduce the capacity of the board to provide amenities for the men and do the things that must be done in every industry. People are never completely satisfied. The history of industry in this country is a story of a gradual improvement of conditions. A desire to make life more pleasant seems to be inherent in every man. Instead of taking the line that we should give incentives to the men on the waterfront to do a better job, the Government proposes to reduce the capacity of the .Stevedoring Industry Board to bring about a better understanding between the men and the employers. It is easy to say that somebody is red, black or some other colour, but that does not help. Unless we can make the waterside workers feel that the community wants them and that their job is worth while, they will not have confidence in the system under which they live and work. I believe firmly that the only way in which democracy can beat communism is by showing that it is better than communism. If we perpetuate some of the primitive conditions on the waterfront-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reid). - Order! I have been very lenient with you, Senator O’Byrne, but now I must ask you to confine your remarks strictly to the question, before the

Chair. You have been making, in effect, a second-reading speech. I cannot allow you to continue to do so.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I object to the proposal to reduce the levy from 11-J-d. to 6d. because I feel that such a reduction would be a retrograde step. The shipping industry should provide the money necessary to improve port facilities and give better amenities and working conditions to the men on the waterfront. Shipping is bur lifeline. Therefore, it is vitally necessary to have as great a degree of peace and harmony on the waterfront as is possible. It would be a mistake to make this concession to the shipowners, because the money could be used much more effectively to provide better facilities and conditions on the waterfront. That would help to promote greater industrial harmony and peace. The bill is not in the best interests of the waterside workers or the shipping industry. The reduction of the levy will not be reflected in costs or freight charges and will hardly affect the dividends of shareholders in shipping companies, but the money that is to be refunded, so to speak, to the shipowners would be of great value if it were used to improve conditions on the waterfront.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 223

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Senator HANNAFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the first report of the Printing Committee.

Report read, and - by leave - adopted.

page 223

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILIZATION (REFUND OF CHARGE) BILL 1954

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 206).

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– The Opposition does not intend to oppose this bill, which is in conformity with the policy of the Australian Labour party as expressed last year when the Senate was discussing a measure for the refund of £11,000,000 to wheat-growers. It is interesting to note that the £9,000,000 proposed to be refunded to the wheatgrowers is the last of the money in the stabilization fund that was established for the purposes of the wheat stabilization scheme that came into operation in 194S. When the other bill to which I have referred was before the Senate last year, we directed attention to the fact that, in our opinion, this £9,000,000 should be refunded to the wheat-growers because it belonged to them, and that if another stabilization scheme was introduced in the future it should be financed afresh.

In the second-reading speech of the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Senator McLeay), reference was made to the fact that wheat has been the subject of politics in this country. That is so. Everybody who has taken an interest in the wheat industry over the years will remember that from time to time the wheat-growers have made representations to governments of all political colours for the introduction of a scheme to bring stability to the wheat industry. It is a matter for satisfaction that, although the industry was in a parlous condition prior to the introduction of the last stabilization scheme, we are considering now a proposal to refund to the wheat-growers a sum of £9,000,000, the last of the money in the stabilization fund. The money will be paid to the wheat-growers themselves. None of it will go to the agents and other people who, prior to the introduction of the stabilization scheme in 194S, made large profits from wheat-growers. There are about 60,000 wheat-growers in Australia. Doubtless they have appreciated the distributions from the fund that have been made to them from time to time. As the bill provides for the distribution of the remainder of the money in the fund, a good deal of discussion has taken place about a scheme to replace the stabilization scheme. The failure of the Victorian Labour Government to agree to the scheme that was propounded by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen), after discussions with representatives of the States, has been criticized very severely. However, when the difficulty that was experienced initially in obtaining agreement between the Commonwealth and the State governments is remembered, it is not surprising that agreement has not been readily forthcoming in relation to the Minister’s new proposal. By not readily accepting that proposal, the Victorian Government has rendered a service to the community.

Senator Maher:

– It has certainly not rendered a service to the wheat-growers.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I consider that that government has rendered signal service to the community, which includes the wheat-growers. The Australian, Government, knowing that the existing scheme was drawing to a close, should have hammered out a scheme to replace it; instead, delay seems to have been the order of the day. The present coalition Government has been reluctant to devise a new scheme which would benefit the wheat-growers. When the matter of devising a new scheme first arose, the Minister for Shipping, and Transport (.Senator McLeay), who was then acting for the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, accused a meeting of wheat-growers of looking for charity from the Government. Subsequently, when the wheat-growers submitted their proposal to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, he told them that he would not embarrass the Government by asking it to initiate a scheme that would mean po much to the wheat-growers. Apparently the Government has not been able to achieve unanimity because of the internal conflict between the Liberal party and the Australian Country party. The Liberal party represents the section of the community which, in the days before stabilization, arbitrarily decided the price of wheat. The Liberal party’s policy was to purchase wheat at a low price and store it in silos until the overseas price rose. In those days there was continual conflict between the two factions that comprised the anti-Labour government which was in office. A subsequent Labour government, recognizing that the wheat industry was vitally important to Australia, and that the growers, many of whom had endured privations as a result of adverse seasons, were entitled to a reasonable return on their capital outlay, as well as a fair reward for their labour, introduced the scheme that is now drawing to a close. The farmers soon realized the advantages of the scheme, and requested the government to extend the period of its operation from five years to ten years. When the political parties that now form the Government of this country were wooing the electors during the 1949 general election campaign, they promised to continue stabilization for a further five years after the expiration of that scheme. They said that they would bridge the difference between the home consumption and export prices by the payment of a subsidy to the growers. Now, however, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture does not wish to see a scheme of that kind introduced.

Realizing that the present scheme must be replaced by another scheme, the Australian Labour party has evolved a ten-year plan, under which the ‘growers would be guaranteed the cost of production, which is at present 12s. 7d. a bushel, plus a subsidy of about ls. 5d. a bushel. The Minister has roundly condemned the scheme propounded by Labour, probably because he himself has failed to devise a satisfactory scheme to replace the present one. I realize, of course, that his loyalties are divided between the growers on the one hand, and the merchants on the other. We realize that the growers should not be called upon to carry the burden of lower prices for home consumption and stock feed wheat. Both the poultry and pig meats industries, which are valuable primary industries, are dependent on wheat for stock feed. It was obvious that, as the price of stock feed wheat, the staple ingredient necessary for the proper development of those industries, had risen to such a degree that their future was threatened, we had to consider the best means to keep them going. Therefore, Labour devised the plan to which I have referred, under which wheat for stock feed would be provided to those primary industries at a lower price, but the producers would be paid their cost of production and a fair margin of profit. Labour’s scheme has been criticized, because it places no limit on the quantity of wheat that would attract the subsidy. A suggestion that the acreage sown to wheat should be ‘.reduced, kas ‘been widely canvassed . I consider -tha!t our wheat acreage should not ‘be reduced, and that any wheat that is ‘surplus to our ‘own requirements should be made available at a relatively cheap rate to low-wage countries which are unable ;to pay the price demanded by other wheat-growing countries. Surely any -scheme devised to replace the existing scheme, which is about to expire, deserves the utmost consideration. Although some alterations of the scheme -propounded by “Labour may he necessary, it ill-becomes the Minister to turn handsprings because the scheme has ‘been suggested by the Opposition. We agree that the remaining money in the fund should ‘be paid to its owners. I hope that the people of -this country will endorse Labour’s policy, so that we shall he able to implement our ten-years scheme at the expiration of the present scheme.

Senator WARDLAW:
Tasmania,

.- I support the ‘bill, and I have no doubt -that it will .become .law. I disagree with ‘Senator Sheehan’s opinion that the ten-year ,plan, which has been mapped out by the Australian Labour party, in conjunction with the “‘Victorian Government, should ‘be adopted. I also (disagree with his estimate of the probable cost of ‘the scheme.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– It is a completely irresponsible scheme.

Senator WARDLAW:

– Yes. Senator Sheehan also .referred to .unlimited production, and unlimited export .of wheat, il point out that, .under the conditions of (the scheme that Labour has -propounded, the .export .of 200,000,000 -bushels of wheat would break. the taxpayers of this country. 1” do not think .that such a scheme would he introduced by any responsible Government, irrespective of its political colour.

As ‘the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) has .pointed out, the -purpose of the bill is to -effect the distribution of about -£9,166,000 in the “Wheat Prices ‘Stabilization Fund. That ‘fund was established by the collection -of an export levy on ‘wheat in 19’51–5’2. The issues in this matter -are very .important. The purpose ‘of this “bill is to ‘authorize the return of this money to ‘the wheat-growers in the -event of failure to -agree -upon a scheme by the 31-st March.

Senator ‘Sheehan alleged that the Labour party had rendered a signal service to the community in opposing the proposals of the Government in relation to the wheat industry. -But it was at the request of the wheat-growers that Che Government proposed to extend the sta’bi’lization -scheme for a .further three years. This proposal was made after consultation with the six State governments, the wheat-growers’ organizations, and the Australian Agricultural Council. 07- only body that opposed the proposals was the Victorian Government. That Government must take the full .responsibility for the results :of its withdrawal from the ‘stabilization scheme. Never in the history :of .the wheat-growing industry has it been .so necessary ;as it is now ito have .organized marketing of wheat overseas. >Gur selling position overseas -is very weak, particularly in England, because that country is holding a twelve months’ supply of wheat. Other countries .also have plentiful .supplies. Therefore it -is very important that the Australian industry should present a united front to overseas markets. Such ia united -front can be maintained only through an orderly marketing scheme.

I regard the wheat market as a barometer o’f primary producing markets generally. Even if the wool market remained firm, a slump in the wheat market would affect ail primary producers’ markets, including the market for butter, eggs and cheese. “If this comes about the Labour -party must take the full responsibility -for it. For twenty years the farmers have ‘been trying to build up a stabilization fund. The stabilization scheme was controlled ‘by people who understood the -problems of the industry, and its termination will he a tragedy. Politics and commerce have ‘become inextricably interwoven. ‘That association has great potential ‘benefits ‘but it also has great dangers. Overseas, we are reentering the arena of free markets, and our trading position is not as ‘good ‘as it was previously. The situation calls ‘for strength in marketing and ma’kes cooperation between all those engaged in the industry essential. T support the ‘bil’]’.

Senator SEWARD:
Western Australia

– It would be a pity to allow this bill to pass through the Senate without paying tribute to the fine work that has been performed by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) in an endeavour to secure the adoption of a scheme that would be favorable to all who are concerned in the industry. The Minister has suffered a serious deterioration in health and I have no hesitation in saying that that deterioration was brought about by his strenuous efforts in connexion with the wheat stabilization scheme. A t the same time, I should like to compliment the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay), who acted for the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture whilst the latter was ill, on his endeavours to bring about a settlement. He called the State Ministers together two or three times in order to try to draw up a satisfactory scheme. This object was accomplished but the Premier of Victoria refused to participate in the scheme, because he wanted to obtain the farmers’ wheat for home consumption at less than the cost of production. What justification was there for his demand? Does any section of industry sell its commodities at below the cost of production?

A highly vaunted plan in relation to the marketing of wheat emanated from the Labour party about a week ago. Senator Sheehan referred to the plan but no member of the Labour party has yet explained it. Apparently, the Opposition does not propose to oppose the bill or to give the Senate an opportunity to consider the Labour party’s alternative scheme. Apparently it has been abandoned. The farmers have always contributed to the stabilization fund just as anybody would contribute towards his own insurance. However, Under the highly vaunted scheme of the Labour party put forward by the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) and the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) the farmers would not make any contribution to a stabilization fund but the Government would buy all the farmers’ wheat regardless of the quantity produced. Obviously, that was only a vote-catching scheme, through which the farmers would have no difficulty in seeing.

The possibility of arranging a stabilization scheme is still open to the farmers if the Premier of Victoria wishes to give the farmers of his State an opportunity to participate in it. This bill merely provides for the repayment, of the £9,000,000 which the farmers were told would be repaid to them. I do not think that the farmers in Western Australia would vote for a stabilization scheme, but that is their affair. If they and the farmers of Australia voted in favour of such a scheme the Government would be willing to implement it. I suggest that honorable senators opposite ask the Premier of Victoria to use a little common sense. I have every pleasure in supporting the bill and in congratulating both Ministers concerned on their efforts to bring about a satisfactory settlement of the problem.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– in reply - I agree with Senator Seward that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) did .work extremely hard on this problem. I had the opportunity of conferring with all the State Ministers on the matter and, with the exception of the Victoria representative, we reached agreement on the plan of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. It was unfortunate that Victoria did not agree to the plan. Under the proposed scheme the wheat-grower was to receive the cost of production of his wheat plus a reasonable margin of profit. A price of 15s. a bushel was advocated, but that was opposed by Victoria, and after some delay the Commonwealth and the other States compromised with Victoria by offering a price of 14s. a bushel. In refusing to accept that price Victoria failed to do justice to the primary producers. However, a three years agreement has been negotiated on the basis of the price of 14s. a bushel. I was pleased that the States were in agreement on the McEwen plan to retain the £9,000,000 as a nucleus for the stabilization scheme. We conferred day after day and week after week on the price to be paid, but the Premier of Victoria was pig-headed and displayed a very poor appreciation . of the problem from the primary producers’ point of view. I am sure that 90 per cent. of the growers in Victoria would have voted for the McEwen plan.

The Government’s contention was that the farmer was entitled to the cost of production, plus a reasonable margin of profit. That principle was embodied in the three-years plan and payments will be made on that basis for the next three seasons. I cannot understand the suggestion of the Victorian Government that the cost of production was a reasonable price on which to base a stabilization scheme. I want to thank the Ministers from the other States for their cooperation and help in this matter. I think it is a great pity that the proposal was not submitted to the growers. Having regard to the statements made by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, the Government had no alternative but to return their money to the growers when agreement was not reached by the 31st March. That was the reason for the introduction of this bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 227

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1954-55

Firstreading.

Debate resumed from the 1 2th April (vide page 338), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That thebill be now read a first time.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I do not propose to speak on this bill other than to indicate that I understand that a gentleman’s agreement has been reached that this and complementary legislation will be passed by 6 o’clock in order that transport arrangements may be observed. I have no desire to prevent any honorable senator who wishes to speak from doing so, but I ask honorable senators to curtail their speeches.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

– I do not know where the gentleman’s agreement, to which the Minister referred, comes in. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber were treated with great discourtesy by the Minister this afternoon during a speech which he made. He was then most provocative. Yet he now has the temerity to speak of a gentleman’s agreement. For my part, I hope that we are here until 7 o’clock in the morning.

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

.- I do not propose to contribute very much to a realization of the hope expressed by Senator Critchley that the Senate should sit until 7 o’clock in the morning, but there are certain things which I wish to say. It is generally agreed by all who make announcements on this matter that the future of Australia is deeply bound up in the relations which it develops with the Asiatic countries to its north and that, therefore, the courses which it should follow are those which will make such relations friendly and long-enduring. In deciding the course that Australia should follow in this or that situation, concerning its relations with Asia, it is, of course, absolutely necessary that all the verifiable facts which can be ascertained should be brought forth and considered. It is obvious that some facts will be, at any given stage, in dispute, but it is also true that there will be many facts which are not in dispute and which are verifiable. We owe it to the Australian people to bring forward those facts fully and frankly, because only on them can we decide the course we ought to follow. If those facts are distorted or misrepresented, or if some facts aresuppressed, it is almost certain that a course based on such data will turn out to be the wrong one.

I believe that there has been for some time in Australia a sustained and systematic attempt to misrepresent and suppress a number of facts which could lead us to adopt a wrong course, if we considered them. It is also my belief that that misrepresentation or suppression is always such as would lead us to follow a course, if we accepted it, which would be advantageous to the spread of international communism in Asia. I can think of nothing which could do a greater disservice to Australia than the presentation of such facts in such a way. Let me make it clear that I am not talking about divergences of opinion after facts have been presented. There is obviously room for great divergence of opinion on any given’ set. of facts. Nor ami I speaking, about facts which-, are in dispute: I am referring to the suppression, or distortion of facts which, are not- in dispute. I think that that has been done, by and larger in. three ways. First, it has been clone, by/ speaking always, of Asia, as though, it were a-, single continent inhabited by a single race of people all * thinking the same thoughts and all reacting in the same way to a given stimulus. Any one. who said that Europe wanted this or wanted that would be immediately regarded as- an utter fool, because- it is obvious that the French, Germans, and Belgians have different wants: and different aspirations:. Yet, for many months some of our com:mentators and broadcasters who help> to form public opinion have been; endeavouring to’ prove that, what is! true ofl Europe- is not true of Asia which, according to them, is a? single country with- a single thought. If this- matter is- investigated it is found1 that such people- exclude from the continent of Asfa- a very large number of Asiatic countries. For instance, almost invariably South Korea is regarded as not being a part of Asia. The Philippines are excluded, Pakistan is looked down upon, and’ so are Siam, Malaya and Burma. Indonesia- is hardly ever mentioned except when its representatives say something that suits, the particular line of the people to whom I ha.ve. referred. Almost always the people who refer, to Asia in that manner give the impression that it consists only of Communist China, North Korea, and Indo-China, if it suits them. It is right and’ proper, I think, that we should have that, position clearly in our minds. We must remember that all of those countries do- not want, the same things. That fact was disclosed recently by the action, of Siam,,, and on other occasions by the actions of other. Asiatic countries.

It is nonsense to* say that a given course of action will’ distress or disrupt Asia and cause mil’lions of people to become our- enemies. That; very briefly, is one- of the ways in which the, public mind begins- to become conditioned to accepting something which is not fact and’ on. which,, it. is suggested^ the course of action, which-. Australia: should’ follow ought to be based.

Another- way in. which, that ia done, is to. represent every movement which arises in. any part of Asia, as a nationalist movement and,, in no circumstances,, as- a Communist movement. That representa-tram is. made in respect of any movement which, by forces of. arms;, seeks- to impose itself upon an. Asiatic, country.. In. the last few years’, all such movements have been Communist; hut- they have always been; represented!. as-> haying- nothing at all to do with, communism-. Indeed1, there have- even been instances; in which the defence of Southern Korea1 was regarded as, a despicable action- and one which would, turn millions of Asians against us* because” apparently the invasion- of that country, if not’ exactly a nationalist’ movement, was so close to being such a movement that it- made- no- difference. We should be careful not to accept’ this- blanket application of the word “ nationalist “ when applied to. a group which, in any country,, seeks domination by force of arms. Side by side with, that approach is the double standard,, such, as that indicated by a broadcast made in 1951 concerning- China and. Chinese expansion into the countries surrounding it. That broadcast was. made by a man who is continually telling us that ft is the height of folly for any country in Asfa to interfere with any other country. He was referring to the Chinese invasion of Tibet when he said; -

The agreement which they recently made- “ they “’ being China - with the Dalai. Lama,, with a little, amount, of force, aims to restore in Tibet the situation which- existed under- the Manchu- empire.

He went on to say that it is also proposed to restore a similar situation in IndoChina. and Korea,. In other- words; it is all right for aggression, with a- small amount of force if it is; used, by a Communist country, but it is most reprehensible, if it is used by any one else. That double standard cannot but be destructive if it comes to be accepted by the Australian people. The. truth is that aggression, in any part of the world,, by any country in the. world,, is reprehensible. Until’ that is understood, we shall only/ be misled by. these: constant attempts, to, maKe us accept a ‘ double standard! ins our judgments: m suein matters:

The third way, in which the minds df the Austraiian public tend’, to become conditioned’ to a particular line of action is by the presentation of propaganda under the guise of something which is seemingly not propaganda but objective comment-. We had a- first-class example of that, in the statement” issued1 last week by certain professors- of the Australian National University- and’- others-. That statement was signed’ by a number- of professors) and a bishop, but, the<- man who; took a very, great- part’ in preparing’ it; and. who-/ was behind’ its concoction,, was. Dr: John Bunton. Not only, did he help- to, prepare it;, but he also took, a part in approaching possible! signatories.., In addition, in at least; one instance-,, he was the channel, through which, the: statement reached the press. Yet he did not sign it. I suggest that he did not do so because it -was desired to present this- propaganda in the guise of objective’ comment. After all, we know that Dr. Burton publicly signed a statement proclaiming the excellence of the Vietminh. In addition, he has stated that the Vietminh, in. conjunction with the Chinese guerillas in Malaya,., of whom he spoke at the. same time,.’ axe making a great contribution to peace. There can be no question, therefore; that he desires the advancement’ of the Vietminh and wishes to bring about a state of public thought which will help, such advancement: We also? know that he- is a former secretary of the Department of External Affairs and, consequently, the man who was most closely connected with the’ letter. There is no reason why a professor of Pacific islands administration, or of history,, or of any other related matter, should’ have any particular knowledge of this subject, but there is a reason why a former secretary of the- Department of External. Affairs should. have a knowledge of it.. Yet the. signature-, of Dr., Burton did not appear on the letter. Instead, it was presented as an objective study. I am. prepared to say that it may have been innocently presented as such a study, though it has since been- proved f actually wrong. The action of Dr. Burton,, in refraining from signing’ the document although he1 was- so closely, connected, with. it£ is) a. primes example’ of tha wary-‘ im which certain- courses, of action,, which are really propaganda,, are; presented to: the public: under the. guise; of: respectability..

If we are- to- decide upon> a proper; just and safe- course- for Australia’ to- follow) in Asia1,, we- need1 to- be? constantly- on> guard’ against the1 three- methods which1 I have outlined briefly; Let us, by alT means, disagree- with opinions’, but let’ us put. forward! facts- as we see1 them, under our. own names:

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I wish to register a strong, protest’ against the way in which’ the Senate is being, treated. A number of matters of interest should’ have been the subject, of full and’ free discussion. By the: Senate,, yet only, a few minutes- have beenleft to honorable senators- to, skate, over important aspects of national affairs-. This is not the first, time that: the Senates has been treated in this cavalier’ fashion’.. Tn the last session of the Parliament, estimates, were put before honorable senators at two or three o’clock in the morning, and we had to dispose of £2.00;000,000- of defence expenditure in a few hours., Tha Senate is becoming a joke.. It, has been deprived of its, original place in the legislature of Australia. Until last week the Senate had not met for business since the 6th December, and between that, date and next August it will’ have met on five working, days. Waterside workers audi coal1 miners, might well be critical. If I were an outsider’ I would be. of the opinion that the- Senate’ was d’oing nothing.

I am not taking into consideration the. amount of work” that honorable senators do outside the chamber. Very few people? believe that honorable’ senators do anything outside. They will look at’ the five days’ that the Senate- will have met’ in Canberra- in1 eight months. This is a* matter- upon which honorable- senators should d-o some quick thinking’ if the’ Senate is not to be considered a useless’ institution’ fit only for abolitions A number of matters’ in the- Supply debate should’ be thoroughly thrashed out. Unfortunately, honorable senators’ have not the time to. deal! with them.

I should like to. refer to a matter- that was mentioned by the Minister for Repatriation’ (Senator- Cooper)’, who- is the:

Minister representing the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page). He referred to health benefits that have been introduced by this Government. I can prove to the Senate that it is physically impossible for the Government to have accomplished all that it claims to have done in a short space of time. In referring to tuberculosis benefits, the Minister has stated that they were put into operation by this Government immediately it was returned to office. The elections took place on the 10th December, 1949. On the 19th December, the new Cabinet was sworn in. The next day, the Minister for Health gave instructions that a submission on tuberculosis should be prepared for Cabinet consideration. He claims that the submissions were completed by the 17th January. Do honorable senators believe that it is physically possible for a complete submission on tuberculosis to be made in the short time between the 19th December and the 17th January, particularly in view of the fact that the Christmas and New Year holidays intervened and most of the public offices and research departments were out of commission for nearly half that time? If the Minister’s contention can be borne out by the facts, the Public Service obviously has been underrated in the past, and private enterprise would like to have such speedsters within its control.

The Minister for Health knows that tuberculosis submissions were lying on his office table when he assumed office. They had already been prepared by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), who was the Minister for Health in the Labour Government. All that the present Minister for Health had to do was to take up the submissions and put them into effect. The Labour Government appointed a full-time Director of Tuberculosis and undertook all the research work that was done in three or four years during its regime. I know that the Minister representing the Minister for Health in this chamber is fair-minded enough togive credit to Senator McKenna and the Labour Government, and the words that he read were not his own.

Many important matters should be considered by this Senate during the Supply debate. I have before me proposals regarding northern Australia and its defences, yet the Senate is given no time to discuss that important matter. Because we open our mouths at this stage, we are regarded as criminals. Honorable senators are being paid by the people to do a certain task. We are not doing it. North of the 26th parallel, there is a vast area. Its defence is vital and surely the Senate should be given time to discuss such an important matter. Yet one of my colleagues from Western Australia is calling out, “ Time “. The time will come when the people of Australia will take action. I protest against the manner in which the Senate is being treated and I shall not allow it to go unchallenged. I shall speak whenever and wherever I can in my own State and elsewhere to tell the people that this Government has no regard for many national problems, and does not allow its elected representatives to discuss them when they should be debated.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.

page 230

SUPPLY (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL (No. 1) 1954-55

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 8th April (vide page 85), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read asecond time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 230

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1953-54

First Reading

Debate resumed from the 8th April (vide page 85), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.

page 231

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL (No. 2) 1953-54

Debate resumed from the 8th April (vide page 85), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 231

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1952-53

Debate resumed from the8th April (vide page 85), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill he now read a first time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.

page 231

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES). BILL 1952-53

Debate resumed from the8th April (vide page 85), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 231

WAR PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL 1954

Debate resumed from the 8th April (vide page 86), on motion by Senator Cooper -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– This bill appropriates £40,000,000 from revenue to be paid into a trust account. The bill has nothing to do with pension rates. The £40,000,000 will be placed in the trust fund to be drawn upon in accordance with whatever rates the Parliament may determine. The Opposition does not object to the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 231

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The following bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment : -

Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Bill 1954.

Seamen’s Compensation Bill 1954.

Dairy Produce Export Control Bill 1954.

Egg Export Control Bill 1954.

page 231

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Senator HANNAFORD:

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

Will the Minister give consideration to bitumenizing roadways between the areas immediately surrounding the living quarters of the men at the Woodside National Service Training Camp and thus minimize the dust nuisance?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The Minister for the Army has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question : -

The bitumenizing and paving of areas between sleeping huts at Woodside Camp is already listed as a desirable work to be performed when more urgent works are completed and funds can be made available. It is hoped that it will be possible to give it attention in the very near future.

page 231

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator BENN:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Has the Postmaster-General been informed that, due to the BrisbaneMail Branch of his department being inadequately staffed, the sorting and delivery of mails, including those arriving from overseas and from other States, are constantly delayed for many hours; if not, will he cause an investigation to be made to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the statement?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following information : -

It is true that owing to the serious dislocation of rail services through cyclone and flood damage in the area Kyogle to Brisbane and other parts of Queensland, unavoidable delays have occurred in the delivery of correspondence from the Brisbane office on a number of occasions since the 24th February. The delays were .unused mainly by the .closing for reparis of the Sydney -Brisbane north coast line. -This made .it necessary for all interstate and overseassurface mails for -‘Queensland to be- diverted to the tablelands route via Wallangarra -with the result that mails normally due at 3.35 p.m. were not received until .up to 10.30 p.m. when the main .sorting .staffs ‘had ceased duty. The la’te and ‘erratic arrival of these -mails caused difficulties to arise in arranging staff to meet emergency conditions and although the night staff was augmented and frequent overtime worked to offset the traffic lag, ‘it ‘was ‘not always possible to .clear mails arriving .late at night in time for early morning delivery or despatch. “I ‘am advised, however, that ‘the position in respect of the Queensland railways is now normal and repairs to the Sydney-Brisbane line via Kyogle almost complete. It is understood that the line was open for traffic on 9th April T964, and dint normal train ‘schedules have-now been resumed.

The senator may be assured that the -delay in delivery .was due to the .unusual circumstances I have .outlined and that .everything ^possible was .done to maintain satisfactory ,Bellvice -.under adverse -conditions.

Senator SEWARD:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Will file Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral inform the Senate when the alterations to the Canberra Post Office that have .been in progress for some time will be completed.? What additional space will .be secured .by -the Post Office as a .result of the alterations .and what is the estimated cost?

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; CP from 1935

– The PostmasterGeneral has .’supplied the following answer : -

The anticipated date of completion .is early August, 1054. Additional -space resulting from ‘alterations is ‘approximately ‘5,500 square feet. The estimated cost of the ‘.wor.k iB £39,267..

page 232

LEAVE ‘OE ABSENCE TO ALL SENATORS

Motton ‘((by Senator O’SULLIVAN) - <by leave - agreed to -

That leave of absence be .granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the .sitting this -day to the -day on -which the Senate next meets.

page 232

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion ‘(by Senator O’SULLIVAN) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to a date and ‘hour -to toe ‘fixed by ‘the President, which time’ of meeting shall.be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 232

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Commonwealth - State Apprenticeship Inquiry - (Report of Committee, March, 1954.

Australian National University Act - Annual Report (Second.) of the Council of the Australian National “University, for 1952. (Senate adjourned at 5.53 p.m., ‘to a date and hour to be fixed by the (President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 April 1954, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1954/19540414_senate_20_s3/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant