Senate
21 June 1956

22^nd Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- TELEPHONE SERVICES
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH AND STATE HOUSING AGREEMENT
QUESTION
- ATOMIC WEAPONS
QUESTION
- EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION ACT
QUESTION
- BLANKETS FOR THE AGED POOR
QUESTION
- DEVONPORT AERODROME
QUESTION
- ATOMIC WEAPONS
QUESTION
- COAL
QUESTION
- COMPANY TAXATION
QUESTION
- ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH AND STATE HOUSING AGREEMENT
QUESTION
- ST. MARY’S FILLING FACTORY
QUESTION
- TAXATION
QUESTION
- COAL
QUESTION
- TUNA FISHING
QUESTION
- DISARMAMENT
QUESTION
- TRADE WITH RUSSIA
QUESTION
- SUBSIDIES TO AIRLINES
QUESTION
- AERODROMES
QUESTION
- MAIL MATTER AND DELIVERY
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL DAY
EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL 1956
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL FLAG
AUSTRALIAN WHALING COMMISSION
SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1956-57
- Second Reading
SUPPLY (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL (No. 1) 1956-57
- Second Reading
SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1954-55
- Second Reading
SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL 1954-55
- Second Reading
CELLULOSE ACETATE FLAKE BOUNTY BILL 1956
- Second Reading
RAYON YARN BOUNTY BILL 1956
- Second Reading
STEVEDORING INDUSTRY BILL 1956
- Second Reading
CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1956
PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATION BILL 1956
- Second Reading
SNOWY MOUNTAINS HYDROELECTRIC POWER BILL 1956
- Second Reading
NAVIGATION BILL 1956
- Second Reading
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SUPREME COURT BILL 1956
- Second Reading
EVIDENCE BILL 1956
- Second Reading
JUDGES’ PENSIONS BILL 1956
- Second Reading
NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1956
- Second Reading
COAL INDUSTRY BILL 1956
- Second Reading
NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1956
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1956
PRINTING COMMITTEE
SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1956-57
- Second Reading
SUPPLY (WORKS AND SERVICES) (No. 1) BILL 1956-57
- Second Reading
SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1954-55
- Second Reading
SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL 1954-55
- Second Reading
QUESTION
- OIL
QUESTION
- X-RAY APPARATUS IN SHOE SHOPS
AUSTRALIAN COASTAL SHIPPING COMMISSION BILL 1956
BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATE GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL 1956
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
TRACTOR BOUNTY BILL 1956
- Second Reading
STATES GRANTS (COAL MINING INDUSTRY LONG SERVICE LEAVE) BILL 1956
- Second Reading
STEVEDORING INDUSTRY BILL 1956
CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1956
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN NORTH-WEST
QUESTION
- UNITED STATES SENATE
ORDERS OF THE DAY
- Discharge of Motions
RETIRING SENATORS
LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL SENATORS
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– When, on the 12th June, the honorable senator asked me a similar question, I told her thatI would ask the Joint Coal Board to supply mo with the facts. I did so, andI now answer her question in the following terms : -

South Australia is currently buying New South Wales coal at a rate slightly in excess of 800,000 tons per annum.
The Joint Coal Board has advised- (a) The construction of new coal loading facilities at Newcastle is primarily the concern of the New South Wales government railways. Irrespective of whether this State authority or some interested private organization provided modern loading facilities, their cost is dependent on the ultimate design and location selected. Until these are resolved no definite figure can be quoted. A project advanced in 1051 was estimated to cost £500,000.

– Surely the honorable senator is not suggesting that the State of New South Wales - the wealthiest State in the Commonwealth, and the State with the largest population - is unable to find £500,000 to improve the port facilities at Newcastle, which is the largest port in New South Wales outside Sydney, and upon which the coal trade and 18,000 miners depend? If the New South Wales Government cannot find £500,000 to pay for that work, which must be No. 1 priority in Australia, there is little we can do. It is nonsense to suggest that the New South Wales Government cannot find £500,000. If the State Government will not find the money, let it get out of the way and allow the colliery proprietors to find the money and get the job done.

Senator ASHLEY:

– As the Joint Coal Board has a responsibility to the nation as well as to the State of New South Wales, will the Menzies Government see that sufficient finance is provided to enable the board to carry out this project?

Senator SPOONER:

– All that the honorable senator is asking is that the Commonwealth Government should find money to do something which the Government of New South Wales should do.

Senator Ashley:

– It is a national problem.

Senator SPOONER:

– Of course, it is; but are not citizens of New South Wales also Australians, and have they not a responsibility to remove bottlenecks in the State -which are increasing costs throughout the whole of Australia? The honorable senator’s proposition cannot bear examination from any angle.

page 1751

QUESTION

TUNA FISHING

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has any application been received from the Western Australian Government to make officers available from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization to assist in carrying out a survey of the tuna fishing areas off the north-west coast of Western Australia?
Is it a fact that other countries take large quantities of tuna yearly from these areas ?
What assistance could any Australian company expect to receive from the Commonwealth if it wished to expand its present fleet to exploit any sound fishing venture in Australian waters?

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– The Acting Prime Minister has supplied the following answers : -

No.
The Government has no official information with regard to this matter. Attention has, however, been drawn to recent articles in overseas journals which make reference to tura fishing by Japanese vessels in the northern section of the Indian Ocean. In one such article, the owners of the ships are stated to have reported that their operations were “ fairly successful “. In this case, it appears that the fishing occurred in the high seas between Ceylon and Madagascar.
Before the Commonwealth would be prepared to consider assistance to any private company to expand its fishing fleet, it would be necessary for the company concerned to furnish particulars of its operations and proposals for expansion, and a very full investigation of the proposals would have to be carried out.

page 1751

QUESTION

DISARMAMENT

Senator MAHER:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

What is the present attitude of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to (o) military ground forces disarmament, (6) aerial disarmament, and (c) nuclear disarmament?
Has any progress been made at the United Nations Committee talks on disarmament held -in London this month?
If not, what are the points of disagreement?

Senator SPICER:
LP

– The Minister for External Affairs has supplied the following answers : -

The Soviet representative in the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee presented on the 27th March a draft proposal outlining an agreement on reductions of conventional armaments and armed forces. The proposal contained no provision for nuclear disarmament, though it did suggest that independently of a general agreement being reached, all states should discontinue forthwith tests of thermo-nuclear weapons. The proposal did not contain separate provisions for reductions in ground, sea and air forces, but simply stilted that reductions of all conventional armaments of parties to the proposed agreement should be carried out on a scale corresponding to the levels to which their armed forces should be reduced. The levels proposed for the forces of the five major powers were: United States, 1 to 1.5 million; Soviet Union, I to 1.5 million; China, 1 to 1.5 million: United Kingdom, 650,000; France, 030,000.

The levels of armed forces of other states were to be determined at a general disarmament conference, but these levels were not to exceed 150,000 to 200,000.

The Soviet representative argued that the cause of disarmament would be advanced if the difficult question of nuclear disarmament were left until later and an initial agreement could be reached on the reduction of conventional armaments. The Western representatives in the sub-committee insisted that any satisfactory plan for disarmament must include provisions for nuclear disarmament.

The Soviet proposals showed a very negative attitude to the important question of aerial inspection of countries participating in a disarmament agreement. The Western members of the sub-committee attach great importance to this method of inspection, which in the Soviet plan is only to be considered at a relatively late stage.

Three major proposals were made during the sub-committee’s session, the first presented jointly by the United Kingdom and France, the second by the Soviet Union, outlined in answer to 1 above, and the third by the United States. The honorable senator will find the text of these proposals annexed to the report of the sub-committee - United Nations Document DC/83 - a copy of which has been placed in the Parliamentary Library for the information of members of Parliament. The representatives of the United Kingdom, the United States, France and Canada made during the closing stages of the session a short declaration of their common position, hut the subcommittee as a whole was unable to reach agreement on a joint or compromise proposal. The full Disarmament Commission, of which Australia is a member, will meet soon to consider the sub-committee’s report, and the proposals made during the sub-committee’s session are .being studied by the Government.
The main points of disagreement between the Soviet proposal on the one hand and the Anglo-French and United States proposals on the other were -
1. The Soviet plan was confined to reductions in conventional armaments and armed forces, whereas the other two contained provisions for nuclear disarmament. The Western members of the sub-committee believe that conventional armaments and forces cannot be dealt with in isolation. It is essential to include in any disarmament programme measures to diminish the threat of nuclear weapons.
2. The provisions for inspection and control of the agreed reductions contained in the Soviet proposal are not as comprehensive as those in the two Western proposals; in particular, the Soviet plan does not make adequate provision for the method of aerial reconnaissance. Obviously, any proposal for disarmament must contain adequate safeguards to protect parties to the agreement from surprise attack and to guarantee that all parties are complying with their obligations.
3. The proposals differed on the levels to which the armed forces of parties to the disarmament agreement should he reduced. The figures suggested by the Soviet Union are contained in the answer to 1 above. The “illustrative” figures suggested by the United States for a “ first phase “ of disarmament were 2,000,000 to 2,500,000 for the armed forces of the United States, the Soviet Union and China, and 750,000 for those of the United Kingdom and France. Western representatives in the sub-committee pointed out that although the Soviet figures had been taken from Anglo-French proposals made last year, the latter proposals had covered all aspects of disarmament - which the current Soviet proposals do not - and made provision for a complete system of ground and aerial inspection and control.
4. The Western members believe that the carrying out of a disarmament programme must be linked realistically with progress towards settlement of outstanding political issues. This concept is reflected in their prouosals for safeguarded disarmament. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, has insisted that its proposals for conventional disarmament, which would gravely weaken regional defence systems suchasNato. shouldbe carried out even before an increase in international confidence is achieved.

page 1752

QUESTION

TRADE WITH RUSSIA

Senator BROWN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister acting for the Minister for Trade, upon notice -

Is it a fact that New Zealand is doing a considerable amount of direct trade with Russia ?
Is Australia trading directly with Russia?
If so, what is the approximate value of such trade?
If Australia is not trading directly with Russia, why not?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Minister acting for the Minister for Trade has supplied the following answers : -

According to New Zealand trade statistics, New Zealand exports to Russia were valued at approximately £3,500,000 (Australian currency) in 1954, and approximately £2,500,000 in 1955. Imports from Russia were recorded at approximately £200,000 in 1954 and £50,000 in 1955.
Yes.
The Commonwealth Statistician records trade with Russia as follows (To nearest thousand pounds ) : -

page 1752

QUESTION

SUBSIDIES TO AIRLINES

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

What amount of subsidy was paid to MacRobertson Miller Aviation Company in (a) 1951-52, (b) 1952-53, (c) 1953-54 and
1. 1954-55?
What amount of subsidy was paid to Airlines Western Australian Limited in (a) 1951-52, (b) 1952-53, (c) 1953-54 and (d) 1954-55?
What amount of subsidy has been paid to MacRobertson Miller Airlines Limited in 1955-56 (to date) ?
Are subsidies payable on the following air routes: - (a) Perth to Geraldton, (b) Perth to Kalgoorlie, (c) Perth to Esperance via Kalgoorlie and (d) Perth to Albany?
Would Trans-Australia Airlines, if given a licence to do so by the West Australian Transport Board, consider extending its air routes to include all north-west ports?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following answers : -

The amount of subsidy paid to the company in respect of the year ending the 30th June, 1950, is £150,000.
Specific air services in Western Australia are not subsidized as such. The network of services operated by the company, which is regarded as essential in the national interest, is reviewed and an amount estimated as sufficient, with efficient management, to bridge the gap between costs and revenues and to provide a margin for reasonable profit, is paid to the operator.
Before Trans-Australia Airlines could operate in Western Australia the Western Australian Government would have to refer power to the Commonwealth to legislate on the subject and the Commonwealth Government would have to amend the Australian National Airlines Act 1945-52 so as to adopt the reference. As this has not been done the question of Trans-Australia Airlines extending its services to Western Australia does not arise.

page 1753

QUESTION

AERODROMES

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

Will the Minister explain the policy of his department with respect to the acquisition of aerodromes from local authorities which have spent loan funds in constructing suitable runways ? 2.Is it a fact that the department acquired the aerodrome at Casino at a cost of £11,977, while it refuses to take over the aerodrome established at Innisfail by the South Johnstone Shire Council, and if so, why?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following answers : -

The policy of the department has been to acquire aerodromes from local authorities when the traffic density justifies Commonwealth expenditure on the provision of buildings, runways, lighting, radio, &c. Because of the funds situation, it has not been practicable to effect any acquisitions for some time.
The department acquired the aerodrome at Casino for £11,977 in 1951. Apart from any other reason, funds for the acquisition of the Innisfail aerodrome are not available at the present time.

page 1753

QUESTION

MAIL MATTER AND DELIVERY

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 19th June, Senator Hannaford asked the following question : -

I direct a question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General and preface it by saying that it is on similar lines to a question asked, I think, last week by Senator Buttfield in connexion with the distribution of lottery mail throughout South Australia. I believe that the honorable senator’s question emanated from a letter similar to one which I, in common with other senators, received from the heads of the various churches in South Australia. It was signed by the Bishop of Adelaide, the Archbishop of Adelaide, the President of the Baptist Union, the President of the Methodist Conference, the President of the Congregational Union, the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church, the President of the Churches of Christ Union, the President of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Divisional Commander of the Salvation Army and the President of the United Churches Social Reform Board, these organizations all protesting about the distribution of lottery mail throughout South Australia in a way which not only infringes the law of that State but is also undesirable. Will the Minister give immediate consideration to this matter and indicate what steps have been, or are likely to be taken to stop this practice in South Australia?

I have now received the following information in reply : -

In my reply to his question I indicated to the honorable senator that the matter would be brought to the attention of my colleague, the honorable the Postmaster-General, and a full statement in reply sought before the rising of the House. I have now been informed by the Postmaster-General that the matter is already receiving attention in his department but because of certain legal considerations arising from it, which require very close examination, the furnishing of a complete reply before the House rises may not be possible. However, I have been assured that the matter is being closely followed up by my colleague who has promised to inform me of the outcome of his inquiries immediately they are completed.

page 1753

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– On the 7th June, Senator Marriott asked the following question : -

Last night, during the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate I, with support from both sides of the House, urged that the Government should consider proclaiming a set national day for Australia, which would be fittingly celebrated on a nation-wide basis. I ask the Leader of the Government to assure the Senate that when this or other such important matters are raised by honorable senators, they will be definitely brought to the notice of the Prime Minister or appropriate Minister and that, in due course, the Senate will be advised oi the Government’s, decision. 1 now reply to the honorable senator as follows: -

As I promised the honorable senator 1 brought this matter to the notice of the appropriate authorities. The Acting Prime Minister has informed me that the Government considers that the 26th January, the date on which a settlement was first established in this country in 1788, is an appropriate day each year for the purpose of celebrating an Australian National Day as suggested by Senator Marriott. Senator Marriott does not object to this date, which is already called Australia Day, being used for the purpose he referred to, but he considers that the significance is lost to a great extent when a holiday is observed on the following Monday, as is now done when the 2Cth January ‘does not fall on a Monday.

Whilst fully appreciating the patriotic sentiments expressed by Senator Marriott, the Government feels that the celebration of Australia Day, or any other day, for the suggested purpose of promoting civic and national pride would be best on a local, or State basis, and that it would be inappropriate for the Commonwealth Government to take the initiative. It is considered, rather, that celebrations such as this should spring spontaneously from the people. Any organization in this connexion should be entirely the responsibility of the various State governments.

Efforts have been made previously to set aside one day each year on which such celebrations could be observed in each State. Notwithstanding the national character of Australia Day, however, it is subject to regulation solely by the governments of the States. This matter was discussed at a Premiers conference last year but no decision was made. Even if it were constitutionally possible for the Commonwealth to do so, the Commonwealth Government would be loth to legislate on the celebration of Australia Day without the prior consent of the States. Such unanimous consent h”« not been achieved, and does not seem likely.

page 1754

EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL 1956

Assent reported.

page 1754

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL FLAG

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I lay on the 1 able the following paper : -

Australian national flag - Rules for flying the flag.

The rules have been drawn up by the Prime Minister’s Department and have been used over a number of years as a basis of replies to questions about the correct use of the Australian flag. It is evident that there are still occasions when people are in some doubt about what the Australian flag is, and the correct way tofly it. It is hoped that the publication of these rules will in the future ensure uniformity in these matters throughout the Commonwealth. The Government believesthat respect for the Australian national flag is’ the patriotic duty of all Australian, citizens. If it is known and respected,, it will always be used in a manner befitting the national emblem. It was for this reason that sanctions against the improper use of the flag were not provided, nor is it considered necessary at this stage to promulgate the rules under the act. In tabling the rules, I should like to mention that the Government is anxious to encourage the widest possible use of the Australian national flag by Australian citizens who may fly it at anytime subject to these rules.

page 1754

AUSTRALIAN WHALING COMMISSION

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I lay on the table the following paper: -

Whaling Industry Act - Australian Whaling Commission - Seventh Annual Report, together with Financial Accounts and theAuditorGeneral’s Report thereon.

Honorable senators will recall that in accordance with the legislation recentlypassed by the Parliament and assented to by the Governor-General, the commission has now ceased operations. Thisreport, therefore, is the final report of the commission for a full year of operations,, although it will, at a later date, make areport on its operations from the 1st April, 1956, until the date of cessation.

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

.- I moveThat the paper be printed.

I do so because I think it is necessary that it be made public because it completely vindicates everything that wassaid in this chamber by the Opposition relating to the negotiations which led to the finalizing of the work of the Australian Whaling Commission. There arethree main points upon which I base my motion. They are the same points as I brought out when the relevant bill was being debated. The first is that the whole of the transactions were so shrouded in secrecy that not even the staff of the commission itself knew anything about them until they were almost completed. According to the press, the commission says that it regrets that it was not taken into the confidence of the Government when the decision was made to sell its assets so that the knowledge and experience of its members could have been availed of to protect the interests of the Commonwealth when the conditions of sale were being prepared. That statement by officers of the commission proves that there must have been something to indicate that the interests of the people of Australia were not properly protected by the terms of sale as finally passed by the Parliament.

Another point is that the chairman of the commission expresses regret at the fact that the efficient staff organization is to be disbanded, and he points out that individual members of the staff have been offered much lower positions in the Public Service than they held before they joined the commission. I raised that point during discussion on the relevant bill, but could obtain very little satisfaction from the Minister “for National Development (Senator Spooner).

A further point which is of extreme importance to the economy of Western Australia is the fact that the report states that the change in management will result in loss of employment to a considerable number of men in Western Australia. Under the new set-up, no fewer than 100 men will be displaced from the industry. That is very serious in view of the fact that at the present time throughout Australia there is a general increase in the number of unemployed. The Minister for National Development might think that is not of very great moment; but it is of extreme importance to those who are unemployed.

I have not seen the commission’s report. I am merely speaking on the basis of reports published in the press this morning, but I submit that the paper should be printed and that it should be fully discussed by the Senate so that we may know exactly what happened during the months preceding the sale when the chairman of the commission, a trusted servant of the Commonwealth Government, was not taken into the Government’s confidence during the negotiations. There is a good deal of public consciousness about this matter and I feel that in the interests of the good name of the Parliament there should be a full and proper discussion of this report of the Australian Whaling Commission.

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

– I do not oppose the motion that the report be printed, nor would I oppose any attempt to debate its contents, but later I shall move that the debate be adjourned. I point out here, however, that during the debate that will take place later it will be shown that the contents of the report furnished by the Australian Whaling Commission reveal no information additional to that which has been put before the Senate already in answer to questions and during the debate on the bill relating to the sale of the commission’s assets.

Senator Tanguey says that the report complains that the chairman of the commission was not consulted. I understand that the commission criticizes that fact; but the short answer to the complaint is that the chairman of the commission, as an employee of the commission, had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of the commission and in seeing that the sale was not affected. I remind the Senate that, during the course of the negotiations, the chairman, who might well have been regarded as a trusted and confidential employee of the Commonwealth, made public statements which might have been embarrassing to the Government. Of course, that aspect of hie action did not matter very much, because such things have to be faced in political life. But, I direct attention to the fact that his public statements might well have embarrassed the sale, and depreciated the value of the asset that the Commonwealth was selling. That was a very serious set of circumstances. I have no desire at all to walk away from a debate on this matter, and I therefore ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted ; debate adjourned.

page 1756

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1956-57

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move-

That thebill be now read a second time.

This bill seeks an appropriation of £160,968,000, which is required to carry on the necessary normal services of government, other than capital works and services, for the first four months of the financial year 1956-57. The provision sought may be summarized under the following heads: -

The bill provides for the carrying on of essential services approved by the Parliament in the Appropriation Acts 1955-56. The several amounts provided for ordinary services represent, with minor exceptions, approximately one- third of the 1955-56 appropriations. The amount of £ 63,728,000 sought for Defence Services provides for expenditure on the current defence programme, and the amount of £8,978,000 for War and Repatriation Services covers expenditure on repatriation, rehabilitation and other postwar charges. Except in relation to defence, no amounts are included for new services.

However, an amount of £16,000,000 is sought for “ Advance to the Treasurer “ to enable the payment of the special grants to South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania to be continued pending the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, to make advances which will be recovered during the financial year, and also to meet unforeseen and miscellaneous expenditure, particulars of which will afterwards be included in a parliamentary appropriation.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1756

SUPPLY (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL (No. 1) 1956-57

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill appropriates an amount of £32.075,000, which is required to carry on the necessary normal capital works and services of government for the first four months of the financial year 1956-57. There will be Commonwealth works in progress at the 30th June, 1956, expenditure on which must be continued during the interval until the 1956-57 budget is passed by the Parliament. In addition, it is the practice to programme the capital works and services in the major Commonwealth departments, including the Department of Works, the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, the War Service Homes Division and the Department of Civil Aviation. The appropriation will also provide funds to ensure continuous employment and to enable purchases of materials in advance for the carrying out of those programmes of works. The bill provides for four months’ expenditure at the annual level at which expenditure was approved for the purposes of capital works and services in 1955-56.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1757

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1954-55

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That thebill be now read a second time.

The Supplementary Estimates of expenditure totalling £4,175,411 are for the financial year 1954-55. The amounts set out were expended from an appropriation of £16,000,000 made available to the Treasurer to meet expenditure which could not be foreseen when the Estimates were prepared. It is now necessary to obtain specific parliamentary appropriation for the several items of excess expenditure. Full details of the expenditure for 1954-55, which includes these items, are set out in the Treasurer’s finance statement for 1954-55, which was tabled during the budget session for the information of honorable senators. The Estimates Papers 1955-56 also show the total amounts voted for 1955-56, together with comparative figures for the previous year.

The Supplementary Estimates detail the items under which the additional amounts were expended by the various departments. The principal items, in round figures, are: Ordinary departmental expenditure, £2,954,000; business undertakings, £1,183,000; and territories of the Commonwealth, £38,000. Any further details of the various items of expenditure will be provided at a later stage. Honorable senators will know that the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts on the Supplementary Estimates, 1954-55, was recently laid on the table of the Senate. That report is now being examined.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1757

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL 1954-55

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Appropriations for capital works and services for the financial year 1954-55 amounted to £102,584,000. The actual expenditure was £91,997,000, that is £10,587,000 less than the appropriation. However, due to requirements which could not be foreseen when the Estimates were prepared, the expenditure on certain items exceeded the individual amounts appropriated, and it is now necessary to obtain parliamentary approval of these increases.

The excess expenditure on the particular items totals £95,794, which is spread over the various items of the departments, as set out in the schedule to the bill. Any details which may be required by honorable senators will be furnished ata later stage.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1757

CELLULOSE ACETATE FLAKE BOUNTY BILL 1956

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 14th June (vide page 1600), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

.- The decision of the Minister for the Navy (Senator O’Sullivan) that this matter be dealt with forthwith has rather taken me by surprise. One of my colleague? had been delegated to resume the debate. However, I can inform the Senate that we are not opposing the measure.I know that Senator Arnold wished to speak concerning either this bill or the Rayon Yarn Bounty Bill - I think probably the former - and as he is not here at the moment, perhaps I may be permitted to make a few comments.

I take it that this matter has been the subject of consideration by the Tariff Board. As the Minister indicated in his second-reading speech, it is proposed to pay a bounty of10d. per lb. in respect of flake of this kind which is sold for use in the manufacture in Australia of cellulose acetate rayon yarn. As the Minister also indicated, that bounty has been based on a recommendation of the Tariff Board which was made on the 7 th October last. It is very rarely that the Government fails to accept a recommendation of the Tariff Board. I can recall only one instance, which I think will be before the Senate presently, when that has taken place. This commodity, as the Minister has indicated, is produced in Australia by only one company, the Commonwealth Sugar Refining Chemicals Proprietary Limited, of Sydney, and the rayon grade of this flake is purchased by Courtaulds (Australia) Proprietary Limited for the production of cellulose acetate rayon yarn. The Rayon Yarn Bounty Bill 1956 deals with that matter more fully.

As to the capital investment in this industry, the Minister indicated that, of the fixed and working capital employed in the cellulose acetate flake project of Commonwealth Sugar Refining Chemicals Proprietary Limited, more than £3,000,000 is attributed to flake of the grade suitable for the production of rayon yarn. It is rather interesting to note that, in a prior report, the Tariff Board recommended that no assistance be given.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– It was not economic at that stage.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is correct. As the Minister stated in his secondreading speech, such assistance was claimed to be necessary because of the high costs of establishment and production.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The degree of protection necessary at that stage would have been at such a high level that it would not have been economic.

Senator McKENNA:

– It is very interesting to find that the refusal of assistance at that stage apparently stimulated the company into increased activity, with the result that it has been able to get its costs down and can now produce on an economic basis. Of course, one of the reasons for that success is that it has been able to obtain a lower price in respect of its main raw material, wood pulp. It appears too, from what the Minister has already put before the Senate, that the royalty payments that it has had to meet have ended, apparently by the lapse of contractual obligations. However, despite the matters referred to by the Minister, the company is still at a disadvantage and quite obviously needs special assistance. I believe that the quality of the product is quite high. In the circumstances, I do not propose to delay the passage of the measure. The Opposition has no objection to the bill. It welcomes an industry of this sort. Tariff protection for an industry that is efficient, that makes for the development of Australia, and that provides employment for Australians has the cordial support of the Opposition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1758

RAYON YARN BOUNTY BILL 1956

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 14th June (vide page 1601), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition will not oppose the passage of this measure, which is in accordance with a recommendation of the Tariff Board. The money that is to be made available for the payment of a bounty each year is £100,000. Claims covering the first year of operation are expected to exceed £39,000 and when the existing plant attains maximum production, the level of claims each year is expected to rise to £8 7,000.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1758

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY BILL 1956

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 21st June (vide page 1745), on motion by Senator Spicer -

That the bill be now read a second time..

Senator O’BYRNE (Tasmania) [11.19J. - The bill before the Senate has been widely canvassed, and many aspects have been debated at length. The debate has shown that an attack on basic union principles is inherent in the powers that are to be conferred on the new stevedoring industry authority. This is a flagrant attempt to give powers to the authority to smash the Waterside Workers Federation. In recent years, reference has frequently been made to the need for ballots controlled by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. Honorable senators on the Government side have been challenged to show where there have been irregularities in the ballots of the federation which is under attack in this legislation. The court has set up machinery for the conduct of ballots, and persons with an ulterior motive could not have any influence on the affairs and the control of the union. It is clear that this bill is designed to interfere in union affairs and the ballots of the federation.

Under this measure, the new authority will be given the right to interfere flagrantly with union affairs. The provisions of the bill are so wide that the authority will be able to interfere in the selection of candidates for office in the Waterside Workers Federation and the membership of the union. The Government appears to be intoxicated by the heady influence of its numbers. According to the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), only numbers count these days. The Government has frequently used its numbers to force legislation through the Parliament under the guise of a mandate from the people. That is evidence of the Government’s readiness to use its majority to select persons of its own choosing for the new stevedoring authority.

We can be sure that those persons will be carefully selected haters of waterside workers. Nazi Germany had its Jew baiters and Jew haters, but we have wharfie haters and wharfie baiters. This bill will encourage those who have a psychological need to hate some one. Under the pretence of setting up an authority to control the waterfront, the Government is even singling out individual members of the Waterside Workers

Federation for attack. The Government and its supporters under-estimate the combined power of the trade unions. This measure is designed to undermine the hard-won rights of trade unionists. No unionists worth their salt will toleratethe terms and conditions that are to be imposed on them ruthlessly under this measure. The Government will select people and arm them with powers toprobe right into the heart of a union organization. They will certainly be stooges of the Government, who will doanything that is foreign to trade unonism The Government is playing with fire. It is continually purveying its simulatedregard for the rights of the individual, but good unionists in whatever industry they may be engaged will always beware of any effort to divide them and rule them. This technique has been used by conservatives and reactionaries during the last 100 years, not only in this country but in other parts of the world, in an endeavour to prevent the worker from achieving his just share of the proceed? of his labour. In matters concerning his own union, each individual will assert his right to defend his organization against such tactics. It is essential that the determination of membership of the union should be in the union’s own hands,, but that will not be the case if the surplus labour force that it is proposed to introduce under this legislation must be admitted as members of the union. Every unionist will take umbrage at any law that will allow outside people to dictate who shall be members of the Waterside Workers Federation.

What happened in New Zealand has been quoted during the course of this debate. Conditions on the waterfront in that country are not comparable with those on the Australian waterfront. The population of New Zealand is much smaller. The New Zealand equivalent of our Waterside Workers Federation did not have the strength to resist the attack that was made on it when troops were introduced on the wharfs. The Government of that country was thus able to break the organization and introduce a tamecat, bosses’ stooge union in New Zealand. Similar circumstances do not exist in this country. Fortunately, although it is often referred to critically by Government senators, over 60 per cent, of the workers in Australia are members of trade unions; and their combined strength in a democracy must be considered. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt) has acted like, a fool on horseback, galloping in with legislation of this kind, if he thinks he can follow the example of New Zealand and set up a bodgie union. [ use the term “ bodgie “ in its true sense. The bill is ill-considered and seeks to impose a parasitic union on the whole of the trade union movement of Australia. Such a union will never be recognized by decent unionists. The Minister evidently has some sinister motive in introducing legislation of this kind.

The proposed supplementary labour force will be composed of pre-war “ dicky-birds “ who, in those days, through sheer want had to hover round and wait to pick up any little bit of work they could get in order to supplement their meagre income to get sufficient money to buy the bare necessaries of bread and jam for their families. A different approach is being made under this bill. Encouragement is to be given to people who are already working in other industries to register for this supplementary labour force. The result will be that even the present casual nature of work on the waterfront will be made even more casual because of the inflation of the number of people available to do the limited amount of work that is available on the waterfront. Senator “Wright referred to the bargemen and watermen on the Thames. In the United Kingdom and New Zealand workers on the waterfront have at least an assured weekly wage; but under this bill no provision is being made to provide that basic security which has been the objective of the struggles of the waterside workers down the years. They have sought to achieve some status from the point of view of permanency of employment and economic security.

Although obvious faults exist throughout the waterfront, this Government, after being in office for six years, has failed to stand up to its responsibility. In introducing such a hateful and obnoxious measure as the one now before this chamber, it stands indicted as being completely prejudiced against a section of the Australian community.

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– The Labour government faced up to its responsibilities during the war. It was able to maintain the defence of this country and bring about a cessation of hostilities although il had the worst start that any government could have had. In the midst of the war, the Liberal government, through lack of courage and ability, resigned and threw the baby into the lap of Labour. The legacy that the Labour government was left will not be soon forgotten by true Australians. The real story of the activities of the Liberal government during the early days of the war is being revealed as various authentic memoir? are published. Those memoirs prove conclusively that that government was prepared to sell out the whole of the northern part of Australia. It had made preparations to bring all the cattle behind what has become known as the Brisbane line. Those things were denied at the time, but they have been vouched for by people who were actually the spearhead of the defence of this country at that time. So, speaking of the legacy which Labour has left. I am proud to stand by what the Labour party has done for this country. In all these matters this Government is inclined to say, “ Do not do as we do, but do as we say. Government senators, when supporting measures of this kind, are strong In their criticism of the wharf labourers, bur how would they fare, working in the holds of ships, handling obnoxious cargoes with inadequate facilities? How would they feel about losing time because of wet weather? Surely practical men must realize that the money lost through wet weather would more than pay for installing machinery, shelter and amenities to enable work to continue without interruption, and thus remove a major cause of dissatisfaction among the workers.

I hope that the Government will avoid the explosive consequences of implementing this measure by following the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition to replace outmoded equipment, and by attending to those other matters involved in the fifteen points that he raised. Those very matters have been commented on by authorities who have been appointed to investigate conditions on the waterfront, and in their reports and recommendations they have stressed the need for improvement. The Basten report is an example. The Tait report is only half-baked, and the Tait committee is falling down on its job. When a committee is given terms of reference to conduct an inquiry it should either proceed to the end and submit a report, or else acquaint the Government that, because it is unable to complete the task, it proposes to hand in its commission. An interim report such as this committee has written is unsatisfactory.

I say again that the surest way io industrial peace on the waterfront is to provide adequate equipment and proper amenities for the workers. It is of no use for the Government to attack the Waterside Workers Federation or to disband it and substitute for it a stooge organization that will do its bidding. If the waterside workers object to this measure and refuse to accept its terms, the situation will be aggravated if the Government brings troops on to the wharfs to do the work as happened in New Zealand.

Why not establish proper conditions find enable the workers on the waterfront to do their job adequately? As a result of long experience in that occupation, they have become used to the work, and have even adjusted the pattern of their domestic lives to conform to it. Why should they not have security of employment and an adequate return for their labour? Is it not better to have contentment in this industry than upheaval, which will most surely follow the implementation of this measure? It is time chat the pin-pricking tactics of shipowners and officials of the Stevedoring Industry Board were ended. That sort of irritation has often been the cause of antagonism between the officers of the board and union officials. The officers give the impression that they own the ships and all the facilities on the wharfs, instead of being the servants of a public authority whose function it is to promote good relations between employer and employee.

The stevedoring industry has reached a very poor state as a result of buckpassing between the Commonwealth and the States. Only this morning, the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) evaded the real issue in a question by saying that if the New South Wales State Government could not find £500,000 to install adequate port facilities at Newcastle, it should get out and allow private enterprise to do it. It must be remembered that the Federal Government is the sole taxing authority in Australia and, without batting an eyelid, it can bring in legislation to provide £160,000,000 for defence, and millions of pounds for other purposes, but when vital measures involving the trade and commerce of the country are under consideration relating to the improvement of the means of handling goods at important ports, the buck is passed to the States on the ground that the Commonwealth has no responsibility in the matter. If there were a will, a way would soon be found to solve these problems.

It is natural to ask why this measure should be brought before Parliament in the dying hours of the session? Within the past fortnight, the Government brought down legislation to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act although an appeal from an arbitration matter - the High Court judgment in the Boilermakers case - is still under consideration by the Privy Council.. The consideration of such an amendment is out of order because the case is still sub judice. A similar situation exists in regard to this measure. The Tait committee has been asked to investigate the activities of the stevedoring industry. We now find that when only some of the matters referred to the committee have been investigated, an interim report has been made, and the Government is using that report as a stalking horse so to speak. I repeat that that is being done even though the committee has not concluded its investigation into such important matters as costs and prices.

The haste of the Government to introduce this measure indicates that there is something behind the motives of the Government that will not bear investigation. The Minister for Labour and National

Service (Mr. Harold Holt) has known all the political tricks for too long to fall into error. At the present time when he is heir-apparent to the Ming dynasty, he is far too astute to engage in an industrial fight of such magnitude unless he knows exactly what he is doing. One is inclined to consider that because of its falling stocks, the Government is introducing this measure in the rather negative yet diabolical hope that the industrial turmoil which will follow will divert attention from its own shortcomings.

No matter what happens after this measure has been passed, whether attempts are made to enforce it by governments, stevedoring authorities or armed forces, there will be a considerable amount of industrial trouble. It seems to me that this bill will enable the Government to divert attention from its own mistakes and blunders, which are at present developing and which will become more apparent at the end of the financial year. It is also rather interesting to note that on the eve of the reduction of its majority in this chamber, the Government has introduced a controversial measure such as the one at present before the Senate. However, it is quite in line with the general policy of this Government.

The Government has always managed to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the psychological moment. Just before the general election in 1954 the Sydney Morning Herald wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and asked him when he intended to do something to build up public confidence in his Government. The letter went on to say that the Prime Minister had done so little for so long that he would have to pull a rabbit out of the hat in order to win the elections. In that particular case the rabbit turned out to be Petrov. The Petrov affair was God’s gift to Menzies.

As the Government’s stocks have been so low, it has been interesting to speculate on the nature of the next rabbit that the Government would pull out of the hat. I suggest that this measure is the rabbit. At the right time the Government will put this legislation into operation and cause an enormous amount of industrial trouble on the waterfront. Then Mr.

Healy, the secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, will be used as the Government’s scapegoat because of his political ideology. I suggest that if the waterside workers objected to Mr. Healy’s politics they would have opposed and rejected him at their union elections, and elected somebody in his place. But the fact is that he was returned to his present position unopposed by anybody in the union. Honorable senators should remember that that action was taken by men who are industrially and politically well-informed and mature, and they exercised their rights through the properly constituted union ballots.

I suggest that when it suits the Government, Mr. Healy will be paraded up and down this country as the Communist influence in the Waterside Workers Federation. Then it will be said that because the Labour party supports trade unions and the Waterside Workers Federation to the limit, as Healy is associated with the waterside workers and as he is a Communist, therefore all the members of the Labour party are Communists. That is the logical reasoning, so-called, used by the Government.

Nevertheless, at this late stage, I ask the Government to withdraw the bill because it is a frontal attack on the members of the trade unions and on trade unionism itself. The implementation of this legislation will bring about industrial turmoil. I hope that some sense of proportion and some sanity will prevail in the ranks of the Government. I suggest that the Government should do whatever it likes with this bill - I shall give it very wide scope in that regard - but not implement it.

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

– It is a very curious fact that in a debate on a matter of such great importance to Australia as a whole, there have been so few original ideas presented and very little constructive thought expressed. Even in Senator Wright’s very long and somewhat wearisome speech, which was delivered last night, there were very few constructive ideas. Indeed, it was only in his presentation that he differed from other honorable senators - a presentation that must have made Judas iscariot turn over in his grave with envy.

I have looked forward to this particular debate, but I have found that during its course we have had mainly abuse from the Opposition, and a display of lack of knowledge by some of the honorable senators on our side of the chamber. I do not propose to follow the rather curious track upon which Senator O’Byrne travelled - but which he seemed to wander away from on a number of occasions - because I have certain matters to put before the Senate, some of which I fondly hope are constructive.

Generally speaking, the debate so far has indicated that there is much completely misinformed opinion about matters in connexion with the waterfront. That is quite understandable. No doubt Senator McKenna and the other honorable senators who are members of the legal profession dealt with the legal side of the bill far better than I could, but I do suggest that when it comes to practical matters, such as what actually goes on on the waterfront, they know very little. Nevertheless, they have made frequent essays into things that they do not understand.

It is obvious that there is a good deal of strong prejudice on both sides of the waterfront, but I have no prejudice at all. I do not like the methods of the leaders of the Waterside . Workers Federation of Australia, nor the methods of the shipowners, as I have known them over the years. Consequently, I am not at all prejudiced in this matter, and what I have to say I shall try to say us objectively as I can.

It seems quite illogical to me that two groups of human beings can have arrived at such diametrically opposed views without one or both being completely wrong, and it is to an examination of that question that I intend to devote my time to-day. There is no honorable senator in this chamber who knows better than I the nature of conditions on the wharfs prior to, and since, World War II. Indeed, my recollection goes back to 1914, when, as a young apprentice in sailing ships, I saw the men going to the pick-up sheds in Liverpool. Perhaps about 3,000 would attend for work, and only 1,500 be picked up. The rest would go back home through the snow without having got jobs. While I do not suggest that anything like that occurs to-day, I do believe that I know something about this particular matter.

Between the time of the depression of the early ‘thirties and the beginning of World War II., the condition of the waterside industry was, if I can use the term that everybody else has been using, turbulent. The turbulence at that period was greatly dampened down by the fact that there were numerous unemployed in this country. The owners and stevedores at that time took full advantage of the fact that there were a great many men, both in the union and out of it, who were more than willing to take jobs on the waterfront. Who can blame them for that? If a man has a family and it is starving, who can blame him if he assists in strike breaking? I certainly do not.

I come now to World War II. During that war, with four divisions overseas, with the Navy vastly expanded, with more ships and every ship carrying a war-time complement, which is about 25 per cent, more than the peace-time complement, with the Empire Air Training Scheme going on in Canada, and “with all the ancillary services such as munitions and allied types of work in Australia, it must have been obvious to everybody in Australia, including the leaders of the Waterside Workers Federation, that what would have “to be done here would be harder work and longer hours by those left behind in order to support the men who had gone overseas. Unfortunately, the leaders of this industry moved in the opposite direction, and nobody who knows what happened in this country during that war will ever forget or forgive the actions of th9 Waterside Workers Federation at that time. It is just plain nonsense for the Leader of the Opposition in another place to say that Sir Thomas Gordon gave praise to the Waterside Workers Federation. I should very much like to know on what evidence Dr. Evatt bases that assumption, because I also spoke to Sir Thomas Gordon and the sea transport officer, and I can assure honorable senators that the views of both those gentlemen were entirely’ the opposite of those Dr. Evatt expressed. Let us suppose for a moment that Dr. Evatt is right. If he is, why did he and his Government at that time have to introduce army docks operating companies in order to get the work done because the waterside workers would not do it? The Labour government’s action at that time was particularly weak. As has been said here already to-day, that government left a shocking post-war legacy because it had refused to take firm action ; and I do not think anybody in Australia to-day will deny what I say is true.

After the war, we saw the process of things going from bad to worse. I can understand to some extent what happened during the post-war period when the men saw the chance of getting amenities and all the other things they had been trying to get over the years. When they saw that opportunity after the war was over - done with and forgotten - I could to a large extent sympathize with their desire for proper crib rooms, sanitary arrangements, canteens, first aid kits, hot and cold water and all the facilities that should be provided on wharfs in keeping with the general trend in ordinary factory work to-day. Although I will never forget the war years, I can, up to a point, understand why they fought so hard to get those things when they had the opportunity in times of full employment and a great shortage of labour in Australia. They knew then that whatever they did they would probably get away with it; and they have done so over the years. I think it was Mr. Justice Higgins who said that the weaker side always complains of tyranny but itself becomes the tyrant when the opportunity occurs. That particular period led the men to demand more than their just rights. It led them into a number of frivolous strikes that should never have taken place. Last year, things were going from bad to worse, and I believe that eventually not only our coastal shipping but also our possibility of getting much needed exports transported overseas would have been destroyed. There has been a very slight improvement over the last seven or eight months. I do not know whether that has been due to the 1954 legislation; it is quite impossible to say.

During this debate, and indeed over some years, I have listened to a great many people who have maintained that the only thing to do is to abolish the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board, that as soon as that was done everything in the garden would be lovely, the men would all turn >up for work, they would work 25 tons to the gang-hour, and so on. Nothing could be further from the truth. I point out that that suggestion has been made from both sides of the chamber. If we do away with the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board, which is, at present, the buffer between the two warring elements - there is no need to be mealy-mouthed about this for they are warring elements - what are we to have in its place ? In the first instance, are we to go back to the old bull-pen type of pick-up under which, if a man had a row with a pannikin boss he might not. get a job for weeks or months? In fact, he might have to give up going to the wharf, because he would know he would not get a job. If we abolish the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board, who is to look after such things as rostering, attendance money, the evening-up of payments so that men will get approximately equal pay, and the many other things this board looks after now.

Let us analyse the duties that were entrusted to the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board when it was set up originally. In the first place, it had to look after the quotas at ports and see that they were filled. In general, it did quite a. good job in that respect over the years. There was a certain amount of argument and trouble, comparatively recently, when the legislation was being turned upside down; but, generally speaking, it did a very good job over the years. It did a competent job in connexion with the rostering of the men. I have discussed how it operated in equalizing the earnings of the waterside workers. I have been assured by a number of men on the wharfs in Queensland that this was taken care of very well by the board. Attendance money was not a difficult thing to look after, but some authority had to do the work, and it was done by the Australian

Stevedoring Industry Board. The hoard also had to arrange, when necessary, for the transfer of men from port to port. That, of course, also entailed the provision of accommodation for them. On the comparatively small number of occasions when it was necessary to transfer men from port to port, that was done with expedition, and very little hard feeling was caused.

The policing of amenities was another of the board’s functions. It is quite obvious that amenities have not yet reached the standard which is coming to be expected in every factory, certainly throughout Australia, and in all enlightened countries. Mr. Justice Ashburner mentions that fact in his judgment. However, a great deal has been done by comparison with what we had on the wharfs at one time. On practically every wharf in Australia to-day, there is provided hot and cold running water, as well as iced water in the summer time. There are crib-rooms on about half of the wharfs, and a few have canteens. On the big majority of wharfs there is some semblance of a first-aid room, equipped with a couch, and a kit with which to treat men who meet with accidents. Of course, some of them are rather sketchy. A funny system operates in Townsville, where, when a worker meets with an accident,” a man in the wharf office immediatly pedals away on a bicycle to let the Harbour Board know about it. I have never been able to ascertain why the board is riot notified by telephone.

Various peculiar practices are observed in other Australian ports, probably due to the fact that the wharfs are owned by so many different kinds of bodies, including the Harbours and Marine Department, the State governments and private companies. In Brisbane, even the City Council owns a wharf - and what a shocking wharf it i.« ! It is used by John Burke Limited. After that shipping company had applied unsuccessfully to the council for some years for certain deficiencies on. the wharf to be rectified, it decided to carry out the work itself. The company was then sued by the council for effecting alterations to the wharf. But, in general, the amenities on the wharfs are policed, and they are getting better each year. In many instances, wharfs which are owned by the State governments and by private companies are being reconstructed. Doubtless, better amenities will be provided when new sheds are built.

The Australian Stevedoring Industry Board was asked to arbitrate in connexion with small disputes on the waterfront. It is interesting to note that, in 98 per cent, of cases, small disputes with which the board has dealt have been settled without stoppages occurring. It can be fairly claimed, therefore, that in that respect the board has been quite successful. This brings me to the last of the board’s duties, discipline, which stems from sections 23 and 24 of the act. Section 25 relates to appeals. I want to make a particular point here, which is, that both those sections contain practically the same words. To all intents and purposes, they are the same words, except that in one instance the term “ employer “ is used, and in the other “ employee “. Over the years that the board has operated, thousands of waterside workers have been penalized and hundreds have been deregistered. It is noteworthy that on the only two occasions that the board penalized the shipping companies and the stevedores, judgment on appeal was given against the board. The first case occurred in August, 1951, the subsequent appeal being heard by Mr. Justice Kirby. It is reported in Commonwealth Arbitration Reports, volume 72, at page 17. At the commencement of his judgment, his honour stated that it was clear that the man concerned had been drunk and unfit for duty. He went on to say -

After considering the evidence with care and applying my knowledge of the community’s present needs from this industry, I am satisfied that Dalgety and Company Limited on the night in question, by reason of errors of omission in regard to sufficient and efficient supervision, acted in a manner whereby the proper performance of stevedoring operations was interfered with.

I have not lifted anything out of its context. His honour continued -

I am also satisfied that the evidence in thi° case is sufficient to support a finding of unfitness to continue to be registered as an employer and that it was properly a matter for the Board to suspend the appellant’s registration for a period rather than to cancel its registration, which latter would be a course of conduct quite disproportionate to the circumstances of this case.

That is what the board did. The judgment went on -

This Court will do all in its power to help the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board. . . Whilst the Court regards this matter as most serious, it must have regard to the fact that this is the first occasion on which a company has been suspended for permitting drunkenness on the job. . . . Had I the power to fine the company I would do so. . . However, 1 have not the power . . . and in all the circumstances the Court thinks it proper to vary the Board’s decision by revoking the suspension and ordering the company to pay to the Board . . . the . . costs of this appeal.

Senator Wright:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that that was a case proper for cancellation?

Senator KENDALL:

– I am not disputing Mr. Justice Kirby’s judgment.

Senator Wright:

– I thought, from the theme of the honorable senator’s remarks, that he was questioning’ the judgment.

Senator KENDALL:

– I am not questioning anything at all at this stage. I come now to the second case, which was heard by the High Court in October, 1952, and which is reported in Commonwealth Law Reports, volume 88, at page 100. The court comprised Mr.. Justice Dixon, Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Webb and Mr. Justice Fullagar. I suggest to Senator Wright that I would be very foolish indeed to question a judgment of a court so constituted. I merely want to bring to the notice of the Senate that, in this particular case, two waterside workers were arrested at 6.30 p.m. on the 13th October, 1952. I ask honorable senators to note particularly that time. The men were charged with being drunk and disorderly. They were subsequently released on bail, and appeared before the court on the following day, when they were convicted and fined. All of that was very right and proper. But at 8.30 a.m. on the 14th October, the day following the incident, the stevedor ing company, the Melbourne Steamship Company Limited, reported to the board that one man had become sick and left his work at 8 p.m. the previous night. It made no mention of the second man, whom it listed as working the full shift, despite the fact that the men were not released on bail until after the shift had completed its work on the previous night. The company was called upon to show cause why it should not be regarded as unfit to continue as a registered employer. I should point out that the company had been previously warned that there was no question of this being the first offence of the kind. In its judgment, the court said that the allegations, even if true, did not constitute unfitness of the employers and prohibit further proceedings by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board, hecause there were further grounds. I can quite understand that there were. The court said that a newspaper article had prejudiced a fair hearing. I can also understand that. The court found that the board had exceeded the power conferred on it by section 23 of the Stevedoring Industry Act. Just as I accept the decision, of an umpire at a football match or a cricket match, I accept the court’s decision in this case. The point that I make is this : The men on the waterfront believe that there is one law for the shipowners and the stevedoring interests, and another for the men. There is an old legal maxim to the effect that justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done. The opinions of men with whom I have talked on the Queensland coast, from Port Douglas to Coolangatta, confirm that what I have said illustra.tes the general feeling amongst the waterside workers, at least in Queensland. I have mentioned this aspect of the matter, because it contributes to he turbulence on the waterfront to which speakers on both sides of the chamber have referred. As a lay man, I think that appeals and discipline are very >vell dealt with in clauses 22 and 35 of the bill. To my immature legal mind, that indicates that some process of real authority will come about when this bill becomes law, and in that sense I think that this measure is a big improvement on the original legislation.

As a non-legal man, I think that clause 22 seems to give to the stevedoring body that is to be appointed adequate authority to carry out its functions and do a good job. The clause provides -

An order or direction of the Authority shall notbe challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called in question, or be subject to prohibition, mandamus or injunction, in any court on any account whatever.

I understand that the only time that the High Court could intervene would be when the authority completely departed from the provisions of the act. I have been informed of that by a legal authority, and to my way of thinking it is a good idea, because if there is one thing that is needed, it is a body with real authority.

Clause 35 provides that - (1.) If the Court, on the application of the Authority, is satisfied that an employer registered at a port -

does not have the means of carrying out stevedoring operations at the port in an expeditious, safe and efficient manner or of discharging the duties and obligations of an employer under this Act;
has failed to comply with an order or direction of the Authority under this Act or an award of the Commission; or
has been convicted of an offence against this Act, the Court may order the Authority to cancel the registration of the employer, or to suspend his registration until the expiration of such period as the Court directs, and thereupon the Authority shall cancel or suspend the registration of the employer accordingly.

To my simple mind, that means that the court and the authority are to have an opportunity to deal with shipowners and stevedores, as well as with the men. That seems to me fair. Therefore, as far as that clause is concerned, I think it is a vast improvement on the present provision.

Senator Ashley:

– Give us something on the nautical side.

Senator KENDALL:

– Senator Ashley has suggested that I deal with this matter from the nautical aspect. I remind him that even sailors have to obey the law. Lack of power on the wharfs has been only one of many disabilities.

In order to oblige Senator Ashley,I now turn to something of which I have greater knowledge. What is the object of the Government, the shipowners, and probably the majority of waterside workers at present? I suggest that it is to improve the work on the waterfront, to improve the turn-round of ships, to eliminate non-essentials, and to cut out time-wasting practices. As has been mentioned many times during the course of this debate, 61 per cent. of our freight costs is due to stevedoring charges. In my opinion, we have two alternatives. First, we could try to persuade the leaders of the federation to acknowledge that New Zealand has a scheme that is worth looking at. I shall iudicate to the Senate some points from the last annual report of the New Zealand Waterfront Industry Commission, because they are most illuminating and show what can be done. They have there a co-operative contracting system. The profits last year were almost £1,000,000, representing approximately £3 10s. a week for every man in the co-operative, or £182 a year over and above their actual wages. During that period, 2,500 man-hours were lost out of 14,250,000 man-hours worked. Surely, that is something of which we should sit up and take notice.

As to tonnage, in 1950-51, before this scheme came into being, 8,000 men handled 8,250,000 tons of cargo. In 1954-55, 6,500 men handled 10,250,000 tons of cargo. That is the reason that they have received this large bonus of £182 at the end of the year; they have been willing to work and to get the ships turned round as soon as possible. In other words, that improvement has been due to the fact that, to a very large extent, they are working for themselves. All of the profits come back to them. There is adequate and continuous supervision on the ships by the employers; they have an appreciation of the old tag “ A good day’s work for a good day’s pay”; they have very good relations between employer and employee; and last, but by no means least, there is no restriction on the employment of non-registered workers, including crews of vessels, when it is necessary to employ unregistered labour, that is to say, when all the registered labour in the port is in use. I shall deal with this matter a little later, because in the bill now before the Senate is a suggestion that, after the 1st January next, something very similar to the New Zealand scheme could be introduced in Australia.

The percentage of work done by nonregistered men in New Zealand is interesting. It varies from 5 per cent, to 7 per cent, which, although not a great variation, is sufficient to keep the ships turning. In relation to the turn-round of ships, apparently there .has been a saving of two and. a half days on every ship, while the rates of gang-hours have doubled. In my day, New Zealand was one of the worst countries in the world in respect of work on the waterfront. At Auckland, they used to work 12 tons a gang-hour, at Wellington 14 tons, at Lyttleton about 11 tons, and at Port Chalmers, Dunedin, which was the only port where anything like a decent standard prevailed, 19 tons. Those conditions were particularly noticeable because, at that time, the Australian waterfront was amongst the best in the world. In Sydney, in those days, I saw men working up to 50 tons a gang-hour in order to get a ship away, and I saw men working up to 42 tons a gang-hour in Brisbane.

Senator Wright:

– When was that?

Senator KENDALL:

Senator KENDALL:

– Just to use up the men. I point out that the fault does not lie on one side only. In Cairns, T. noticed six jib cranes working. All of them were going through the centre door although there were three doors to the shed. The six jib cranes were jockeying to try and get through the one door. I wondered why that should be. I found that that was the only door that was high enough for the cranes to go through. If f had been given a hammer, nails and a saw, I could have in a morning made the other doors suitable to take the jib cranes. I am not saying that the fault is all on the one side. That matter in Cairns should have been dealt with by the Cairns Harbour Board. Things like that hold up the discharge of the loading of ships.

The fourth point 1 want to make - and [ trust that any honorable senator opposite who follows me will not misquote me - is that instead of working a 40-hour week waterside workers should work an 80-hour fortnight. In other words, when there are flushes and peaks of which we have heard so much, an 80-hour fortnight would enable a call to be made for additional labour during a peak period. This cannot be done when the work has to be divided into two weekly periods. This would be an advantage to all concerned. The ships would gain in that they would be able to obtain all the labour they wanted and the waterside workers would gain because they would earn overtime. Taking an extreme example, a man who worked from Monday to Saturday continuously - that is not likely to happen as it is an extreme case - would, under the new Ashburner award earn £46 or £47. I may be 10s. out one way or the other. That would be in contrast to what he would earn in two separate weeks, which would be, roughly, £19 a week making £38 for the fortnight. The man would have a net gain of from £8 to £10 and also a week free in which to look after his vegetable garden; and the ship would get away.

My fifth point deals with rain. 1 have heard some extraordinary statements made about rain, not only in this chamber, but also in party rooms and by the public outside. Some have said that we cannot do anything about it and others have said that surely somebody could invent something. Thirty years ago the answer was supplied to the problem of rain. Every ship carrying cargo was fitted with a huge tent supported by the derrick. The sides of the tent were permanently fastened to the hatch and there was a fly from the wharf to the side of the ship. At all times, except during very wet weather, the cargo was able to be worked out from the hold of the ship underneath this tent. The cargo itself was covered with small tarpaulins and when landed on the wharf it was run into the shed with these small tarpaulins completely covering it, and no damage was done to the cargo. Flour could not be handled in that way, but, generally speaking, all other cargo could be handled in that way. Those tents are still on ships that arrive from British and foreign ports, but the trouble is that Australian waterside workers will not work in the rain. I fail to see why they should be virtually the only people in the world who are not prepared to work in the rain. Seamen work in the rain and sometimes1 have to stand as long as four hours on end. Electricians and linemen in departments take a pride in repairing lines during all weathers.

Senator Ashley:

– It is the cargo that will get wet; that has to be considered.

Senator KENDALL:

– If Senator Ashley will stop interjecting I will he able to get along a lot better. He should look after the coal industry; it is the only thing about which he knows anything. If he had been listening he would have heard me explain how the cargo is covered. It is covered with small tarpaulins during the short period it travels from the hold to the wharf. I have seen that done over the years. As I have said, in every other walk of life people have to work in the rain. The men who deliver our milk and our newspapers work in the rain; the dairy-farmers work in the rain. Why should not waterside workers put on an oilskin coat and work in the rain? When it is considered that as a result of this delay there is 6 per cent, of nonproductive time, it is well worth while looking into this matter.

My sixth point deals with shunting. This is a very important point because the time lost represents not less than 39 per cent, of the unproductive time, that is time during which no cargo actually goes into the ship or comes out of it. In connexion with this matter, 1 might, with respect, suggest that the constitutional committee which has been set up might endeavour to find some method whereby State governments can obtain funds which will be specially allocated for the modernization of their wharfs so that there will not be this appalling loss of time in shunting. Let us consider what happens on the ordinary wharf to-day. I shall take the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited’s wharf at Newcastle as an example. The trucks are taken to the end of the wharf and are unloaded, and then “ Bill “ goes away to see if he can obtain an engine to take the empty trucks away and bring a new rake in. It takes time. In order to save this tremendous loss of time, the wharfs must be re-constructed. At Mourilyan, in north Queensland, a circular wharf track has been built. The trucks come down one way, pass along the wharf and out at the other end. There should be such an arrangement on every wharf in Australia, because it would save time. Wharfs should be fitted also with electric capstans or there should be small, diesel pushers - small motor-cars, to push the trucks along. In some places, horses are still being used to drag the trucks.

However, improved mechanical devices and arrangements will not cure all the troubles of the wharfs. Melbourne is one of the most up-to-date working ports in the world - made so by the chief engineer of the Melbourne Harbour Trust, who has done a magnificent job - but the tonnage loaded into ships there is no higher than is loaded at Brisbane or Townsville or some of the slower working places. In addition to having adequate facilities, it is necessary to have the will to work.

The seventh point is in connexion with the use of pallets, which is becoming more general. Thousands of pallets, or wooden trays with a steel ring in each corner are put on to the trucks - either railway trucks ‘ or motor trucks - and the cases of goods stacked on them. They are then brought alongside the ship, and all that the waterside workers have to do is to put the four hooks on the winch runner into the rings on the pallet and lift it entirely. There is no need to discharge into a shed, re-load on to a truck and re-load again into the ship’s sling. The time taken in all those operations is saved. Some companies, such as James Patrick and Company Proprietary Limited, are experimenting with a square wire cage, measuring approximately 8 feet by o feet by 6 feet. The cargo is placed in it, and it is lifted aboard ship and stowed as one piece. Neither in the operation of loading or discharging do the men have to handle each individual piece of cargo. A good example of modern wharf facilities is found at the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited’s wharf at Newcastle. The trucks, loaded with railway iron or other iron are brought alongside the ship and lifted aboard. The sling is left on, so that when the port of discharge is reached, all the men have to do is to hook on to the sling and it is taken out. These methods could be copied on other wharfs.

Mention has been made of foremen and inspectors, and it is freely admitted that the present type of inspector is not good. The reason is that tally clerks receive £150 a year more than foremen. Consequently, the best type of man, who could be of great value, as they were in years gone by, is not attracted because the pay is not adequate. That is a matter outside the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Parliament, but I am making general suggestions, in the hope that if they are adopted they will be found helpful.

As to repairs and moving of gear, the repair of gear is generally done by the ship’s crew. They are not exactly specialists, but they are able to splice and put on new runners, and so on. The shifting of gear is done by waterside workers. I mentioned this morning that if the waterside workers award, is tied with the seamen’s award in this respect, some definite conclusion could be reached as to who should deal with the opening and closing of hatches. When I was. in the merchant navy, it was customary for a ship coining into Brisbane or Sydney, because it bad at least an hour from the time it entered smooth water until it berthed, to be prepared by the crew for unloading, so that when the ship berthed work could proceed at once. That practice seems to have been abandoned on Australian ships, although it is followed on some of the overseas ships. That is an important matter to be straightened out because, at the present time, nobody seems to know whose job it is to do this work. With great respect to the architects of the Australian Shipbuilding Board, I suggest that they should examine the gear installed on some of the Scandinavian ships coming to Australia. They have tripod masts and have no need for stays or shrouds. The tripod mast stands on its own, and eliminates the need for standard rigging, which interferes with the running of guys from the derricks.

Mr. Justice Ashburner gave special attention to the subject of what he called rest periods, but which are familiarly known as smokos. That is a subject which this Parliament cannot touch, because the rest period is a recognized practice, and is provided for in the award. However, an end should be made to the practice of the men knocking off two or three minutes before the rest period is timed to begin, and resuming their work two or three minutes after the time it is supposed to end. Mr. Justice Ashburner made some mention of that fact when he said -

The provisions of the current award providing for smoke-ohs have been almost entirely superseded by Order No. 21 of 1943 made by the Stevedoring Industry Commission. The employers on this application ask for the rest periods prescribed by that order to be reduced. T do not propose to grant that claim.

I agree with that. His Honour went on to say that the men should adhere strictly to the time of the rest period, and added -

In Townsville, for example, instead of 15 minutes the nien take 21 minutes.

All those lost minutes, although few by themselves, add up to a long period. I am in favour of a bonus system for waterside workers who have done, say, twelve months’ work without causing trouble or being involved in any offences. The stevedoring industry charge fund could well afford to pay a bonus of £10 or £20, and the result would be well worth while.

Time could be saved in the method of paying wages. Frequently, the men have to come out of the hold of the ship, go ashore and walk a considerable distance to the pay office. Surely it would be better to have a properly equipped pay van with a desk at the rear of it, to travel around the wharfs so that one or two clerks could pay the men where they were working. There is no reason why the men should have to waste time or shoe leather in walking 200 or 300 yards - or even farther, if they are working on the lower parts of the river - to receive their pay.

Senator Donald Cameron:

– What about posting them a cheque?

Senator KENDALL:

– I see no reason why that could not be done. Amenities play an important part in making the men contented with their work, and it is a truism that if men are contented their work will be better. They will never be contented, however, until proper amenities are freely provided for them. At the Townsville wharf, for example, the shipowners have complied very grudgingly with the order of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board to provide three hot-water urns on one wharf. The construction of these urns, and the manner in which they are installed, make it almost impossible for the men to get their billies under the taps and obtain hot water. That sort of inconvenience is unnecessary, and when amenities are installed, the work should he done properly. Some of the first-aid quarters and equipment are just plain rotten, in my opinion. The men notice these things and naturally become di°con tented, which is entirely contrary to the spirit that is necessary if the best results are to be obtained. I was very pleased to see a provision incorporated in the award to institute a radio-press pick-up system. Mr. Justice Ashburner mentioned that matter in his recent judgment on the waterside workers award, and in so doing he placed this matter on a proper footing, from a legal viewpoint.

It appears that the main reason why the waterside workers were against the radio-press pick-up was that they believed that if they accepted the system, some day the shipowners would say to them, “ You do not have to come down here to the pick-up, and yet we pay you. Why should we pay you if you do not come ? “ But now under the proposed scheme, if the waterside workers accept the radiopress pick-up system and stay home, listen in to the call-up and find that they are not wanted, they will still get their attendance money. That matter has been stressed in the bill. [Extension of time granted]* I thank honorable senators for their consideration, and I shall take perhaps only another five minutes to complete my arguments.

Another point that I desire to make, and one which might seem silly on the. surface, although I have seen similar things working out well in other industries, is that a waterside worker’s monthly newspaper could be published. I do not want honorable senators to laugh at that suggestion, because I believe that it has more to it than would appear on the surface. A very good example of such an industrial newspaper, is the Ford magazine, which I believe most honorable senators in this chamber have seen. That is a most interesting magazine, which sets out clearly what is going on in the various Ford establishments. I suggest that we could do exactly the same in the waterside industry, and publish a little newspaper. Indeed, I would not mind writing a few articles for it myself. The publication could deal with new types of cargo, new methods of handling,, new types of ships and gear and all that sort of thing. I am certain that if the idea were adopted, the newspaper would be most interesting. The proposed Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority could quite easily handle a matter of that sort.

There are two other small matters that I wish to put before the Senate. I think the time has come when the proposed authority, and the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, and the waterside workers’ leaders should get together and work out some scheme of superannuation. It is ridiculous that these men, who have not a very great security of tenure in their jobs anyway should have nothing at the end of their working lives. Here again honorable senators might think that my ideas are far ahead of the times, but I believe that now is the time when people should get together and produce some scheme which once and for all will take away the fear that the waterside workers have had for so long, and which is part and parcel of their working conditions at the present time.

The last of the eighteen points that I wish to put before the Senate to-day is that I should like to see a responsible Minister of this Government talk to some of the managing directors of our biggest newspapers and ask them to stop this stupid and ridiculous cartooning of the waterside worker, showing him in many cases running around with a top hat on his head and a cargo hook in his belt. That sort of thing does not do any good, and is a quite untrue picture of the waterside worker. A man who earns about £18 a week obviously does not run around with a top hat, because he cannot afford to buy one. I do ask the Government to talk to some of the managing directors of the big daily newspapers and get them to stop this silly nonsense which causes ill feeling and is quite unnecessary.

Senator Maher:

– We must have a sense of humour.

Senator KENDALL:

– That is so. Members of the Parliament have to put up with that sort of publicity, and our skins get so thick in the course of time that it does not penetrate. We can take anything that is published against u3. But I do suggest that it is wrong for waterside workers to be so represented.

Another point that I desire to make is in connexion with ‘a remark of Senator Seward. He did not seem to approve of the activities of the inspectors who represent the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board, and who will represent the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority when this measure becomes law. I do not think that we ought to do away with these inspectors because if they are efficient they do an excellent job. Their duty is to rail the attention of the authority to the fact that Bill Smith, for example, is doing something that he should not do, that this or that gang is in the wrong place, or that some shipping company, shipowner, or stevedoring company, is doing something that it should not do.

After all, we employ policemen on point duty to control traffic and to see that we obey the rules of the road. In the same way we must have some one on the wharfs to see that things do not go wrong. However, I suggest that we need a better type of man for our inspectors than we have had in the past. That criticism, of course, does not include all the inspectors at present employed, because there are many very good men doing that work. But, some of the inspectors have been able seamen in steamships, or perhaps qualified for their second mate’s certificate, stayed at sea for a few months, and then taken jobs on the wharfs. They do not know much about the work that they have to inspect. It is not a question of those men not being good fellows, but that they have not had the necessary experience, and until they have had it they will not be rauch good in their jobs.

I have now put my eighteen points before the Senate. If they were all put into operation and we gained only onehalf of 1 per cent, on each point, we should still be far better off at the end of a period than we are at the present time. But I believe that some of the points, if adopted, would yield a gain of far more than one-half of 1 per cent. In that regard I direct the Senate’s attention to the percentages that I have already put before it. With regard to recruitment of unregistered labour when all the permanent waterside workers in a port are employed, as this provision will not become operative until the 1st January next year, I see no point in pursuing it. If the Government takes any notice of my points there will be no need to introduce that provision. I do not think that I am too optimistic in believing that somebody will take some notice of what I have said, and that if notice is taken of it there will be no need to implement clause 40 of the bill. We have six months in which to work this matter out to see how it will go.

Finally, I ask what would be our position to-day supposing .this bill were defeated. We would still have the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board, which is now doing much of the work which we shall ask the authority to do, but we would not have the benefit of other desirable features of this bill. We should still have the same control of the wharfs, but if the measure were not passed the waterfront work would not tie in with the provisions of the new Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Bill which is still before us awaiting the result of our deliberations on this bill.

I believe that the Opposition was wrong to brand this measure as antiworking class legislation, and I feel that good leadership on that side of the chamber would have perceived quite clearly that the bill is not anti-working-class legislation by any means. It is an honest endeavour by the Government and the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt) - who should be congratulated for his work over the last four or five years - to try to improve conditions, not only in respect of the turnround of ships, but also for everybody concerned in the waterfront industry. I wish the proposed new Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority every success, and I have much pleasure in supporting the bill.

Senator WARDLAW:
Tasmania

– I rise to support the bill although I disagree in many respects with some of the contentions put forward. It is an attempt’ to promote good relations on the waterfront, to improve the turn-round of ships and to effect a general improvement in the working conditions of both seamen and waterside workers. For that reason, it is worthy of trial. We are very greatly indebted to Senator Kendall for his practical remarks relating to the working of ships. I hope that the powers that be will take note, of what he said and adopt some of his suggestions. I remember that when an inspector came to Tasmania some years ago inquiring into working conditions on the waterfront he told me that the Waterside Workers Federation had not made any suggestions to him during the whole of his investigations as to ways in which work on the waterfront could be made more efficient, or relations between the watersiders and shipowners could be improved. Therefore, the practical suggestions offered by Senator Kendall are well worth noting. I agree with his suggestion that there should be permanency of work on the waterfront. These men should have permanent jobs and should share in all the amenities, holidays and other things enjoyed by the ordinary worker. In return, the men should make an effort to co-operate with the shipping companies.

Senator O’Byrne referred to the reelection of Mr. Healy as secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation. I should say that his re-election is more a tribute to the tight organization of that federa-tion rather than to his popularity. I suggest also that the position might have been reversed had the election been by secret ballot. I think the standover tactics of the executive of the Waterside Workers Federation, which are well known throughout Australia, had a good deal to do with his re-election.

Senator Hendrickson treated the suggestion for the introduction of female labour on the waterfront in a facetious manner. I am not so sure that it can be dismissed so lightly as that. My experience has been that the women in the country do much more arduous work than, waterside workers do on the waterfront, and I venture to suggest that I could select a team of twelve or fifteen women who could do the work much more easily and much more efficiently. Women do this work in other parts of the world, and I see no reason why they should not do it in this country. In fact, I believe that the employment of women would have a good effect on the waterfront. I see no reason why women should not have the opportunity to do this work because it cannot be said under any circumstances that it is too arduous for them.

Senator Cole said that the earnings of the waterside workers fluctuate. They do; they range from £18 up to £35 a week. I know of one instance in which a waterside worker drew £56 for one week’s work. That may not be the normal thing, but it proves that these men can earn a very high rate of pay if they will work. I understand that the average earnings of . waterside workers throughout Australia last year amounted to £18 a week for a total working week of 32 hours. From my knowledge of the waterside labourer, 1 should say that what he does would not be equal to what the primary producer does in the country in sixteen hours. In my opinions the primary producer would do as much work in sixteen hours as the Waterside worker does in 32; and 1 can prove that) if I have the Opportunity.

I do not think Senator Hendrickson’s statement that the waterside workers are not getting a fair share of the returns from industry is true. Our friends Opposite: are certainly phophets of gloom and despair because they are continually phrophesying that We shall have pools of unemployed. They remind me of an article I read in 1949 dealing with a socialist Australia which Was published by the New South Wales Fabian Society. In it the Fabians said that a depression would probably occur in Australia within five years and that widespread disillusion would then turn many people to socialism. Of course, that did not happen. Actually, the people became progressively more prosperous, as is evidenced by statistics, and, instead of turning to socialism, they turned to liberalism and insistence upon the rights and dignity of the individual at successive elections. Once again, the long-haired, dreamy-eyed Fabians were left lamenting.

I disagree with the main contentions put forward in the Tait committee’s report, although it gives* a fairly accurate assessment and summary of the position on the Waterfront. I believe, as I said before, that permanent employment, coupled with contract labour, is possible, and I should like to see some effort made to introduce it. The introduction of permanent employment would enable special gangs to be organized for doing, very special work on’- the waterfront, and that is’ of extreme importance in this industry. It Would also drive a wedge between the reasonable waferside worker and the executive,- which has altogether t66 much power over him. When speaking of waterside workers, I wish it to be’ distinctly Understood that any derogatory remarks I make’ are directed at the-‘ 15 peT cent-, which1,- T suggest, includes the executive and those members of the Waterside Workers Federation who form a core of resistance to discipline and adopt disruptive tactics. My experience of the waterside workers in general is that 85 per cent, of them are very decent fellows who want to work and who will work if they are allowed to do so. In many instances, the stand-over methods adopted by those who are trained in coercive tactics prevent them from doing the job they want to do. Further, the introduction of a system of permanent employment could provide an opportunity of getting rid of the slackers, of whom there must be a proportion on the waterfront just as there is anywhere else. That would be a good thing. Perhaps, it would hurry the return of employer control of hiring and firing, and for that reason we should endeavour to introduce it.

There is no reason why this gesture should not be made to the waterside workers. We should give them condition as good as we can under the circumstances. If, for instance, they worked in two shifts of eight hours, one from 7 o’clock in the morning until 3 or 4 o’clock in the afternoon and the other from 4 o’clock in the afternoon until 1 a.m., and they did a full eight-hours work with an hour off for lunch and “ smoke-ohs “, there is no reason why they should not be paid a minimum of £25 a week provided they turned out 25 tons per gang-hour. I heard one honorable senator opposite say he did not think the shipowners would accept a system of permanent employment on the waterfront. 1 believe that, if the waterside workers agreed to a set turnout of work limited, say, to 25 tons per gang-hour, they should be paid, say, £25 a week. From many points of view, that would be a step in the right direction. I believe that 70 ner cent, of the present members of the federation could do that particular job and that they should be rated as permanent employees. From my own experience, and from reports that T have received, I believe that 15 per cent, could be pensioned off, and the remaining 15 per cent, could form the nucleus of a casual sang to work during week-ends at rates of time and a half, or two and a half times the ordinary rate, as the case may be. If the regular waterside workers received £25 for a set working week of 40 hours, they should be agreeable to the casual workers being paid penalty rates for week-end work.

I see no reason why the numerical strength of gangs should not be reduced. By so doing, there could be established three gangs in place of every two gangs now operating. In Great Britain, from twelve to thirteen men comprise a gang. In that country, the average cost of moving a ton of cargo is from 4s. to 4s. 6d., compared with about £1 a ton in Australia. I can see no reason why gangs in Tasmania should comprise 22 “men, whereas those on the mainland comprise seventeen men. It has never been explained to my satisfaction why there should be five more men in a gang in Tasmania than on the mainland. Furthermore, I cannot see any reason why the gangs should not comprise from thirteen to fifteen men, as they did in the old days. They were able to do the work efficiently, and the members of the gang did not get in each other’s way.

As Senator Kendall has pointed out, the size of sling loads has an important bearing on the time that it takes to load a vessel and get it away. In Tasmania, eight bags of wheat comprise a sling load, compared with twelve on the mainland. I cannot understand the reason for that disparity, any more than I can understand why there are three men to a dolly in Tasmania, compared with two on the mainland. The reasons for these variations have never been explained satisfactorily to me by either the waterside workers or their federation. Indeed, when one asks the men the reason for the difference, they are unable to give a convincing answer.

We have heard many complaints to the effect that the equipment used on the waterfront is out of date. I do not think that any quicker method of handling cargo has been devised than by the ships gear, as was the practice in the old days. On the Devonport waterfront years ago, it was not uncommon for 60 tons of cargo per gang-hour to be moved by ships gear. There is a considerable difference between that rate and the present average rate of 12 tons per gang-hour on the Tasmanian waterfront. If the gear that is used to-day is more efficient than ship’s gear, as has been claimed, what is the reason for this greatly reduced average? My belief is that the gear now in use would be very efficient if the waterside workers were prepared to use it to advantage.

The Opposition has been complaining about the provisions of the bill which deal with penalties and sanctions in the event of its terms being breached. For my part, I do not think that those provisions are sufficiently severe. No one who intends to keep the peace need worry about penalties for breaching an award or for doing something that might bring down the wrath of the law on him. In this instance, we should not adopt the attitude that if we commit murder wc shall be hanged by the neck. There are many penalties that are provided in the laws of this country, but if we do not break the laws we have nothing to fear. It has been stated, also, that this bill will operate unfairly against the waterside workers. My answer to that is that, in 90 per cent, of the cases, the waterside workers break the award conditions without incurring penalties. That is owe of the reasons why observance of the award must be tightened up.

The Chifley Labour Government, in 1947, introduced legislation to deal with problems on the waterfront, and I think its express purpose in doing so was to improve conditions. We know that that legislation ha3 not been successful during the last few years, even though the waterside workers have been receiving more money and working under better conditions than they were previously. There have been more disputes and disturbances on the waterfont than ever before, with the result that losses to the waterside workers, in respect of wages, and to people who have to earn their living by shipping fruit and other commodities overseas and interstate, have been tremendous. In relation to the turn-round of ships, we in Tasmania have been particularly unfortunate because of the labour position on the waterfront and the frequent disputes. Unless we can get a quicker turn-round, of ships in Tasmania, we will not be able to carry on our business, and eventually we will go to the . wall. We have been continually referring this matter to the authorities and seeking better conditions on the waterfront with a quicker turnround of ships. I hope that the new legislation will be given a trial. We are exhorting our friends on the Opposition side to give it a try to ascertain whether it will work. I support the bill.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

.- I, like other speakers who have preceded me in this debate, am not entirely in agreement with the bill.. This Government has a very fine record of achievement since it was elected to office in 1949. It has been in office during a period of economic difficulty and, in the present changing world situation, the best intelligence and thought are required to guide a country like Australia. The good record of this Government has had one weak spot, in my opinion. That has been in, its dealing, with the situation- on the waterfront. I cannot help but feel that this Government has been particularly weak in its. attitude towards the waterside workers-‘ actions since 1949. I do not think that any government gets any marks in that connexion for its handling of this situation.

The actions of the waterside workers have been against the best, interests of Australia. Unquestionably they, and the nation generally, should be ashamed of the watersiders’ record, lt reminds me of the days before World War II. and the appeasement of Hitler. There has been nothing but appeasement in the approach to the waterside workers, and I believe that appeasement never gets anybody anywhere. If we have principles and believe in them, we should fight for them. If strong action had been taken on the waterfront when this Government was first elected to office, the situation would be better to-day. There have been too many attempts to get play on side. There has been too much appeasement.

A point has been reached where the Government believes that something must be done. Actually, that is overdue, but I am pleased to see the bill that is before the Senate, even although it does not represent a big step forward. At least, it is a small step towards a settlement of this vital problem. It is a matter of deep concern to Australia, although that might not be apparent to those, including members of the Parliament, who do not have much to do with the waterfront. Sea transport is vital to Australia, because if it is properly handled it is the cheapest form of transportation. It is up to the Government, the shipowners, the waterside workers and everybody concerned with the industry to ensure that it is conducted on an efficient basis. If that were achieved, the cost of living would be cheaper for everybody.

Senator WOOD:

– Very well, Mr. President. I was referring to the necessity for a secret ballot before any stoppage takes place on the waterfront. As I have said, very often men do not disclose their innermost thoughts and desires at an open meeting, particularly in the waterside workers union, because of the tactics that are used.

Senator Tangney:

– Has the honorable senator ever been to one of those meetings ?

Senator WOOD:

– I know more about waterside workers than Senator Tangney does, because I have had a longer association with them. I can tell the Senate about how Jim Healy was sent to Russia and how his supporters in the City of Mackay collected money to finance his trip to Russia and whence he came back a first-class “ Com.”. Just why the Opposition, the waterfront workers, the present Government up to the present time, and the people of Mackay who subscribed to finance Healy’s trip to Russia in order that he could be indoctrinated as one of the leading Communists in this country, put up with these things, I cannot understand. I know a number of waterside workers, and I know what goes on at many of their meetings. At one time, I happened to be the man who every week, in Mackay went down to the wharf to pay the waterside workers. Honorable senators need not talk to me about the waterfront situation because I have had closer association with it than have many honorable senators.

The tactics of waterside workers are such that if a man cares to say at a meeting that he is opposed to a stoppage he is likely to be knocked down; he is likely to be attacked. Because of those intimidation tactics, numbers of waterside workers do not express themselves at their meetings. Let me quote a case of a man who stood up at a union meeting and spoke against a stoppage. What happened to him? In a street in his own city, he was attacked by a few of these people and was so seriously injured that ever since he has carried scars on his face as a result of that bashing. Since that time onwards, he has worn a beard to keep from public view the scars he carries because he was game enough to stand up at a waterside workers meeting and say that he was not in favour of disruptive tactics.

In another instance, a chap, who possessed the same name as another man in the Waterside Workers Federation, voted against the Communist section at a meeting in his own city. What happened? The Communists, mistaking the identity of the second man, gave him a bashing in an hotel. But he was one of their own Communist cobbers. They thought he had voted against them, whereas it was another man of the same name and in the same union who had voted against them. These are the sort of men for whom honorable senators opposite weep tears of sympathy, men who practise intimidation. I know of a young man, a very good worker, who left the land and obtained employment on the waterfront in Mackay. He was used to working hard, but because he worked fast the unionists told him to slow down. Because te did not do so, they awaited their opportunity and dropped a heavy case or package on his foot, and he had to go to hospital. When a professional man in Mackay spoke to him he said that he did not intend to return to the wharf ‘because he was afraid that they would kill him. That is typical of the Communist influence that dominates most of the ports of the Commonwealth. These are not fairy stories, but genuine facts, and they must be faced.

I am amazed to hear honorable senators opposite pleading for the Communist members of this federation. They are supposed to be able-bodied men capable of doing a full day’s work for adequate pay, *nd no political party or government should defend men who are not prepared to do that. If they do not work, the country has to pay the cost of their loafing tactics. I do not suggest that every worker on the waterfront is a loafer, any more than I would suggest that every member of the Opposition here or in another place is entirely in sympathy with the waterside workers. I know that some men in the Labour movement do not agree with the tactics of Communists in the trade union movement, but, unfortunately, some members of the Labour party try to make them appear as saints, whereas many of them are the exact opposite. Strong legislation is needed to deal with the Communist menace, which has dominated the Waterside Workers Federation and other unions throughout Australia with detrimental effects on the economy.

The secret ballot is essential so that workers who want to oppose ruthless tactics, and to work regularly and earn a decent living, can record their votes without fear of physical violence. There is nothing wrong with the. secret ballot. Members of Parliament are elected by that method, and no elector need disclose how he cast his vote. The waterside worker should be fully entitled to the same method when deciding whether he shall go on strike. I am not stating merely my own words, but those also of many genuine waterside workers, who have expressed their earnest support of the principle of the secret ballot. Some time ago, I communicated the wishes of these men to the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt).

Honorable senators opposite have been at pains to explain why waterside workers will not do a good day’s work, and average a better out-turn of cargo an hour. They have blamed inadequate equipment and poor wharfs, but that is not the real reason. It is because of the Communist forces and tactics that dominate the workers. There is ample evidence of a determination not to work so as to produce better results. In reply to the references to inferior wharfs and inadequate equipment, I remind the Senate that in Mackay a new harbour was built, and the wharf was completed about a fortnight before World War II. was declared. Prior to that, the sugar produced at Mackay was taken by lighters to Flat Top and Round Top Islands, 2 or JJ miles out to sea, and loaded into the ships for despatch to Sydney or overseas.

That work is now done from the new wharf, which is one of the most up to date in Australia. In the old days, when the sugar was being loaded from the lighter to the ship at Flat Top Island, if the wind was blowing and the sea was rough, the lighter and the ship would roll and the work of loading would be most difficult. But in those days the average rate of loading was 24 tons per net gang per hour from lighter to ship. To-day, loading from the new wharf, with up-to-date equipment, the rate of loading is 19.35 tons an hour. Does not that comparison illustrate what is wrong? It is not the wharf or the equipment which is at fault, but the leaders of the union, who direct the waterside workers to go slow. In order to facilitate and speed up the loading of sugar onto the ships, the representative of the Stevedoring Industry Board in Mackay arranged with some of the sugar mills to lend their creeper conveyors. The result of all that was that a creeper was installed, and the men only had to drop the bags on the creeper and run them out to the ship. Did that cause the loading work to be done any faster? Of course not. The men used the creepers only to make the’ work lighter for themselves. Every so often they had a break to stop the mechanical equipment in order to oil it, or to stop for a drink or something else, and because of that, the modern equipment that was installed did not enable the work to be done any faster.

I was in Cairns three or four years ago with the Minister and a coup’e of members of the department. We attended a meeting there, which was also attended by the various interests on the Cairns waterfront, including the Cairns Harbour Board. One of the waterside workers “aid at that meeting, “ Surely Senator Wood does not think that because you out mechanical equipment on the wharfs you will get any faster loading or unloading; that is only there to make it lighter for us “. In this machine age it is recognized by everybody that machinery is installed not only to make work lighter for the operatives, but also to enable work to be done faster. If machines cannot bring about faster work, there is no incentive for people to install modern machinery.

Honorable senators will notice the attitude of that waterfront worker, who happened to be a Communist member of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia. He was voicing the sentiments of the dominating Communists in the union.

In order to show honorable senators the conditions on the wharfs, quite apart from a comparison between the Mackay type of loading and loading on modern wharfs, let us make a comparison between men who were quite inexperienced in wharf labouring duties, and experienced waterside workers. During a strike at Mackay three or four years ago, a ship called Wellpark was in port. That was in June of 1951. As there was a strike in progress, the farmers who grew the sugar cane from which sugar is manufactured, volunteered to come to Mackay and load 5,075 tons of sugar. They worked under exactly the same conditions ‘ as the regular waterside workers, and they achieved a rate of loading of 27.5 tons per net gang per hour.

Senator Cooke:

– How long did they keep that up?

Senator WOOD:

– They loaded an average of 27.5 tons per gang per hour. Honorable senators should note well that they were not used to working on the wharfs, but were used to working on their farms over a period of years. That loading was done under the same conditions as were enjoyed by regular waterside workers, and I repeat that inexperienced men loaded at the rate of 27.5 tons per gang per hour. Because of the incentive given to them by the volunteers, the regular waterside workers when they returned to duty, loaded at a rate of 21.5 tons per hour. But, the normal average for the port is 19.35 tons per gang per hour. Men who were inexperienced in loading or unloading from trucks to the wharfs, were able to load into Wellpark at 27.5 tons per gang per hour, as against a rate of 21.5 ton3 per gang per hour by the regular waterside workers, and as against, a general average in Mackay of 19.35 tons per gang per hour.

I suggest that that shows quite clearly that much better work can be done on the waterfront than is at present being done. During my speech, a question was put by an honorable senator about how long the volunteers worked on the wharfs. The suggestion in the interjection was, of course, that because men worked in a voluntary capacity for a week or so they might put up a good average, but could not keep it up. In answer to that I shall tell a little story later to show that men working year in and year out can do much better work than is now being done, provided they are given an incentive to work. I believe that that incentive can be given if only we go about it in the right way.

One of the first things that we have to do is to stop the disruptive tactics of the union leaders by giving the men an opportunity, through the secret ballot, to indicate whether they will go on strike or not over any particular issue. The only reason why the waterside workers do not work faster is that they lack the will to work because of directions given by Jim Healy; and because of the Communist disruptive tactics in this union, men who are not capable of working are covered up within the union organization.

I shall now detail two cases to the Senate to prove my point. A medical friend of mine in Brisbane was consulted by a waterside worker who complained of a bad back. Now let honorable senators listen carefully to this. The medical man treated the waterside worker, and told me that his back was really too bad for him to carry on wharf work. Of course, the doctor thought that wharf lumping was heavy work. Tour years later, the man again consulted the doctor and asked for treatment for his bad back. The doctor said to him, “ Have you been doing this work for the four years since you were here last?” The man said, “ I have been wharf lumping, but I have not been working “.

Senator Cooke:

– He might have been working on a crane or hooking on.

Senator WOOD:

– The man said that he had not been doing any work on the wharfs, although he had been paid as a waterside worker. He said, “ My cobbers look after me ; they do the work “. Therefore, through the shipping company, the people of this country were paying the wages of that waterside worker for four years although he had not done a hand’s turn. Even though he had a bad back he was picked up in rotation, and supplied to the company. He was definitely unable to work, and yet that sort of thing can occur in the Waterside Workers Federation.

I submit that that indicates clearly that under our present system on the wharfs, men who cannot pull their weight are covered up and protected. Is that a fair go to the shipping companies or to the nation ? Of course, the shipping companies pass on costs, and all honorable senators here, including myself, and all the people of the Commonwealth, have to pay so that men can be carried by the union.

Let us consider another case of a waterside worker who was attended by this medical friend of mine. This man complained of nervous dyspepsia. When the doctor questioned him and got down to tin-tacks about his work and conditions, he discovered that the man’s worry was that a certain number of men are allotted, as a gang, to each hold. The gang is too large in that particular port in which the man worked. Say there were eight men in the gang, or six men, or whatever it might be - they went down into the hold and two of them sat down and did not do any work. This patient was a conscientious type of man, was worried about this situation and, as a result, developed his illness.

The cases that I have detailed to the Senate were mentioned to me by the doctor who attended the men concerned. I know from my own experience of the waterfront that, over a period of time, the union is able to put certain number? of men on to do certain work, and the number of men required has gradually increased until the situation on the waterfront is overloaded with too many men and not enough goods for them to move.

Those are some of the factors which operate against this country getting a decent day’s work out of the men employed on the waterfront.

It has been stated in this debate that permanent employment is one of the solutions of this problem, but I do not agree with that at all. Despite the Basten report and all other reports, I believe that permanent employment will be much more difficult to introduce to the waterfront than any other system. It might work in some of the big capital city ports, but I do not think that it would work in some of the smaller ports. The introduction of permanent employment is not the key to this problem. Even if the men had permanent employment, what assurance have we that the work will be done any faster than it is now, so long as the union is under its present control? Permanent employment is not the cure-all that some people would have us believe.

My view is that the solution of this problem is to be found in the contract system of working and payment at so much a ton. The contract system would not only make for more efficient loading and better working, but it would also return better incomes to the people employed on the wharfs and at the same time reduce costs in the shipping industry in this country. The contract system can be worked. It is being worked at Lucinda Point, in Queensland. When I spoke of the farmers loading sugar at Mackay and averaging 27.5 tons per net gang-hour, Senator Cooke asked for how long they did it. For his information, I point out now that for the month of April, 1956, the waterside workers at Lucinda Point loaded an average of 30.2 tons per net gang-hour as against Mackay’s average of 19.35 tons, and at Mackay they have a new harbour with new wharfs and equipment. It pays the men at Lucinda Point to get tie work done quickly because that gives them more time to themselves. For the month of .Tune, their average rate of loading was 27.2 tons, and they have the highest net rate for the loading of sugar in Queensland, which illustrates how greatly this country could benefit by the introduction of. the contract system on the waterfront. Another benefit would be that under the contract system those men who wanted to work would refuse to- have loafers in their gangs, and I do npt think any honorable senator can say that any team of decent working men should haveto be saddled with loafers.

Under the present system of rostering; the work, loafers are put with the good men and the country, as well as thegangs into which these loafers are put, has to carry them. Lucinda Point is not a big port, and it handles sugar almost exclusively. The waterside workersthere decided upon what would be a desirable number of effective units on the wharf, they adopted that number, and as a result are doing good work and enjoying decent incomes. If the same system were adopted elsewhere, it isprobable that the average done by the gangs would be higher than it is. At Lucinda Point, the men averaged £22 6s. 9d. a week for the year 1954-55. That, with their attendance money of 14s. 7d., gave them a total income of £23 ls. 4d. for a week of 32.4 hours. Excluding Darwin, where special tropical rates of pay apply, and where longer shifts are worked, those were the secondhighest earnings for any port in Australia, and it indicates to me that the solution to the whole problem is the introduction of the contract system. If we could achieve faster loading and unloading of ships, not only would the watersideworker get. through his work quicker, not only would the country in general benefit,, but ships would be enabled to move in. and out of port much quicker. If shipscould be turned round in probably little more than half the time it takes at. present, the whole economy of Australia, would be much more effectively served..

I cannot see why the Government does not try to introduce the contract system, of working on the waterfront. It would5 be simple to put it into operation. Every ship that comes into port has a manifestInformation relating to short landing orsurplus landing is transmitted from oneport to another so that the authorities? in the port to which a ship is proceeding: know exactly what work has to be done. That being so, it would not be difficultto arrange for the unloading of cargo> in any port by the contract system. This problem has not been approached as effectively as it might have been. Both the shipping companies and the wateraide workers should be brought together, and this Government should do its utmost, even, to the extent of introducing legislation, to see that ships are loaded and unloaded by the contract system.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– I rise to order, ls there any standing order under which action may be taken to prevent an honorable senator from continuing a speech that is so boring as to put other honorable senators to sleep?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order 1 That is a frivolous point of order.

Senator WOOD:

– When it comes to putting people to sleep, Senator O’Byrne is a champion. We are now dealing with hard, realistic facts and we must not be carried away by the crocodile tears of some honorable senators opposite who seek to cover up the misdemeanours of waterside workers. We know that, on many occasions, the action taken by them has not been prompted by a genuine desire to improve conditions, nor has it been based upon a sound case. If we have an ounce of realism in us, we must admit that behind it all is the Communistic element led by Jim Healy, one of the leading Communists in this country. Nobody knows that better than do honorable senators opposite and the waterside workers themselves. Many waterside workers have suggested to me that the Government should do something to bring about peace in the industry, with consequent greater continuity of work. They have suggested that the Government should be strong enough to introduce legislation for this purpose, and I know that if it did, every decent member of the Waterside Workers Federation would appreciate it.

I have no qualms about the waterside workers. I worked among them in my more youthful days and I have no illusions about the present objectives of the Waterside Workers Federation. It is because I understand the position thoroughly that I suggest that this bill does not go far enough. It is a small step, but at least it is something, and, “because of that, I intend to support it although I do hope that the Government will adopt stronger measures eventually. I support the bill, because it is a step in the right direction and because I believe that it will bring about some improvement on the waterfront. Further, I would not hp guilty of voting against it, because in no circumstances would I record, in this chamber, a vote which could be considered in any possible way as being a vote f01 Jim Healy and his gang. I knew Jim Healy in his youthful days on the Mackay waterfront, and I know the attitude that he adopted then. I have spoken strongly to-day, as I did a couple of years ago when a previous stevedoring measure was before this chamber. I am not intimidated by the waterfront workers. After my speech on the occasion to which I have just referred, reports reached me that the waterside workers intended to come to my office and demand an apology from me. News went back to them, through an intermediary, that they would get no apology from me. I know that they posted some one on a street corner not far from my office to try to find out who was giving me information. One does not have to meet waterside workers in order to get information about the industry; that can be obtained very easily in other ways. I know that, in their innermost thoughts, many waterside workers do not want the present system to continue. I am convinced that many decent men do not want to engage in waterfront employment while the present system persists.

It is a terrible thing that members of a trade union in this country should be ashamed that they are watersiders. I recall an occasion when I met a certain man and his wife and, in the course of conversation, I asked him, “ What do you do in this city?” Both he and his wife apologized to me for the fact that he was a waterside worker. It is indeed a dreadful thing that men should not want it to be known that they are waterside workers. Yet honorable senators opposite continue to profess concern for the waterfront industry. I contend that the waterside workers should be treated fairly, but that, in return, they should be fair, not only to the shipping companies, but to the community generally.

We have once again heard the old story from the Opposition that the low rate of loading and unloading ships is attributable to antiquated handling equipment. As I have mentioned before, sugar ships were loaded faster in the open roadstead atFlat Top Island off Mackay years ago than they are to-day with modern equipment. I have told honorable senators the story of how many members of the Waterside Workers Federation are afraid to speak openly at their meetings, because they have been intimidated by what has happened to others who have done so.

Senator Courtice:

– It was a one-sided story.

Senator WOOD:

– Could any member of the Opposition honestly and sincerely support a continuance of that state of affairs? Like other honorable senators, I hope that the authority will not indefinitely stand as a barrier between the employers and the employees, as the board has done. I maintain that employers on the waterfront should have the right to choose their employees. The shipping companies have been compelled to accept the men who were sent to them by the board. Under the roster system, good workers and bad workers alike go in a batch to the shipping companies. I believe that that is a wrong principle, and that, as long as it continues, it will not be possible to improve the standard of work in the industry. Under the present system, the obstructionist - the Communist obstructionist, if you like - is protected. It is not open to a shipping company to say that it does not want this man or that man. The shipping companies do not now have the right that they formerly enjoyed of saying who shall work for them. I believe that we should revert to the system that operated years ago, under which an officer of the company selected men each morning. Under that system, the best workers got the jobs. A loafer does not deserve any consideration from the shipping companies, the Government or the community at large. I have endeavoured to underline the weakness of the present system, which this bill will perpetuate. It is proper that the measure should make provisions in relation to the payment of appearance money, and other matters of that kind, but I think that the selection of labour should not come within the jurisdiction of the authority. As I have said, the employers should have the right to select labour, and the legislation should be designed to that end.

As I have said before, I believe that many of the troubles on the waterfront could be overcome by means of the contract system. I think that co-operative stevedoring companies would be able to bring about greater efficiency on the waterfront than will be obtained by this bill. In conclusion, let me say that, although this measure falls far short of what I desire, it is a step in the right direction. For that reason, and because I would never strike a blow in this chamber for Jim Healy and his Communist colleagues, I shall support the bill.

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan)agreed to -

That the questionbe now put.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 - (1.) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears - “ employer “ means -

a person who engages, or offers to engage, persons for employment as waterside workers for work on a wharf or ship;
) a ship’s agent or shipowner who directs the method or time of working of a stevedoring employer or contractor; and
a master or officer of a ship engaged in work of the same nature as the work usually performed by a stevedoring employer, and includes an agent or servant of a person to whom paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this definition applies; “ registered employer “ means a person registered as an employer under this Act;

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– I refer to the definition of “ employer “ and also to the definition of “ registered employer”. I invite the attention of the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) particularly to the fact that “ employer “ includes an agent or servant of a person to whom paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the definition apply. In other words, the term “ employer “ includes not only the employer,but also his agent or servant. The clause states that “ registered employer “ means a person registered as an employer under this act. Both of those terms are also used in clause 32, which casts obligations and purports to impose penalties on the employer. The AttorneyGeneral will notice that the two terms are used in sub-clause (1.) of clause 33 which provides that a registered employer shall not act in a certain manner and shall not do certain things which are set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), but in sub-section (2.) the term “employer’’ is used. The sub-clause states thatan employer who contravenes or fails to do certain things shall be guilty of an offence.

Senator Spicer:

– He must be a registered employer.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, I know that, but I point out that confusion may arise because of the use of the two terms. It may well be that the “ registered employer “ in sub-clause (1.) includes the employer referred to in sub-clause (2.)

Senator Spicer:

– No other employer could be meant.

Senator McKENNA:

– I acknowledge that some of the offences that are referred to could not possibly be committed by a servant or an agent. Nevertheless, confusion may arise from the use of the two terms.

– Yes, I appreciate that. Nevertheless, I see possibilities of confusion. I invite the attention of the Minister to the fact that also in clause 7 there is a definition of “ stevedoring operations”, paragraph (d) of which refers to -

The driving or operation of mechanical appliances used in connexion with the loading or unloading of ships or with the handling or storage of cargo or other goods at or adjacent to a wharf;

The definition of a waterside worker contains these words - “ waterside worker “ means a person who accepts or offers to accept, employment for work in the loading or unloading of cargo . . . the handling or storage or cargo . . .

The definition also covers all that work which is named in paragraph (d), but it is paragraph (m) about which I am particularly concerned. The effect of that section of the definition is that the members of the union will not be able to handle loose bulk cargo.

Senator Spicer:

– That is excluded from the definition of “ waterside worker “, which means that a person who is not a waterside worker may indulge in these operations. The waterside worker is not excluded.

Senator McKENNA:

Senator ASHLEY:
New South “Wales

.- The definition of “union” reads - “union” means the Waterside Workers’ Federation of Australia, the North Australian Workers’ Union or any organization of employees specified in a declaration in force under section nine of this Act . . .

Will that enable the authority, should it consider it necessary, to replace a branch of the Waterside Workers Federation by an association of workers irrespective of the number of members in that association.

Senator Spicer:

– The answer is “ No “.

Senator ASHLEY:

– No register will be established?

Senator Spicer:

– The Waterside Workers Federation cannot be replaced under this act.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (Performance of functions and exercise of powers by Authority).

Senator McKENNA (Tasmania - Leader of the Opposition) [4.5SJ. - I wish to make a brief comment on this clause, which reads - a view to securing the expeditious, safe and efficient performance of stevedoring operations.

The Authority shall perform its functions, and exercise its powers, under this Act with

Very similar terms, in the same sequence, appear in the earlier legislation. I think in the earlier legislation the words were- - to securing the speedy, safe and efficient performance of stevedoring operations.

In both the earlier legislation and in this bill, I think a mistake has been made in placing the emphasis on speed. The element of safety ought to be the first consideration, efficiency the second, and perhaps, speed the third. If we are to apply adjectives to stevedoring operations, I think we might have found a word that would relate to probably on( of the most important elements in the whole field, and that is the element of costs. I suggest to the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) that if this bill is open to revision at any stage, that aspect might be considered. After all is said and done, the human element is the one to which first thought ought to be given - the safety of the operations. It must be acknowledged that men working on the waterfront are exposed to a good deal of physical danger, not only from things dropping from hoists and slings, but also during the receiving of cargo in thiholds. The accident rate is high.

Allied to that, another very grievous problem from an industrial point of view is the difficulty an employee often has to determine who is his employer. When he is injured, he has to launch workers’ compensation proceedings and, in many cases, a man has had to try, first, the stevedoring company, then the master of the ship, the shipping agent, and, ultimately, the London owners, before finding the proper employer. I do not want to develop that matter any further, but 3 comment that it makes for a lot of difficulty in the industry.

The men in the waterfront industry are particularly concerned with the element of safety; it is one of the major matters in their minds. It is unfortunate that safety was not put first in the 1947 and 1949 acts and that that defect has not been rectified in this bill. I really raise the matter in order to direct attention to the need to place emphasis on safety rather than on speed. Speed is one of the elements undoubtedly but, if. an opportunity offers for revision of this legislation, I should like to see this matter expressed in the order, “ safe, efficient, expeditious and economical performance “. Emphasis should be placed on both safety and cost.It may be argued that if a performance is expeditious and efficient it will be economical. That does not necessarily follow. The element of cost ought to be projected very prominently into legislation that affirms general principles.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 -

Where, after the commencement of this Act, the Authority establishes a register of waterside workers at a port, the Authority shall declare, by notice published in the Gazette, that an organization of employees (being an organization of employees registered as such under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1956 or under a law of a State or a Territory of the Commonwealth ) specified in the declaration is, for the purposes of this Act, the Union in relation to that port.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

.- The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), in his second-reading speech, made a suggestion for the amendment of this clause designed to put beyond all doubt the meaning which the Government attaches to the clause. He handed to me the terms of an amendment which he suggested the Government might accept. That amendment has been considered by the parliamentary draftsman and altered in parts, although the meaning of the Leader of the Opposition has been retained. I am glad to be able to move, that amendment to clause 9. I move -

That, after the word “ port “, first occurring, the following words be inserted, “ other than a port at which, immediately before the commencement of this Act, a register of waterside workers was maintained in pursuance of the Stevedoring Industry Act 1949-1954,”.

The effect of the amendment will be that no other union will be declared in relation to a port where a register is maintained at the date of the commencement of this act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 (Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This, of course, is a pivotal clause providing for the appointment of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, prescribing its composition as a body corporate with consequences and dealing with its general functions. On this clause I propos to divide the committee because I indicated to the Senate, and I now repeat, that the Opposition is completely opposed to this bill and will not seek to amend it by direct amendment. We are opposed to many of the clauses but I do not propose to divide the committee on them. I desire, however, to make a gesture on this particular clause to indicate to the committee that the Opposition, whilst it does not intend to call for a division on particular clauses, desires to put on the record as a test case the fact that it is opposed to the bill in toto. Accordingly, the Opposition will call for a division on this clause and will vote against it.

Question put -

That the clause stand as printed.

The committee divided. (Thech airman - Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 24

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 (Delegation by Authority).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This clause provides - (1.) The Authority may, either generally or in relation to any port, by writing under its seal, delegate to a person any of its powers or functions under this Act

Then follows some exceptions - (except this power of delegation and the power of the Authority to make orders under section eighteen of this Act)

That enables the authority to delegate its power to give directions under clause 21. I should like to know from the Minister whether the Government has consciously adverted to that, because under clause 17 (1.) (6) one of the functions of the authority is - to undertake or control, until the Minister otherwise directs, the performance of stevedoring operations at a port in respect of which there is in force for the time being a declaration in writing by the Minister that an emergency exists.

That contemplates the existence of an emergency so grave that the Minister will direct the authority, in effect, to step in and itself to conduct stevedoring operations with whatever resources are available to it. Under Clause 21 directions may be given, I should imagine, to anybody in the community. That clause provides that directions may be given orally or in writing and it imposes substantial penalties for failure to comply with such directions. Does the Government really need to provide that, when an emergency arises, the authority may delegate its power to give directions? That is an extraordinary wide power to exercise in a difficult situation. The emergency contemplated, of course would be a strike. It could be confined to a particular port or be nation wide. I can imagine not only conflicting directions being given in various ports of Australia, but also a great deal of disturbance and disorder resulting from directions which are not uniform. Clause 14 permits unlimited delegation, except for the power of delegation itself and except for orders made under clause 18. Consequently, clause 21 may apply in either a nation-wide, an extensive, or a local strike. It is rather dangerous for the authority to have the power of dele’gation of that kind. Would the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) care to comment on that aspect of the legislation ?

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– This clause, which provides for delegation of power, is more limited than is section 11 of the Stevedoring Industry act, which does not exclude the power to make orders. Section 11 (1.) of that act provides -

The Board may, either generally or in relation to any port, by writing under ite seal, delegate to any person any of its powers or functions under this Act (except this power of delegation) . . .

That provision has not created any difficulties and I cannot imagine that the new clause will be likely to do so. There may be a great variety of circumstances operating throughout the Commonwealth from port to port, and a power of delegation of this kind seems to be necessary. I have no doubt that it will be used wisely and subject to proper control by the authority.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15 (Service of the Authority).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This clause deals with the service of the authority. I refer the Minister to subclause (4.). The preceding subclauseprovides that a person shall not he appointed to the service of the authority unless he is a British subject, the authority is satisfied, upon medical examination, as to his health and physical fitness, and he makes and subscribes what is, in effect, an oath of affirmation of allegiance. Sub-clause (4.) limits that provision by providing that -

The Authority may, with the approval of the Minister, appoint to the Service of the Authority a person who is not a British subject and has not made and subscribed the oath or affirmation of allegiance.

Regardless of whether or not a provision of that kind appeared in earlier legislation - and, speaking from my immediate recollection I am sure that it does not appear in that form - it can contemplate only the appointment of a foreigner to the service of the authority - and only a foreigner, because the provisions of (3.)(fc) are to be observed. A person to be appointed shall be healthy and fit, but need not be a British subject and need not make an oath or affirmation of allegiance. I should like to know why that particular provision has been inserted. Has there been established a need to appoint people of foreign nationality to the service of the authority ?

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– This form of provision has become fairly standard in relation to authorities of the kind contemplated by the bill, and it has been thought necessary to have a safeguard in the provision with regard to the appointment, of people who are not of Australian nationality.

Senator McKenna:

– Have any such persons been appointed to do similar work in the past?

Senator SPICER:

– I think under the appropriate section of the present act there is no such exception provided from the general rule, but since that legislation was passed, perhaps because of the influx of immigrants over the last ten years or so, the need may arise to appoint a person who has not become naturalized. I think that that is probably the reason for the provision, which has become a standard form in measures of this typo.

Senator COOKE:
I ask the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer · Western Australia; [5.11].

whether it is possible that this provision has been inserted in order to obtain free labour on the wharfs. At present there is a tendency to pui free labour up against trade unionists. Is that the sort of action contemplated?

Senator Spicer:

– This provision applies only to persons who are to enter the service of the authority. It has no relation to waterside workers.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16 (Powers of Authority in relation to land, &c).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This is a very important clause, but it confers no power on this particular authority to acquire property compulsorily. It provides that the authority may purchase land and dispose of land, and that it may purchase, or take on hire, plant, equipment, stocks or other goods. Nowhere is there a power given to the authority compulsorily to acquire land. I am of the opinion that that is a power which should be at the disposition of whatever authority is to control Australian stevedoring operations.

Senator Spicer:

– The Australian Stevedoring Industry Board, which is the present authority, has got along without any such power for the last ten years.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, and any such power has been exercised through the Department of the Interior. However, I pose the need for it, and the fact that that power has not been granted, or has not been exercised hitherto, constitutes one of the major difficulties in this industry. In report after report on the stevedoring industry we have been told of the difficulties of access to wharfs, the need for more warehouses, the absence of proper space on wharfs and all that sort of thing. It is clear that the Comonwealth, with its power over interstate trade and commerce, may enter into the field and, indeed, it has an obligation cast on it under this bill to provide proper amenities.

It is no answer to say that the land upon which such amenities are to be placed belongs to the State or to some authority like a harbour trust. Not long ago I mentioned an instance in the Senate, when speaking of the facilities at Devonport, which showed that the amenities there are completely shocking. The comment made by Mr. Justice Ashburner in his judgment on the wharf labourers’ award delivered only a few days ago indicates that facilities throughout Australia are primitive. I think that alone must alert the Government to the need for doing something to provide proper amenities for waterside workers.

It is all very well to say that the authority can purchase land, but supposing somebody has land in a key position for the establishment of a warehouse or some amenities building, and assuming that the port authorities will not provide amenities - and a good many have already been obstructive for many years, sometimes not viciously but because of their long-term plans which they did not want disturbed - the authority cannot acquire that land. Down through the years the waterside workers have been provided with toilet and washing facilities and eating and meeting places that are disgusting and deplorable.

That is one field in which the Government should be anxious to introduce some real live activity. It is not to be accepted that people who own land in the vicinity of wharfs, which are key locations for industry, will be ready to sell. I should like to see, supplementary to the power to provide amenities, a power compulsorily to acquire land. Such a power could be limited to acquiring land for the purposes of warehouses, wharfs and so on and for the provision of amenities.

I should like some assurance from the Minister, on behalf of the Government, that in the future the Government will concern itself particularly with the need to provide proper amenities for the waterside workers. A mere power to purchase land will not allow the industry to go ahead quickly. The Department of the Interior could carry out the purchasing and make the land available to the authority, but I should prefer to see the authority armed with power to acquire lond on its own behalf, and, even more importantly, I would appreciate an assurance from the Minister that very close attention will be given to the provision, of amenities.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– The position is amply covered by the Lands Acquisition Act, which provides amongst other things that land vested in the Commonwealth, if the Minister thinks fit and upon such terms as he directs, may be transferred to and vested in a body incorporated by law of the Commonwealth. Therefore, there is no limitation on the land that may he acquired for the authority. The Commonwealth would acquire it and vest it in the authority if necessary. As far as amenities are concerned, on the information that I have before me, from 1949 to the end of April, 1956, the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board has spent £191,000 on amenities and projects in hand, and the estimated cost of planned amenities at the present time totals £310,000.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– I invite the attention of the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) to clause 16, which deals with the powers of the authority to purchase land, buildings or wharfs. Paragraph (b) contains a provision to the effect that, subject to the approval of the Minister, in the case of a lease for a period exceeding five years, the authority may take on. lease land, buildings or wharfs. Thus the authority, as a Commonwealth instrumentality, would become the owner or occupier of land, and normally the person or body owning or occupying land become.* liable, where the land is situated in a municipality, to pay municipal rates. 3 desire to know whether the authority will he liable for municipal rates. If it will not be so liable to pay rates on land owned or occupied by it, will the Commonwealth consider making an ex gratia payment to the municipalities concerned in lieu of carrying out the ordinary legal obligation imposed on owners or occupiers of land to pay rates?

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– The payment of municipal rates in relation to property occupied directly by the Commonwealth or by an authority of the Commonwealth, has been under consideration, for some time. It is a general question, and I do not think that we can decide it in relation to one authority. There is something to be said for the view that in relation to some authorities the Commonwealth should accept the obligation to pay rates. That is a matter which I know has been receiving some consideration.

Senator LAUGHT:
South. Australia

– I thank the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) for his answer, hut I urge upon him the importance of this question because this authority is not simply a governmental authority. It is something that is directly connected witu trade and commerce, and I point out the importance of this matter in a State like South Australia where there are many outports at which the authority could have sheds for its own use. In those instances, the question of municipal rates becomes very important indeed. Recently the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) said that the authority established under the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Bill would recognize its obligations in connexion with municipal rates. In those circumstances, I suggest that the case I am putting now has far more merit than possibly some other cases in which the particular authority is not taking part in trade or commerce in the way that we expect this authority will.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17 (Functions of the Authority).

Senator McKenna (TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition) [5.22]. - T wish to refer briefly to this very important clause, and, in particular, I direct attention to sub-paragraph (a) or sub-section (1.) which provides that the functions of the authority are -

To regulate the performance of stevedoring operations;

The words in the 1949 legislation were “ to regulate and control “. The word “ control “ has been dropped. I agreed with the view which I think I heard expressed in the Senate that that made very little difference because regulation means control to a very large extent, if not completely.

Then, I direct attention to sub-clause (2.) which says -

In regulating the performance of stevedoring operations under this Act, the Authority shall, except to such extent as, in the opinion of the Authority, is essential for the proper performance of that function, avoid imposing limitations upon employers with respect to their control of waterside workers engaged by them and their manner of performance of stevedoring operations.

I should like the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) to indicate what inspired the Government to put sub-clause (2.) into this bill. Why was the matter not left simply at the terms of sub-clause (1.), paragraph (a) to regulate? Why should there be a direction to the board to avoid imposing limitations upon employers with respect to their control of waterside workers engaged by them, and their manner of performance of stevedoring operations ? The Attorney-General might tell me that it has something to do with recent cases decided in the Privy Council and the High Court under section 92 f the Constitution. I should be interested to know what is in the mind of the Government in providing that easing out of the employer’s section of the industry.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I can do no more than emphasize that we are contemplating that this authority will engage in the task of regulating, but will not be concerned atall, except for the purpose of carrying out its regulatory functions, with direct control of the employees themselves who are engaged by the employer. In other words, the relationship between employer and employee, and the control of the employee’s operations by the employer, is now to be left to the employer and is not to be a function of the authority. It is not the easiest thing to express. If we simply said that the authority was to regulate and did not include the qualifications contained in sub-clause (2.), it might be argued that it went the whole length. Sub-clause (2.) does indicate that we want the board to lay down principles, but we do not want it to interfere directly with the control exercised by the employer over his employees.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– I suggest to the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) that there is an intermediate position where the employer stevedore, who is mainly a corporation, functions through agents, and, on the wharf, principally through foremen. The foremen are the direct managers and operatives on behalf of the stevedoring company, and a very great deal of trouble may be caused by them in the industry. As I asked before : If a foreman stevedore is abusive to the men under his control, if he is provocative, if he comes on the job intoxicated and creates bother, in addition to behaving inefficiently, has the authority any power under this bill to discipline a foreman stevedore so behaving? I think the Attorney-General will acknowledge the need for that control. Is there any specific power to which I can look?

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I think that in those circumstances the authority would discipline the employer. That seems to be the proper course to adopt. He would not be carrying on his operations efficiently if he had in his employ a foreman who is carrying on in that way, and the proper method to adopt would be to deal with the employer himself.

– I should like to do so now in order to avoid bringing them under canvass when they arise. Clause 35 enables the authority to make an order, or to give a direction, breach of which might involve the employer of the foreman stevedore in deregistration. But clause 33 (1.) (a), in terms of amplitude, is as wide as the universe. It reminds me of section 40 of the Army Act, the use of which was proverbial in the Army to catch any man on sight and charge him with conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline. We are importing here a charge of conduct to the prejudice of good order and stevedoring discipline. When I see that sub-clause (2.) provides for a maximum penalty of £1,000, I find it hard to resist the thought that the net in which an offending employer might be caught is unduly wide. I think that we are going too far by using such wide, vague, and indefinite terms to indicate offences.

Let me now address myself to the clause under consideration. I have indicated by my action this afternoon that to persist in a certain line of action against the Government is not the stand thatI deem it proper to take. However, I ask the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) to reconsider clause 17 (1.) (a), which provides that it shall be a function of the authority to regulate the performance of stevedoring operations. I submit that this function is really inconsistent with the proper effectiveness of the authority, whose functions should be confined to the administration of regulatory awards and orders - I emphasize “ orders “ - by an arbitration commissioner under the trade and commerce power. To allow this authority unrestricted regulatory jurisdiction brings it into conflict with the arbitral jurisdiction to a degree which, I believe, will militate against efficiency.

I next address myself to a consideration of clause 17 (3.), which reads -

In the performance of its functions under sub-section (1.) of this section, the Authority shall have regard to the desirability of encouraging employers to engage waterside workers for regular employment in stevedoring operations and waterside workers to offer for regular employment with employers in stevedoring operations.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has gone on to consider matters which are closely involved in the reconciliation of clause 19 of this bill with sections 84 (3.) and 84 (4.) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, I ask the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) whether he would be good enough to explain, for our assistance, the true meaning and effect of those two sections.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– In relation to the functions of the authority and the making of arrangements for the transfer of waterside workers, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) pointed out that this matter had been dealt with recently by Mr. Justice Ashburner. The fact is that his judgment discloses that he has left the matter to the authority itself. In other words, he regards this particular function as one which can be more appropriately performed by the authority. If the honorable senator looks at page 1.6 of the typed transcript of the judgment, he will see that His Honour said -

In my opinion, the matter of transfers from ship to ship, whether being worked by the same employer or not, is more appropriate to be dealt with by the statutory authority than by the court.

Then he said -

I therefore state merely that the court approves in principle of transfers from ship to ship, and I leave it to the statutory authority to introduce a system of transfers.

That is an interesting illustration of the way in which we hope this legislation will work. I believe that those who have criticized some of its provisions - and I can understand the criticism - should recognize that, in the end, this kind of thing will work if there are wise and sensible people to make it work. I think it may well be that we shall be fortunate in having people who will work the system wisely and well, and that it will be useful to have a system in which the court may lay down a principle, as it does in this case, and leave it to the authority to work out the details.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– Paragraph (I) of sub-clause (1.) provides that one of the functions of the authority will be - to investigate means of improving, and to encourage employers to introduce methods and practices that will improve the expedition, safety and efficiency with which stevedoring operations are performed

Sitting suspended from b.kS to 8 p.m.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Before the sitting was suspended, I had cited paragraph (Z) of sub-clause (1.). I also wish to have some information about paragraph (m), which reads - to investigate methods, and to assist and encourage employers in devising and adopting methods, for the satisfactory performance of stevedoring operations in rain;

For many years, we have been trying without much success to encourage employers to improve handling methods on the waterfront. The provision of facilities for stevedoring operations in rain has been discussed for some years, but nothing has been done to provide protection. Most provisions of the bill, as applied, to the Waterside Workers Federation, are mandatory. According to paragraph (m) the employers are to be “ encouraged “.

Will the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) inform the committee whether steps will be taken to compel the employers to provide cover and protection in wet weather so thai cargo may be handled then? I appreciate the problems associated with this matter. A supporter of .the Government stated to-day that everybody else worked or went out in wet weather, but I point out that most other people have overcoats or umbrellas. On the waterfront, the cargo has to be considered. In this connexion, it would be necessary to consider whether the cargo to be handled could stand getting wet. Will the Attorney-General inform the committee whether it is intended to proceed as we have done in the past, or whether this matter will receive particular attention?

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

Senator SPICER:

– I know that Senator Ashley did not suggest it. As to the matters that have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) in connexion with paragraph (?) of clause 17 and its relation to clause 19, it must be borne in mind that certain functions are properly the functions of the commission. Other functions are properly the functions of the authority. Paragraph (q) contemplates that the authority will exercise powers, and perform functions, which the commission directs it to perform in the exercise of the commission’s powers or arbitral functions. I referred earlier to an interesting illustration of that when we found that the judge, in this case, in the most recent award, had dealt with the question of transfers from ship to ship. He said that, in his view, having laid down a principle in regard to the matter, that was an appropriate matter to be worked out in detail by the authority. As that matter was in his jurisdiction at that stage, the authority would be required to carry out the award or order he made in the judgment that he recently delivered. Real problems always occur when two authorities are operating in the same field. The possibility always exists that their functions may overlap. Clause 19 endeavours to avoid the validity of the authority’s actions being called in question by reason of the fact that they be inconsistent with some order that has been made by the commission. The clause commences by providing that an order of the authority shall have effect notwithstanding the fact that it may be inconsistent with an award of the commission. That provision must be read in association with the statutory direction which is contained in the next paragraph which says to the authority, “ You shall not make an order which in your opinion is inconsistent with an award of the commission unless you first consult the commission and obtain the agreement of the presidential member to the order you are making “. In that way it is hoped to avoid the legal difficulties which would arise if the bill merely provided that the authority, on the one hand, could do one thing and the commission, on the other hand, could do another. The possibility could always exist of an inconsistency arising which could be brought up> and all sorts of legal action could result.

In the long run, as I said earlier, the successful working of this thing will rest very largely upon the good sense of the people who are exercising these powers, the judge on the one hand and the authority on the other. I would anticipate that there would be frequent consultations, between the judge and the authority in relation to the classes of matters where their two functions may clash.

Senator Wright:

– Does not the Attorney-General think it would be better if the bill made it clear which was the superior authority?

Senator SPICER:

– I do not think there is need to do that in this setup. I suggest this clause goes far enough. I confess that I think it rests, to a large extent, upon the sensible working of these functions as between the judge and the authority. We do- not want the thing destroyed by being, cluttered up with a whole lot of legal actions by people who will come along when an order is made by either the authority or the commission and say that it is invalid because it is inconsistent with some other order. This, I think is a sensible provision designed to avoid that sort of thing and yet, at the same time, keep these two bodies within the functions that are assigned to them. I say in anticipation that these functions will be exercised by honest, capable men and that normally each authority will be seeking to keep itself within the particular jurisdiction assigned to it.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

.- Clause 17(l.)(d) reads-

The functions of the Authority are - (<i) to ensure that sufficient waterside workers are available for stevedoring operations at each port and that their labour is used to- the best advantage;

During the course of the debate on the second reading, an assurance was given by the Government that the supplementary volunteer labour force would be used at week-ends when there- was a flood of shipping in port that could not be coped with by the available labour. It could possibly happen that this flood of shipping might occur mid-week when there was insufficient labour available. Is it the intention of the Government that the authority will’ call on the volunteer labour force to meet the situation during- the middle of the week, provided facilities are available in the harbour and at the wharf ?

Senator Spicer:

– The answer is definitely “No “.

Senator COOKE:

– Paragraph (d) also provides that this labour is to be used to the best advantage. When labour is utilized to do stevedoring, or lumping, I assume that the men will work under normal conditions with full consideration being given to spacing. In those circumstances is the authority able to intervene and say that a man who might be working a crane, or hooking on, is not as capable as another man, and, therefore, direct the team on that job to a different job?

Senator Spicer:

– No.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

.- The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) has outlined the legal position in regard to the authority and the commission. I, as a layman, submit, with due humility, that this clause is very definite. There is no ambiguity in regard to the functions of the two bodies. However, the Attorney-General has not answered the question which I asked him. Paragraph (I) provides that the authority is to-

. investigate means of improving, and to encourage employers to introduce methods and practices. . . .

Such an investigation has been going on for years, but there has been very little improvement on the wharfs. I suggest that it would be better to make provision that the authority should ensure that these things should be done. I refer also to paragraph (o) which provides that the authority shall - encourage safe working in stevedoring operations. ….

Should not that be more definite? Should there not be a direction to the employers to ensure safe working in stevedoring operations? There is nothing definite so far as the employer is concerned ; but so far as the employee is concerned, directions are given and penalties are provided. The full paragraph reads -

To encourage safe working in stevedoring operations and the use of articles and equipment, including clothing, designed for the protection of workers engaged in stevedoring operations, and, where necesary, to provide waterside workers with articles and equipment designed for that purpose;

It should be mandatory on the employer to provide those things. In other clauses of the bill directions are given so far as the waterside workers are concerned.

Why the exception in the case’ of employers? I should like the AttorneyGeneral to answer that question.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria · LP

– After listening to the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) it appears that two dominant powers will operate under this bill, the commission and the authority. The Attorney-General used the expression “ one on the one hand and the other on the other hand “. No reference is made to the workers. They are expected to acquiesce in anything on which these two dominant powers agree. If they are not prepared to acquiesce they must be prepared, as I said when speaking on the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, to pay large fees to certain members of the legal profession to argue out before these two authorities precisely what is meant. I have had the privilege of being asked to attend the Australian Council of Trades Unions Congress, which is meeting in Melbourne at the moment, and I shall tell them again what I have told, them previously, that they have two alternatives : either to acquiesce in what these dominant authorities say, or take direct action. They have been completely ignored in this matter, and have had no voice whatever in what the measure contains. This afternoon Senator Kendall emphasized that the workers should have some voice, but apparently he was not prepared to back his statements with his vote. Actually, there are only two powers involved, the power of the employer and the power of the workers. Failing any agreement between them, the waterside workers have to be prepared to acquiesce or challenge by direct action.

This bill speaks in a language which is not understood, and which is not intended to be understood, by the waterside workers. Even those super minds, which are colloquially referred to as legal minds, cannot agree among themselves as to what it means. There is a conspiracy among the legal minds not to understand, although they are supposed to know better. I will advise the workers that it will pay them better to take direct action than to submit to those authorities in cases in which they believe them to be wrong, and that is what will be done.

Government senators may talk about this authority or some other authority, saying what shall or shall not be done, but they are ignoring the workers on whom they have to depend to keep the industry going. The workers are made subservient to the authority. The Government’s attitude to them is well expressed in the words of St. Paul -

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters.

Does the Government think that that sort of treatment will succeed in this age? It is mistaken if it does. Yesterday afternoon, I attended a meeting of unionists who are affected by this legislation, and in all my experience of union matters, extending over more than fifty years, and dating back to a time long before the Australian Council of Trades Unions was thought of or the present legal and dialectical arbitration set-up came into being, I never saw a more determined attitude on the part of men to challenge the Government. The waterside workers are better organized and are more determined than ever before to take action, and their demeanour yesterday afternoon convinced me that they intend to do so. I want to clear away from the minds of Government supporters, and particularly from the mind of the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), any misapprehension that this authority, which is to be set up to decide conditions affecting the waterside worker, while ignoring them entirely, will not work. If the Attorney-General does not believe me, he will be disillusioned and so will those who support him.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 (Inconsistency).

Senator McKENNA (TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition) [S.2C. - This is one of the important machinery fin uses of the bill, and 1 shall doa! with ii simultaneously with corresponding provision’ relating to arbitration machinery. As T read this clause ii will have the- effect that order* of the authority will override award.” of the commission unless tin-…… i- mission makes tin .award inconsistent with the order of the authority, with thu consent of that authority. That, I take it, to be the broad, general, proposition. The orders of the authority are in a dominant position. The next proposition is that neither the commission nor the authority can make an award or an order inconsistent with that of the other without the consent of that other. That appears to be the pattern, with this one addendum, that in the case of the authority, its acquiescence may be conveyed by the chairman alone. It will not be an official pronouncement of the authority, but a notification from the chairman of the acquiescence of the authority.

I say, with respect to the draftsmen of this measure, that they have erected a most beautiful legal edifice of great symmetry. They have had no responsibility except to act on their instructions, and they have done a magnificent legal job. But these provisions have no regard for the realities of the position faced by the men on the job. My first proposition is that if an award which they obtain from the commission can he overriden by an order of the authority, with the consent of the commission, and vice versa, men in the industry will be afflicted with a series of orders and awards, some of which will rule out, either totally, or in part, the others. These will be placed in the hands of the workers, who want to know the conditions under which they work, and it will be impossible for them, when they examine the award, to know whether another body has done something inconsistent with that award, and they will have to track that down through a devious process. Such a condition will make for confusion, irritation, and industrial unrest, because there will be no possibility of obtaining a clear understanding, in one volume or one series of orders and awards, of all the conditions applying to the industry. Such an arrangement foredooms this perfect legal structure to failure.

– I mean how far back would the. honorable senator like me to go in my argument ? However, I shall put the whole matter again. Under the provisions of the two measures, the conciliation and arbitration measure as it relates to the stevedoring industry and the bill now before the committee, there is an interplay of clauses, the effect of which is that the commission may grant an award to the union after a long and expensive hearing at which the parties are present and at which the parties - that is the employers and the employees - argue their respective cases. After the hearing, the men win an award. The law as laid down in the two bills that I mentioned permits another body, the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, to vary that award if the commission consents.

– Yes, they are considering this matter. Senator Cameron sensed the feeling of that congress yesterday, and believes that it is one of complete hostility towards this measure and the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. However, the feeling of the congress has hardened since Senator Cameron was there yesterday, because, to-day, all the 490 delegates carried a resolution condemning this stevedoring measure. Therefore, the Government might as well know what is facing it when it goes ahead with the administration of this bill. The Government will face open hostility, not merely from the Waterside Workers Federation but also from the united trade union movement of Australia. That will have to be faced as a reality, and it- is a major and serious fact. Tt will not be a matter of fighting the Waterside

Workers Federation in isolation; it will be a matter of a conflict with the whole trade union movement.

Senator McCallum:

– That is only a possibility.

Senator McKENNA:

– It is a very firm conclusion that can be drawn from the resolution passed by the 490 delegates in Melbourne who represent every major union in Australia except the Australian Workers Union. I have no authority to say this, but I have no doubt that the Australian Workers Union will adopt exactly the same attitude. I say that, before I tender again to the Minister the advice that I gave to the Government when we were considering another clause - that the best thing the Government can do with this bill after it is passed, is not to proclaim it, but to put it away and forget about it. The Government has agreed to do that in relation to one clause - clause 40, I think.

I say that deliberately in the interests of industrial peace in this country, for the good of Australia and not for the good only of the Waterside Workers Federation, although the federation is importantly involved. The Government would be well advised to face the industrial facts in this matter. I should like to hear the Attorney-General’s comment on the outline that I have given with brevity, having regard to the extensive nature of the provisions. We are concerned that when the commission makes an order it may consent to the making of an inconsistent order by the authority without the obligation to call the parties together before it. That is the gravamen of the objection of the Opposition.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria · LP

– Senator McKenna has outlined the position in relation to this clause very clearly and quite correctly. Honorable senators should keep well in mind that two languages are liable to be spoken in regard to this measure. One is the colloquial language of the waterside workers which has its origin in the conditions under which they live. Then there is the legal language which has its origin in the direction of increasing the powers of employers. When it comes to deciding which is to predominate, it will be the colloquial language of the waterside workers. As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has pointed out, the workers are much better organized to-day than they have ever been in our history and they are not prepared to accept legal interpretations ex quaerere. They will consider only the effect they have on the conditions under which they are employed. They compare what is said in the name of the commission, or the authority, or the court, as the case may be, with how they believe it will affect their conditions. This applies particularly to the manner in which their purchasing power is being reduced in every direction by inflation. With all these factors operating to a far greater extent than ever before, the legal edifice has no foundation in fact; it has only a foundation in the imagination where the wish is father to the thought.

Senator McCallum:

– Could the honorable senator ‘come back to the clause? I want to understand it.

Senator Cooke:

– -Senator McCallum will never do that.

Senator McCallum:

– I may not, but I am trying.

Senator CAMERON:

– I am afraid I cannot assist Senator McCallum to understand anything when he has not the brains to understand it.

Senator McCallum:

– I ask Senator Cameron not to be insulting. I want to understand the clause.

Senator CAMERON:

As I said previously, we can put what we like on paper, hut the power expressed by the written word and the power of reality are two different things. The Government must realize that fact. The Leader of the Opposition has expressed that point in words different from those which I use, and if Senator McCallum is too ignorant to understand it, I regret the fact. I trust that by a process of inductive as well as deductive reasoning, he will be able to rectify that failing.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– The position which the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has put is one which I suggest assumes most extreme irresponsibility in the exercise of their functions by the judge or the commission on the one hand and the members of the authority on the other. Do not let us get this matter completely out of perspective. We start from the point that the commission is the body which will deal with the general wide range of industrial matters that arise in the industry. That is its jurisdiction The authority has a much more limited jurisdiction. It cannot do anything but what it is authorized by the bill to do But it is possible that in the exercise of its jurisdiction it might at certain points do something which is inconsistent with something which appears in an award of the commission. It is frankly recognized that there is a point where the two thing3 might overlap. The matter can be left there, but if that is done, there will be legal arguments as to the validity of the authority or as to how far the award of the commission still continues to operate. The draftsman has attempted to avoid that kind of situation. The authority can only exercise the functions that are given to it by this bill. If it makes an order, then that order will be one mad in the exercise of its functions. The bill includes provisions setting out that it must hear the parties before making an order. It is inconceivable that, in the kind of case that Senator McKenna has contemplated, its attention would not have been drawn to the alleged inconsistency between what it was proposing to do and what the commission had done. In those circumstances, if it be assumed - as. I suggest, we must assume - that the people who are appointed to this body will act with a sense of responsibility, they will then consult the commission. In that situation, it would be necessary for the commission to decide which of the two bodies was the more appropriate to deal with the particular matter. The award of the Arbitration Court is made after hearing the parties, and the order, or proposed order, of the authority is made after hearing the parties. When consultation takes place between the authority and the commission, the commission will, if it thinks it would be sensible to give its consent, presumably give that consent. On the other hand, if the judge considered that it would be an unjust and outrageous thing to do, having regard to the fact that there was in existence an award of the court, he would probably say, “I do not consent “. I really think that the honorable senator has exaggerated the matter by stating a fanciful case that could arise, but which will not arise, because these powers will be exercised by people who have a real sense of responsibility.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I should like to know from the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) his opinion on the question of which of these two authorities, in the event of inconsistency, has predominant jurisdiction. The only comment I make is, that purposeful authorities, such as the arbitration commissioner, on the one hand and the authority on the waterfront, on the other hand, will be unwilling to surrender their views in numerous instances of bona fide differences as to a proper solution. That involves a conflict in fact for which, I submit, a remedy is not provided in these clauses. I make that point quite deliberately, as my final expression of opinion on this matter.

Passing from that, I make the further point that, in my humble view, there is no legal symmetry in these clauses - clause 19 of this bill and section 84 of the Arbitration Act - but there is a problem of most intricate interpretation, not different from the doctrine of renovi expressed in the latin phrase inextricabilis circulus, interpreted by lawyers to mean endless inconsistency which, as I see it, is created by these two clauses. We should provide a terminus for that inconsistency.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– The purpose of clause -19 has been explained in legal terms, but Senator McCallum has indicated, by interjection, that he still does not understand its provisions. I am sure that other members of the committee, also, do not understand them. I am reminded of the following lines in An Empty Mouse, by Alexander Pope, of literary fame -

You beat your pate, and fancy wit will come: Knock as you please, there’s nobody at home. lt is evident that the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) is not prepared to say whether the predominant authority to determine the conditions under which the watersiders are to work will be the commission or the authority. Unless it is specifically laid down which of the bodies shall be the superior, there will be untold confusion when disputes arise. I believe that the commission should be the superior body, and that the authority appointed under this bill should only issue directions in relation to the operation of awards governing the activities of waterside workers. The clause, as drafted, only confuses the issue. Unless the position is clarified, we shall reach a Gilbertian situation in which everybody will be somebody, but nobody will be anybody. It is incumbent on the Government to state specifically which body shall be superior, in order to ensure industrial peace in general, and the smooth working of the waterside industry in particular. The Attorney-General stated that the authority might, in good faith, make a decision that was in conflict with another decision by the commission.. I remind him that, while these two bodies are battling to determine which decision should prevail, the workers will suffer a loss of wages. Unless the Government clarifies the position now, I think that the waterside workers would be quite justified in expressing their resentment in an unmistakable manner. This clause is wrong in principle. In my opinion, it should be withdrawn and redrafted.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria · LP

– The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) has stated that the commission or the authority will have a sense pf responsibility. That is very well, so far as it goes, but there are two approaches to every question. There is the subjective approach, and there is the objective approach. In my - experience, I have found a tendency on the part of those in authority to approach matters subjectively rather than objectively. I mean that the wish is father to the thought, so that when a person who is armed with authority and prestige expresses an opinion, which is supposed to be superior to that of others, he sees the position in accordance with his experience and training. The difference between such a person and a waterside worker has been well illustrated by a number of authorities. Practical experience without theory has some merit, but theory without practical experience is futile. During this debate, many people who have had no experience of the work of waterside workers have spoken a great deal about it. I suggest that if the Attorney-General and other honorable senators opposite worked for six months in the school of practical experience on the waterfront, their approach would be more objective than subjective.

It is futile to imagine that because a man is a senator or a lawyer, or has academic qualifications, he is much more capable of judging, or of being influenced by a sense of responsibility, to use the language of Senator Spicer, than is a man or woman actually working on the job. Unless that is understood, the Government will continue deliberately to provoke and created the very trouble that it is trying to avoid. It should not be thought that, by the ingenious and sustained use of words, it is possible to influence men and women against their better judgment. All the experience of the past has proved that that cannot be done. Actually, all social reforms amount to making a virtue of necessity. Men and women make an objective approach to such matters because they are compelled to do so. The very conditions in which they work and live force the issue.

In this bill and in other legislation introduced by this Government, there isno evidence that the Government has learned the lessons of practical experience. Instead, it seems to be relying on what the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has referred to as “legal liturgy “. The Government will find that that kind of approach will not be effective. I say, as one who has worked on the waterfront in various occupations, and as one who has had long and varied experience, that I do not want to see strikes and industrial trouble. I want to see an intelligent and dispassionate approach, and an effort to understand the position from the point of view of the other fellow. This bill does not attempt to do that at all. The Government is using legal language and ignoring the colloquial language-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I remind the honorable senator that we are not at the second-reading stage, but are in committee and dealing with clause 19. I ask him to keep to that clause. I have given him very wide scope, but I suggest that he now contine his remarks to the clause that is being considered.

Senator CAMERON:

– I submit to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I suggest that you cannot judge the particular without taking into consideration the general. We are dealing with clause 19, certainly, but we are also dealing with particular instances, and I was trying, as best I could, to deal with those instances.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable senator has been using the whole bill to do so. I am afraid that I shall have to take action if he does not deal with clause 19.

Senator CAMERON:

– Clause 19 provides, in sub-clause (2.) -

The Authority shall not make an order which, in the opinion of the Authority, will be inconsistent with an award of the Commission unless the Authority has first consulted with-

It should be “ conferred with “, of course - the presidential member of the Commission assigned for the purpose of exercising the powers of the Commission under Division 4 of Part III of the Conciliation and Arbitration Art 1004-1050, and the presidential member has agreed to the making of the order.

I nsk you, Mr. Chairman, to put yourself in the position of the average waterside worker. What would you make of that? I ask you to put yourself in the position of a member of the legal pro fession arguing objectively while another member of the profession was arguing subjectively. How far would you get ? I suggest that confusion would be worse confounded. This may be a laughing matter now, but it will become tragic when the Government is taken too literally by the men who have to do the work on the waterfront.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– I do not wish to prolong the debate on this clause, although it is an important one. From the reply of the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), I think it is fair to say that he acknowledged the bare possibility, shall we say, that what I put to the committee could happen. He denied, of course, that it would happen with responsible bodies in the field. There is a lot to be said for that second proposition. I do not deny that, but I put to the Attorney-General that this legislation is directed at furthering the interests of the waterfront of Australia. An essential part of the waterfront organization is the Waterside Workers Federation and its members. If they approach this legislation with hostility and fear, the legislation will be doomed to failure before it is afloat. I say that, without resurrecting old scores at all. The federation says, “ Here is a bill which has been brought in by a government that, in 1954, sought to take away from us what we regard as our greatest privilege and our greatest right - the right to recruit labour on the waterfront “. They approach this legislation with natural and justified suspicion. They pick it up and read sub-clause (2.) of clause 19, which we have been discussing, and the corresponding proposed section 16bv of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill now before the Parliament. Not only are they confused, but also they remember that the process of consultation with the authority is exceedingly weak. They are not entitled to a hearing concerning the making of an order before the authority. Their position in that respect is extremely weak because the bill provides that, before making an order, the authority shall consult with, concerning the need for and the proposed terms of the order, such representatives as it thinks fit, or such registered employers and such unions as, in the opinion of the authority, are likely to be affected by the order. The authority may pick its representatives from the unions. Secondly, even though the union asks for a hearing at which both employers and employees will put a view to the authority regarding the making of an order, the authority has complete discretion in deciding whether a hearing shall take place. No right is to be accorded to the federation or the employer. In that situation, one can understand the fears and suspicions of the federation in connexion with this provision. I agree with other speakers, including Senator Wright, that there will be confusion and uncertainty, which will grow worse and will probably cause more trouble than the provisions of this clause are worth.

Senator MATTNER (South Australia; [9.11]. - There are several provisions in clause 19 about which I should like some information. Am I right in believing that if the authority is doubtful about an order, it need not make that order unless the matter is referred to the commission? I presume that the commission is the body which would give instructions to the authority under this measure. The authority could not make any order unless the judge, or the president of the commission, gave it authority to do so. I cannot imagine that the judge or the president of the commission, having adjudicated on an award, would alter his award because he had been approached by the authority. When an authority approaches the judge with a different viewpoint or interpretation, it cannot make any award unless the judge agrees. That means that the judge or the president is the deciding authority.

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

.- It seems to me that clause 19 of the bill should be read in conjunction with section 84 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which imposes on the commission precisely the same rules and limitations as those imposed on the authority under clause 19 of this measure. The wording of clause 19, with regard to limitations on the authority, is transferred to limitations on the commission in section 84 of the act. The Attorney-

General (Senator Spicer) would do a service to the committee if he would make it clear which of those bodies has the final right to make a decision in any matter.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– Within the limits of its own jurisdiction - honorable senators must keep that in mind all the time - the authority can–

Senator Wright:

– That is, the regulation of stevedoring operations.

Senator SPICER:

– Within those limitations, anyway, the order of the authority has what I would describe as a conditional dominance in the event of inconsistency. It gets its dominance from the fact that, in the event of the authority being of the opinion that there is inconsistency, it must consult the commission, and get the consent of the president of the commission. Having gone through that process - which is the process it is directed to go through in this instance - then, and then only, does the order of the authority override the order of the commission.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– Does that mean that if the authority has any doubt about its right to make an order, it has to seek the approval of the commission, and that, the authority will then apply the order?

Senator Spicer:

– When there is inconsistency.

Senator COOKE:

– There should not be any inconsistency in such a case, because there has been an agreement between the commission and the authority prior to any consultation with the parties concerned. The commission and the authority will then proceed along the line decided by them. At that point, the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) would say that there had been consent to the order issued by the authority, and agreed to by the commission. What appeal would there be left then to the persons who were affected by the order? Would it be a fait accompli against which there would be no appeal? Would the order be imposed upon the waterside workers, or any other body under the jurisdiction of the authority, who would have no right to challenge it?

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 20 to 29 - by leave - taken together and agreed to.

Clause 30 (Registrations in excess of port quotas).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I rise briefly to say that the Opposition is opposed to this clause. It provides for a supplementary work force. Has consideration ever been given to the possibility of drawing upon tempor ary surplus labour in other ports and, if necessary, in other States, and to accommodating them in hostels in the main centres where the flushes occur? That would be better than recruiting a supplementary force.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

.- The fact is that men have been transferred from one State to another.

Senator McKenna:

– I suggest the matter could be disposed of quite fairly to both parties by simply inserting a provision that the authority could suspend, or cancel, the registration of both the employer and the employee, andby providing that the suspension, or cancellation, be postponed if an appeal were lodged within the stipulated time of fourteen days. Then the whole matter should await the decision of a court.

That, at least, would put hoth employer and employee on the one basis. In that case the authority could act in a direct way; but the suspension, or cancellation, would remain in abeyance until the court delivered its verdict. That would be simple and clear in respect of both employer and employee, and I should like to know why such an approach was not made to the problem.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– Clause 35 provides for the cancellation or suspension of an employer’s registration in the event of certain failures on his part. The provision is extremely limited when compared with the provisions relating to employees. When the authority is satisfied that the employer has failed in . relation to one of these matters, it cannot deregister him but had to make application to the court. The shipowner is carefully protected by a correct judicial process having to be instituted before his registration is endangered. Clause 36 deals with the waterside worker, but no protection is given to him by way of a proper and fair trial. His right to registration is endangered without a hearing; and, indeed, it could be so endangered at the whim of some person to whom certain authority may be delegated and who may have personal animus against the worker, t should like to hear the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) comment on that aspect.

Senator SPICER (Victoria - AttorneyGeneral) [9.23 J. - I have already commented on these clauses, but I shall repeat what I said. It has to be borne in mind that if the registration of a stevedoring company is cancelled, harm is done not merely to the company but also to all its employees. Taking that factor into account, it was felt that when an order dealing with a company was to be made - and apart from this a company is liable to a heavy fine - the suitable course was to provide for cancellation by the court. Apart from that, these provisions follow the same line as was followed in the earlier act.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the. Opposition · Tasmania

– I have two comments only to make. The first is that there would be no difficulty as far as the public was concerned in relation to any cargo that one company might be handling. Any such difficulty would arise in any event after the court pronounced judgment and suspended, or cancelled, the registration of the company. That would unquestionably be the case. And in relation to the company’s employees, if the procedure I have suggested were followed, there would be no difficulty until the court made its determination. Of course, the employer would be embarrassed by an adverse decision by the court, but neither the Government nor the Opposition would cavil at a decision of the court.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– The Opposition claims that each waterside worker is entitled to as much consideration as is an employer. If the shipowner is suspended in the same arbitrary manner as is the waterside worker, it may indeed impose hardship on the employees, as was suggested by the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) a few moments ago. However, he is overlooking the fact that a more severe hardship is placed on the waterside worker and his dependants when he is suspended, particularly as he would have no redress against injustice.

Clauses agreed to.

Clauses 38 to 42 - by leave - taken together.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I should like to speak briefly on clause 39. Except for the introduction of the first words of sub-clause (1.), the clause appears to be a reprint of the old section 27. In view of the comments that were made in paragraph 17 of the Tait committee’s report upon the interpretation of the word “ sufficient “ in sub-section (2.), I invite an explanation from the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) as to the reason why the difficulty imagined by the Tait committee has not been put at rest. The Tait committee said -

The wording of this second exception lays down no criterion . . .

The second exception is contained in subclause (2.), which reads -

Nothing in the last preceding sub-section or in the next succeeding section prevents the engagement for employment of a person as a waterside worker at & port at which a sufficient number of registered waterside workers is not available.

The Tait committee report says -

The wording of this second exception lays down no criterion to decide, nor does it say who shall decide, what is “ a sufficient number “, and thus obviously led to difficulties of application.

I do not know what the difficulty is, but, no doubt, it has been considered and a deliberate decision made to adopt the old language. I ask whether there would be any view that the matter would be expressed more clearly if after the world “ available “ the following words were inserted : - “ and ready and willing to undertake the work then required to be done “. That is all I wish to say on subclause (2.).

I remind the Attorney-General of the question I posed before the suspension of the sitting as to whether it would be thought appropriate to introduce a provision that waterside workers in regular employment should have preference over casual waterside workers so as to implement the desirable situation urged upon the authority in sub-clause (3.) of clause 17.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

.- In regard to that I think the position is that there are not sufficient permanent employees at the present time to justify the insertion of the provision contemplated by the honorAble senator. In regard to the other point, I confess I am not very familiar with it; but I am informed that the matter to which the honorable senator has referred in the Tait committee’s report has been considered by the draftsman, who does not think such an addition is required.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 43 (Union rules not to discriminate).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I wish “to offer a brief comment on sub-clause (2.). The whole clause gives great offence to the entire trade union movement, but sub-clause (2.) in particular, because, in effect, it forces into the Waterside Workers Federation persons regarded under clause 30 as eligible for the emergency force, long term, or, under clause 40, for the short-term emergency force. It gives them the right to be placed on a reserve list, and - I underline this point - even though they may never be called upon to do any work in the industry, they will be entitled to membership at appropriately reduced rates of subscription, and may participate in the affairs of the union.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria · LP

– I support the remarks of Senator McKenna. If the unions are deprived of the right to discriminate the result is that any one who applies for membership will be entitled to be admitted. That is a provision which is hoth unworkable and not enforceable. We have all exercised discrimination within limitations, because if we do not do so we are not able to safeguard our interests. I admit that those who exercise discrimination may err, but I would rather submit to that state of affairs than forfeit altogether the right of discrimination. This provision would not be workable, particularly in the waterside industry, or in the coal-mining industry, in which many applications are made for membership of the appropriate unions. In a recent case it was proved to the satisfaction _ of Chief Judge Foster that an applicant for membership of a union was a most obnoxious person, both to the members of the union and, on the evidence, even to the judge, and His Honour ruled that that person was not eligible to become a member. Members of a union should have the sole right to accept or reject an applicant, for union membership. They have nothing to gain by preventing a person, who is reasonably eligible, from joining the union, because the more members they have, with whom they are able to work in collaboration, the better it is for the union. But a provision to deny them the right of discrimination would be unworkable and could not be enforced.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 44 to 54 - by leave - taken together and agreed to.

Clause 55 (Consultations).

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– This clause deals with consultations, and I refer particularly to sub-clause (2.). Several clauses in the measure give the right of consultations to unions and employers, and I list them for the sake of the record. Clause 18 (2.) deals with the powers of the authority to make orders; clause 26(1.) (a) with port quotas; clause 29 (3.) (a) and (6) relate to the registration of waterside workers; clause 30 (3.) to supplementary work force; clause 32(l.)(c) to redundancy at ports, and clause 40 (2.) to the shortterm emergency work force. After all those provisions, sub-clause (2.) of this clause says, in effect, that if the authority fails to consult in accordance with the provisions of all those clauses, such failure is not to be regarded as invalidating any act or thing performed or done by the authority. I suggest to the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) that it is not merely a matter of people acting responsibly in this vital field of human relationships. This provision must be considered from the point of view of those whom it will affect. They are suspicious of it, and of its impact upon them. If the refusal of employers and employees to consult nullifies the authority’s activity, why was not that item pin-pointed and dealt with by itself? Why should a relatively small area be covered by a provision to the effect that, although there are many important opportunities for consultation, if it does not take place, it does not matter? The union, with a great deal of justification, is not at all happy with this provision.

Senator Spicer:

– The authority is expected to obey the law.

Senator McKENNA:

– It is unfortunate that the Government did not take the trouble to think of how this provision would be regarded by the waterside workers. If it had paused to do that 1 am certain that the clause would not have appeared in its present form, but a simpler provision would have been drafted to the effect that if consultation does not take place, through the failure or default of the employees or the employers, that failure shall not invalidate any action taken by the authority. That would have disposed of the situation. I would not be prepared to concede to the authority exemption from a declaration of invalidity of its acts if it forgot to consult. It has to act responsibly, and it is obliged to consult. If it forgets to do so the penalty should be the invalidation of its actions. It should be compelled to remember its obligation to consult. This clause obviously reveals a failure on the part of the Government to look at the element of human relations in this problem. That has been emphasized by the kind of speeches delivered by Government senators to-day. I refer to the intolerant “ shoot-them-down “ contribution of Senator Wood to the debate. That coercive, intolerant attitude is greatly resented by the waterside workers. They feel as if they are to be put out on a limb and dealt with in the manner suggested by Senator Wood. When they hear that kind of talk from a Government supporter, they interpret it as the motivating spring’ of the Government’s action. I repeat that that kind of utterance is most unfortunate, and I assure the committee that it is greatly resented by the large field of 26,000 men, who are as good Australians as any group of citizens in this country. They are quite as good Australians as any group of senators or members of the Parliament - with the same home and family responsibilities, the same loves and the same likings for things Australian and decent. They should not be singled out for obloquy and attack. That is why the members of the Waterside Workers Federation regard a provision of this nature with grave suspicion. They are suspicious because of threats that are made against them similar to those that we have heard in this chamber ro-d:y. I regret that the Government, Hid not, restrict the ambit of the clause solely to achieve the purpose at which it waa aiming.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 56 to 60 - by leave- -taken together and agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment ; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1817

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1956

In committee: Consideration resumed from the 19th June (vide page 1672).

Clause 7.

Postponed proposed Division 4.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania Leader of the Opposition

– I propose to spend but little time on this aspect of the measure, because all the relevant debate has taken place in connexion with another bill that was recently before the committee. The only matter which I desire to discuss relates to attendance money, which is dealt with in proposed section 16BU Sub-section (1.) of that section, reads -

The Commission is empowered to determine, by order, the terms and conditions in accordance with which. and the rates at which, the Authority shall pay attendance money to waterside workers.

Sub-section (2.) reads -

Where, in the opinion of the Authority, there is a concerted failure by all or any of the waterside workers registered at a port under the Stevedoring Industry Act 1950 to comply with a provision of that Act, an order of the Authority under that Act or an award or order of the Commission under this Division, the Authority may, by instrument in writing, suspend the operation of an order made under the last preceding sub-section insofar as it relates to waterside workers at that port.

Later in the section it is provided that the commission, but not the authority, may, by order, upon application made by a union, revoke any such suspension. Why is it necessary that the matter should go before the commission again? Why, if the authority is given power to suspend, is it not given power to revoke? Would not that be a far quicker procedure and a far more just procedure?

Senator Spicer:

– The matter goes to the judicial authority to determine whether the order should be revoked.

Senator McKENNA:

– I suggest that the time element enters into that transaction. Why should not the authority have the power to suspend, or revoke the suspension, with a right to the party aggrieved to go to the commission? It may be that representations made to the authority immediately after the suspension might induce it to revoke the order. Therefore, why should it not have that power? In addition, there should be a right given to the party to go to the commission if the authority should be adamant. That is the question that I should like the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) to answer.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I was surprised that any objection should be taken to this matter, because I was of the opinion that the waterside workers would prefer to have a matter of this kind dealt with by the commission, which is the authority that makes the order. The commission, having made the order on attendance money, is unlikely to revoke it. As I read the measure, the order may be revoked from the date it was made.

Senator McKenna:

– A revocation can be made retrospective, but how will it apply retrospectively if payment of the attendance money depends on the attendance of a worker at a pick-up place and he has been suspended and has not attended anyway?

Proposed section 16bs - (1.) In this Division, unless the contrary opinion appears - industrial matters ‘ means all matters pertaining to the relations of employers and waterside workers and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes -

any industrial dispute, including any matter which may be a contributory cause of such a dispute;

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · VICTORIA · LP

– I move -

That in section 16BS paragraph (n), the word “ industrial “ be left out and the word “ industry “ inserted in lieu thereof.

The reason for the proposed amendment, is that an “ industrial dispute “ is defined as meaning a dispute as to industrial matters. That is followed by a definition of “ industrial matters and when we reach paragraph (n) we find the words “ any industrial dispute “ which means any dispute as to industrial matters. That is not what is meant, and the words intended to be used and which were, in fact, used by the draftsman, but were not printed, were “ any industry dispute “. Those words also appear in the appropriate place in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed clause 49 agreed to.

Postponed clauses 54 and 55 agreed to.

Debate resumed from the 14th June (vide page 1599), on motion by Senator Cooper -

That the hill be now read a second time.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

.- The bill before the Senate relates to the national health scheme. A statement that was made by the Minister for Health (Dr. Donald Cameron) in another place to-day demonstrated the need for drastic amendment of the measure. He said that it was wrong to suggest that people were suffering because they could not afford to buy expensive drugs. The Minister also said that all important lifesaving and disease-preventing drugs were included in various categories of drugs that are provided free under tho pharmaceutical benefits legislation. That statement was not correct, as I shall show in a few minutes’ time.

The bill provides for four machinery amendments of the principal act, none of which alters any of the major principles of the legislation. I should be glad if the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) would give to the Senate particulars of specific instances of rates of -Commonwealth medical benefit not exceeding the maximum benefit of £11 5s. in respect of medical services for which no amount of benefit is specified in the schedules to the act. Under clause 3. power is given to the Minister to determine the rate of benefit payable, in the light of all the information available to him.

Clause 4 removes from the Minister certain discretionary powers in relation to the payment of benefits in respect of medical expenses charged for by public hospitals. In the past, the Minister has exercised his discretionary power to enable benefits to be paid in respect of these charges. However, doubts have arisen as to the technical validity of the declaration made by the Minister pursuant to his discretionary power. It is now proposed to remove these doubts by taking all discretionary power in this matter out of the hands of the Minister, and specifying in the act the particular services for which benefit has, in the past, been paid, and will continue to be paid. Clause 4 also amends the definition of “ public hospital “ in section 19(3.) of the act. This definition is being changed to ensure that hospitals in the Northern Territory will not come within the scope of that section.

Clause 5 proposes to give to the Minister power to appoint a qualified person to serve temporarily on a committee of inquiry in the absence of one of the duly appointed regular members.

The remaining amendment is contained in clause 6. Section 134a of the act gives the Minister power to publish in the Gazette notification of disciplinary or court action he has taken against doctors or chemists for abuse of, or offences against, the act. This power to publish notification of action has been a valuable deterrent against abuse or malpractice. The proposed amendment will give the Minister power to enable him to publish a statement of reasons why action was taken, in order to strengthen the value of the deterrent provision. The Opposition welcomes the proposed amendment, as it will minimize the malpractices that have been prevalent in connexion with this Government’s health scheme.

It is important that the people should know that the more necessary life-saving drugs are not generally available free, although the act purports to indicate that they shall be so provided. They are prescribable by doctors subject to certain restrictions, the effect of which has been that they are scarcely used. For instance, aureomycin is freely prescribable only for certain diseases, which are unknown in New South Wales, except pneumonia and staphylococcal infections. In these cases, sulphonamides and penicillin must be used first. The restricted prescribable drugs cannot be obtained free unless the condition of the patient gets worse.

The restrictions 1 have mentioned apply to all of the new antibiotics, other than sulphonamides and penicillin. It is obvious that these restrictions have been imposed out of financial considerations. For example, a full course of tetracycline of 32 capsules costs JE7 12s., while a full course of sulphonamides, comprising 100 tablets, costs £1. A full penicillin course over six days, of 1,000,000 units per day costs £2 4s.

As a result of the cheese-paring and short-sighted policy of the MenziesFadden Administration, the free supply of important life-saving drugs to the public has been greatly restricted and the wholesale production of these drugs has been prevented. I point out that, due to wholesale production, the price o,f penicillin has been reduced considerably. Ten years ago, the price charged for 1,000,000 units of penicillin was £10. To-day, due to mass production, the price is only 7s. 4d. per 1,000,000 units.

The restriction of the supply of free life-saving drugs has had a serious effect on the medical profession. Very few doctors would run the risk, even in cases of severe illnesses, of prescribing at once an antibiotic like tetracycline. Recently, a circular was issued to doctors, informing them that, if they prescribed restricted drugs, they could be asked to refund the cost if they did not abide by the instructions. The real threat, however, that is felt by the doctors is that they will not be permitted to write further prescriptions under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act, which would virtually destroy their medical practices. There are very few doctors, at the present time, who would be prepared to take this risk. Therefore, the general procedure, on being called in to treat a serious case of pneumonia, has become as follows: To prescribe sulphonamides, and if the patient fails to respond, to use penicillin. If, by that time, the patient is still alive, and there is no response to penicillin, an attempt is made to have the patient admitted to hospital, or with fear and trepidation, tetracycline is used. In the case of a child, very often this comes too late, with fatal results. There is still a high incidence of mortality from, pneumonia amongst children under theage of one year.

Should a doctor diagnose a urinary tract infection, he finds that aureomycin. is not prescribable under the medical benefits scheme. Unless the infection is due to streptococcus faccalis, what is a doctor to do on diagnosing a urinary tract infection ? I inform the Senate that this information has been supplied to me, and I have been asked to bring it before the Parliament at an appropriate time. In such a case, the doctor would have to use an instrument to take a specimen of the urine and discuss with membersof the family their financial status. Unless they could prove to his satisfaction that they could not afford the fee of a private biologist, the specimen could not be sent to the Department of Health for bacteriological examination. If they proved their inability to pay, the doctor would have to arrange for a member of the family to take the specimen to the bacteriological department of a public hospital, or to the Department of Health. In the event of their being able to pay, the doctor would have to convince them of the necessity to take the specimen to a private pathologist. In either event, three or four days would elapse before the bacteriological report would be to hand. During that interval, if the diagnosis of streptococcal infection had been confirmed, the infection would have moved along its inevitable course. No doctor in general practice could possibly undertake all of these negotiations.

The restrictions are having a stultifying effect on research work. For example, one of the most effective drugs in the treatment of asthma is aminophyllin. The use of adrenalin over the years may lead to cardiac failure. The main objection to the use of aminophyllin in the treatment of asthma is that it may cause severe gastric symptoms. This matter has been under investigation by drug houses for a number of years, with the result that a product combining amino.phyllin with various compounds that prevent gastic irritation has become available. This product has not been placed on the pharmaceutical benefits list of drugs, and accordingly, a doctor who prescribes the use of the tablets, which in- volve an expenditure of 4s. a day, for a course of treatment that may need to be continued for three months, inevitably will be informed that the family cannot afford the expense.

The publicity and the brochures that have been issued by the Department of Health, with the object of reducing the cost of pharmaceutical benefits, have encouraged the growth of what might hedescribed as backyard pharmaceutical factories which are able to produce products at a lower cost than those produced by reputable firms of long standing, such as Burroughs Wellcome and Company (Australia) Limited and Parke, Davis and Company Limited. The result has been that a circular has been issued to Burroughs Wellcome Limited. Parke, Davis and Company Limited, and other drug houses, informing them that unless the prices of their products are reduced by the next quarter their products will be removed from the list of pharmaceutical benefits. Some firms, such as Allen and Hanburys (Australasia) Limited have endeavoured to effect reductions in the price of their products by cheapening the form in which the drugs are presented. That is particularly easy in the case of penicillin preparations which have been, designed in the interests of sterility and ease of administration to the patient. In the case of the products of Burroughs Wellcome and Company (Australia) Limited, where the recommendation of the committee has not been accepted the product concerned has been removed from the list of benefits.

For approximately four years now, various agents marketed by May and Baker (Australia) Proprietary Limited, such as vegolysen and ansolysen, have been available for the treatment of hypertension. There is a very wide spread of this disease in Australia. By the use of these agents, arterial blood pressure can virtually be restored to normal. Honorable senators may have read of instances of the use of these agents and of the benefit that they have been to patients. In spite of the strongest -protests to the Commonwealth bv various doctors and evidence from nil parts of the world that blond pressure is a disease that can, by the use of these agents, be reduced to the level of diabetes, which may be treated with insulin, the Commonwealth has refused to place these drugs on the pharmaceutical benefits list. Yet, nothing could be more life-saving than they are.

In reply to persistent representations, first to the previous Minister for Health, Sir Earle Page, and then to the present Minister (Dr. Donald Cameron), it was pointed out that these agents were on the pharmaceutical benefits list in an injectible form. However, I am informed that the injection must be made intramuscularly and tha t few, if any, patients can be instructed in the necessary technique. Furthermore, if the drug is to be used effectively as an injection three injections are required daily. No medical practitioner in Australia would guarantee, for 52 weeks of the year, to visit a patient at a regular hour three times a day. If he were to do so in the case of a pensioner, when his visits would be paid for by the Commonwealth under the pensioner medical service, it would cost thi1 Government £1 16s. a day for the hypertensed pensioner to receive adequate treatment. Accordingly, the statement that these drugs are available as pharmaceutical benefits in injectible form is a complete sham, because they cannot bp used in that form.

It will be recalled that steps were taken by a Labour Government to establish a national health scheme as far back as 1946. The Labour Government was prompted to initiate a national health scheme because of the obvious need to remove from the sick their reluctance to seek medical attention because of the heavy cost involved.

The Labour Government regarded the health of the people as a national responsibility, and considered that the first aim of a national health service was to prevent serious illness by removing the financial barrier between the sick person and access to medical attention at the first available opportunity. It also considered that it should encourage resort to expert medical advice as soon as possible. Synchronizing with the acceptance of responsibility foi the health of the people, the Labour Government, in 1946, imposed a social services contribution tax, which was paid into a national welfare fund to finance social services and provide free medicine and free hospital treatment. Some time ago, this Government issued a brochure bearing a photograph of the Minister for Health at that time, Sir Earle Page. Information was imparted in the brochure by way of questions and answers. This is an extract -

The Medical Benefits Scheme is not a plan for compulsory health insurance. But it is a plan deliberately designed to strengthen voluntary medical insurance by helping those who wish to help themselves.

What does all that mean?
It means that Commonwealth Government assistance will take the form of subsidies for the cost of medical treatment incurred by individual members of approved medical insurance organizations, and their dependants.

In other words, the Government will subsidize the benefit provided to members of the organization.

And how much will the combined assist ance amount to?
The Government’s aim is that its subsidy, plus the payment from the organization, should cover the major portion of the doctor’s charge. Additional insurance for the “ Optional Schedule “ should largely meet the cost of specialist services.

It is well known that that result was. not achieved. As an example,I cite the case of an operation for appendicitis I should like to know where anybody can get first-class treatment for an appendix operation in any hospital in Australia under 30 guineas. The Medical Benefits Fund of Australia provides £9 12s. 6d. towards such an operation, and the Government pays a subsidy of £5 7s. 6d. ; that is a total of £15. The patient, who has to subscribe to the dearest medical and hospital scheme in the world, has to pay more than £15 himself if the operation costs £30.

Inrecent years, medical science has advanced far ahead of the social services provision to apply that knowledge and benefit to the community. Medical attention, particularly in advanced stages of an illness, often requires costly X-ray services and investigations that are usually followed by an operation. The patient incurs expenses far beyond his or her means. The Government’s health scheme represents an abysmal failure to remove the barrier against free access to medical attention and hospital treatment. The major benefit from the MenziesFadden health scheme flows freely to the medical profession and the pharmacists.

In actual practice, this Government’s: national health scheme adds to the heavy burden of taxation by imposing membership charges on. top of the heavy taxes’ that are levied to pay for the scheme. It. compels patients to pay doctors and specialists’ fees, which are in excess of the fund benefits and the Government subsidy combined. Under the Government scheme, a person suffering from any chronic illness, such as asthma, stomach ulcers, bronchitis, arthritis or blood pressure, is not eligible to receive benefits, although he or she is compelled to join a medical benefits fund. The Medical Benefits Fund of Australia, which is one of the largest funds, has a membership equal to that of all friendly societies and other funds combined. This fund has had the support and encouragement of this Government to the detriment of friendly societies, which have rendered yeoman service in the provision of health benefits during the past 100 years..

The Medical Benefits Fund of Australia has a large enrolment, and its associated organization, the Hospital Contribution Fund of New South Wales, also has a large membership. It is one of the largest of the hospital funds, and has an enormous turn-over. The balancesheet incorporated in the thirty-third annual report of the Hospital Contributions Fund of New South Wales shows a turn-over of £2,969,666 at the end of June, 1955. Some indication of the membership can be derived from those figures. Both the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia and the Hospital Contributions Fund of New South Wales have stored up in reserve many millions of pounds. Hospitals in New South Wales and other parts of Australia are being closed down because of lack of finance. To the credit of the friendly societies, which organized medical funds when the Government’s national health scheme came into operation, they immediately took over chronic cases, irrespective of the illness from which they were suffering, and provided benefits.In the case of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia contributors who arechronic sufferers have to serve a period of two years’ probation before they can obtain any benefit from the fund. They arecompelled to join the fund in order tocollect the government subsidy for which they have been contributing by way of taxation since 1946, if, at that time, they were old enough to do so.

Labour’s policy is that the health of the people is a national obligation and should be dealt with On a national basis. For that reason the Labour government imposed a social services contribution tax in 1946. The money collected was paid into a national welfare fund. That tax continued until the financial year 1950-51 when the present Government merged the National Welfare Fund into Consolidated Revenue. It also merged social services contributions with general income tax collections, the reason being that a huge sum of money had been built up in reserves. By merging the fund with Consolidated Revenue, the Government, was able to cover up the large amount of money that had been provided as the result of social services contributions. In 1946, social services contributions amounted to approximately £100,000,000 a year. To-day, they would amount to more than £200,000,000 a year. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), when replying, will probably say that no social services contribution tax is paid at the present time because in 1950-51 that tax was merged with general income tax collections. However, at that time, a very insignificant reduction in taxation took place. In the case of a person on the basic wage of £14 a week the reduction was in the vicinity of 25s. a year, or 6d. a week. In the case of a person earning £16 a week, or £800 a year, the reduction amounted to 30s. a. year.

Debate interrupted.

page 1823

ADJOURNMENT

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid). - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate I formally put the question -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 1823

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1956

Debate resumed.

Senator ASHLEY:

– In the case of a person earning £1,000 a year the reduction amounted to £2 10s. a year, or less than ls. a week. Every other person earning income above £1,000 a year would to-day be paying 18d. in the £1 social services contribution. I agree that the contribution has been merged with income tax, but that is the position.

I have up-to-date figures from the Treasury Department. During the year 1954-55, the amount of tax paid by a man on the basic wage of £700 a year amounted to £53 15s. Of that taxation. £52 10s. would have been social services contributions on the basis of the rate of contribution when that tax was imposed. Of course, it would probably have increased in relation to the inflationary conditions which exist in this country to-day. A person earning £800 a year as at June last would have paid £69 lis. income tax, of which £60 would havebeen social services contribution. A person on £1,000 a year would have paid £106 5s., and of that amount £75 would represent social services contribution. The social services contribution, when imposed by the Labour Government in 1946, was imposed on a graduated scale applied to all incomes over £150 a year.

I shall cite figures relating to a single person without dependants for the sake of simplification. In the case of such a person no concessional allowances need be taken into consideration. In 194’9, a single person earning £150 a year paid £3 ls. The basic wage earner at that time paid £3 2s. a year, or 5s. a week, social services contribution. Calculated on the inflated state of the economy to-day, he would be earning approximately £14 a week and would be asked to pay taxation at the rate of £52 10s. a year, lt is very significant that in 1949 a man on the basic wage paid 5s. a week in taxation whereas to-day he pays £52 10s. a year, four times the amount he paid in 1949 when a Labour government was in office.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– What amount does he receive in medical benefits?

Senator ASHLEY:

– T shall deal with that later and inform the honorable senator what he is paying for that. I repeat that in 1949 a man on the basie wage was paying 5s. a week tax in contrast to £1 a week at the present time, four times as much. In 1949 the basic wage was £6 a week and so has increased by two and one-third times, whilst the social services contribution has increased to four times what it was in 1949.

In the financial year 1950-51, when the Menzies Government merged, the National Welfare Fund with Consolidated Revenue and merged the social service contribution with income tax collections in order to cover up the magnitude of the social services contributions tax, there was, as I have already mentioned, an insignificant reduction in taxation. I wish to bring to the notice of the Senate cases about which I have heard recently. A few days ago, I heard of a woman who lives at Eden.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– I suppose this is an Ezra Norton story.

Senator ASHLEY:

– No, it is not. However, what is wrong with Ezra Norton? If Senator Marriott were as good a man as he is, he would do much better. I have received many complaints concerning the pharmaceutical benefits which are supposed to be available under the National Health Scheme. In recent weeks, Government senators, and particularly the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), have emphasized the support which this Government gives to private enterprise. Under the National Health Scheme, the Government is obviously concerned with those engaged in private enterprise, such as pharmacists and doctors. As evidence of this, I have a letter written by the Liberal party of Australia to each of the 3,000 doctors in New South Wales. It is as follows: -

Dear Doctor,

You will recall that a few years ago your profession was faced with the danger of nationalization.

Due in no small measure to the support you gave the Liberal party, such action was delayed and the present National Health Scheme produced. This scheme is now being implemented and it has been acclaimed, both here and overseas, as more nearly fulfilling the requirements specified by your profession for such a service than any other such plan throughout the world. It has been established, but consolidation has not yet been achieved, and all members of your profession will recognize the vital necessity of keeping the present federal Government in power in order to finally frustrate the threat to the liberty of your members.

We need your full support, and in particular, your financial assistance with which to maintain the organization to do this job.

No wonder the Government looks after private enterprise when it sends out letters like this. The letter concluded -

Please respond to the best of your ability and send your cheque payable to the “ Fullarton-Scammell “ Trust at the above address.

The benefits from this scheme flow to the doctors and chemists of this country, but the patients suffer. Last week, a case was brought to my notice of a lady who was taken to hospital, and whose baby was born deformed. The child is likely to remain in hospital for a long time, perhaps permanently. The husband is earning £15 a week. Senator Spooner said the other day that that was about the basic wage. I suppose it would be, together with overtime. This man has to pay £9 15s. a week for the care of that child in hospital. How can he maintain his wife and family on the balance of his earnings of £15 a week? If the Minister has any helpful suggestion as to how that can be done I should be glad to hear it,

I ask that an inquiry be made into this scandalous health scheme. Funds are being hoarded while beds in hospitals are being closed. According to a brochure issued by the former Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) some years ago, this fund was to be used to provide free hospital treatment and medicine, and to make a major contribution to all medical and specialist services. That is not happening, and that fact is confirmed by the many complaints from subscribers. These contributors pay heavy income taxation, and their contributions to the medical and hospital benefits funds are a form of indirect taxation. The benefits they receive are in no way comparable with those of the United Kingdom. Under the British medical health plan, a contributor pays 5s. 9d. a week and an employer 5s. a week. The Australian contributor without dependants pays £1 a week in direct taxation, and if he joins a medical and hospital benefits fund he has to pay 3s. a week, which is another £7 16s. a year. That is a form of indirect taxation. In Britain, the scheme provides free dental and optical care and many more benefits to the contributors than are available under the Australian scheme. I urge the Government to appoint some sort of authority to inquire into the operations of the Australian National Health Scheme.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1825

PRINTING COMMITTEE

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 1825

QUESTION

OIL

Senator WARDLAW:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

Is it a fact that a party of Australians recently returned from Portuguese Timor with many oil samples?
Is it a fact that the party included members of an Australian syndicate which has been granted oil rights in that area?
Is the Minister’s department co-operating actively, or in any practical way, with the syndicate?
Will the Minister supply definite details of this matter, including the value and extent of the oil strike?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows : -

The only information my department has concerning the return of a party of Australians from Portuguese Timor was contained in a recent press article.
The granting of oil rights in that area is the prerogative of the Portuguese Government, and my department has received no definite advice of any concession having been granted to an Australian.
My department has not been approached for any information or assistance.
I have no information concerning any recent oil strike in Portuguese Timor. However, I understand that a partnership comprising three major oil companies held a concession there in 1948 and that one of the partners made a reconnaissance geological survey. This concession was abandoned in 1948. The samples brought back by the present Australian party are probably recovered from hand-dug bores and seepages, which have been used locally in Portuguese Timor for some years. These seepages do not constitute an oil “ strike “ in the accepted sense of the term, and do not necessarily indicate the presence of commercial reserves of natural petroleum.

page 1826

QUESTION

X-RAY APPARATUS IN SHOE SHOPS

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 19th June, Senator Wardlaw asked the following question : -

Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health been directed to a statement which appeared in a daily newspaper to the effect that Dutch radiologists consider it dangerous for untrained persons to operate X-ray apparatus in shoe shops because of radiation? Dr. J. Spaander, director of the Dutch State Institute for Public Health, told a press conference that Dutch health experts were seeking legal means to have X-ray apparatus banned from shoe shops. Will the Minister investigate the position and ensure that the Australian public is protected in similar circumstances?

The Minister for Health has now supplied the following answer : -

The dangers of use of uncontrolled shoefitting X-ray machines was brought to the notice of the National Health and Medical Research Council at its twenty-eighth session by the council’s Industrial Hygiene and X-ray Committees. Subsequently the dangers of the use of X-ray machines was brought to the notice of the trade. Several States tested the X-ray machines, and Victoria introduced legislative control. Later the council submitted to the States a draft legislation to control radioactive substances and irradiating apparatus, which has been enacted by two States and is under consideration by others.

page 1826

AUSTRALIAN COASTAL SHIPPING COMMISSION BILL 1956

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with amendments.

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

Clause 26 -

Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to prevent the making of an industrial award, order, determination or agreement under any Act (other than the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920-1955) in relation to persons appointed or employed under this Act or affect the operation of any such award, order, determination or agreement in relation to persons so employed.

House of Representatives Amendment No. 1. - After “ so “ insert “ appointed or “.

Third Schedule-

Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1924.

Stevedoring Industry Act 1949-1954.

Stevedoring Industry Charge Act 1947-1954.

House of Representatives Amendment No. 2. - After “Stevedoring Industry Act 1949-1954.” insert “ Stevedoring Industry Act 1950.”.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

House of Representatives Amendment No. 2.

The first amendment proposes to remove a minor drafting difficulty in clause 26. The object of the clause is to ensure that industrial awards under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and under any other relevant Commonwealth act, may be made applicable to officers and employees of the commission. In the clause the expression “ persons appointed or employed under this Act” is used, and this expression clearly covers both permanent officers and temporary or casual employees. However, two lines lower down, the expression used is “ persons so employed “, and there is room for doubt whether this expression includes permanent officers. The amendment, therefore, proposes to substitute for the expression “ persons so employed “ the expression “ so appointed or employed “. The second amendment is to the third schedule of the bill, which contains a list of Commonwealth acts that are declared, by clause 45, to apply to the commission. One of the acts listed in that schedule is the Stevedoring Industry Act 1949-1954. When the Stevedoring Industry Act 1956 becomes law, it is the intention of the Government that it shall be applicable to the commission. The amendment, therefore, proposes to add it to the list of acts classified in this third schedule.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 1826

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

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

Australian Coastal Shipping Agreement Bill 1956.

Housing Agreement Bill 1956.

page 1827

STATE GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL 1956

Bill received from the House of R e prresentatiives .

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for the Navy · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Under legislation Commonwealth grants for university purposes have been provided since the 1st July, 1950. Before that time, there had been Commonwealth grants for research and, in addition, substantial subsidies were paid to universities to meet the costs they incurred in connexion with training provided under the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme. This bill seeks to continue Commonwealth grants for universities for the year 1956. When the corresponding legislation was introduced last year, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) indicated that a close examination was being made of the basis on which grants are determined in the light of changes in student enrolments and changes in relative costs as between one university and another. This bill, then, is the product of that review, although it does not depart from the established principles under which grants have been made since 1950.

It would be appropriate to remind honorable senators of these principles under which grants have been made. When grants were first provided in respect of 1950, the legislation enabled each university to qualify for a basic grant. To qualify for such a basic grant, it was necessary for the income from State grants and fees to be at least sufficient to balance the university’s budget for 1950. Also, it was necessary’ for the total amount from State grants and fees to be at least three times as great as the Commonwealth basic grant. After that year, in accordance with an agreement with the State of New South Wales, adjustments were made to the qualifying amount and the basic grant for the New South Wales University of Technology; but, apart from that, there has been no change in the qualifying amount for any university and the only adjustment in the basic grant has been to allow for increases in a small part of that grant provided as a contribution towards teaching and administrative costs of residential colleges. The total amount provided for residential colleges has been increased from £25,000 in the original legislation to the sum of £44,000 provided for in the present bill.

Compared with last year’s legislation, this particular item has been increased from £35,700, an increase of £8,300. Under present conditions, all universities would qualify for the basic grant and the importance of the review carried out during the past year in accordance with the Prime Minister’s statement has been to provide material to enable the Government to arrive at an appropriate total for this year as well as an allocation as between universities. The important matter for each university is the maximum amount available, which is shown in the fourth column of the schedule to the bill, and honorable senators will note that the maximum amount, available this year is £2,000,000, an increase, I would observe, of some £300,000 on the total provision made in the 1955 legislation.

This amount of £2,000,000 was determined after a careful analysis of enrolments and costs of universities. It has been found that since 1953 there has been an increase in the level of university costs. At the same time, it is estimated that the increase of enrolments between 1954 and 1956 is of the order of 10 per cent. The increased maximum made available in the bill has been determined so that the Commonwealth contribution would be appropriate to the Commonwealth share of these increases. In referring to the Commonwealth share, I must mention that the essential principle of this legislation is that the Commonwealth grant is a supplementary grant and that each university’s share of this grant is attracted by that university’s income from fees and State grants. Once a university has attracted the basic grant then it is able to attract £1 of Commonwealth money for each £3 of income from State grants and fees. The allocation between the several universities of the maximum grant available provides for an increase of Commonwealth support in each case as compared with that of the 1955 legislation. The allocation is based on the investigations which have been carried out, and it is based on the best possible estimate of the relative needs of the several universities. In estimating these needs, it was necessary to make allowance not only for university enrolments but also for the distribution of students between the various faculties, and for the differing costs of these faculties. Again, consideration was given to the special problems of small universities.

This year’s legislation is, I believe, somewhat simpler in form, than the previous legislation, and the maximum amount payable to each university shown in the fourth column of the schedule will enable honorable senators to determine by inspection the allocation of the overall grant as between the universities. This Coll nin does reflect, as accurately as we are able to estimate it, the relative claims of Australian universities on the total amount of £2,000,000. Honorable senators will appreciate, however, that whether any particular university will be able to attract the maximum amount offered will depend on that university’s income from State grants and fees. I have had an examination made of the amount likely to be attracted this year, and it seems, on the evidence available, that all universities together will qualify under the conditions provided in this bill for somewhat more than £1,900,000. The total in the fourth column includes in respect of each university the amount provided in the third column, i.e., the amount of the basic grant which, in turn, includes as I have already mentioned, the amount provided for residential colleges shown separately in the fifth column.

Apart from the change in the maximum grant available and the changes in its distribution resulting from the review, there is only one other change to which I would draw the attention of honorable senators and that is a change which will make it easier for universities to attract Commonwealth money. This is a change in clause 3, the interpretation clause.

Honorable senators will recall that the Commonwealth grant is provided as a grant towards running costs. The Commonwealth has not, under this legislation, made any provision towards capital costs. We have always had the problem of defining capital expenditure in such a way as to provide for ease of administration and for the avoidance of a detailed analysis of minor university expenses. Previous legislation has provided that capital expenditure shall include expenditure on the erection of a new building and expenditure exceeding £500 on the alteration of an existing building or for the purchase of, or otherwise in connexion with, a single item of equipment. The Government now considers the time has come to review that provision and in the interpretation clause the amount of “ £500 “ in earlier legislation has been replaced by an amount of “ £1,000 “. I commend the bill to honorable senators. I am sure that they will wish the Commonwealth to continue its assistance to university education, which is so important for Australia’s future.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I rise to support the bill. My only regret is that insufficient time is available to us to give to this important subject the attention that it deserves. Only a few years have elapsed since the Commonwealth first entered the field of education. It was during the war years that the first payments, or grants of any kind, were made for the provision of university education in Australia. These grants were made as a war-time measure and, of necessity, the scheme was restricted in its application. After the war, the purpose for which it was introduced no longer existed. After the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme trainees had completed their various courses, it was necessary for the Government to institute a scheme of assistance to the universities. The first Commonwealth grants to the universities were made by this Government in 1950. Since then, grants have been made to the universities in accordance with the formula that was outlined by the Minister for the Navy (Senator O’sullivan).

regret very muck that the university in my own State of Western Australia has, under the formula, suffered very much compared with the universities in the other States. The people of Western Australia are proud, indeed, of the fact that they have a free university. Of course, that very aspect of the University of Western Australia, of which we are rightly proud, does not help us in the matter of the amount of Commonwealth grants. As it necessarily brings down the amount of money which the university receives in fees, that marvellous institution is dependent entirely on grants from the Commonwealth and State governments.

From time to time, the University of Western Australia has also benefited from bequests that have been made by publicspirited citizens. Some years ago, the late Sir Winthrop Hackett bequeathed a part of his estate to the University of Western Australia. We are very grateful to that great benefactor. The assets of his estate were closely guarded by Mr. Alfred Langler, who invested the money available in such a way as to produce valuable dividends for the benefit of the university. As a result, we now have in Western Australia a magnificent university, in one of the most beautiful settings in this country. Great thanks is due not only to the Labour government of the day, but also to the benefactors who, by their generosity, made possible the construction of a beautiful building and the equipping of various faculties for the benefit of the youth of Western Australia.

Since the opening of the* new building in 1932. the university has expanded considerably. Indeed, the State of Western Australia has itself expanded considerably. In the fields of both primary and secondary industries, Western Australia has made tremendous advances during the last fifteen or twenty years. The population of the State has increased enormously during that period.

The people of Western Australia feel that there is a great need for a medical school at the University of Western Australia. This matter has been brought before the Parliament on many occasions. The late Mr. Chifley offered to the

Western Australian Government a grant to assist in the building of a medical school, an offer which was not taken up by the Premier. Subsequently, after there had been a change of Government in both Western Australia and in the federal sphere, the Premier of Western Australia approached the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and the present Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) with a request that they should honour Mr. Chifley’s promise. He was told that, due to the introduction of the new system of university finance, it was not practicable to honour the promise.

It was a terrific blow to both the University of Western Australia and the people of that State to learn that no provision was made in the new scheme for capital works at the university. However, adversity always brings to light the best qualities in our people. So it was that the people of Western Australia accepted the challenge that was thus offered to them. In the past, the universities of the eastern States have generously admitted students from Western Australia to degree courses. Of course, I acknowledge that, had our students not responded so well, that concession might not have continued for as long as it did. Ultimately, the universities in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, which had helped us out over the years, found that they could no longer afford to continue to accept our students, due to increased numbers of students from their own States embarking on university courses. The University of Melbourne has announced that, after the end of this year, it cannot guarantee to accept students from Western Australia.

In this national capital, the Canberra University College is affiliated with the University of Melbourne. As time goes on, it will become a teaching university functioning independently of the University of Melbourne. That university has already informed the college that it is becoming difficult for it to continue the assistance that it has provided over the years.

When faced with a dilemma as a result of the announcement by the universities in the eastern States that they would not be able to accept Western Australian students in future, the people of Western Australia set about raising money to build a medical school at their university. An appeal waa sent out to every town, hamlet and remote homestead in the State. The response from both big firms and individuals was greater than the response to any other appeal within my memory. Within a very short period of time, £500,000 was subscribed towards the construction of a medical school. If we have teachers, they should be the best available. We should not have a second-rate university or a second-rate medical school.

I regret that assistance is not being given under this bill in respect of capital works of the universities. Perhaps the Government might consider this matter, because in. these days of rising costs it is very difficult for universities to improve or expand their accommodation as the need arises. I think that the people of Australia are fast becoming educated to the value of universities to the community. They appreciate that the universities are doing excellent work in the fields of research and higher education. I regret that, because of the stage of the sessional period that we have reached, wc cannot debate fully the subject of assistance to the universities, which is a matter of great importance in a country such as this. I support the bill, but I should like to see further consideration given to the provision of assistance to universities for the development of their capital works projects.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I am sure that we all share the enthusiasm of Senator Tangney for the advancement of universities in Australia. It is a matter of gratification that the Commonwealth has seen fit to provide financial assistance in the form that is expressed in this bill. As we know, the policy, which was initiated in 1951, has been to provide assistance in the form of special annual grants, following on the post-war Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme. The provision that Commonwealth assistance shall not exceed one-third of the State grant, plus the fees collected by the university, has played an important part in inducing State governments to increase their grants to the universities. Generally, the succeeding acts since 1951 have operated equitably among the universities, with a proviso in regard to Tasmania, to which I shall refer at a later stage.

Senator Scott:

– Are you making a speech or reading it?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I suggest that if Senator Scott listens and understands, that will be sufficient for his capacity. However valuable these grants have been to the universities, they have done little beyond keeping them abreast of the mounting inflation. They have hardly touched the two main problems of Australian universities to-day, namely, the rapid increase of the number of students, and the need for further development in post-graduate work and research. There has been a great increase in the number of university students and this, naturally, has imposed problems on the universities, in regard to the need to increase both teaching staff and accommodation, which, in some universities, is a very serious problem. This increase has been due, in part, to the influx of overseas students, which ought to be the concern of the Commonwealth .

It is in respect of post-graduate studies and research that Australian universities lag farthest behind. They are far behind the universities of Great Britain and the United States in this respect. It is true that a great deal has been done by the Commonwealth, as well as by private benefactors, to provide post-graduate scholarships. The Colombo plan, for instance, has stimulated a great deal of post-graduate work in the universities, which is all to the good. But so far as the universities are concerned, it has merely added to their lack of teaching staff, space and equipment.

It is true that education is a State matter, but it is questionable whether the States are’ any longer able to handle the financial problems involved in the proper development of the universities. The development of Australia in this age of rapid scientific and industrial progress must he the concern of the central government. In Australia there is a serious shortage of scientific and technical man-power, and unless this is remedied we are liable to lag behind in industrial progress. We need more engineers and more scientists, and we must look to the universities to provide them. But the matter goes further than that; indeed, it goes right back to the schools. In other words, it is important that the number of boys and girls reaching matriculation standard should be increased, and that, in turn, means that more teachers capable of teaching to that standard will be required. Here again, we must turn to our universities to train these teachers. “We must also look to the universities for the men who are to conduct the business of the country, the administrators. The time has passed when untrained men could be expected to deal with the increasing intricacy connected with the administration of large industrial plants. In short, leadership in industry and commerce, as well as in government administration, has to come from the universities.

Grateful as the universities must be for the present increased grants, the grants are still not sufficient. For instance, one of the most urgent needs of most universities with increasing numbers of students is more buildings, but assistance in respect of building is specifically excluded from the provisions of the act. The Commonwealth must take a greater part in the development of the universities and must endeavour to co-ordinate their efforts. In relation to expensive post-graduate studies, for instance, there ought to be a minimum of duplication. One university, or possibly two, should be recognized as the centre for a certain research activity. There is need for development of medical schools. Those in existence are overcrowded, and at least two of them are too large by modern standards. Yet, there is a shortage of medical graduates. More medical schools should be provided. These are problems which I commend to the Government for its consideration.

The University of Tasmania has not been treated nearly as well as have the universities of the other States since the inception of the present system of grants. Under the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme system of payments, plus a research grant, Tasmania received more than 6 per cent, of the total, but under the 1951 act, the university has received only 2.5 per cent, of the total, so that while the average increase in the grant has been 136 per cent., from £450,000 to £1,078,000, the increase in respect of the University of Tasmania has been only 55 per cent. I ask the Minister to note that attention has been drawn repeatedly to this matter, and that the Australian vice-chancellors’ committee actually passed a resolution for the purpose of directing attention to this anomaly, but little has been done to remedy the position. The average increase of the original figure is now 440 per cent., while that of the University of Tasmania i3 only 266 per cent. . That is an anomaly to which I hope the Government will give proper consideration.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– Financial assistance by the Commonwealth to the State universities is of great importance, particularly in the case of the Queensland university.

Sitting suspended from 11.30 p.m. to 12.15 a.m. (Friday).

Friday, 82 Juna, 1956.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– Some years ago, the Queensland Government embarked upon the erection of a magnificent new university, which is now in partial occupation, on a beautiful site bequeathed to the university by the Mayne family, who were early settlers in Queensland. The great burden of finance has fallen on the State Government, and financial assistance, whether for administration or, preferably, in the way of capital expenditure, is much needed, and will be deeply appreciated.

University education must assume a different significance in the modern world from what it did in the past. Academic training has been, until recently, a matter of individual interest for those who wished to pursue careers, either in the professions or in industry. The State was not considered to have a broad responsibility in that regard but, with the advance of technology, any nation is at a grave disadvantage if it fails to produce the technologists who are necessary to keep it in the race for modern industrial equipment so that it may take its place in the new age of automation.

Britain is particularly disturbed, because, compared to the Soviet Union, it is not turning out sufficient technologists at the professional level. Ultimately, that could have grave repercussions. The Americans are producing a great number of technologists in the fields of practical and applied sciences, hut are deficient in the field of pure science. Strangely enough, it has been a preserve in which the British have enjoyed a certain predominance. Perhaps their national characteristics have caused them to lean towards fundamental investigations in the pure sciences. In the United States of America, applied science has been brought to a high degree of efficiency. In that country, there has always been a big demand in commerce and industry for technologists, more particularly in the commercial field and for the application of science to matters of commercial interest, and profit-making, and the United States of America has produced great numbers of applied scientists, but there are few recognized specialists in pure science.

Therefore, the American problem is slightly different from ours. Where we are trying to assist in the training of practical scientists, or technologists, the Americans are now encouraging people to apply themselves to pure science, so as to produce men of the calibre of Baird, the scientist who was primarily responsible for the investigations which resulted in television.

We find in the universities that, as a result of modern developments and the new demand, there is a growing trend away from the humanities. I was interested to read figures compiled by the Queensland University, which I had hoped to have with me and to present in the discussion on this bill. Those figures show that enrolments in the scientific faculties are very high. Apart from the faculty of arts, enrolments are comparatively low in what might be called the human faculties, such as law. I have heard it said that the enrolments and graduations in the faculty of law in Queensland are hardly sufficient to replace losses, and to cater for the increasing demand for professional assistants in that field as the population grows. We cannot allow the overaccentuation of technology, and the increasing interest of young people in that field, to result in the abandonment of those other studies which are particularly important in their way. There is always a conflict between the two and, in some places, it has been resolved, in the physical sense, by the separation of purely technological faculties from faculties which cater for, and encourage, the humanities, the latter only remaining in the true universities. Technological institutes cater for the rest.

There are two other matters to which I wish to refer. In this question of the stimulation of interest in the humanities, I believe that our basic education system is extremely defective. A tremendous amount of money is wasted on our secondary education, particularly in the teaching of foreign languages. I, possibly like some other honorable senators, had the opportunity at secondary school of learning one foreign language - French -but I emerged with little or no real knowledge of French. We students would know something of French grammar and syntax, but had no phonetic acquaintance with French.

It is ridiculous to purport to turn out students from secondary schools with a knowledge of a foreign language when they are almost wholly deficient in an authentic knowledge of it. They can neither speak nor understand the language; neither can they be understood in it. The devotion of so much time to the teaching of foreign languages in this way is futile. We know that some new techniques have been developed in the education of New Australians in our language, and apart from the fact that those people are living in an English language environment, the new techniques have proved remarkably successful. I see no reason why a similar technique should not be applied widely to Australian students in secondary schools in trying to teach them at least one foreign language. That is where the conservative devotion to old techniques has ceased to be productive of any real results, but it is still costing a lot of money. The new educational demands now becoming apparent in the universities must be reflected as early as possible in our primary and secondary schools.

A requirement in the bill is that a certain amount of the money available must go to defray the teaching and administrative costs of residential colleges. Unfortunately, not a great proportion of our students in Australia have an opportunity of living in residential colleges at the universities. Many of us get degrees by correspondence, or by attending evening classes at a university. I think it was said by the biographer of the late Lord .Keynes that he spoke of the enjoyment he experienced at Cambridge from the interplay of students’ minds, something that can be had only in a residential college. The stimulus of one young student’s mind on another has produced tremendous results in the careers of so many of our students. Therefore, it is extremely important to encourage and make possible the attendance of undergraduates at residential colleges. As I have said, a large number of students are inevitably deprived of that opportunity. If we are to make it possible for more students to attend residential colleges then we must relieve the burden on those who primarily assume the financial responsibility for such colleges. That responsibility rests in many cases upon the denominational churches. In Queensland, at the present time, big financial drives are being made by the denominations to erect the four or five colleges which are provided for within the grounds of the new university. It is important that these people should be assisted as far as possible.

I should like to see lectures, which are possibly given within the university colleges primarily and, perhaps, exclusively for students at those colleges, made extramural in character so that many people who have no intention at first of proceeding ultimately to graduation and a degree, might avail themselves of such extramural amenities, with tremendous advantage to themselves.

Finally, I should like to see the encouragement in every university of a chair of industrial law. During the debate in this chamber on the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, Senator “Wright referred to an authority, Associate Professor Foenander of the Melbourne University, who has been so often referred to in debates of that character. The Melbourne University is one of the few universities that has, by that title, a chair of industrial law. The subject of industrial relations which is, of course, part and parcel of the whole system of industrial law, is assuming, I am sure all honorable senators will agree, a new significance in view of the debates that have taken place in the Senate during the last fortnight. The lectures that would be given in such a faculty should be available to people outside the university itself. Many people have a basic interest in a system of industrial law, among them being men from trade unions and political parties. For prospective executives and owners who will have contact with, and will employ labour, it is of prime importance that they should learn everything not in the difficult and interrupted school of experience, but should commence, if possible, with an academic acquaintance, perhaps a theoretical acquaintance, of the principles of employer and employee relationship, which would be part and parcel of lectures in a faculty of industrial law. Then, equipped with that knowledge, like any other professional man, they would advance into the school of experience, and the two wedded together would, I am sure, give many people a new concept of industrial relations.

So, generally, whilst we should like to see much more money made available to the State universities to advance suggestions such as I have made, we welcome this bill, and trust that as the years go by, the sums of money will be increased, and the proposals that I have put forward, and which, I think, reasonably should be adopted and put into operation by State universities, might see the light of day.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for the Navy · Queensland · LP

.I move -

That the bill be now read a third time.

I should like to refer to the remarks made by Senator Tangney and Senator Wright. It is true that our smaller universities, not only the University of Tasmania and the University of Western Australia, but also the University of Queensland, are not so well-endowed as are the universities - badly as they may be endowed - in New South Wales and the Melbourne University. The bill at present before the Senate provides assistance in the actual running of university colleges. Whilst capital grants are not contemplated in the measure, I hope the day will come when it will be within the financial capacity of the Commonwealth to make such grants.

Another point made by Senator Tangney was that the University of Western Australia is run entirely by the State and is free. It is the only free university in Australia. Whether a university be run entirely by the State, entirely by fees, or partly by subsidy and partly by fees, the grant to be made by the Commonwealth under this bill will be precisely the same. A university will not be penalized in any way by virtue of the fact that the State pays for it. The maintenance and running of universities are to be subsidized regardless of the source of their revenue. In endorsing the remarks of Senator Wright and Senator Tangney, I hope the time will come when the finances of the Commonwealth are such that it will be able to give even further assistance not only in the running and maintenance of universities, but also by way of capital contributions towards the building of universities.

One thing of which I am particularly proud is that a substantial part, or, at all events, not an unsubstantial part, of this money will go towards Christian colleges, which are components of the universities. After all, in this day and age in which we live, it is not sufficient to have merely academic education. These Christian colleges, which are components of the respective universities in the six States of the Commonwealth, are training our people not only to give devotion to their Creator, but also to respect their fellow creatures.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1834

TRACTOR BOUNTY BILL 1956

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 the Navy · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is designed to extend the Tractor Bounty Act 1939-1953, which expired on the 23rd October last, for a further period of three years, that is, until the 23rd October, 1958. The bill also provides for the payment of bounty in respect of tractors sold for use in a territory of the Commonwealth for this period. In the past, bounty has only been payable in respect of tractors sold for use in the Commonwealth. Bounty claims on the production of the last year of the old act slightly exceeded £83,000. No alteration is proposed in the existing scale of bounty but action has been taken to exclude crawler tractors from eligibility for bounty. The manufacture of crawler tractors in Australia has only just been commenced. It has not yet progressed to a stage where details of costs of production are available to establish a scale or method of assistance. When such a stage is reached the question of assistance to the production of crawler tractors could be examined again.

The existing Tractor Bounty Act provided, until its expiry, for the payment of bounty on tractors exceeding ten-belt pulley horse-power but not exceeding 55-belt pulley horse-power produced, in accordance with certain prescribed conditions, for sale for use in the Commonwealth. The amount of bounty payable per tractor varied from £80 each on the smallest group up to £240 each on the largest group. Payment of bounty was subject to a profit limitation of 5 per cent, on capital actually used in the manufacture and sale of the tractors. The industry has not been assisted by protective duties.

The amendments proposed result from the adoption by the Government of certan recommendations made by the Tariff Board in its report of the 14th October, 1955, tabled in the Senate and circulated to honorable senators. The Government has decided not to adopt certain other recommendations of the Tariff Board, namely -

Payment of a bounty of £200 per tractor on tractors exceeding 55 horse-power when fitted with an imported engine. An increase in profit limitation from 5 per cent, to 10 per cent, and a duty of 5 per cent, ad valorem under the British Preferential Tariff, with other rates fixed in accordance with international commitments, on tractors exceeding 30 horse-power.

There are two major manufacturers of tractors which come within the bountiable range - Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited, Western Australia, and International Harvester Company Proprietary Limited. The latter manufacturer, by far the larger, has never been assisted by means of bounty. At the level of manufacture at the time of the inquiry, Australian production of tractors was approximately 3,500 per annum. Capacity exists to increase this production to almost 6,000 per annum, which would substantially satisfy demand in the medium and heavy type classes, that is, above 30 horse-power, in which manufacture is concentrated.

The. Tariff Board came to the conclusion that bounty assistance alone had proved ineffective to induce any development in the industry, but considered that the imposition of the protective duty needed would be unreasonable. It came to the conclusion that a combination of bounty and duty was needed. It has, therefore, recommended a small duty on tractors over 30 horse-power, to provide a stimulus to the industry, with the bounty retained at its existing level on tractors from 10 to 55 horse-power. It is apparent that some assistance is needed to keep Chamberlains in operation. That manufacturer had, at the time of the

Tariff Board report, reached the stage where it was earning a slight profit and now has a reasonable chance of success. It is desirable, therefore, to continue assistance by means of bounty for a further period of three years from October last. The matter will, of course, be reviewed by the Tariff Board before that time expires. Also, as the charge on public funds is not likely to be great, there is no objection to extending the payment of bounty to tractors for use in Australian territories.

The question of imposition of duty on imported tractors raises serious problems. Only one enterprise appears to be in dire need of assistance and this can be given effectively by bounty for the next three years. The Government cannot agree to grant assistance by means of the customs tariff, particularly at the present time, mainly because increased costs in key export industries would follow.

Furthermore, the Government cannot consider raising the profit limitation from 5 per cent, to 10 per cent, at this juncture. The Government agrees that 10 per cent, is not, under normal circumstances, an unreasonable level, but a return of 5 per cent, is quite reasonable for Chamberlains in its present stage of development. Having in mind its unusual capital structure, achievement of such a level would, indeed, be very encouraging.

Extension of the bounty scale to apply to all types of wheel tractors of 55 horsepower and upwards raises further problems. Although Chamberlains may require some assistance to enable it to continuein production of its 80 horse-power tractor, which is used in agricultural pursuits, it is obvious that the market for tractors of this type is restricted and their manufacture on an economic basis may not be posssible. Furthermore, the Government considers that no convincing argument was presented to the Tariff Board for an extension of the bounty to the entirely different types of tractors sold and used only as power units for earth-moving equipment, of which they form a part.

These matters could, if warranted, be again examined by the board as a separate issue, provided a prima facie case can he established. In all the circumstances, the overall assistance which is being given should, I feel, be adequate to meet the present needs of the industry. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– I should have liked more time to examine the bill, but the Minister for the Navy (Senator O’sullivan), in his second-reading speech, has clearly described the situation to which the bill relates. The significant thing is that the Tariff Board, after making an exhaustive inquiry, in which evidence was heard from primary producers who use tractors and also from manufacturers of tractors, recommended to the Government that a small duty should be associated with the 5 per cent, bounty. That was done to strengthen the position of the manufacturers, particularly Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited, and to give them some opportunity of expansion. However, the Government did not accept the Tariff Board’s recommendation, and I should like the Minister to tell the Senate why that was not done. For many years, the Tariff Board has been held in high esteem by people in all kinds of industry, as well as by all political parties and governments, and I am somewhat disturbed at the attitude of this Government towards the board’s recommendation. The chairman of the Tariff Board is one of the most capable men in the Commonwealth Public Service. All members of that board have a wide experience and knowledge of industry, and whenever a subject is referred to them they are at great pains to investigate it thoroughly.

Recently, I read a press report - which may not be entirely accurate - that five recommendations of the Tariff Board had not been accepted by the Government. I have been somewhat disturbed at the change in the Government’s policy which has been evident during the past few months in the re-organization of the Trade and Customs Department, and I cannot help feeling that a great mistake has been made. The personnel which has been associated with the

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade since it was established in 1937-38 is most experienced and competent, particularly in dealing with trade relations between Australia and other countries. The present Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen was probably very capable, but his attitude since he has been Minister for Trade has been such as to cause me some concern. He has spoken of going to England and other parts of the world and doing wonders in our trade relations with other countries. I feel sure that his technique and his general attitude will not be helpful to this country and its industries. I am very troubled indeed. I think that the Government has made a great mistake. Harmony with the United Kingdom in trade relations over many years has been of a very high order. I shall watch with considerable interest, particularly during the next few months, the developments in our trade. I hope that the Government’s policy will be fruitful and that the result will be more satisfactory than I fear it will be.

I agree with the Tariff Board’s report on this matter. Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited, which manufactures tractors in Western Australia, has a very fine set-up. As a matter of fact, one of its difficulties is that its product is just a little too good. The company makes a very fine tractor. In my opinion it is just a little over-elaborate. The Chamberlain tractor has eight or nine gears, and for ordinary farm work a farmer can get along with much fewer gears. Because the tractor is highly efficient and well-constructed, it is fairly costly. A small duty impost of 5 per cent, would not, in my opinion, injure tha industry, but would be helpful to it. An industry of this kind in Western Australia is of greath value, because it is far removed from the eastern States. In assisting the development of Western Australia’s economy, it is also helpful to the Commonwealth. The Opposition does not oppose the bill, but my personal opinion is that the Government should not lightly disregard any recommendation of the Tariff Board, because the experience of all governments hitherto has been that the board makes recommendations with great knowledge and only after very careful consideration. Unless very substantial reasons are advanced, the board’s recommendations should not be brushed aside.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I also wish to express regret that the Tariff Board’s recommendations in this instance have not been accepted by the Government. The board made a very wide inquiry into the tractor industry in Western Australia, and those of us who have been associated with Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited from the period of the war, when it was not manufacturing tractors, until it was developed with the assistance of the Australian Government into a tractor manufacturing concern know very well that it has served this country very well in war- time and in the transitional postwar period until supplies became available from other sources. The company made a very efficient tractor of the keroseneoperated type, which helped the fuel position of the country at that time. Later, a diesel-operated machine became more efficient and cheaper to run, and the company converted its product from kerosene to diesel operation. The diesel tractor is a very much more expensive machine and the bounty is not applicable to its production, and the company is operating at a great disadvantage as compared with when it produced the cheaper kerosene-operated tractors.

There is in Australia another tractor manufacturing company that does not call for assistance. It is a component part of a big international cartel, and whilst it could operate in Australia and incur a loss on some activities, the loss could be spread over its subsidiaries. This company finds it beneficial to manufacture in Australia, which is really a big potential market for its products. The company is so big internationally that it can withstand sectional losses in order to hold the market. We protect ourselves against the operations of such companies, but this company has now extended its activities to Australia. I have no feeling against it. We must establish in Australia heavy industries for the purposes of defence. I hope that we shall never again be embroiled in a war, but if we should be so involved, and the Government does not take more in terest in this industry, it will fail and its potential will not be available to us in our time of need. This will mean, not only that we will not have a tractor manufacturing industry in Australia, but also that thousands of men trained in highly skilled technical work in a heavy industry will not be available to the nation if factories need to be converted for the manufacture of munitions or tanks. If the activities of the Chamberlain concern are curtailed, there will be a substantial discharge of men from employment, because the company will not be able to employ them. This will have serious effects from two aspects. First, an important industry in Western Australia will fail and skilled technicians will be thrown out of employment. Secondly, an opportunity to train very many apprentices who are badly needed in. skilled trades will be lost. I understand that the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) has more information than I have on this subject. I know that it is a fact, as he can testify, that the Government has shown a disregard for Australian industry, for the training of tradesmen, and for employment in Western Australia. The Tariff Board is a very conservative body, which, before it makes its recommendations, gives full consideration to the whole matter referred to it. The board’s recommendations to the Government are made in the best interests of industry and the nation.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for the Navy · LP

I appreciate the reception given this bill by the Senate. I have only two remarks to make. Senator Courtice made certain comments concerning my colleague, the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen). I assure the honorable senator, if any assurance is necessary, that no man in Australia is more conscious than the Minister of the value to the Australian economy of the manufacturing industries in this country, and that no man is more capable or more willing to express his views both here and overseas.

Senator Courtice:

– In trade relations, he is like a bull in a china shop.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Nonsense ! For six years I have worked very closely with the right honorable gentleman, and I am proud indeed to be a colleague of bis. I am quite sure that Australia’s interests will be very safe indeed in his capable hands. The Tariff Board’s report on this industry has not been accepted in full. I have had very close association with the board for six years. I have a tremendous admiration for the capacity and the zeal with which its members approach their job, aud the detailed and exhaustive study which they make before submitting reports to the Government. The Government has a tremendous admiration for the splendid work which the board has done and is doing, but it must not be forgotten that there are matters of government policy which are quite outside the sphere of the board. The board’s recommendation that a duty be imposed on tractors used in primary industry must be considered in the light of the fact that at present we are struggling to find overseas markets for our primary products. One of the elements with which we have to contend is high costs. Those costs are inevitably increased if the producers have to pay duty on necessary imported machinery. Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited is a grand concern, and has done a. magnificent job not only for Western Australia but also for the whole of Australia ; and I hope it will continue to prosper. However, that concern is not capable of meeting the requirements of the whole of Australia, and if we were to impose a duty we should be saddling the whole of our primary industries with that duty which would put us at a disadvantage in competing in the primary produce markets overseas. In those circumstances, it was considered that a bounty would give the company sufficient encouragement to remain in business and prosper, the bounty being paid by all the taxpayers and not merely by the primary producers.

Senator Courtice:

– That is not the argument that was applied to rayon.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– This is quite a different matter. Tractors are used by people who are engaged in producing commodities for export, and it is essen tial for us, if we are to maintain ou: export markets, to keep down the cost of our export products in order to meet world competition. We cannot afford to bcsaddled with extra costs. Therefore, I suggest that as a matter of policy - h> which perhaps the Opposition does not differ very greatly from the Government - we should assist the producers of secondary commodities, such as tractors, by means of bounty rather than by way of duty. That is what we have done in this case. As Senator Cooke knows as a result of assistance by way of bounty given to industries such as Chamberlain’s, the company has improved its situation over the last four or five years, and I hope that it will continue to improve, because it is an industry which is well worth encouraging.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1838

STATES GRANTS (COAL MINING INDUSTRY LONG SERVICE LEAVE) BILL 1956

Bill received from the House of Representa tires

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator PALTRIDGE (Western Australia - Minister for Shipping and Transport [1.1 a.m.]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a bill to amend the States Grants (Coal-mining Industry Long Service Leave) Act 1949-50. The amendment relates to matters of procedure and is, I think honorable Senators will agree when they examine it, not of a contentious character. In October, 1949, the Coal Industry Tribunal and the Central Reference Board made awards by which long service leave benefits were granted to the miners’ federation, and certain other unions with members in the black coal mining industry. It was recognized by the Labour government of the day, and later accepted by this Government, that the substantial financial burden of these awards should be spread on an industry-wide basis so that particular employers would not have to bear differing burdens.

It was decided, therefore, that if the States would undertake to reimburse to employers the cost of long service leave, the Commonwealth would assist the States financially, not only in relation to such reimbursements, but also the expenses of the administrative machinery which would have to be set up by the States. To meet the cost of this to the Commonwealth, an excise was imposed on black coal produced in Australia after the 1st .March, 1949. the rate at present being Sd. a ton.

To give effect to this scheme, Parliament passed the States Grant (Coalmining Industry Long Service Leave) Act 1949 and the Coal Excise Act 1949. The former act established the Coal-mining Industry Long Service Leave Fund, into which are paid the amounts collected under the latter act as excise on coal and amounts contributed by the States in lieu of excise on coal produced in State mines. The former act, as amended in 1950, authorizes the payment, by way of grant, of amounts determined by the Treasurer to the States concerned in the scheme.

The purpose of this bill is twofold. It will provide that income derived from investment of moneys held in the fund shall form part of the fund and not, as at present, part of the consolidated revenue fund. The second purpose is to keep alive the long service leave entitlements of raine workers who transfer from private mines under the joint CommonwealthState scheme to State owned and operated coal mines which are not under that scheme. If the State concerned is prepared to recognize the entitlements for the purpose of its own long service leave scheme, this amendment will make it possible for the necessary payments to be made from the fund. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition approves the two purposes of the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

– What is its present population?

Senator WILLESEE:

– About 2,500, as Senator Vincent said. But be said there were millions there 50 years ago, although the population then numbered only 326.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– He said nothing about millions.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I have told the Senate what he said. Will Senator Marriott please be quiet if he will not listen. Senator Vincent said there are 2,500 people living at Carnarvon now, and that, 50 years ago, the population was much greater. Is that clear to Senator Marriott? I have pointed out that the Commonwealth Year-Booh for 1904 shows that, in that year, 326 people lived at Carnarvon.

It is necessary for me to say these things in order to clear the decks so that the real problem may be dealt with. Senator Vincent suggested that this matter should be dealt with by the Senate on a non-party basis. That is about the only thing on which I agree with him. Senator Vincent did not wait for the debate on this matter to be continued, but led a deputation composed entirely of members of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party - he did not invite members of the Australian Labour party to join it - to the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Arthur Fadden). A deputation on the north-western region of Western Australia without the honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. H. V. Johnson) is like a ship without a rudder. Mr. Johnson has spent about 50 years in the north-west, and for a number of years he held in the Labour government a portfolio which was concerned with that area. All Senator Vincent did was to condemn every concrete proposal that has ever been made for the advancement of the north-western region, but he did not make any constructive suggestions. I should be most interested to know what submissions the deputation made to Sir Arthur Fadden.

Senator Robertson:

– The future will tell.

Senator WILLESEE:

– The future will tell. I should be most happy to know. Senator Vincent stated that he does not agree with what he called the Leslie scheme. It is true that the scheme was first proposed by a committee of which the honorable member for Moore (Mr. Leslie) was chairman.

Senator Seward:

– It was not.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I refer to the Leslie report which, I understand, was made by a committee of which Mr. Leslie was chairman. The basis of that proposal was that, owing to the peculiar problems of the north-western region, it should receive a holiday from taxation, or something of the sort. What right has any honorable senator in this chamber, which is supposed to uphold State rights, to reject a proposal that was accepted by a unanimous vote of the Western Australian Parliament. If the fact that the Western Australian Parliament supported the scheme unanimously was not pointed out to Sir Arthur Fadden, I should like to know why. A representative of a State must have powerful arguments ready if he intends to reject a proposal accepted by a unanimous vote of a parliament composed of members of the Australian Country party, the Liberal party, and the Australian Labour party. Other proposals which have been put forward with the unanimous approval of the three parties in Western Australia include certain governmental works tha! should be ‘undertaken in the north-western part of the State. Senator Vincent dismissed them summarily by referring to them as being merely piece-meal proposals. One person who certainly doe$ not think they are piece-meal is the Treasurer.

At the outset I emphasize that it itotally incorrect to suggest that th.governments of Western Australia have never given any thought to the northwestern part of that State. The Labour Government of Western Australia has given a great deal of consideration to the area and much has been done under the administration of the present Minister for the North-west, Mr. Strickland, who has spent almost the whole of his life in that area as a worker, businessman and plantation owner. If Senator Vincent places any reliance on credentials, he should first make sure of h.i.= facts before bringing these matters before this chamber. Mention has been made of a separate State. That opens up a big question, and I claim credit for putting before this ‘Parliament decisions arrived at by the highest authority in Western Australia in connexion with this very important question. Tt is a tremendous problem. I know that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) was in Western Australia prior to the last State election he said that this Government was cognizant of the proposals submitted and that it would give consideration to them. I.” am somewhat doubtful about that because the fact is that these proposals have been before the Commonwealth Government for about five years now. We shall certainly be interested to see what consideration is given to them.

I emphasize that responsibility for the north-western part of Western Australia rests squarely on the shoulders of the national government. It is not the fault of the Western Australian people, or of Western Australian governments of this or any other day, that that State is one-third of the area of Australia but has only about one-fifteenth of the population of this country. The State boundaries probably were set by somebody in London over 100 years ago. In those circumstances, I suggest that the responsibility for fostering the development of the area rests with the national government. That is the only area in the whole of Australia that has slipped backwards. Although honorable senators might complain that other areas are not progressing as rapidly as might be desired, this area is suffering a reduction of population every year, and money is being taken out of it year by year. Senator Vincent suggested that taxation concessions do not finance public works or any of the other things that are sadly needed in the area; but in saying that he is putting the cart before the horse. It would not matter if this or any other government dammed every river in the north, or built a network of roads in every part where it could possibly be suggested roads should be constructed, because none of those things would encourage people to invest money in that area or go there and put up with the climatic conditions, risks of cyclones, the isolation and all the rest of it. People prefer to invest their money in some other part of the State. If we had a surplus of money for investment, perhaps some could be encouraged to look to that part of the State; but we all know that there certainly is not a surplus of money for investment anywhere in the British Commonwealth of nations. That being so, it is only natural that investors would prefer to invest somewhere else unless they could be assured of an unusually high return from investment in the northwestern part of Western Australia.

The great drawback to the development of the north-west is the fact that in the south-west of the State we have a lush, comparatively rich area, and any one seeking to engage in agricultural pursuits, or wishing to invest capital, would look with favour upon the rich south-west in preference to the north-western area with its isolation, cyclonic risks and lack of amenities. I cannot remember when the last new hotel was built in the northwest. Pastoralists and others who have money to invest in such things as hotels or blocks of flats will not go to the northwest. If anything is to be done about developing that area, the National Government should take the initiative and give up all thought of deriving revenue from it. Bather than collect revenue from the area, the Commonwealth should set about putting money into it. The Chifley Government made a start by introducing the taxation zoning system, and so far as I know, it is the only Government which has ever recognized the difficulties that confront the people of that area and has made taxation allowances in respect of them. I cannot understand why this Government has not extended the principle of taxation concessions for those people over the last six years. It should have recognized that they are suffering acutely from the effects of inflation, and it should have made some effort to give them some relief.

As the hour is late, I shall not develop the matter much further. However, I point to the discrimination being made against the people in the north-west in the provision of amenities and services. A glaring example of that is to be found in the telephone service. For instance, one may telephone any part of the world from Darwin, but once one travels only 600 miles north of Perth it is impossible to ring any place at all. People in that area are completely isolated. It is time that the Government reviewed the standards required before providing services to these areas. It seems to me that this Government fixes certain standards based upon the requirements of cities and suburbs, particularly those in the eastern States and applies those standards to the whole ofWestern Australia. We have examples of that in connexion with the provision of postal facilities in outback areas. Such a system reacts detrimentally to sparsely populated areas, and it is high time that it was reviewed.

Another example of the disabilities suffered by the residents of these areas is found in the fact that, because they must travel vast distances to go anywhere at all, the recent increase in petrol tax had a terrific impact on them compared with its effect on residents of thickly populated city and suburban areas. Those people probably travel four or five times as much as the residents of other parts of Australia, and their costs are thus further increased. Just as this Government finds so many millions of pounds for the development of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric scheme in one part of Australia, it should provide adequate funds for the development of the north-western part of Western Australia. The requisite finance could come from the defence vote, or from funds set aside for developmental works; but I suggest that the more appropriate source would be the defence vote. There is much more I could say were the hour not so late. I should not have spoken at such length had it not been for the fact that Senator Vincent, in moving this motion, displayed such a lack of knowledge of the subject as to deny that any proposals had previously been put forward for the development of that part of Australia.

Debate (on motion by Senator Seward) adjourned.

page 1843

QUESTION

UNITED STATES SENATE

Debate resumed from the 15th May (vide page 702), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -

That the following report be printed: -

United States Senate - Report on certain aspects of its functions and procedure by J. R. Odgers, Clerk-Assistant of the Australian Senate.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I regret that the hour is so late that I cannot possibly do justice to the matter before the Senate. I begin, Mr. President, by complimenting you for the part thatI know you played inmaking possible the trip to America by the Clerk Assistant. That trip was for the good not only of the Clerk Assistant, but also, as will be proved in future years, for the good of the Senate. The excellence of his report did not surprise me, in view of the intimate knowledge of his worth and capacity that I gained during his association with the Select Committee on the Avoidance of Double Dissolution Deadlocks.

I have read the report with great profit. It is provocative of real thought. It sett an objective for the Senate - which, no doubt, will be attained ultimately - in that it proposes a big extension of the committee system. One cannot read the report without being envious of the preeminence and prestige of the American Senate, as well as of the facilities for research that are available to senator? and other members of the American Congress. The report indicates that all bills are submitted to committees of the Senate. Although the committees, in the majority of cases, do not concern themselves with policy they do concern themselves very much with matters of detail. They handle an enormous number of bills each year - most of them not initiated by the Administration. The great majority of bills are initiated by private members. We should regard it as fortunate that we are not members of a chamber which handles about 10,000 measures per annum.

Senator Wright:

– Handles?

Senator McKENNA:

– That may not be the appropriate technical word, but it conveys the general idea. Many of the bills do not proceed far, because the committees take steps to ensure their slaughter as innocents in the very early stages.

The Clerk Assistant’s report indicates that American senators receive enormous help. I was intrigued by the reference to television in paragraph 70, which reads as follows: -

Senate committees permit coverage by television and motion-picture cameras, provided a witness does not object on the ground of physical discomfort or distraction. Pursuant to a ruling of Mr. Speaker, the proceedings of House committees may not he televised. Some members have contended that this ruling transgresses the traditional freedom of the press, against this argument, however, it is claimed that television is still primarily an entertainment and not a true medium for the dissemination of news. Some members consider that television tends towards presenting the bizarre, rather than the factual, and that it transforms hearings into carnivals.

Having observed sundry incidents in this chamber this evening, particularly one that occurred at approximately 1 a.m., F am thankful that our proceedings are not televised.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– What about broadcasting ?

Senator McKENNA:

– -The honorable senator knows how closely I conform to the Standing Orders. When we reach another item on the notice-paper, I shall be happy to make some reference to that subject, if time and the Leader of the Government permit. I congratulate the Clerk Assistant upon his insight and the comprehensiveness of his report. I think that you were exceedingly wise, Mr. President, to seize the opportunity for him to go overseas. AH members of the Opposition feel that he has profited by his trip, and that we also shall profit from it in due course. I know that he has a burning ambition to see the Senate play a major role in this Parliament. I merely say to him that, whilst he need not despair, he must be patient. Speaking from an experience of politics extending over a considerable time, I know that it takes at least five years to secure the acceptance of a new idea. Certainly I should like to see some of the ideas mooted by the Clerk Assistant in operation in this Parliament, particularly the suggested extension of the Senate committee system. All honorable senators will agree that we are singularly fortunate in the youth and ability of our officers. I am sure that this report will have a beneficial effect. Et will stimulate the interest and enthusiasm of other officers of the Senate When their turn comes to take similar trips, they will do exceedingly well if, perchance, their reports attain the standard reached in this report.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– I find it an enjoyable but peculiar role to agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) in his praise of the report we are discussing. I read the report with great interest. Speaking from my three years’ experience as a member of the Senate, I feel that we should do all that we can, not to maintain, but to build up the reputation and standing of the Senate in the eyes of the Australian public. Having read various newspaper articles and reports on the American Senate, and having had experience in this chamber, I have formed my own opinions as to the procedure that we should adopt. It is recorded in Hansard that I expressed one view which. I am pleased to note, is the view of members of the United States Senate. They do not attend party meetings with members of the House of Representatives. I believe that the Austraiian Senate would be improved, and would be better able to play the part that the founders of the Constitution expected it to play, if honorable senators did not attend party meetings - there are four parties represented in this chamber - with members of another place. If that were done, the Senate would be more readily regarded as a house of review.

The PRESIDENT:

– Senator Marriott, I think you are getting a little wide of the matter under discussion.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– Are not we discussing the report that was presented by the Clerk Assistant?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes. Go on.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– I presume that you, sir, like all other members of the Senate and the Hansard staff, desire that our proceedings shall be brought to a close as soon as possible. I appreciated Mr. Odgers’s report. I was very glad to see that it covered the point that I have just made. I hope that we shall all do our best to persuade the parties to which we belong that senators should not attend party meetings with members of another place.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1845

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Discharge of Motions

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) agreed to -

That the following orders of the day be read and discharged: -

No. 15. - Economic Measures - Ministerial Statement - Resumption of debate on motion to print paper.

No. 10. - International Affairs - Ministerial Statement - Resumption of debate on motion to print paper.

page 1845

RETIRING SENATORS

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– by leave- As we arc all a ware, this is the last morning of the sitting of this Senate in its entirety. After the 30th June it will be a half-new Senate, although the new half will be substantially identical with the old half. When we next meet, we will not have with us Senator Guy, Senator Sandford and Senator George Rankin. It is particularly in regard to Senator George Rankin that I crave the indulgence of the Senate, even at this hour, to say a few words.

As we all know, Senator George Rankin, D.S.O., V.D., who is at present in hospital, will retire from the Senate on the 30th of this month. He has had a remarkable career in military and political spheres. In the Army, he attained to the rank of major-general, and later he became a member, in turn, of both the House of Representatives and of the Senate. He served his country in both the 1914-18 and 1939-45 wars, and was decorated by the award of the Distinguished Service Order and bar. He first entered federal politics in 1937 as member of the House of Representatives for the division of Bendigo, in Victoria, a seat which he held until he resigned it in 1949 in order to contest the Senate election in that year. Elected as a senator for the State of Victoria, he was re-elected after the double dissolution in 1951, but he did not stand for re-election in December last.

General George Rankin, during his term as a member of this chamber, served onthe Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works from October, 1943. to 1951, being chairman of the committee from February, 1950, to March, 1951. He was also a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on

War Expenditure from 1943 to 1949, and achieved the distinction of holding the position of Temporary Chairman of Committees in the House of Representatives and Chairman of Committees in the Senate.

I am sure that every member of this Senate experiences a feeling of personal sadness that our gallant and genial colleague is not with us now. The memory of his forceful, rugged personality will linger long with us. We wish him a speedy recovery from his present affliction. We trust that he will live long to enjoy the richness of the respect and affection he has so well merited and that, perhaps, from time to time, we shall be refreshed by a visit from him to the old haunts, where he will remain an immortal legend.

Senator McKENNA:

– by leave - I associate the Opposition with the comments that the Leader of the Government (Senator O’Sullivan) has made, particularly those in relation to Senator George Rankin, whom I have known in the Federal Parliament for quite a number of years. I knew him at the height of his physical prowess, when he was in his prime. He had a mighty physique, and it has been really saddening to see him afflicted with illness during the last few years. I shall always remember as his outstanding characteristics, his courage, masculinity and great manliness. He was exceedingly sharp, and he had a very keen and penetrating wit, which one could not but help enjoy, even when it was directed at oneself. I have some specimens of real quality which, at some other time, I suggest might delight any honorable senator who is interested in them. I certainly preserve them in my memory.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– That is the only place where the honorable senator could keep them !

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. I regret the general’s going. A truly picturesque personality will be taken out of the political field. Irrespective of who the man is, when the time comes for him to drop out of the political life of this Senate, I feel a definite sadness. Very often, when that time comes, we realize that we actually like one whom, at times, we might have thought that we disliked.

When we match our wits and our forensic abilities, we learn of each other’s qualities and, in spite of ourselves, we cannot help liking the good qualities of the men whom we encounter.

My own colleague, Senator Sandford, is abroad. I express my very keen regret at his passing from the Senate. However, he stands a very live prospect at some time of coming back amongst us. I look forward to that day with pleasure and confidence. Although Senator Guy drops out, he will be replaced by another member from Tasmania, and what regret J. (eel at his passing from the Senate, even though it, too, may be only temporary, is allayed by the pleasure I feel at winning another colleague for our side. I agree with Senator O’sullivan that, despite the fact that there was an election, the electors dealt very kindly with us in that they lopped off very little of the vigorous growth in this chamber, ft is rather an extraordinary thing that that can happen, although there is a very high degree of permanence - a very nice thought, too - about a seat in this chamber. Of course, those who sit on the seats labelled “ six years “ feel a good deal more secure than those who do not.

I am glad that the Leader of the Government has made a reference to our colleagues whom we may not 3ee any more in this chamber. I am sure that every member of both sides joins with me in extending to General Rankin our very best wishes for his speedy recovery and his restoration to his usual activities.

Senator COOPER:
CP

– by leave. - 1 should like to say a few words about those who will be leaving us, particularly Senator George Rankin, whose coming into this Parliament quite a number of years ago I remember very well. Throughout the period that he was a member of the House of Representatives, he made his presence felt by his keen wit, and by the way in which he carried out his parliamentary duties. Sometimes, perhaps, his wit may have been robust, but he did his job well. When he became a member of this chamber, he continued to perform his duties as he thought fit. I am sure that every member of the Senate regretted very much when illness overtook Senator George Rankin, and practically immobilized him for some time. Even then, he managed to keep up his good spirits.

Although Senator George Rankin may have had a sharp tongue, he had a very warm heart, and he displayed a very friendly attitude to everybody with whom he came in contact. One could not but help liking him and admiring him for his straight thinking, and for his genuine, straightforward way of life. I think that he, himself, will feel very much hu leaving this chamber, where he has so many friends on both sides.

Senator George Rankin had a very colourful career, both in the Army and in political life. I, and I am sure many others also, will miss his cheerful personality. I hope that both he and Mrs. Rankin have many happy years ahead of them during the senator’s retirement.

We shall also miss Senator Guy and Senator Sandford. Incidentally, the fact that Senator Sandford and Senator George Rankin will retire together i? worthy of comment, because they always had a word for each other, in a manner of speaking. I am sure that all of Senator George Rankin’s friends will wish him the very best of health in the years to come.

page 1846

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL SENATORS

Motion (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 1846

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator O’sullivan ) agreed to -

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

Senate adjourned at 1.47 a.m. (Friday) to a day and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 June 1956, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1956/19560621_senate_22_s8/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate21 June 1956

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator CRITCHLEY:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator COOPER:Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH AND STATE HOUSING AGREEMENT

Senator MARRIOTT:TASMANIA · LP

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

QUESTION

ATOMIC WEAPONS

Senator COOKE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:Minister for the Navy · QUEENSLAND · LP

QUESTION

EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION ACT

Senator LAUGHT:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator SPOONER:LP

QUESTION

BLANKETS FOR THE AGED POOR

Senator BROWN:QUEENSLAND

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

QUESTION

DEVONPORT AERODROME

Senator COLE:TASMANIA

Senator PALTRIDGE:Minister for Shipping and Transport · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

QUESTION

ATOMIC WEAPONS

Senator COOKE:

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

QUESTION

COAL

Senator BUTTFIELD:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator SPOONER:LP

QUESTION

COMPANY TAXATION

Senator HENDRICKSON:VICTORIA

Senator SPOONER:LP

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Senator ASHLEY:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PALTRIDGE:LP

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH AND STATE HOUSING AGREEMENT

Senator KENDALL:QUEENSLAND

Senator SPOONER:LP

QUESTION

ST. MARY’S FILLING FACTORY

Senator SHEEHAN:VICTORIA

Senator COOPER:CP

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator WOOD:QUEENSLAND

Senator SPOONER:LP

QUESTION

COAL

Senator ASHLEY:

Senator SPOONER:LP

Senator ASHLEY:

Senator SPOONER:

Senator Ashley:

Senator SPOONER:

QUESTION

TUNA FISHING

Senator SCOTT:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator SPICER:Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

DISARMAMENT

Senator MAHER:QUEENSLAND

Senator SPICER:LP

QUESTION

TRADE WITH RUSSIA

Senator BROWN:

Senator SPOONER:LP

QUESTION

SUBSIDIES TO AIRLINES

Senator WILLESEE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PALTRIDGE:LP

QUESTION

AERODROMES

Senator BENN:QUEENSLAND

Senate
21 June 1956

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

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

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for the Navy · QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator COLE:
TASMANIA

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

Senator KENDALL:
QUEENSLAND

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator SHEEHAN:
VICTORIA

Senator COOPER:
CP

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

Senator MAHER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator SPICER:
LP

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

Senator COOPER:
CP

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

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

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

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

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

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

Senator WARDLAW:
Tasmania