Senate
17 September 1958

22nd Parliament · 3rd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 22nd Parliament
  3. 1958

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 363

QUESTION

COPYRIGHT LAW REVIEW COMMITTEE

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

– I should like to direct a question to the Attorney-General. Does the newly appointed Copyright Law Review Committee propose to take evidence in all the States and in the Australian Capital Territory? Will the inquiry be restricted in any way? When does the committee propose to commence its work? Will a general invitation be extended to all bodies and persons interested to give evidence before the committee?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Attorney-General · QUEENSLAND · LP

– I will be very happy to make available to the honorable senator the terms of reference of the committee. The committee will inquire substantially into the new English Copyright Act, to see to what extent, if at all, it should be incorporated in the Australian act, and what conditions and modifications should be made. I understand that the inquiry will commence to operate - this, of course, is for the committee to decide - within a month or two of the committee collating all its material. Advertisements will be inserted in newspapers in all the capital cities inviting those interested to attend and produce evidence. Whether the committee will sit in the various capital cities will be determined, I should imagine, by the location of the people who wish to give evidence. Every facility will be afforded to interested people to give evidence before the committee.

page 363

QUESTION

IRON ORE

Senator VINCENT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Minister for National Development relates to the papers that were tabled in the Senate yesterday in connexion with the application by the Western Australian Government to the Commonwealth Government for a permit to export 1,000,000 tons of iron ore to Japan. The purpose behind the application is the establishment of a pig iron industry in the south-west of Western Australia. The papers disclose that the Premier of Western Australia. Mr. Hawke, has in formed the Prime Minister that he has had made a re-assessment of the proposal in the light of changed world circumstances and the current prices of basic commodities, including iron ore. The Prime Minister has informed Mr. Hawke that he would like to have a look at that re-assessment of the position before taking further action in Canberra. My question is: Has the Minister any knowledge of that information which Mr. Hawke has suggested he has obtained in relation to the changed circumstances?

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

– The latest information is contained in the exchange of letters. The Commonwealth has no further information. As I understand the situation, the Western Australian Government wants to re-examine the economics of the proposal - that is, the cost of taking out the iron ore and shipping it, the profit that will be made, and the cost of the iron works. The Commonwealth’s primary interest in the matter relates to the conservation of natural resources. The Commonwealth’s decision is based primarily upon the fact that it believes that the conservation of Australia’s iron ore deposits is of great national consequence. The Commonwealth believes that we should not allow iron ore to be exported but that we should conserve it for steel manufacture in Australia because the amount that is available, comparatively speaking, is not great in relation to the increasing demand for steel.

page 363

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minis ter for Shipping and Transport the following questions: Is it a fact that five ships of the Australian National Line are at present laid up because they cannot get cargoes? Is it a fact that, while these ships are idle, a number of foreign ships are operating here? Is it a fact that the British Phosphate Commissioners operate the vessel “ Triadic “ between Fremantle and Christmas Island, using cheap Asian labour? Does the same group operate “ Triona “ between Melbourne, Newcastle and Nauru, again with an Asian crew? Are two other vessels, owned and manned by a Norwegian and a Swedish company respectively, plying between Western Australian ports and Christmas Island? As Christmas Island is now an Australian possession, will the Minister act to ensure that the vessel “ Triadic “ complies with normal Australian practices in regard to crew and conditions, and that all Australian-owned vessels are fully employed before he permits foreign vessels to carry cargo on what is an exclusively Australian run?

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

– It is a fact, as suggested by Senator Kennelly, that at the moment five ships of the Australian National Line are laid up. The honorable senator referred to foreign ships operating here. I remind him that at the moment only one chartered vessel is operating on the Australian coast - a reduction from twenty-odd three years ago. Even that one ship, the charter of which expires some time in November, would not be on the Australian coast had it not been for the fact that it had to be retained to take part in the emergency lift of wheat from Western Australia to eastern States. A number of factors are involved in the operations of the vessels owned by the British Phosphate Commissioners and the other ships which trade to Christmas Island. I shall have the whole question examined and give the honorable senator a full answer.

page 364

QUESTION

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA: AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Establishment in Canberra.

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Attorney-General. In view of the enormous development taking place in Canberra, and in the light of the lead given by the Attorney-General himself, can he say whether he has given any thought to the question of the establishment of the High Court of Australia in its appropriate place - the National Capital? Will he discuss with the Postmaster-General the question of transferring the head-quarters of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to Canberra, a move that has already been approved in legislation?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I am quite sure that the matters raised by the honorable senator have been considered from time to time by various governments. I do not think there is any immediate likelihood of the High Court of Australia being established here. In regard to the transfer of the head-quarters of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, I shall bring the matter to the notice of my colleague, the PostmasterGeneral.

page 364

QUESTION

RIVER MURRAY AGREEMENT

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for National Development say whether negotiations, which have been proceeding in connexion with the preparation of a bill to amend the River Murray Agreement, have been concluded? If they have been concluded, is the way now clear to introduce a bill in this .Parliament? If so, does the Minister intend to bring such a bill into this chamber, and when is it proposed to do so?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The matter has been concluded, so far as the States are concerned. The agreement has been signed by the Commonwealth Government and the Governments of South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. The draft bill has been prepared and I shall introduce it in the Senate. I am not quite sure whether that will be done this week, but if it is not done then, the bill will be introduced next week for certain.

page 364

QUESTION

EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. At the instance of many organizations associated with primary and secondary industries in Australia, I have asked a multitude of questions on the subject of the European free trade area, but I regret to say that the Ministers concerned have not been able to give answers which would be of value to the people of Australia, or to indicate the effect of European marketing arrangements on the export trade of this country. I now ask the Minister again: Is he aware that employers’ associations of some countries left outside the European common market, such as Britain, the Scandinavian states, Austria and Switzerland, have now produced a plan of their own which, amongst other things, suggests that processed agricultural products should be treated like industrial goods, and rejects the French proposals for a common fund for investment and for standardizing social services? If the Minister is unaware of these developments, will he ask the Department of Trade to prepare a statement which will apprise the people of Australia of the way in which Australian trade will be affected, particularly in the light of the announcement that the American State Department has declared that India will take 200,000,000 dollars’ worth of surplus American food grains this financial year? I conclude the question by saying that it has no association in any way with the present discussions at the Montreal trade conference, which is essentially a Commonwealth trade conference.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I think that the kind of question that the honorable senator asks provides the reason for his expressed dissatisfaction with the answers he gets. This question is a most involved one. Given the best of goodwill on both sides of the chamber, it is almost impossible to answer it without notice. To do so adequately would require a dissertation on the common market on the one hand, and the contemplated European free trade area on the other. Perhaps I am wrong, but as I understand the matter there is nothing new in the points that the honorable senator raises. The problem throughout has been to find, within the framework of the Customs Union - the Messina Powers arrangement - some formula which would protect the market for primary products from Aus- tralia and other places. Endeavours to do so were not successful, so an alternative scheme was evolved, known as the free trade area proposal.

That big conflict is not resolved, and a question on it is not capable of being answered, without notice, at question time. As to whether a considered statement is being prepared, there is no need for a statement to be prepared. In most economic journals and most commercial journals there are articles which discuss the pros and cons. A situation has not been reached at which the Government can make a statement, because the whole thing is in a state of flux. Negotiations are proceeding from week to week, and what is proposed one week is changed the next week.

Senator Hendrickson:

– But what part are we taking in it?

Senator SPOONER:

– That is what I am saying to you. The whole thing is in a state of flux. There are continual conferences on the point. There is a special Australian organization created within Australia House, London.

I find it not profitable, Mr. President, to continue to attempt to answer the question, but I shall be very glad to get any information I can on the matter.

page 365

QUESTION

NATIONALIZATION

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– Yesterday in this chamber, Mr. President, Senator Buttfield directed a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, during the course of which she distorted-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Is the honorable senator asking a question? I take it that he is.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– Yes, I am going to ask it now. Senator Buttfield did distort in this chamber the contents of a telecast made by the honorable member for East Sydney, Mr. Ward1. Seeing that the distortion was made during proceedings of the Senate which are broadcast over the radio I should like you, Mr. President, to ask the Prime Minister, as Senator Buttfield did through his representative in this chamber, to peruse a transcript of a tape recording of Mr. Ward’s statement. I should also like to do as Senator Buttfield did yesterday and ask that the actual contents of that tape recording be publicized to the people of Australia. At this point yesterday-

Senator Buttfield:

– You cannot get out of this one. He said what I claimed he said.

Senator HENDRICKSON__ Well now,

Senator Buttfield objects;

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Is the honorable senator asking a question?

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– Yes, I am going to ask the question, but I am prefacing it by indicating what Mr. Ward did say as against what he did not say.

Senator O’sullivan:

– A point of order, Mr. President: The Standing Orders provide that questions without notice shall not be based on newspaper reports.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– Then all I want to say is that I hope that the people who are listening to the proceedings to-day will realize that the question asked by Senator Buttfield yesterday contained a distortion of what Mr. Ward said and of the policy of the Labour party. (Question not answered) -

page 365

QUESTION

FISHING

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Is it a fact that many fishing vessels throughout Australia are being tied up?
  2. If so, is this due to (a) the low prices obtained for fish, and/or (b) the inability of Australian fishermen to compete against the prices of imported fish?
  3. Can the Minister give an assurance that cheap fish from overseas countries is not being dumped on the Australian market, and will he take any action necessary to preserve the industry in Australia?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Minister for Trade has replied as follows: - 1, 2 and 3. When the fishing industry feels that imports of fresh frozen fish endanger its ability to carry on profitably, a request for increased tariff protection, submitted by the industry, will be examined with a view to the matter being referred to the Tariff Board for inquiry and report.

page 366

QUESTION

GUIDED MISSILES

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

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

What is the cost of production of the new guided missile known as the Malkara?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The following answer has been furnished: -

To date, the major activity in respect ot Malkara has been in the development of theweapon from fundamental data and then engineering it so that it may satisfactorily be factory produced. The ultimate cost per operational round will depend largely on the size of the production order and the length of the production run. The value of the current order and all the supporting ground control and test equipment is approximately £500,000.

page 366

QUESTION

CANBERRA MOTOR REGULATIONS

Senator KENDALL:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. Is it necessary to hold a driver’s licence issued in the Australian Capital Territory before operating a motor vehicle registered in the Australian Capital Territory?
  2. Is a driver’s licence issued in any other State or Territory valid in the Australian Capital Territory if the motorist is driving a motor vehicle registered in the same State or Territory that issued the driver’s licence?
  3. If the answer to either question is in the negative, will the Minister make a statement on the requirements of the traffic branch of the Australian Capital Territory in this matter?
Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · TASMANIA · LP

– The Minister for the Interior has furnished the following replies: -

  1. No.
  2. Yes.
  3. The Motor Traffic Ordinance provides that a person shall, when temporarily in the Territory, be deemed to be licensed under the ordinance to drive a motor vehicle of a particular class if he isa bona fide resident of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth (other than the Australian Capital’ Territory) and is the holder of a licence to drive a motor vehicle of that class in accordance with the law of such State or Territory.

page 366

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN AIR SERVICES

Senator KENNELLY:

asked the Minister for. Civil Aviation, upon notice -

What alterations, if any, have been made under the rationalization provisions of the Civil1 Aviation Agreement Act to the air services provided by Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett- A.N.A.?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– In accordance with the Civil Aviation Agreement Act. Trans-Australia Airlines and AnsettAustralian National Airways have had numerous discussions covering many aspects of their operations, and these discussions have resulted in a number of changes and economies. Both operators are conscious of their obligations under the act and comply in all respects with its requirements. Several important matters affecting the services to be operated have been referred to the rationalization committee and are under consideration.

page 366

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES

Senator WARDLAW:
TASMANIA

– I understand that Senator O’sullivan has now received a reply to the following question asked by me on 27th August last: -

My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health refers to the prominent headlines that appeared in a leading Sydney newspaper yesterday reading “ No Bar on ‘ Danger ‘ Drug “, and to the article that states -

Preludin, a “ pep “ pill which has been described as dangerous by two British doctors, is being sold in Sydney without prescription . . .

Has this matter been brought to the notice of the Minister? If not, will he cause inquiries to be made as to the correctness of the statement contained in the article, and will he advise what control can be exercised over the sale of the drug?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The Minister for Health has now furnished the following reply: -

The Commonwealth has no jurisdiction in the control of poisonous substances except within the boundaries of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. Control within a State is affected by the relative State poisons legislation. Under Victorian legislation Preludin is classified as a specified drug which means that it can only be supplied on the prescription of a medical practitioner or veterinary surgeon. There is no such control in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. In the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory it is intended to include Preludin in the Poisons Schedule which requires a Poisons Book entry before sale. However, action cannot be taken until the Ordinances are amended.

page 367

QUESTION

PEARLING

Senator SCOTT:

– I understand that the Minister for Shipping and Transport now has a reply to a question asked by me, without notice, on 26th August last, in which I inquired about certain vessels which were reported to have been engaged in pearling operations in closed waters, and particularly wished to know whether these were Japanese luggers, as originally reported, or Australian luggers, as a later report stated.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has furnished the following reply: -

The Japanese pearling fleet of fifteen luggers has been operating during this season, east of Darwin only. For the whole period the fleet has been under close surveillance by an Australian naval vessel. The movements of each vessel in the fleet have been accounted for, and the Japanese have complied with the arrangements made by the Australian Government for their operations during 1958.

The vessels referred to in the reports were part of the Australian pearling fleet based at Darwin. They have been operating west of Darwin in subarea 15, but are reported to have trespassed into the adjoining sub-area 14, which is closed to all pearling for conservation reasons. A naval vessel was diverted to order the three vessels to return to port to explain their presence in waters in which pearling was prohibited. The vessels complied with this order, and consideration is being given to the case.

It can only be assumed that the erroneous description of the fleet involved occurred through the fact that Australian pearling vessels employ in their crews a number of experienced Japanese and Ryukyuan divers, who are permitted temporary entry into Australia on a short term agreement specifically for this work.

page 367

REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to report the existence of a vacancy on the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances caused by the death of Senator Seward. I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate nominating Senator Drake-Brockman to fill that vacancy.

Motion (by Senator O’sullivan) - by leave - agreed to -

That Senator Drake-Brockman, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order No. 36a, be appointed to fill the vacancy now existing in the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

page 367

TRADE MARKS BILL 1958

Bill returned from House of Representatives without amendment.

page 367

COAL INDUSTRY BILL 1958

Motion (by Senator Spooner) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a bill for an act to amend the Coal Industry Act 1946-1957.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Coal Industry Act 1946-1957. lt is under the authority of this act and of its counterpart, the Coal Industry Act of New South Wales, that the Joint Coal Board is constituted. Although the Commonwealth act contains a provision which fully protects the rights of a Commonwealth officer who may be employed by the Joint Coal Board, there is no similar provision to protect the rights of a Commonwealth officer who may be appointed to membership of the board. This anomaly has not been material until now, when, by agreement between the two Governments, it is proposed that a Commonwealth officer shall be appointed to the board. I point out to honorable senators that the same anomaly does not exist in respect of officers of the New South Wales public service appointed to membership of the board. New South Wales legislation has permitted action being taken to protect the rights of officers of the New South Wales public service. It is evident, therefore, that while the anomaly remains it imposes a limitation on the Commonwealth from which the State is free. The bill now before the Senate is intended to remove the anomaly in the Commonwealth act.

As I have said, the Commonwealth Coal Industry Act has its counterpart in the Coal Industry Act passed by the New South

Wales Parliament. Under the legislation, action to amend the Coal Industry Act by one Government requires the prior concurrence of the other. The concurrence of the New South Wales Government has been given to the amendment proposed by the present bill.

It is clearly desirable that the Commonwealth should be free of any impediment to the appointment of one of its own officers to membership of the board. The amending bill which is before honorable senators will remove the limitation that now exists. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 368

SUPERANNUATION BILL1958

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesMinister for National Development · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to raise the pension of orphan children of deceased contributors to the Superannuation Fund. At the present time, a pension of £1 10s. a week is paid to each orphan child under the age of sixteen. From representations that have been made, and from inquiries into the circumstances of these children, of whom there are less than 40, it is apparent that the pension of £1 10s. a week is not adequate. The cost of an increase in the pension from £1 10s. to £3 a week, which is provided by this bill, will be met from the resources of the Superannuation Fund itself. The bill will, I am sure, commend itself to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Hendrickson) adjourned.

page 368

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL 1958

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesMinister for National Development · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to provide an increase in the rate of pension payable to orphan children under the age of sixteen years of deceased contributors and deceased pensioners under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act. The increase from £1 10s. to £3 per week which is provided by this bill will affect less than a dozen children and bring the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act into line with the provisions of the Superannuation Act, to which a similar amendment is being made. The cost of the increase will be borne by the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund without contribution by the Commonwealth. I commend this bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Hendrickson) adjourned.

page 368

REPATRIATION BILL 1958

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a bill for an act to amend the Repatriation Act 1920-57.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
General · QueenslandVicePresident of the Executive Council and Attorney · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time:

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Repatriation Act to give effect to the increases in certain rates of war pension which were announced recently in connexion with the presentation of the Budget, and to make some other necessary and desirable amendments to the act. This bill, by amending the second schedule to the act, provides for an increase of 10s. a week in the special rate pension.The new rate will be£1110s. a week. The special rate pension, more commonly known as the T.P.I. rate, is the pension paid to a member who, due to war service, is totally and permanently incapacitated for life to such an extent as to be precluded from earning other than a negligible .percentage of a living wage or who has been blinded as a result of war service. This increase of 10s. will, of course, also apply to those members in receipt of a pension at the class “ C “ rate for tuberculosis or for total temporary incapacity, and to the special rate of medical sustenance payable while a member is undergoing hospital treatment for an accepted disability. ‘Following this increase, the class “ B “ rate for tuberculosis is also being increased from £7 17s. 64 to £8 2s. 6d. a week or £16 5s. a fortnight.

The fifth schedule to the .act is also being amended to increase by 10s. a week the amounts of the allowances payable under the first six items df the schedule to double amputees. The amendment to the third schedule of the ‘Repatriation Act will increase the rates of pension now payable to the children of members whose death has been .due to war service. The pension payable to the ‘first child .of such a member is being increased Dy 5s. a week to £1 1 ls. 6d. a week, while that payable to the second or any other child is being increased by 4s. a week to £1 2s. 6d. a wee”k. The -rate for a double orphan is being increased by 15s. a week to £3 3s. a week.

The amendment to paragraph (aa) of the item “ child of the member “ will enable a higher rate of pension to be prescribed for the additional classes of children included in the amendment. This amendment will be more fully explained during the committee stage. Although the provisions for them are not made in the act, <and therefore do not appear in the bill (before the Senate, I would like to mention at this stage several increases .provided in the Budget which affect dependants of members. A war widow is to receive an increase of 7s. 6d. a week in the rate of <her domestic allowance, increasing that allowance from £2 to £2 7s. 6d. a week. Domestic allowance is payable to a war widow who has a child under the age of sixteen years, or undergoing education, or training, or who is over the age of 50 years, or is permanently unemployable. More than 90 .per cent, of all war widows are in receipt of domestic allowance, and together with .their war widows’ pension of £4 17s. 6d. a week they will now receive a total of £7 5s. a week.

Children receiving benefits under the soldiers’ children education scheme who are undergoing professional education are to receive increases in the rates of their education allowance. For a student living at home the allowance will be increased by 10s. a week, making the amount payable £4 5s. a week, or £221 a year. The student living away from home will .receive an increase of £1 a week, and his rate of allowance will now be £6 10s. a week, .or £338 a year. These increases are to apply from 1st January next year. In addition to receiving allowance at these rates, these students have their fees, books, and equipment provided for them under the scheme, and are reimbursed the cost of their travelling.

There is one further concession which is to be provided for children under .this scheme, which will apply not only to professional students, but to .all children eligible to receive an .allowance .under the scheme. In future amounts earned by a child by casual employment during university or school vacation will not be taken into account when determining the .rate of education .allowance to be paid.

There .has been some misunderstanding regarding the extent to which T.P.I, pensioners, who are .married, will benefit from the increase of :10s. a week in the T.P..I. rate, and some disappointment has been expressed because the Budget did not include an increase in the general rate war pension for incapacity, and in the pensions of wives and children of incapacitated members. The problems which faced the Government were clearly defined in the Treasurer’s Budget speech. In these circumstances it was appropriate that the increases in war pensions should go to the most deserving classes; to the ex-servicemen, who ‘had suffered total and permanent incapacity as a result of their war service, and to the widows and children of the exservicemen, who had lost their lives on or as a result of their war service.

Let me .explain first the position of the T.P.I. pensioner who is married. The increase of 10s. a week in the T.P.I, rate which this bill provides applies to .the war pension of all T.P.I. pensioners, whether married or single and irrespective of their means. The fact is that a married T.P.I. pensioner and his wife will now receive combined war pensions amounting to £13 5s. 6d. a week and, subject to the means test, they may receive between them additional service, age or invalid pension up to £2 9s. 6d. a week, giving them a combined income from both kinds of pension of £15 15s. a week, an amount well in excess of the basic wage. The Government makes no apology for the fact that that total for combined pensions for a husband and wife remains at £15 15s. a week.

In 1948, the government of the day imposed a ceiling limit on the amount of service, age or invalid pension which a war pensioner could receive in addition to his war pension. This ceiling limit was in addition to the means test limit of income plus pension and had the immediate effect, as far as a married T.P.I, pensioner and his wife were concerned, of making them ineligible for a service, age or invalid pension. Otherwise they could, subject to the means test, have received up to 15s. a week between them from such a pension. When this Government removed those ceiling limits in 1955, the only restriction on a war pensioner receiving a means test pension was the means test itself, which took his war pension into account as income. Immediately a large number of married T.P.I, pensioners and their wives became eligible for a service, age or invalid pension.

At that time the Government made its policy quite clear. It was that a married T.P.I, pensioner and his wife would be able to receive between them, subject to the means test, service, age or invalid pension up to an amount equal to the difference between the total of their war pensions, and the means test limit of income plus pension. That remains the policy of the Government to-day. It follows then that on an occasion, as happens this year, when the T.P.I, pension rises and the means test limit of income remains unaltered, the amount of the means test pension will be decreased by the amount of the increase in the war pension. It follows just as inevitably that if in the future the war pension is not increased, but the limit of income plus pension rises, either because there is an increase in the rate of the means test pension or in the amount which a pensioner is allowed as income before that rate of pension is affected, then the service, age or invalid pension which a married T.P.I, pensioner and his wife are receiving will automatically increase.

Surely, there is no injustice in this, and a government which provides pensions up to £15 15s. a week for a married couple cannot be regarded as ungenerous in this respect. It must be remembered that T.P.I, members receive other benefits, including medical treatment through the Repatriation Department for disabilities not due to war service and concessions from State governments and other bodies.

So far I have dealt only with the case of husband and wife. In the case of a family unit, war pension is payable to the father, the mother and each child under sixteen years. If the father receives a service pension he receives an additional amount, and additional amounts are also payable in respect of the mother and children. Furthermore, an education allowance is paid for each child from the age of twelve years, and this allowance increases substantially after the age of sixteen, when pension is no longer payable. Child endowment is also payable.

Let me illustrate this by the following example of what might well be regarded as a typical family of a T.P.I, pensioner - father, mother and two children aged fourteen years and twelve years, where there is no other income and no reduction due to property ownership -

In addition, a T.P.L member who is severely incapacitated may also qualify for an attendant’s allowance of £2 15s. or £4 10s. a week. A war-blinded member who receives , the same rate of pension at a T.P.I. member also receives an attendant’s allowance of £2 15s. a week. Recreation transport allowance of £5 or £10 a month is also paid to certain seriously incapacitated members. It is therefore possible for a total payment from Commonwealth sources of £27 19s. a week to be made in the case of a seriously disabled member with a wife and two children.

I turn now to the position of the general rate war pensioner. He, too, benefited considerably from the removal of the ceiling limits as the following examples illustrate. If through age, or incapacity not due to war service, a general rate war pensioner is unable to go about his ordinary occupation, his war pension may be supplemented by a means test pension; that is, a service, age or invalid pension. The extent to which this may assist him is illustrated by the following examples: -

Two examples of family income will be sufficient to illustrate how well the family unit is taken care of. Again I use the example of father, mother and two children aged fourteen and twelve years. The examples I quote are one of a member receiving the full general rate (100 per cent.) pension and one of a member receiving war pension at 75 per cent, of the general rate. The examples are -

I should emphasize that all these amounts are paid free of income tax.

I come now to the concessions which the bill provides for service pensioners. This bill introduces a new provision for the benefit of service pensioners by way of supplementary assistance at the rate of 10s. a week to be paid to single service pensioners, and to married service pensioners where one only is in receipt of a pension or allowance, who pay rent for their accommodation and who are deemed to be entirely dependent upon their service pensions. Where a service pensioner is paying for board and lodging, the same principle will apply and the payment will be accepted as having a rent component. This provision is in line with a similar one being introduced into the Social Services Act.

In conclusion, I would like to refer briefly to the remaining provisions of the bill which amend various sections of the Repatriation Act. A number of consequential amendments are made necessary because of the introduction of section 98a which provides for the grant of supplementary assistance. There are some other amendments of a minor nature.

Section 46 of the act provides that when a member is actually receiving a pension under the second schedule, for example, the T.P.I., war blinded and class B or C tuberculosis rates of pension, or under the first eight items of the fifth schedule, that is, double amputees, and he dies from a cause not due to his war service,’ his dependants receive pension and other benefits as though his death were due to war service. However, this section does not specifically cover the case of a posthumous grant to such a pension - that is, where a claim for pension or an increase in .the rate of pension has been lodged but not determined at the date of death. The amendment which this bill makes to section 46 extends the benefits of that section to the dependants of a member in such a case and removes an anomaly.

Section 95 is being amended to bring the section into line with the similar provisions of the Social Services Act, which provides for the adjustment of pension between the member and the benevolent home to take effect from the first pension pay day after the member’s admission to the home. Section 120b of the act is being extended to include adjustments where, because of a retrospective grant of pension, excess payments have been made under the Tuberculosis Act. That section already enables such an adjustment to be made in relation to pensions paid under the Social Services Act. If further details regarding these amendments are sought, I shall be pleased to explain them during the committee stage. The increased rates of war pension which this bill provides will be payable on the first pension pay day after the amending act receives the Royal Assent, and. the increased rate of domestic allowance will apply from the same day. The increased benefits for service pensioners will apply from the first pension pay day after the amending Social Services Bill, whose provisions they follow, comes into force.

Mr. President, this bill makes still further provision for ex-servicemen and their dependants. On behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper),, who unfortunately is absent through illness, I commend the bill to the Senate with all the enthusiasm that Senator Cooper would have displayed in doing so. I think that this is the eighth or ninth bill to extend repatriation benefits for which he has been responsible since this Government has been in office, and I am sure all honorable senators will join with me when I say I am very sorry that he is not able to be present on this occasion.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.

page 372

SEAMEN’S WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES BILL 1958

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a bill for an act to amend the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940-57. ‘

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

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

– I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act, which it is proposed to amend, first came into operation in 1940 and has since been amended eight times. Since 1952, the act has been amended each year, except 1956, to authorize increases in certain pensions paid to Australian mariners incapacitated by war injury and dependants of Australian mariners, which had been approved by the Government and for which provision had been made in the respective Budgets.

It is the practice to maintain pensions payable under the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act at the same level as the pensions payable to the corresponding classes of pensioners under the Repatriation Act. The latter act is being amended to implement the Government’s decision to increase pensions which are being paid in respect of children of deceased members of the forces-, and provision is made in the bill now before the Senate to authorize similar increases under the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances. Act.

The pension payable in respect of the’ first child of a deceased Australian mariner, if the mother is alive, is being increased by 10s. a fortnight- from £2 13s. to £3 3s. a fortnight; for each other child the increase willbe 8s. a fortnight, which will increase the fortnightly pension from £117s. to £2 5s. Where the mother of the children of a deceased Australian mariner is also dead, the pension paid in respect of each such child is being raised by£1 10s. a fortnight, or from £4 16s. to £6 6s. a fortnight.

A pensioner who is totally and permanently incapacitated receives a pension at the special rate specified in the second schedule to the Repatriation Act. Provision is made in the Repatriation Bill 1958 for an increase of £1 per fortnight in the special rate of pension payable under the second schedule to the act and this will raise the fortnightly payment from £22 to £23. In accordance with section 22a of the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act, this increase will be automatically applied to a totally and permanently incapacitated Australian mariner who is in receipt of this special pension. It is, consequently, unnecessary to include provision for this increase in the bill now before the Senate.

The Budget also provided for an increase in the rate of the domestic allowance which is paid to certain widows who are in receipt of pensions under the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act. The allowance is paid under the regulations to a widow who is a pensioner and is over 50 years of age, or is permanently unemployable, or has the care and custody of a child under the age of sixteen years, or is still undergoing education or training. It will be raised by15s. a fortnight, namely from £4 to £4 15s. a fortnight. It is not necessary to provide for this increase in the bill, as it will be authorized by a regulation amendment.

The bill includes provision for the amending act to come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent, and for the increased pensions to become payable on the first pension pay day thereafter. The increases proposed will, I feel sure, have the support of all honorable senators, and the bill is recommended for their favorable consideration.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 373

ESTIMATES AND BUDGET PAPERS 1958-59

Debate resumed from 16th September (vide page 362), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the following papers be printed: -

Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure, and Estimates of Expenditure for Additions, New Works and other Services involving Capital Expenditure, for the year ending30th June, 1959;

The Budget 1958-59 - Papers presented by the Right Hon. Sir Arthur. Fadden in connexion with the Budget of 1958-59; and

National Income and Expenditure 1957-58

Upon which Senator Kennelly had moved by way of amendment -

At end of motion add the following words, viz. - “ but that the Senate is of opinion that their provisions inflict grave injustices on the States and on many sections of. the Australian people - especially the family unit, and that they make no contribution to correcting seriously adverse trends in the Australian economy”.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

.- I believe, Mr. Deputy President, that the amendment moved by Senator Kennelly should be carried by the Senate. During the course of the Budget speech of the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden), the right honorable gentleman studded his remarks with such statements as -

We believe that what we are doing will materially support business investment and consumer spending and so help to offset the effects of continued low export earnings . . .

During 1957-58, the financial year just closed, our economy, taken as a whole, made notable progress . . .

It is undoubtedly significant that … the economy as a whole continued to advance as strongly as it did . . .

Within Australia conditions are, in the main, favourable -

Whilst it may be possible … to hold our external position …. a prolonged spell of low export earnings could not fail to have harmful effects, perhaps of increasing severity, upon our internal economy.

Senator Wade, during the course of his remarks yesterday, outlined to us the position of the wheat industry in the Victorian district from which he comes. I remember him referring on a previous occasion to the prosperous condition of that industry, and when I remarked on the incidence of drought throughout Australia, he asked, “ Where is the drought? “

Senator Wade:

– I beg your pardon. Be factual.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I can produce “ Hansard “ to show that the honorable senator asked, “Where is the drought?” and went on to say, “ There is no drought in Victoria “. However, during the course of his speech, the honorable senator said -

At the risk of being parochial I am going to refer to another serious matter that affects the wheat industry, an allied industry to the flour industry.

Then he said-

There is a chain of flour mills located in western Victoria and eastern South Australia. Horsham has a 3-unit mill, with a 25,000-ton capacity. The mills at Nhill, Charlton, Murray Bridge and Rupanyup have a 2-unit capacity. The Horsham mill to-day is working one shift at half capacity. Charlton is also working one shift per day at half capacity. The mills at Nhill, Murray Bridge and Rupanyup are reduced to maintenance operations with three operatives only.

I should like also to quote from a statement made by the honorable member for New England, Mr. Anthony, in the House of Representatives.

Senator Wade:

– But would you first finish the other quotation?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I have finished it as far as that is concerned, and any one who is interested in any more of it can read it in “Hansard” of Tuesday, 16th September. During the course of his remarks in the House of Representatives, Mr. Anthony said -

It is clear that last year the value of our exports fell and that, therefore, we must encourage the primary producer. I wish some of the theorists of. the Treasury would read these figures. If they did, they might adopt a different attitude towards the primary producer.

Just previously he had mentioned the fact that the dairying industry was in a very bad plight. I have given that quotation, Mr. Deputy President, to show that there is grave concern over the current economic trends. Unemployment, if unchecked, will inevitably cause grave economic instability throughout the Commonwealth. Special mention has been made in the Commonwealth Bank’s current annual report of the responsibility of the bank to apply itself to that very important social problem.

Full employment has been destroyed by this Government. The Government inherited a policy from the previous government which accorded with the United Nations Charter. Under that policy the Commonwealth Bank could direct its energies to the question of full employment. But to-day we have a repetition of the 1930’s, with marches of unemployed people taking place in some of our mining towns. And it will not be very long before we have similar marches in other cities throughout the Commonwealth. The whole of this Government’s policy as expressed in the Budget Speech and in the Budget Papers now before us shows that the Government is whistling in the dark. The Government has been trying to create an impression that everything is going well. At the same time, we have members of splinter parties trying to draw a red herring across the trail. I should like to quote from a decision of the federal executive of the Australian Labour party expressing the Labour party’s view of the Budget. The statement issued by the executive expresses the opinion that the events in the Commonwealth Parliament on Wednesday night, 13th August, 1958 - that is, the presentation of the Budget - demonstrate with complete clarity the intention of the Government to face the electors on the sole question of Communism. The Government has with complete contempt for the Australian community introduced a Budget which has aroused hostility not only in the Labour Party and the Unions but in almost every section of the community.

The Government’s hand is now clearly exposed. On previous occasions the Government has used Communism to attain its ends. But this is the only occasion when it will rely entirely upon Communism in an attempt to divert attention from its incompetence and shortcomings. That is the measure of the Government’s complete contempt for the nation which is looking for vigorous constructive action to meet the threat of a continuing deterioration in the Australian economy.

In conclusion, I say that we of the Australian Labour party, in the words of the statement from which I am quoting - reject with the contempt it deserves the suggestion that we should take action as a consequence of the politically motivated and distorted statements made by members of the Liberal and other parties.

The other parties referred to there are splinter parties. The statement continues -

We are not unmindful however of the deliberate campaign that is being organized to damage electorally the Australian Labour Party . . .

So, Mr. Deputy President, I express my disagreement with the Budget Papers. We believe, with the Australian people generally, that the Budget does not satisfy the needs of this country for the future. I support the amendment moved by Senator Kennelly which expresses disagreement with the papers before the Senate.

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

– I do not propose to deal with more than a few of the matters which the Opposition has raised. 1 should like to correct some of the statement made by Senator Ormonde, which 1 think were quite wrong. I want my correction of his inaccurate statements to go on record. Senator Ormonde reminds me rather of Sinbad. You will -remember, Mr. Deputy President, that Sinbad had an Old Man of the Sea on his back whom he was trying to shake off during many years of his life. Senator Ormonde reminds me of him, because he has communism on his back and is trying to shake it off, but not very successfully.

Senator Ormonde said that the battle was a battle for the hearts and minds of men. I quite agree. But if that is the case, why on earth did he and his fellows throw out the groupers who were the very people who were trying to get Communists out of the trade unions? He also made an inaccurate statement when he said that the secretary of the Federated Ironworkers Association, Mr. Laurie Short, was restored to his position as secretary of that body as a result ot legislation passed by the Chifley-Evatt Government. That is entirely wrong. The legislation which led to the re-instatement of Mr. Short was brought down by the Menzies-Fadden Government in 1950. As my speech is being broadcast, I take the opportunity to correct the honorable senator’s mistake. I was interested in the remainder of Senator Ormonde’s maiden speech, which I think he delivered in a very sincere way, although I am sorry he did not stick to facts.

Now I wish to deal with a few of Senator O’Byrne’s statements, which contained some inaccuracies which I would like to correct. In the earlier part of his speech last night, he tried to prove that the unemployment benefit figures issued by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt) were incorrect. He read from figures which were issued, I think, the day before yesterday. The honorable senator said that these figures were incorrect because they took no account of the fact that some 600 men were going to be thrown out of employment on the coal fields. What he forgot was that a man does not draw unemployment benefit until a week after the application for it is lodged, and quite obviously if these men were to be dismissed on Friday Mr. Holt’s figures could still have been quite correct, because none of the men would receive unemployment benefit until some time afterwards.

The honorable senator went on to say that the unemployment position to-day is the worst it has been in this country since before the war. I remind the honorable senator that until the present Government came into office we had over 12,000,000 man-days lost in strikes, including strikes fomented by Communists. Do you mean to tell me that that is full employment? Is the loss of earnings for 12,000,000 man-days by the men and women concerned full employment? If that is full employment in the honorable senator’s opinion the general public will know how to treat the rest of his statements. His assertion on that matter was as nonsensical as anything else he has said.

The honorable senator mentioned direction of labour, and said what a shocking thing it was that men had to go to some other place away from their former place of employment in order to look for work. Well, Mr. Chifley himself made a statement, which was publicized throughout Australia, that a man could not expect to hear the town hall clock every night, nor could he expect to hold his wife’s hand every night. Of course, men have to look for employment somewhere else if they lose the employment they already have and there is none available in the same place.

So much for the statements made by members of the Opposition. I turn now to the Budget itself. The Opposition’s amendment on this occasion differs considerably from the usual amendment designed to censure the Government, which is -

That the first item in the Estimates, namely Senate £ … be reduced by £1.

This time honorable senators opposite have added a couple of sentences to the usual amendment. During this debate they have shown that they have very little knowledge of economics. I remind honorable senators opposite that in 1950, after the present Government took office, the late and well-loved Senator Ashley told us that there was a total of £131,000,000 in the national welfare fund. When we referred to the welfare fund we found that it consisted of internal treasury-bills. Many honorable senators opposite did not understand that because they did not understand economics. I do not know very much about that subject myself, but at least I can understand the section in the Budget dealing with the welfare fund.

When each Budget is presented, the Opposition seeks a reduction of taxes and an increase of social service benefits. Apparently, many years will pass before some honorable senators opposite realize that a government cannot reduce taxes and increase benefits year after year. We have before us the example of New Zealand, to which Senator Scott referred at some length. I do not propose to cover the same ground as he did, because if he did not make the position clear to the Opposition, then anything I say will have no effect, because he is far more persuasive than I am.

The Budget contains several good features and a few new items. The depreciation scheme, for example, has been extended for another three years. In addition, something very near and dear to my heart, and something for which I have been fighting for five years, has been granted; that is, a system of depreciation and the averaging of earnings for the fishermen of Australia. I am very pleased about that. Honorable senators opposite are wasting their time in telling me that this is not a good Budget because neither I, nor the fishermen, believe them. However, the fishing industry still has not been recognized as a primary industry, but I hope that will eventuate in the near future.

The zone A allowance remains, and claims can be made for improvements to property in Papua and New Guinea. That will work hand in hand with the recently instituted scheme whereby ex-servicemen are being settled in New Guinea.

Repatriation payments on the special rate have been increased by 10s. The AttorneyGeneral (Senator O’sullivan) recently introduced the Repatriation Bill in this chamber. That bill will be before us at a later stage, so I shall not deal with it now except to remind honorable senators that, after many years, the Government is showing its appreciation of the efforts of nurses in the first world war by allowing them the facilities of our repatriation hospitals. Although this action should have been taken 25 or 30 years ago, it is better late than never. This Government has done something that many governments of all political colours have failed to do during that period.

In addition, the Government has made a variation in the age pensions in that single pensioners will now receive 10s. a week more than married pensioners. Obviously, it is far more difficult for one person to provide food and shelter for himself than it is for two persons, because one shelter covers the pensioner married couple. Although the allowance is small, at least it is a start. No doubt, when the economic position of the country permits, whichever party is in office will have an opportunity to increase the allowance.

Senator Mattner:

– It will be a long time before the Opposition is in power again.

Senator KENDALL:

– That may be so, but I believe that if and when the Opposition does eventually come to power it will follow a principle established by this government.

Another principle that we have established is that persons suffering from chronic ailments, who were previously not allowed to join medical benefits funds, may now do so, despite any pre-existing ailment. Further, age is no longer a bar to joining a medical benefits fund. Very few hospitals or convalescent homes are open to people suffering from chronic illnesses; in fact, I know of only one such place in Brisbane. A lot has been said about our overseas earnings and the tremendous drop in the price of wool and other commodities that we export. Great Britain, to which we exported a large quantity of goods before the second world war, is increasing gradually the amount of foodstuffs which she produces herself. Before the second world war, Great Britain produced only 30 per cent, of her foodstuffs, but to-day that figure has risen to 60 per cent. No doubt, with the advance in science, that figure will be increased to 75 per cent, in the future. For that reason, we must find other markets for our commodities to replace the existing markets that are disappearing. For that reason, our trade commissioners have been sent all over the world looking for new markets. Senator Laught, during his recent trip to South America as a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, learned quite a good deal about the possible markets open to Australia in the various countries through which he passed, particularly Brazil. In the days of the sailing ships, when I was a good deal younger, Australia had a large export trade of coal from Newcastle to the west coast of South America, the return loading to Europe being saltpetre. For some reason, we no longer export coal to South America, and perhaps we should explore that avenue. I understand that the trade commissioner for Trinidad recently toured the South American countries in an endeavour to find new markets for our exports.

A great deal has been said about unemployment. I do not propose to quote again the figures that have been given, but I point out that the percentage of unemployed in Australia - 2 per cent. - is very much lower than that in any -other country in the world.

Employment is available in Queensland for cane cutters, and many hundreds of men who are not afraid of hard, dirty work - for which “they are very well paid, earning as much as £60 or £70 a week during the season - would no doubt obtain employment there. I was interested to read a paragraph in the “ Victorian Carpenters and Joiners News “ which I shall quote to honorable senators -

When finishing work make it a practice to ring or call at the union office for jobs. The union has been hard put since Christmas to fill .positions on jobs throughout the metropolitan area, so just pop into the office and check ‘the prospects.

At least two industries, therefore, require more men. As I do not have access to other trade union newspapers I am not in a position to speak with any authority about other industries, but I have mentioned two in particular. I feel that if one looks hard enough one will .find that to-day there are many instances in which one man is doing the work of two simply because labour is unobtainable. I know that is the .case with cane-cutting in north Queensland.

Another matter that has been discussed a great deal lately, and about which many questions have been asked by the. Opposition, relates to shipbuilding and the shortage of shipbuilding orders in our yards. I should like to offer one or two suggestions in connexion with this matter to the Minister, and to the Government. First of all, I again ask that we have proper fishery survey vessels in this country. At the present time, we are building a small 42-footer for barracouta work, but we are just not getting round -to providing anything bigger in -the way of a vessel properly fitted for such scientific work as oceanography, fish tagging and so on. I understand that one is projected for next year, or some time when the <money is .available, but I suggest that the money should be made available.

Another way in which we could help our shipbuilding industry and keep down unemployment is to cease chartering vessels, such as “ Kista Dan “, and build our own ships for service in the Antarctic. After all, we have three bases in the Antarctic - -Heard Island, Macquarie Island and Mawson - and I suggest that we -ought to build our own Antarctic ships. Yesterday, it was stated that Walkers Limited at Maryborough were suffering a disability in not being able to build ships of over .2,500 tons because of the silting of the river. These Antarctic ships are somewhere about that tonnage, and Walkers Limited could handle them easily. I am quite sure that if we built our own Antarctic vessels we could save .in the long run the money we are now paying out for the charter of such ships as “Kista Dan” while, at the same time, acquiring our own vessels and keeping our own people in employment. I emphasize here that if Walkers Limited have to put off their 400 men, they will never get the same team back, for that company makes everything connected with ;a ship, with the exception ;of the upholstery. They do their own plumbing, electrical fitting .and so on. Once -that team of -400 men is taken out of this work, it will -not be possible to build up another for many years.

Another way in which we could help our shipbuilding industry is to build our own tankers. I have stated before that we are up against -it for tankers. Why do we not have some in the Australian National Line? Just imagine the position we should be m if ‘trouble developed in the Middle East? Why do we not have our own tankers?

Senator Hannaford:

– We are building .a big one for the Ampol company at Whyalla now.

Senator KENDALL:

– But Ampol is not an Australian company.

Senator Hannaford:

– But we are building “the tanker here.

Senator KENDALL:

– I am talking about Australian ships. The Ampol company is getting the benefit of the Australian shipbuilding subsidy without employing Australian crews at Australian rates of wages. That is what the Ampol company is doing. 1 have taken out some figures relating to oil. They disclose that in British North Borneo, the Brunei, Sarawak and Miri fields, in a British possession, produce just over 6,000,000 tons of crude oil every year. As Australia’s total crude oil requirements amount to about 10,000,000 tons, it will be seen that six-tenths of Australia’s oil supply could be drawn from the British companies in North-west Borneo if we had our own tankers to carry it, and if our own National Line had sufficient tankers. Therefore, I suggest to the Government that we could well be building several 35,000 or 40,000 ton tankers in our own yards, especially at Evans Deakin and Company Limited, Brisbane. But whether these tankers are built there or elsewhere in Australia, I offer that suggestion as being one way to keep our shipyards busy and unemployment down.

One further facet in which shipping is necessary is hydrographic work. At the present time, we are using ships which are neither suitable nor fitted for this work. We are using sloops and corvettes. I think on one occasion we used a destroyer. But none of these vessels was properly fitted for the work. The Navy has recently completed an excellent job in the Timor Sea, but it seems that at the present time surveying work in this country is boxed up. or held up because of the number of people who have their fingers in the pie of survey work round the Australian coast. For instance, we have the Director of National Mapping in Canberra, and the Army survey units at Bendigo and elsewhere, the SurveyorsGeneral in each of the States, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and the Bureau of Mineral Resources all doing some of this work. I should like to see a central authority in Australia similar to the one set up in the United States of America and similar to the hydrographic office in London. I call the Government’s attention to these matters because they are directions in which we could save money. As lack of money is the basis on which this Budget is framed, I feel that any step that can save money should be mentioned.

Bank credit and the release of special accounts have been discussed at great length, and I do not see any necessity for dealing with those subjects now, but I do think some mention might be made of homes. I feel that, as the figures are so good, this subject should be mentioned many times. In 1949, when this Government came into office, the shortage of homes numbered 240,000. To-day, that figure has dropped to 80,000, showing the remarkable increase in home construction that has taken place over those years. A similar position exists in connexion with war service homes, as is disclosed by the fact that whereas in the 31 years from the inception of the scheme until 1950, there were 50,000 war service homes built, in our nine years of government, 56,000 have been erected. All these are matters of moment which are worth mentioning to the credit of the Government.

In my opinion, no Budget will ever satisfy everybody. Human nature just simply makes that impossible, and many names have been given to the various Budgets brought down. For instance, we have had the horror Budget, the baby Budget, the little Budget, and so on. I suggest that if this Budget were to be named, it could aptly be called the consolidation Budget because its intention is to consolidate all the gains of the last eight or nine years. Some honorable senators may be amateur herpetologists and will know that a boa constrictor, or any snake for that matter, after having a big meal, will lie in the sun until it is digested. But that is not so with Australia, because in spite of the fact that we have assimilated 1,000,000 migrants in the last ten years, we still have only about 60,000 or 70,000 people unemployed. Big undertakings are under way here. The present position is due mainly to a fall in prices overseas, and not to any internal cause; so that during this year and perhaps next year, we shall have to sit back, consolidate, and make sure of the things we have won. Therefore, I support this Budget. As for the amendment, it is too trivial to bother about.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

.- I support the amendment. As for Senator Kendall’s suggestion that the amendment is too trivial to bother about, I emphasize that it is most important, because if it is carried it will at least indicate to the people of Australia that the Opposition has taken some notice of the Budget which has been presented and is prepared to register an emphatic protest against it. In view of what has emerged from this debate, as well as what has been said by responsible persons outside the Parliament, the Government has no reason to be delighted with its Budget. In the last eighteen or nineteen years I have seen many Budgets presented here and, in view of Australia’s present position, I consider this the most appalling of all. Senator Kendall has described it as a Budget which consolidates everything that the Government has done in the last nine years. I warn him that one can consolidate too much.

Senator Armstrong:

– You simply produce concrete.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– My honorable colleague anticipated me admirably. Australia must move forward, but such progress as it has made in recent years has been attributable wholly to the impetus that was evident before this Government came to office. Despite the vacillation of the present Administration, Australia’s progress has not been retarded. Government supporters have offered faint praise of the Budget. Indeed, it has been painful to listen to them. I know that if they were free to express their opinions they would condemn the Budget lock, stock and barrel.

Last night, Senator Wade spoke of conditions in the primary industries. He was, on the surface, directing his remarks to this side of the chamber, but he really intended them for the Government’s ears. Being a Government supporter, he did not, perhaps, consider it wise to name the Government straight out. Senator Kendall has just pointed to the Government’s deficiencies, and to what might be done to improve this great Commonwealth. Those of us who have read the financial press in recent days know that the financial writers are not satisfied with the Budget either. There has been some fall in the national income as the result of lower prices received from our primary products, but every one feels that

Australia can overcome such difficulties and continue to progress. Surely the Government, after so many years of prosperity, and in view of the great potential of the Commonwealth, could have done something to relieve the plight of the more unfortunate people in our midst.

The Opposition is criticizing the Budget because it fails to deal with the problems of everyday life. A great section of the community cannot cope with the ruinous inflation which has developed. In the circumstances, the Government was expected to be more liberal in ameliorating the lot of less fortunate members of the community. Government supporters have told us that Australians are becoming an elderly race; that the increased expenditure upon pensions and social services is attributable to the longevity of our people. People are becoming poorer and poorer, and are demanding more and more social services, notwithstanding the years of prosperity and the development which awaits this country. That is an awful commentary on the state of the nation. One might well have expected that more and more people would become independent and that there would be fewer and fewer demands for social services, but that has not happened. A government which had the welfare of Australians at heart would see to it that present conditions did not continue.

The Government took great credit for having increased the expenditure on social services, but it would have earned greater credit if the mass of the people had become a little richer or more independent. This Government, and the Parliament, has taken no action to ensure that. We are a responsible body of men and women, yet we allow the present unsatisfactory state of affairs to continue. The Government, having failed to decrease the number of persons seeking social service benefits, has been obliged to make greater apparent provision for them. Consequently, it proposes to pay 10s. a week towards the rent of a certain class of pensioner.

At this stage, I want to direct attention to what is happening to our Budget procedure. Weeks before the Budget was brought down, there were advertisements in the press to the effect that the Government proposed to help pensioners who were paying rent. That was an unprecedented action, Treasurers and chancellors of the exchequer in the. United Kingdom and elsewhere have been forced to vacate their positions when there- have been Budget leakages of the kind now occurring in Australia. Owners: of cottages rented by pensioners were given early notice- of what was to happen, and had an opportunity to increase rents. As a result, the proposed 10s. grant will really only amount to paying a subsidy to the landlords. It will certainly be of no benefit to those who receive it. This is the first time in the history of pension increases that an increase for a special purpose has been made. It would, have been much better if there had been a general pension increase. The proposed rent subsidy will simply go to the pockets of the landlords. Senator Kendall, made reference to an alteration or increases of hospital benefits. In view of hospital charges at present, I am sure that the alteration will not relieve the position to the extent that Government supporters claim. It is nothing less than a tragedy for most people to fall ill to-day and to have to seek hospitalization. In this country only two sections of the community can meet the position arising from ill health. One includes those in receipt of social service benefits now and who were also receiving social service benefits before a certain date. We have class distinction creeping into our social services system. If a person was in receipt of. a pension before a certain date, he can obtain free medical attention or free hospitalization, or at least the cost of the attention is met for him to a large extent, but persons who become eligible for social service benefits now have to pass a means test before they can be assisted in that way. This Government delights in the means test and in imposing restrictions. However, be that as it may. Some of those receiving social services get some benefit. The other section of the community consists of the very wealthy, who are able to meet hospital bills, doctors’ bills and so on. Most of the people stand between the two sections I have mentioned. There is no assistance for them whatever. They have to meet the full blast of an illness and are put to great expense. They are brought almost to ruination if they fall sick. One would have thought that the Government would have grappled with a problem of this kind and- would have brought down a. measure to. give, assistance to people in all sections of the. community. But nothing has been done.

Complaints have been made about the position- of our- economy. It is- true, as has been stated, that our overseas trade is not what it was some time ago. Because of a fall in prices, the position is not as good as it might be. The Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) is abroad at the moment. What is he doing? We complain about the dumping of goods upon the markets of the world. That is an economic problem that confronts every nation. If you have, a surplus of goods, what should you do with those goods? Should you destroy your surplus foodstuffs, or should you give them to people who are in need of them? Teeming millions of people to-day do not have enough food. Honorable senators opposite talk about the growth of communism in the Middle East and in the Far East. It is only because of the starvation of the people there and the bad economic conditions under which they are living that this ideology is spreading. Let us feed these people. If there is a surplus of food in the world, let us see to it that those who are hungry receive that food. But no; we complain about dumping.

I have noticed that, whilst we complain that we are unable to compete on the markets of the world, a considerable section of the community is making considerable profits. Now is the time for company balance-sheets to be presented. Company after company is presenting reports to its shareholders which disclose that great profits have been made. Surely the Government, in its wisdom, could have tackled this problem. If it desires to see costs reduced, it should tackle the problem of profits. Last night Senator Wade complained about a- fall in the price of wool, but, like most of our friends on the opposite side, the first component of the cost structure that he looked at was wages. He suggested that the shearing rate should be reduced.

Senator Wade:

– I never mentioned shearers.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Of course, you did.

Senator Wade:

– I did not. Show it to me in “ Hansard “. Be factual.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– You put a question to me. You asked me whether I was in favour of a reduction of the shearing rate. Of course, I am not in favour of the shearing rate being reduced. It would be very bad for the economy of this country if it were reduced. After all, the shearer spends in this country all that he receives from the wool industry. The Government might well direct its attention to the shipping companies, which are still looking for enormous profits, despite the fact that the price of wool has fallen on the other side of the world.

There are other factors affecting the cost structure of the wool industry that the Government could examine. I do not know whether it is satisfied with the brokerage fees that are being charged. I should have liked to see the Government take some action against the cartels which are forcing down the prices of Australian primary products, particularly the price of wool. In close proximity to Canberra is the very important New South Wales country town of Goulburn. Buyers have boycotted wool sales at that town. What has happened? No action has been taken by the Government to investigate the position and see what it can do to stop this restraint of trade. Surely there is something that the national Government can do, instead of making the excuse that it has no constitutional power in these matters. Why does not the Government initiate a move to call together those people who could prevent this sort of thing from happening?

Senator Wade said that a twopronged attack had been launched on the Government by the Opposition in regard to the hirepurchase system, although the Opposition knew that the Commonwealth had no power to deal with the matter. Surely to goodness, in view of the exorbitant rates of interest which are being offered to the Australian investing community by hire-purchase companies to-day, the Government should take some steps in the matter.

Senator Wade:

– If it had the constitutional power.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– The Government could get the power if it wanted it. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has said that he will wait until some concrete suggestions have been received before he takes any action. The right honorable gentleman intimated that the present Budget was necessary because in the years that lie ahead - particularly next year - there will become due for redemption many loans that were subscribed to by the people during the war and it is feared that there will not be many conversions. Because the public will not subscribe to the loans at present being floated, the Government is financing its works programme from revenue obtained by direct taxation. Surely, any Prime Minister or Treasurer who was worth his salt, seeing a situation like that which confronts this country, and knowing that loans for public works are not being subscribed to simply because of the inducements offered by the hire-purchase organizations, would do something about the problem and would issue a call to the various State Premiers to grapple with it. When all is said and done, a problem which affects the Commonwealth and the States affects the nation. If the term “ Prime Minister “ means anything, the occupant of that office should be the first to grapple with the problem of hire purchase. We know what the situation is in Victoria and the interest of the Victorian Premier in the hire-purchase system. It would not be in the interests of those people to interfere with the development of this form of finance. It will be interesting to see what kind of legislation is eventually introduced in Victoria to deal with the problem.

In spite of the fact that this Government is facing a situation which, if allowed to develop, may mean that this country would once again experience conditions similar to those of the ‘thirties, it is sitting back in the traces, as it were. It has adopted a spirit of laisser-faire, a take it or leave it attitude. Yet honorable senators opposite suggest what a wonderful Budget this is for a young, developing country! This complacent Government, which feels sure of being returned to office within the next few weeks, may have a very great shock coming to it.

Senator Wade:

– That is wishful thinking.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– It is no wishful thinking on my part. I appreciate the difficulties that confront the Australian Labour party in trying to regain the treasury bench. But I am not deaf. I move amongst the people, and I know that, because of its inaction and its lack of initiative, many of them are clamouring for the destruction of this Government. 1 warn honorable senators opposite not to be too complacent, because Australians are easily aroused. When election day arrives, do not be disappointed1 if you discover that a greater percentage of the population has voted for the Labour party than you expect.

In conclusion, I ask Senator Wade this question: How much longer will the Australian Country party trail at the heels of the Liberal party? How much longer will Country party members try to kid those in the electorate who support them that the party is doing something for them? Let the Liberal party get an absolute majority in the House of Representatives at the next election and see where the Australian Country party would come in.

Senator Wade:

– I thought Labour would win the next election?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I am saying that the Australian Country party supports this Government. The Country party seems to be quite satisfied to trail on behind. But if the Liberal party were given the opportunity, it would treat the Country party as it did when a Liberal Minister for Commerce and Agriculture dropped a bombshell and described the wheat-growers of Australia and the rest of the primary producers as a lot of mendicants who were looking for hand-outs. That was the description applied to members of the Country party, the wheat-growers and others when the Liberal party had a majority. Wake up to yourselves, you Country party fellows and take note of the fact that it has been from the Labour party that every piece of legislation which has meant prosperity for the primary producers of Australia has emanated. I feel quite sure that in the very near future you people will realize where your true friends are - that they are amongst the Labourites.

Senator WARDLAW:
Tasmania

.- I rise to support very strongly the Budget proposals. At this late stage of the debate, everything that it has been possible to say about the Budget has been said by honorable senators on both sides of the chamber. That applies particularly to supporters of the Government, who have spoken approvingly and with conviction about the items contained in the Budget. The Opposition has exercised its right of disapproval.

Honorable senators opposite have not pulled any punches in their criticism of the Budget proposals. But they have not offered any worthwhile criticism, and their remarks have probably been more destructive to their own party than to the Budget. I should say that the objective of the Opposition has been cheap notoriety, with an eye to the forthcoming election.

Before I proceed to deal with the Budget, I should like to pay a very warm tribute to the Treasurer upon having presented his eleventh Budget. I think every reasonable man will admit that it is the soundest - Budget that he has presented during his long term of office. This generous, lovable personality-has excelled himself on this occasion. I think he has given of his very best in compiling this the last Budget for which he will be responsible. During his administration of the Treasury portfolio, he has never shirked a responsibility, however unpleasant or unpopular it may have been. He has given very freely of his very great talent and experience. I am sure he retires from the Parliament with the goodwill and good wishes of honorable senators on both sides of the chamber.

Senator Sheehan alines himself with the prophets of gloom, who are very sad because their prophecies will not come true.

Senator Sheehan:

– What kind of gloom?

Senator WARDLAW:

– The honorable senator heard what I said. Let me quote from the New South Wales Fabian Society’s publication of 1949, entitled “ Towards a Socialist Australia “. It contains this statement -

A depression will probably occur in Australia within five years. Widespread disillusionment will then turn many people to socialism.

Of course, that did not happen. As a matter of fact, Australia progressively became very prosperous, and the figures show that people did not turn to socialism but turned to liberalism and its insistence on the rights and dignity of the individual. Again, the long-haired, dreamy-eyed Fabians were left lamenting. Still more mistakenly and still more stupidly, Opposition senators have made the ludicrous statement that the Government wishes to manufacture unemployment. They have stated that repeatedly. I am prepared to concede that many of those who mouth such rubbish do not really believe it; but they find it useful for party propaganda. The uneducated and unintelligent people who do not think may believe it but, generally speaking, it has not gone down with the thinking people.

I object to Senator O’Byrne’s statement that the Government has given the primary producers a shabby deal. That is not in accord with fact, and I think every one knows it. The policies of this Government, particularly in relation to primary production, have placed the country in the sound economic position that it occupies to-day. I think that we all have benefited from those policies.

Senator O’Byrne also claimed that the Budget made no appeal to the people, and he contended that the Government should be censured for bringing down such a negative document. He blamed this Government for all the ills and troubles of the States, including those relating to the coal mines, unemployment, and so on. If the Australian Labour party should, by any remote chance, regain office, no doubt it will do as the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) said that it would do, when he made a statement on this subject only a few days ago in Sydney. He forecast that if Labour got back into office, the first thing it would do would be to nationalize the farms, the banks and businesses.

Senator Brown:

– He said nothing of the kind.

Senator WARDLAW:

– Yes, he did. His statement was reported in the press, and many people heard him make it. Since then, the honorable member has tried to explain it away. Evidently, he has been hauled over the coals, but the fact is that he did make such a statement, and he will have to put up with the consequences. It is true that he said that, in the process of nationalization, he would leave out of consideration such things as motor cars and houses.

Senator Aylett:

– The honorable senator apparently believes that if you make a statement often enough, eventually you come to believe the truth of it.

Senator WARDLAW:

– There is no doubt that the honorable member for East Sydney made the statement that I have mentioned. I believe that Labour intends, at the first opportunity, to put such a policy into operation. But, of course, I do not think there is any possibility of Labour regaining office and having the chance to do so.

I think that it will be agreed, Mr. Acting Deputy President, that the presentation of the Budget is the most important political happening of the year. It is a document that reflects the financial position of the country. It lets us know where we stand in relation to the economic position at the time that it is presented, and it makes a very sound and careful forecast of the future prospects of the country. Much of the criticism that is offered of the Budget and of the Government is made without full knowledge of the facts, or complete understanding of the economic position. Who could have a better understanding or grip of the financial position of Australia than the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden), the man who has all the facts that are relevant to the economy? It is impossible to arrive at a worthwhile decision about this Budget unless you understand its contents thoroughly, or read it correctly. The man who has been responsible for implementing the financial policy of the Government during the last decade, a policy that has brought about such splendid results for Australia and has been so magnificently successful, surely is in a very much better position to forecast events that are likely to occur during the next year, or even further ahead, than any one else. In addition, the Treasurer has the advantage of the advice of a galaxy of federal experts whose job it is to know the financial position and the economic needs of the country from A to Z.

Perhaps the best indication of the soundness of the Budget can be gauged from the reaction of the stock and share market. That reaction to the present Budget has been most favorable. There have been steady rises and a distinct strengthening in market quotations as a result of the Budget. In this connexion, I wish to quote some comments of Sir Douglas Copland, the noted economist. He said recently -

Discerning people might well take the view that the Budget will go down in history as the most constructive of Sir Arthur Fadden’s budgets, at long last giving substance and positive expression to the fiscal policy pursued in Australia in its recent phase of great expansion. For the person who places economic expansion, population growth, and rising standards of health and education as the key to progress, the Budget will be regarded as a landmark in the development of a fiscal policy that is, itself, essential to continued economic development.

Many more generous remarks were made by Sir Douglas in the course of his favorable comments on the Budget. For instance, he also said -

We parade the fact that we have a “ deficit “ of £110,000,000 whereas there was actually a surplus exceeding £150,000,000 on current account, which is a remarkable achievement when one considers the loss of income through falling export prices.

In an article in yesterday’s “ Sydney Morning Herald “, dealing with the confidence of investors in the share market, the following statements appeared: -

The strength of the ordinary share market on Australian stock exchanges during the last few months had been possibly greater than at any previous time, said Mr. Staniforth Ricketson, in Melbourne yesterday. Mr. Ricketson, as chairman, was addressing the annual meeting of Australian Foundation Investment Co. Ltd. Investors had shown confidence when pessimistic forecasts were being published, he said. Many company reports were showing materially increased profits. Since June 30, of 310 public companies-

I ask honorable senators to take particular notice of these figures - which had declared ordinary dividends, 213, or 68.7 per cent., were unchanged, 76, or -24.5 per cent., were increased, while only 21, or 6.8 per cent, were lower distributions.

I think that that is both a remarkable tribute to the Budget and a reflection of the soundness of its proposals.

Also in yesterday’s “Sydney Morning Herald”, reference is made to comments of Dr. Coombs in presenting the annual report of the Commonwealth Bank. The newspaper reports that Dr. Coombs stated -

The economy is not quite as vulnerable as formerly to fluctuations produced by changing conditions overseas.

That means that there is greater strength in the financial position of Australia -

For a permanent solution we must look to a larger flow of savings and increased productivity reflected in decreasing costs.

I think that that is quite apparent. The article continued -

The Trading Banks, in allocating advances, have as well been asked to give particular attention to housing and rural industries. Recent experience indicates that a large part of Australia’s personal savings comes from the rural community, the report states.

I think that that is a very good resume of the present economic condition of Australia, and I think that we may take comfort from those remarks made by Dr. Coombs.

In the last decade, during which the Menzies-Fadden Government has been in office, many difficult problems have been encountered and successfully overcome. They have included inflationary pressures, overseas deficits, economic and financial difficulties, problems connected with defence, and countless other matters, both internal and external, all of which have been faced squarely and surmounted with creditable success. No one claims that the Budget is spectacular. I have never done so, nor has any honorable senator on this side of the chamber. Its chief recommendation is that it is plain, honest and cautious. While being eminently suited to the times in which we live, it takes into consideration the position in which Australia finds itself in a troubled world. It incorporates important safeguards that guarantee further stability, progress and development Although it offers no substantial reductions in taxation, last year’s remissions carried forward to this year will give taxation relief of no less than £57,000,000. I think that that is a considerable degree of relief from taxation. These measures were continued in the last Budget, and will not operate fully until this year. Social services have also been expanded and improved. Employment, too, has remained reasonably high in the circumstances, however much the Opposition may criticize. I think that the Opposition can take comfort from the statements made by various members of the Government that the rate of unemployment is lower in this country than in any other country.

Unparalleled expansion and development have taken place in Australia during the Government’s term of office. Despite the Opposition’s statements to the contrary, the rate of provision of housing is high and is continuing to rise. Our credit overseas has never been higher in any period of our history. Although our overseas balances were a little lower over a period, they have improved over the last month. I would1 say that they are reasonably high and at a safe level. Immigration has been maintained, and our export trade is being expanded and encouraged in every possible way.

The decision to continue the 20 per cent, depreciation allowance enjoyed by primary producers in respect of the purchase of farm implements, the provision of housing for employees, improvements, fencing and so on, for a further three years until June, 1962, will be very greatly appreciated by the farming community. The depreciation provision has already been of great assistance to the farmers in a rather difficult period.

The fall in farm income of approximately £160,000,000 is a quite serious blow to the economy and will, of course, mean great hardship in many ways to the farming community. However, despite the setback to the rural industries, the economy as a whole continues to develop and advance strongly. The basis of the success of the Government since it took office has been its policy designed to assist the primary producer and to develop primary production. The prospects at the moment for wool, butter and metals on the overseas markets are not promising, and it may be some little time before a worthwhile improvement in overseas prices is brought about. This, coupled with the recent drought conditions experienced in practically all States in the last twelve months, gives the Government cause for much worry and has contributed1 to the difficulties of rural producers. There are, in addition, related difficulties overseas, factors which have affected, for instance, our wool exports. I refer to the deflationary monetary policies of the United Kingdom, and measures taken by other important customer countries to discourage expenditure on imports. I refer also to the weakening of economic activity in the United States of America.

The recent drought has caused many difficulties, and has reduced the wool clip. In some areas it has meant a lower lamb survival. It has also caused heavy cattle losses and a reduction in the marketing of fat stock. It has led to an increase in the expenditure incurred by many producers in hand-feeding and carting water for stock, and in re-sowing pastures when the drought broke. Cash reserves and working balances of producers have also been seriously depleted because of these factors. In addition, pests have been more active, and rabbits have appeared in large numbers in areas not usually infested by them.

My contention is that there must be an end to the continual and unwarranted claims by. trade unions for increased wages and margins.

Senator Toohey:

– Did you say “ unwarranted claims “?

Senator WARDLAW:

– Unwarranted, 1 said. A log of claims recently served on the Commonwealth by the Commonwealth Public Service Association is completely unjustified in view of the present economic position. There are many other organizations also preparing to make onslaughts on the economy with extravagant claims for increases in wages and salaries, and improvements in conditions, which this country is not in a position to grant, as I think members of the Opposition are well aware.

Professor Lewis, Professor of Agricultural Economics at the University of New England, giving evidence to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in respect of the recent claim lodged by trade unions, including the Australian Workers Union, for an increase in the federal basic wage, said -

A rise in costs of rural industries at the present time could have serious consequences for these industries and the rest of the economy.

Despite this grave warning, in March last the court awarded an increase in the basic wage. From the point of view of the rural industries, the position has deteriorated greatly since then; so much so, that continued investment in rural industries is seriously threatened. The competitive conditions being experienced in overseas trade - which is likely to continue for some time - and further rises in costs, will mean more setbacks to the rural industries with a corresponding effect on Australia’s economy.

I commend the Government for what it has done for Tasmania, particularly in regard to the apple and pear industry, which produced in 1958 a record crop of apples that was sold on the Continent at favorable prices. We must secure new markets, particularly in Europe, to supplement our traditional markets in the United Kingdom. The Government, through the Australian Apple and Pear Board, is to be commended for its work “ on publicity, research and trade promotion, and for the increased shipping space that was made available at short notice, thereby averting a surplus of apples in Australia. The fruit interests were satisfied with the allocation of space for 500,000 additional cases of apples.

Honorable senators have referred recently to the difficulties facing the Tasmanian timber industry, brought about principally by the increased importation of timber from Malaya and Borneo. The Tasmanian timber interests made strong representations to the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) seeking further tariff protection which, for various reasons, was not granted. However, the Minister promised that the Government would consider allowing freight concessions to assist the industry. Although that undertaking was given in May last, nothing concrete has yet been done to alleviate the position. I remind the Minister that the situation is urgent and is growing progressively worse. It warrants consideration at the earliest opportunity. The maintenance of the timber industry at a high level of production is of vital importance to Tasmania, and its continuance is important for many reasons. The timber must be cut at the proper time to offset loss by fire, rot, insects, wind-throw and other causes. A fall in production affects railways and port facilities, as well as the programme of re-planting.

The Australian timber interests contend that the industry must be fully protected against imported timbers to allow it to function at its peak. The industry in Australia, with an annual production valued at about £100,000,000, affords employment to about 34,000 people. For that reason alone the industry should be protected to the fullest extent. The production of sawn timber also is important from the point of view of its value in the continuing welfare, settlement and development of large areas of Australia. Local production supplies about 80 per cent, of Australia’s demand, which is in the vicinity of 1,700,000,000 super, feet. Of that figure, timber imported from Malaya, Borneo and America amounts to about 300,000,000 or 400,000,000 super, feet. The importation of timber from Malaya and Borneo, particularly over the last twelve months, is causing very grave concern to the trade. Overseas freight rates have fallen considerably, the rate from ports on the west coast of America to south-eastern Australian ports having dropped from 30 dollars per ton to 10 dollars per ton, representing a fall of 37s. per 100 super, feet. That fall of 20 dollars per ton is more than six times the present duty on Canadian Oregon, which is 6s. per 100 super, feet.

The Tariff Board admits the difficulties confronting the timber industry in Tasmania and Western Australia, but states that the problem is not directly related to that industry so much as to the shipping industry. The board’s report, however, acknowledges the difficulties of the industry in Tasmania owing to its distance from key markets and consequent high sea freights. For those reasons, a freight subsidy, or a reduction of freights, would improve the competitive position of the industry in Tasmania. Western Australia and Tasmania must receive some import protection against timber imported from Malaya and Borneo, which is produced at a much cheaper cost due to the lower wage rates operating in those countries.

A good deal has been said in the chamber recently about hire purchase, the Opposition suggesting that control of hire purchase rests with the Commonwealth Government. Some time ago, Senator Toohey declared that hire purchase had reached the stage of a national scandal, and that the Government should take some action to limit interest rates charged by hire-purchase companies. He also suggested that the trade unions should set up their own hire-purchase companies and cut the existing interest rates by half. To support his argument he quoted passages from various publications which, in my opinion, did not prove his statements. Senator McManus also made some very caustic remarks in this chamber on 13th March. I shall quote his statements for the benefit of honorable senators -

Why is it that the banking institutions of this country which are designed for a certain purpose, are, to a degree, deserting their functions to-day and engaging in hire purchase? It is because of the large profits to be made. As the result of their going into hire purchase, money is not available for housing and development, which should be the normal purposes for which banks should lend money . . . The situation, therefore, is that the banks are going into hire purchase because, obviously, it is more profitable to lend money at the hire-purchase rate of 16 per cent., 18 per cent, or 20 per cent., than to lend it at the bank rate.

The honorable senator quoted many instances of the difficulties confronting home purchasers in buying television sets on hire purchase due to the high rates of interest. He mentioned specifically the case of a person paying £3 8s. a week out of a wage of £16 or £17 a week. According to his statement, the money that would otherwise be spent in providing food, clothing and essentials for the home is now being used to pay for a television set over a period of years. However, my experience is that the families that buy television sets on time payment often have three or four breadwinners, the total wages coming into the house being in the vicinity of £70, £80 and even £100 a week. I know one family that receives £80 a week in wages, but that family never seems able to save much.

Honorable senators opposite stress continually the high rate of interest, but I point out to them that the very nature of the transaction demands interest at a rate higher than normal. Before investing money in a hire-purchase company one should make a very careful survey of the soundness of the company, the security offered for the investment, the expected life of the proposition, which includes the element of risk, the term of the investment and its realizability. The last and probably least important consideration is the rate of interest. Hire purchase has been referred to as the poor man’s overdraft which allows him to obtain credit without security, often at grave risk to the lender. Hire purchase affords the average man the opportunity of obtaining necessary goods for his home. The factors I have mentioned refute the statements made by honorable senators opposite regarding the hire-purchase business. They are very much uninformed and misinformed on many matters relating to it. As my time is up, I shall have to continue my remarks on hire purchase at a later date, but let me emphasize in conclusion my pleasure in wholeheartedly supporting the Budget.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Kennelly’s amendment) be added.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon Sir Alister McMullin.)

AYES: 30

NOES: 29

Majority . . .1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

– Pursuant to Standing Order 336, which reads -

It shall be in order at any time to move without notice, that any resolution of the Senate be communicated by message to the House of Representatives.

I move -

That the resolution which has just been passed by the Senate be communicated forthwith, by message, to the House of Representatives.

I do not think it is necessary to read the terms of the resolution at this point, and in proposing my motion I make only one or two short observations. First, I suppose a resolution of this kind from this chamber is of some importance, and some significance, because it represents a point of view different from that which has been expressed in another place. I do not feel that the point of view expressed here should remain within the four walls of this chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! It is not in order for the honorable senator to make that motion at this juncture.

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

– Would you be good enough to indicate why the motion is not in order? The Standing Order appears to be explicit.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! At a later stage, it will be in order. I think the reason why it is not in order at this stage is obvious. The amendment must first be incorporated in the original motion.

Question put -

That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin.)

AYES: 30

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

.- Mr. President, a few moments ago, whenI indicated that I wished to propose a certain motion, I anticipated the procedure of the Senate, and you directed my attention to the fact that until the amendment had been incorporated in the substantive motion what I proposed to do would not be in order. I assume that the resolution now reads -

That the following papers be printed: -

Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure, and Estimates of Expenditure for Additions, New Works and other Services involving Capital Expenditure, for the year ending 30th June, 1959;

The Budget 1958-59 - Papers presented by the Right Hon. Sir Arthur Fadden in connexion with the Budget of 1958-59; and

National Income and Expenditure 1957-58; but that the Senate ‘is of opinion that their provisions inflict grave injustices on the States and on many sections of the Australian people - especially the family unit, and that they make no contribution to correcting seriously adverse trends in the Australian economy.

I now move -

That the resolution of the Senate be communicated forthwith, by message, to the House of Representatives.

Does my motion require a seconder?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes.

Senator McManus:

– I second the motion.

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

– I do not propose to speak on this motion at great length. The Senate, by carrying the substantive resolution, has expressed a point of view different from that which has been expressed in another place. That is, of course, the prerogative of this chamber, but I do not feel that a resolution in those terms, and of such importance, should merely remain within the four walls of the Senate. I think that it is our responsibility as a representative, deliberative body, having particular functions and responsibilities, to communicate our decision to the other House. Moreover, the Standing Orders specifically provide a means by which any resolution of the Senate may be so communicated.

Senator Spooner:

– What would be your vote on the Budget itself?

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

– If the Minister for National Development prefers to put the matter to a real test our position will doubtless be disclosed. After all, the resolution can have no effect on the passage of the Appropriation Billitself. It does not invalidate the bill, or in any way impede the formal procedures by which its provisions are put in operation. It is merely an expression of opinion by the Senate as opposed to the decision reached by the House of Representatives. When the Estimates and Budget Papers were before that House they were presented according to the traditional forms. The Appropriation Bills were then presented and debate upon them ensued. Indeed, we know that the relevant bills have now been passed by that House. Therefore, we can quite properly conclude that this chamber has expressed a point of view different from that expressed by the House of Representatives.

Senator Spooner:

– The only way in which the Opposition can express its point of view is by voting against the legislation, if it has the courage to do so.

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

– If the Minister is correct, the Government has-been wasting the time of this chamber for some weeks in even presenting the matter for discussion, and all we have said concerning it is to be accepted as having no effect upon either the Government or the Parliament. I have regarded this debate in a very different light. In other years a motion has come before us, and every opportunity has been provided for debate. On this occasion, of course, matters have taken a different turn. The Senate has carried a resolution, and its point of view should at least be indicated to the other place - if only to let that House see that on these major matters we disagree.

I feel even more convinced .of that when I consider the special reference in the amended resolution to the infliction of “ grave injustices on the States “. This is an occasion when, perhaps, the Senate has reverted to its original, heavily accented, role of protecting the States. It has produced a resolution which implicitly expresses the views of the States, and that is an a fortiori - an additional - reason why it should communicate its view to the House of Representatives. After all, that is the House of finance. It is the House in which the Budget, in its correct form, was first presented. It came in on message and was debated in committee of supply and so on, and I think that the Senate’s opinion should certainly be passed back to the House which, in the final result, has the control of finance.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
General · QueenslandVicePresident of the Executive Council and Attorney · LP

– I oppose the motion, but before stating my reasons, I should like to indicate the unhappiness which we on this side felt at seeing Senator Grant being brought into this chamber in such an obviously sick and distressed condition. We hope that no serious disadvantage will befall Senator Grant, but if it does the responsibility will be entirely on the shoulders of the callous party that forced his presence here to-day. We on this side of the chamber have a sick senator, too, but we did not imperil his life or his health by insisting on his coming here. We indicated to the Opposition that we had a sick senator, whom we were not asking to come here because it might endanger his health. However, even in the light of that knowledge, the Opposition insisted on Senator Grant coming here.

That is by the way. I oppose this motion because I think the Senate should take care that it does not make a burlesque of itself. After all, the Senate is a house of review. It claims the right to review legislation passed to it from time to time by the House of Representatives. The debate on the motion that the Budget Papers be printed is merely a- device, if you care to call it such, introduced many years ago so that the Senate, instead of having to wait for the House of Representatives to finish its debate on the Budget and complete its consideration of the Estimates - which as a rule takes from three weeks to a month - could engage itself in debating the Budget - a debate which is wide open and unrestricted as to subject-matter,, length, width and depth. It has been the custom for many years, in debates on a motion thai the Budget Papers be printed, to discuss the general state of the country’s economy and to raise any matter which an honorable senator sees fit to raise.

The amendment moved by Senator Kennelly, furthered by this request of Senator Byrne’s, is making a complete farce of our proceedings. At the time the amendment was moved, we had nothing before us from the House of Representatives. At that time how were we to know that those Estimates, which the Opposition asks to be sent back for further examination by the House of Representatives, would be passed by that House? There was no guarantee that they would be passed by the House of Representatives. Here are we, claiming to be a house of review, claiming to be treated with respect as a responsible body sitting in careful examination of what is passed by the other House. Yet, before resolutions have been passed by, or even discussed in, the other House we sit in review of them, and suggest that honorable members in another place should change their minds, although, at that stage, they have “not even made up their minds.

If there is anything more calculated to bring the Senate into ridicule and contempt, 1 cannot imagine what it is.

Honorable senators opposite may want to see the Senate abolished - their policy is the abolition of the Senate - but I would sooner see it abolished in a decent way than see it destroyed by ridicule. Let us not annoy the people outside to such an extent that they will walk in here in force and empty us out of- the place. For the Senate, as a house of review, to anticipate a decision by another place and to suggest that the Budget be amended there before a decision is made, is the height of nonsense. 1 trust that the Senate will have a real regard for its prestige and its position as a house of review.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I address myself very briefly to this motion and indicate that the Opposition supports it.

Senator Scott:

– A unity ticket!

Senator McKENNA:

– May unity tickets of this kind persist. It is a very good sign for coming events to have unity tickets of this kind. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator O’sullivan) said that it would be stupid for the Senate to express an opinion upon the Budget and then transmit that opinion to the House of Representatives. In the first place, he was disorderly in reflecting upon a decision made by the Senate and in describing the debate on the Budget Papers as stupid. Even if he were correct in that respect, the stupidity lies at the Minister’s door and at the door of the Government, because the debate took place on a motion proposed by the Government. It was a Government motion which the Senate has been debating in recent weeks. If there was any stupidity about it, the stupidity was that of the Government. We have been debating a Government motion. We in this chamber all know why that debate was brought on.

Senator Henty:

– You challenged that procedure two years ago.

Senator McKENNA:

– I have kept on challenging it on various grounds. If there is any stupidity, then that stupidity lies at the door of the Government, not at the door of the Opposition. The Senate has addressed its mind, and its words, to that motion during the past few weeks.

The only other matter upon which I wish to comment is the reference made by the Leader of the Government to Senator Grant. The Minister’s expression of deep concern about imperilling the health of Senator Grant is a piece of the most arrant hypocrisy. We” of the Opposition took every precaution to ensure that Senator Grant’s health would not be endangered at any stage. The Minister referred to the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), who is away ill. We deplore the fact that he is ill, although we do not deplore the fact that he is away. I shall indicate to the members of the Government why no pairs are available. Some time ago, Senator Devlin was lying utterly immobilized or paralysed; he was seriously ill and later succumbed to his illness. In those circumstances, a pair was refused by the Government to Senator Devlin. The Opposition then decided that there would be no pairs in future. ‘We did not complain when Senator Arnold was ill and had to be brought here. We brought him here.

Senator Henty:

– You did not say that last time; you said that we brought him here.

Senator McKENNA:

– We brought him here; we were obliged to bring him here. When the circumstances were explained to the Government and a pair was sought, the request was refused. What hide - I use the word advisedly - the Government had in approaching the Opposition to-day to ask for a pair for Senator Cooper!

Senator O’sullivan:

– That is definitely not true. Nobody asked you for a pair.

Senator McKENNA:

– That request was conveyed to me through the Whip of my party.

Senator O’sullivan:

– It is not true.

Senator McKENNA:

– I do not know where the request came from. That is the source of my information. It must have emanated from a Government source. That request was conveyed to me by the Whip, and I inform the Senate of that fact.

Senator O’sullivan:

– You are completely wrong.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is the basis of the statement that I make. I do not wish to address myself further to the matter.

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

.- It seems to me, after listening to Senator O’Sullivan, that the burden of what he had to say was that it was callous and stupid to bring Senator Grant here for a vote which could only be ineffectual and have no decisive effect. The action of the Opposition can be regarded, therefore, only as a piece of political grandstanding. If that is the fact, as it is, I agree with my leader that the Opposition’s action was stupid.

Question put -

That the resolution of the Senate be communicated by message to the House of Representatives.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin.)

AYES: 30

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 6.8 to 8 p.m.

page 391

APPROPRIATION BILL 1958-59

First Reading

Debate resumed from 16th September (vide page 324), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Senate now has under consideration the Budget proper. We are proceeding to a debate on the motion for the first reading of the Appropriation Bill, which allows matters both relevant and non-relevant to the Budget to be discussed. At this stage, I propose to confine my remarks primarily to the Budget itself. Senator Spooner, the Minister representing the Treasurer, some time ago criticized the Opposition for its approach to this Budget. He indicated that in his view the key to the Budget proposals lay in the fact that central bank credit was to be used by the Government to the tune of £110,000,000 in the current year. I very strongly hold the view that that approach is entirely too narrow. I shall refer to central bank credit later, but at this stage I merely wish to comment that central bank credit has been used down the whole nine years of this Government’s term of office. There was, in fact, one period when it used, by means of the Budget, the sum of £45,000,000. I shall come to that again. Therefore, there is no novelty about this method of finance, so far as the Government is concerned.

I think that the proper approach to the Budget is, first, to examine the document itself; secondly, to review it in the light of the past nine years of this Government’s term; and thirdly, to use it as a starting point for a vision of the future. So looked at, I say that this Budget is the inevitable end of nine years of gross mismanagement of the affairs of the country by the Menzies Government. Looked at in that way, one can see it as spoiling the future by the importation of wrong policies into the affairs of the country. One sees it also as part of the pattern to deceive, adopted by this Government, to which I have adverted from time to time in the Senate. It is a shining example of the exhaustion, the indifference and, I might add, the arrogance of the Government.

Mr. Deputy President, I propose to deal with two themes at the outset - first, the tremendous and intolerable burden that this Government is asking the taxpayers of Australia to bear, and secondly, the unjust treatment of the States at the hands of this Government. In support of my argument,

I have had circulated to the Senate two pages of figures to which I shall advert in the course of my remarks. With the con- currence of the Senate, I shall have them incorporated in “ Hansard “. They are as follows: -

Commonwealth Interest increased by £2m. per annum.

States Interest increased by £56m. per annum (Budget pages 105’ and 108).

Special Commonwealth Assistance Grants do not nearly bridge, the gap. Grants averaged £2 1.9m. over 10 years. (Page 17 of Treasurer's Speech Statements.) The approach that I make to the Budget arises from the theme that I have developed in this chamber on many occasions - that is, the financing of all the capital works of the Commonwealth, and much of the capital expenditures of the States, out of taxation revenue year by year. {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator Kendall: -- There will be more of that. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- I have no doubt that, under this Government, there will be. I think the clearest way to show the defects of this Budget is to divide it into two pieces. First, by eliminating all capital items that, at the present time, appear in the Budget, and to reduce it to those items of actual recurring expenditure that we have come to know as part of the ordinary annual services of the Commonwealth; and secondly, by constituting a capital account, showing capital receipts and disbursements. In that way, we come to the real trouble with this Government's administration, and we find it pinpointed in the way in which the capital works are financed. I refer to the first statement that I have circulated, which shows that if one eliminates from the Budget the £78,000,000 of central bank credit - which is a capital item, of course - the other item of capital expenditure of £128,500,000 appropriated for Commonwealth capital works, three small amounts under the heading " Payments to or for the States " - which are capital items - and the reputed surplus shown in the Budget, we reach the position that there is a true surplus of revenue of £156,000,000. If there were no capital works to be met, and if the loan market had not failed so dismally, the taxpayers this year would have overpaid £156,000,000. That money would have been available for improved social services, taxation reductions, and matters of that nature. I have circulated this statement so that honorable senators may see how I have arrived at the true surplus of revenue to be collected this year. Then I pass to the consolidated capital account. Before dealing with it, I should say in my own favour that I have taken none of the capital works that are included under the defence heading. I could take another £36,000,000 from that heading, from a strictly accounting viewpoint, which would increase the Budget surplus this year to £192,000,000. I have not done so because I recognize that defence capital expenditure could be outmoded and the equipment destroyed almost in a moment. I am conceding that point in the argument that I am developing. I point out that if I wished to drain the last item of capital out of the Budget, I would be entitled to take some £15,000,000 from the defence vote, representing land and buildings. So that when I declare the true surplus of revenue to be £156,000,000, I am completely disregarding the £36,000,000 in respect of defence capital expenditure. Therefore, I put the position very modestly. Coming to the consolidated capital account, the first items that have to be met are Commonwealth capital works and services, totalling £128,500,000. Next, there are the works and housing programmes of the various States, amounting to £210,000,000. Then there are three small capital items, to which I referred a moment ago, amounting to £3,500,000. Then there is war service land settlement for the States, amounting to £7,000,000, and finally, there are loan redemptions to be met this year, totalling £80,000,000. All these items are plainly ones that have to be faced by the Commonwealth in this year. They are lumped together and hidden away in the multitude of Budget papers that we have before us. It is almost impossible for the ordinary Australian to find his way through these Budget papers. Those amounts are all dealt with in separate statements. I con ceive it to be very important to get them into one statement so that we can see what is happening. Those items, which have to be expended this year, if Australia is to continue to develop and provide proper services, and if we are to meet our commitments, total £429,000,000. Now I come to the interesting part: How is that expenditure to be met? First of all, the surplus taken from the taxpayers this year of £156,000,000 is called to the aid of those capital works. The loan market could raise only £115,000,000 towards that £429,000,000. The National Debt Sinking Fund is called upon for £45,000,000, trust funds to the tune of £3,000,000 and - this is the Treasurer's masterpiece - there is the importation of £110,000,000 of central bank credit. Could anything pinpoint the real trouble in Australia to-day better than that one statement? It shows plainly that it is the failure of the loan market that has compelled this Government to impose that otherwise unnecessary burden of £156,000,000 on the taxpayers. It is a shocking commentary on the management of Australia by this Government that the loan market should be in such a wretched position. Of course, the fact, as I think every honorable senator knows, is that under the Financial Agreement the normal method is to finance both Commonwealth and State capital works out of loan moneys raised on the loan market. If that were done the cost of repayment by the taxpayer would be spread over 53 years, and the amount paid each year off each £100 of capital would be only 10s. The interest, too, of course, has to be paid. Therefore, if this expenditure of £429,000,000 on capital works had been financed out of . loans instead of out of tax revenues at a cost to the taxpayers this year of £156,000,000, the taxpayers would be paying only 10s. on each £100 of that £156,000,000 this year. By abandoning the policy of financing capital works from loan funds, this Government places a terrific burden on the taxpayers. The other thing is that this has gone on year after year under this Government. If honorable senators will refer to Statement No. 5 which I have projected, they will find that out of tax revenues raised from the taxpayers of to-day the sum of £938,800,000 has been used for Commonwealth capital works alone. And for what type of project? This year £35,000,000 will *bi* expended on war service homes, an item the expenditure on which is immediately reproductive. Those homes will last decades and generations. A sum of £56,000,000 is to be expended on new post offices and postal facilities which will last perhaps for hundreds of years. There is provision for an expenditure of £19,500,000 on the Snowy Mountains scheme. The total amount spent out of taxpayers' money on that scheme in recent years is more than £100,000,000. Again, in this very year, the taxpayers are building, not merely for themselves but for future generations, £8,500,000 worth of aerodromes, and providing capital for Qantas and TransAustralia Airlines - again, capital expenditure of long-term benefit to future generations. The taxpayers this year are also to finance the expenditure of £11,000,000 for buildings in the Australian Capital Territory, and of £2,000,000 on the standardization of rail gauges. Reference to the details of the capital works programmes of the States shows that these include schools and buildings, power and water conservation schemes, and other works that are to endure for generations. If the money for all this were raised on the loan market instead of being taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers this year the cost would be spread over some 53 years. Of course, that is not the whole of the burden that falls on the taxpayer, because the Commonwealth has to provide, out of revenue, further moneys in support of the works programmes of the States. Up to last year Commonwealth taxpayers had found £566,000,000 for this purpose, according to a statement attached to the Treasurer's speech. The Government indicates in the Budget that this year it proposes to hand over another £102,000,000 of tax revenue in order to support the State works programmes. Let us look at the plight of the taxpayer in this situation. Down the nine years that this Government has been in office, £938,000,000 of tax revenue has gone into the long-term Commonwealth works projects. From the same source £668,000,000 has gone to support State capital works. These two amounts together make £1,606,000,000 that the taxpayers have found in nine years under this Government to finance capital works. I can add to that the amount of £136,000,000 taken last year out of revenue to redeem loans. So that the grand total of capital expenditure, ignoring altogether defence expenditure, is £1,742,000,000 in the nine years, which works out at an average of £193,000,000 per annum. Now let us look at the plight of the taxpayer in another way. The taxpayers of to-day are helping to pay for the burdens of the past. They are still paying their share for World War I. That burden did not fall on the taxpayers of that period. We make a substantial contribution to capital and interest payments on loans then incurred. The taxpayer of to-day is paying sinking fund and interest in Australia on the Commonwealth and State debts amounting to £4,000,000,000. In other words, we are bearing our share of the enormous works and services that were provided down many past decades. We come to the present. We are paying for capital works £193,000,000 a year. We are not asking those who come after us, who will derive enormous benefit from those works, to contribute to the cost of them. I have only to state that position to show how this Government has focussed on the taxpayers of to-day a burden that is not only intolerable but also completely unjust. Let me come now to the position of the States. Let us see how this Government has treated the States. It has made a great virtue - it has boasted to the people about it - of not touching loan moneys. It says, " We let the States have those. We do not touch a penny out of the loan market for our works. We finance our works out of revenue." The Government has indicated further that it will help the States even more from revenue. Now let us look at what happens under that policy. The Government does not tell the people that when it takes from them proceeds of taxation which it uses to support the works programmes of the States, it puts these moneys into trust accounts and then through those accounts contributes to a special loan which it creates, and then lends the money to the States at 5 per cent, interest. That is money that the Government has taken from the taxpayers each year utterly interest free, money belonging to the people of this country, which it then lends to the State governments at 5 per cent, interest. {: .speaker-KNR} ##### Senator Hannaford: -- What is wrong with that? {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- I am coming to what is wrong with it. Let us look at what the great and all-powerful Commonwealth Government - the great benefactor, as the Government would have us believe - is doing. Let us look at the burden that this Government's policy is placing on the taxpayer in the way I have indicated. With such a policy, is it surprising that in the Government's nine years of office the national debt of the Commonwealth has gone down by £83,000,000? I have supplied these figures to the Senate in the statement that I have circulated. But take the position of the States in comparison with the position of the Commonwealth. In 1949, the public debt of the States was £1,008,000,000. That public debt has more than doubled in the same time as the Commonwealth's national debt has gone down by £83,000,000. The public debt of the States has risen from £1,008,000,000 in 1949, to £2,247,000,000 as at 30th June, 1958. What does that mean to the State governments? On that vast increase of loan moneys, whether the debt arises from the borrowing of Commonwealth revenues or from money legitimately raised on the loan market, steps immediately have to be taken to make sinking fund payments and to provide for the payment of interest. Now we shall see how this affects the States. Let us look at the interest burden involved. The Commonwealth's annual interest bill in 1949 was £51,000,000. To-day, it is £53,000,000, having risen by only £2,000,000 in nine years. But the interest bill of the States has risen in the same period from £33,000,000 to £88,000,000 a year - an increase of £56,000,000 a year. {: .speaker-K0L} ##### Senator Pearson: -- But had it been ordinary loan money the States would have still had to pay the interest bill. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- I make the point to the honorable senator that the Commonwealth claims that it is a great benefactor of the States. What does the Commonwealth do? It takes the best of two worlds! .It imposes taxes on the people; holds that money without paying any interest; carries out its public works, and then gives to the States the loan moneys which they have to pay back year by year, not only the principal amount lent, but also the interest on that amount. What a shocking, usurious action! This Government takes money from the taxpayers' pockets and lends it at interest to the States. With a burden of £56,000,000 imposed on them by this Government, it is no wonder that the States have had to increase their charges for electricity, water, transport and so on. The position of the State governments is more intolerable than even the position of the individuals in Australia. This federation is supposed to be a partnership, but we find the senior partner, the Commonwealth - the all-powerful, allwealthy Commonwealth - giving the States the heavy end of the stick all the time. Let no honorable senator opposite tell me that the Government compensates the States by special grants. Reference to page 17 of the Treasurer's statement will reveal particulars of those special grants to the States. They have averaged only £21,000,000 a year while the interest burden on the States has been increased by £56,000,000 a year. How can the State governments carry that burden? Is it any wonder that they are staggering under the burden of interest on an amount of £676,000,000 that came out of the taxpayers' pockets in the first place? The Commonwealth is not required to pay one penny interest on that money, but the States are expected to pay £25,000,000 a year to the Commonwealth as interest on money advanced out of Commonwealth revenue. If that is an example of the partnership of the federation, it is time something happened to the senior partner. I heard one honorable senator mention the Constitution and federation. What was the intention of the Constitution? Let honorable senators refer to section 94. The High Court expressed the view that fair dealing between the partners, the Commonwealth and the States, should be in the form that all surplus revenue should go to the States. From memory, the wording is, " the Commonwealth may grant all surplus revenue . . ." The word " may " has deprived the States of what was meant to be a legally enforceable right. The Government had £156,000,000 of surplus revenue which was used very largely to support States works programmes, but the States are required to pay interest on that money that was dribbled to them through trust accounts and special loans on the pretence that it was loan money. It is nothing of the kind I What the Commonwealth has done during the last nine years has been completely opposed to the spirit of the Constitution. {: .speaker-KAW} ##### Senator Wedgwood: -- Is not the principle of uniform taxation opposed to the spirit of the Constitution also? {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- I would say not. Complete power was given to the Commonwealth. If the honorable senator suggests that the States want back their taxing power in the income field, she is very much mistaken. Over the years the States have been invited by this Government to put forward proposals on those lines, but they have never yet submitted any such proposal. While State Premiers may curse uniform taxation, I have yet to see the Premier who will make a practical suggestion for its abolition. So I am afraid that the honorable senator cannot escape with that statement. I have pin-pointed what I regard as the fundamental defect in the financial administration of this Government - the failure of the loan market and the Commonwealth's usurious treatment of the' States. Why has the loan market failed? The first reason is that, due to the mismanagement of this Government, business and financial firms have been allowed to compete on the loan market, offering rates of interest on investments of 8 per cent., 10 per cent., 12 per cent, and even 16 per cent. We have in Australia to-day firms borrowing money and paying 16 per cent, interest on it. How can the Commonwealth compete on the loan market with the firms that offer that really sinful rate of interest on investments? The Government has done nothing to halt that draining of money away from Commonwealth loans. In fact, it has encouraged the practice. Yet the Government says very lamely that the Commonwealth lacks power to stop it. I deny that! Section 5 (xx.) of the Constitution gives the Commonwealth power over overseas corporations, and trading or financial corporations - I repeat the words, " trading or financial corporations " - formed in Australia. That is a power to regulate 'financial institutions. What has the Commonwealth ever done to explore the possibility of control under that power in order to protect its loan market? Not a thing! Let the Commonwealth consider that power. Let the Commonwealth try to use it. If the High Court cuts down that power to a narrow ambit, let the Commonwealth ask the States for the power. It the States refuse the Commonwealth's request, let the Commonwealth go to the people and ask the people for the power. The little people of this country deserve relief from the intolerable burden of taxation cast upon them by the failure of the loan market brought about by the Government in the way that I have mentioned. The second reason why the loan market has failed is the shocking, roaring inflation that this Government has let loose in Australia. Nearly all of- the troubles facing us at the moment, including our failure to progress as fast as we should, can be laid at the door of this Government, which, in its first three years of office, dropped the reins. The Opposition mentioned this to the Government year after year. Let us have a look at the history of inflation in Australia. In the eight years from 1941 to 1949 when a Labour Government was in office - that was during a period of war - the basic wage, based on the C series index for the six capital cities, rose by only £1 16s. In December, 1949, when this Government assumed office the basic wage was £6 9s. This is the Government that promised to put value back into the £1 and to reduce costs. During its first year of office it did nothing. Three cost-of-living increases totalling 13s. a week were added to the basic wage during 1950. During 1951, the basic wage increased by 38s. a week; during 1952, it increased by 31s.: and during 1953, by 3s. in May and 2s. in August. Thus, in less than four years, cost-of-living increases amounted to £4 7s., or an average of about 22s. a year. That is where the damage was done. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- What about the inflation that took place between 1941 and 1948? {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- I have given the honorable senator the picture over the years since 1949. The Government made no attempt to halt the roaring inflation between 1949 and 1953. I remind honorable senators of 1950 when the Opposition, alarmed at what was happening, not only warned the Government in this chamber but also appealed for a referendum on prices, and still nothing was done. The nation became alarmed when the basic wage rose by 13s. Even the great trade union movement of Australia indicated its willingness to accept wage pegging if prices and profits were controlled. They indicated that plainly, and **Dr. Evatt** announced in his policy speech that the trade unions would agree to that. They knew the damage that the thief, inflation, could do to everybody. They knew the harm it did to savings. It is an extraordinary thing that we should find the trade union movement at that stage with the great good sense to understand what was going on while this Government, completely blind to it, let it run away for three years. And it has been chasing it ever since. I must confess to **Senator Scott,** who is interjecting, that I cannot attend to his education this evening; I am particularly busy putting a viewpoint. That is what caused the trouble in this country, and this Government, the Government that was going to abolish all restrictive controls, has been turning on capital issues and turning it off - and turning on punitive taxation and turning it off - chopping and changing with import controls and credit restrictions - until it has this country tied up in knots in every possible direction, with credit and everything else. The third thing, of course, is that by withdrawing Commonwealth Bank support, and, if not at the Government's instigation certainly with its full concurrence, as the Prime Minister said, lifting the interest rate on bonds, the Government caused the bottom to fall out of the war loan market, the *3i* per cent, market subscribed to by the people of Australia. Commonwealth bonds fell in this country, to the disgrace of the Australian Government, to as low as £82 10s. {: .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator Maher: -- You could not get any money at *3b* per cent. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- I am indicating to the Senate what happened when your Government raised the bond rate. The Government allowed the interest rate to run riot. It was the Government's fault for making no move in connexion with it. If it lacked the power to act, the Government could have approached the people. We gave the people their opportunity back in 1944, 1946, and 1948, but the present Government advised them not to give power to impose these controls. It is very interesting to go back and read some of the things this Government said when it was in Opposition and about to go before the people at the elections. **Senator Scott** frequently asks, " What was the unemployment position in 1949? " {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- And what was it? {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- The answer, of course, is that there was a coal strike. The unemployment then was not due to lack of jobs; it was due to the fact that there was a coal strike, a completely illegal coal strike. In a beautifully printed document which the present Prime Minister got out for the 1949 elections appears this sentence, to which I direct **Senator Scott's** particular attention - >There is at present full employment. That is a statement made by **Mr. Menzies** in 1949 at the very minute that he was succeeding a Labour government. It is interesting sometimes to look back and read a little. **Senator Scott** will recall this statement by **Mr. Menzies** - >In the long run (and not very long at that) increased production will mean competition among sellers, and therefore lower prices. Greater turnover will mean reduced costs. A resolute reduction in the burdens of government and, with it, in the rates of tax, will mean reduced costs of production. In brief, higher production will mean lower costs;' and lower costs will enable us to enter and secure overseas markets which are now not supplied by us because we are not producing the goods. {: .speaker-K0Z} ##### Senator Aylett: -- Every pledge broken! {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- Every word of that confounded! Was there ever better proof of failure than to compare the conditions which **Mr. Menzies** promised with the state of Australia to-day? I referred a while ago to trust fund trickery. I have done that more than once in this Senate; in fact, year after year, I have adverted to the jiggery-pokery that has gone on, at the instance of this Government, in trust accounts. The Government pretends to the people of Australia that it has spent something like £190,000,000 to £200,000,000 a year on defence. The truth is that the Government has never spent that amount in any year yet on defence. Year after year, the Government has been picking up huge sums, passing them into accounts with high-sounding titles that seem to describe their purpose - Strategic Stores and Equipment Trust Account and Defence Equipment and Supplies Trust Account, to name two of them. For years, there was £48,000,000 in the Strategic Stores and Equipment Trust Account. For years, there was £20,000,000 in the Defence Equipment and Supplies Trust Account, with not one penny of that money being spent. Again and again, I have pressed Ministers in this place for information. For instance, the 19th October, 1955, was one occasion on which I pressed the Minister representing the Treasurer to see whether there were real commitments against these funds. The honorable senator who represented the Treasurer had an opportunity to confer, and, long after I had asked the question, came back with a most considered reply. I have it before me now. He said that goods were purchased and that suppliers were awaiting payment, that there were commitments against the funds. I invite the Senate to note the date - 19th October, 1955. In actual fact, not one penny was spent. On the contrary in the very next financial year, £83,000,000 including moneys from the two trust funds I have mentioned, was picked up and put back into general revenue for the general purposes of the Government! It was mere hollow pretence by the Government that the money was being spent on defence. It was an untrue assertion - and I do not blame the Minister in the chamber for it - that there were commitments against these funds. The Government merely passed these moneys back into the general revenue of this country. I take only those two instances. In 1956-57, the amount of £83,000,000 was picked up for general revenue purposes. I think the Senate will remember **Sir Frederick** Shedden telling the Public Accounts Committee back in 1956 that there was £100,000,000 in defence funds tucked away in trust accounts that the defence forces could not use. So there is pretence and trickery in this matter from beginning to end. Last year, as will be seen from page 6 of the statement which the Treasurer has circulated with his speech, the Government milked further trust funds in the Treasury to the tune of £12,500,000 by putting internal treasury-bills, the Treasurer's I O U's, in trust. I come now to this year. Defence expenditure again is at the magic figure of £190,000,000. Tt is the same every year, and I am prepared to take the risk of prophesying right now that it will be found that the money will not be spent this year, that the situation will be similar to that which obtained in 1956-57, the very year in which the Prime Minister said he was going to re-equip the armed forces of this country with all the latest equipment, and when he envisaged vast expenditure. That is the very year in which he picked up the trust funds ear-marked for that purpose and paid them back into general revenue. Why fool the people? I say emphatically that if the people really understood what has gone on in the taxation field, and what has gone on in the trust account field, they would throw this Government so far, on 22nd November, that it would not be seen for a long time. Let me come now directly to defence. Here we have a most frightening record of incompetence. In April, 1957, **Mr. Menzies** reviewed it all. It will be remembered that on that occasion he told the nation that we lacked ships of the appropriate kind, that national service training had not any military value to the Air Force or the Navy. It will be remembered that he said it ought to be abandoned completely. It took him six years to find that out, and in the meantime £100,000,000 went west on services of no use militarily to the Navy or the Air Force. The intake of national service trainees into the Army was cut by two-thirds to a mere token intake of 12,000. The Prime Minister admitted that there had been too great an expenditure on maintenance - on such matters as pay, clothing, and foodstuffs - and insufficient on equipment. I think that every one in Australia realized that. The Prime Minister further admitted the failure of recruiting for the armed forces. He intimated that it was necessary to re-equip the Air Force with modern fighters and bombers. He made the greatest faux pas in Australian history when he stated that our Air Force was to be re-equipped with Lockheed Starfighter FI 04 planes. The then Minister for Defence Production, **Sir Eric** Harrison, said that they would be made in Australian factories. **Sir Philip** McBride was sent to the United States in July, 1957, a couple of months later, to make arrangements for the new fighter to be built here. He returned in September, and announced that the planes were useless ' for Australian conditions. They flew at supersonic speeds and our aerodromes could not accommodate them without electronic ground equipment, which was far beyond the manufacturing capacity of our industries. The Prime Minister, who had announced that the Air Force was to be equipped with this type of fighter, then produced the bright remark, " Thank goodness. Look at all the money we have saved ". What stage have we reached to-day? Thousands of workers have gone out of the aircraft industry, and will never be persuaded to re-enter it. They have done so because for years and years this Government could not decide upon a policy of aircraft production; what type of plane we should have, and when we should get it. I should like to refer briefly to an article that appeared recently in the " Sydney Morning Herald ". This very prominent journal can certainly not be accused of supporting the cause of Labour. It has taken tremendous interest in this Government's lack of achievement in the defence field. I subscribe to every word in this article, which is a most damning indictment of this Government's approach to defence. The article reads - >The facts speak for themselves. Our Navy is dwindling away. The R.A.A.F. is equipped with obsolescent planes fit only to cope with second rate air forces; our Regular Army could barely maintain two battalions in the field, and the C.M.F. would require a minimum of five months to find an operational division. As for equipment, the modern weapons promised our forces have not materialised, and the proposed standardisation of arms with the United States is as far off as ever. > >The brigade group is no more than a sham. It is under strength; it altogether lacks reinforcements; its weapons are obsolete; its logistic problems are unsolved. Yet this is the force which the Prime Minister puts forward as Australia's contribution to regional security. The article concludes with this sentence - >This, in short, is Australia's first line of defence. All I can say is that the Government would need ten years' notice of any war. Let us hope that it gets it. It would need to, for it has had nine years now and has left our defences in the shocking condition which I have just described. The Government has certainly let the country down so far as defence is concerned. Let us look now at the question of unemployment. In the last two and a half years there has been, not a sudden burst of unemployment, but a steady increase. This trend began after the introduction of the little Budget of March, 1956, when a prohibitive tax of 30 per cent, was put on motor vehicles and a tax of 161 per cent, on commercial vehicles and spare parts. An additional tax was also placed on petrol, liquor and tobacco. In the mother industry especially people were thrown out of work. That industry is one of Australia's key industries. It is backed by a vast retail organization, and is supported by literally thousands of subsidiary manufacturing industries. The mushrooming of unemployment was caused, in the first place, by that vicious sales tax on motor vehicles. The Minister has given us the unemployment figures for various years. The astonishing thing has been the steady upward trend until the peak figure of 74,000 was reached in January last. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- Is the unemployment figure still rising? {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- It is now down to 62,975. It. is interesting to see how the figures run. In the. December preceding the little Budget there were 16,000 unemployed. Immediately after the little Budget was brought down, the number rose to about 30,000. During the remainder of the year the figure did not fall below 30,000. In the following year it rose steadily until it reached, in December, 58,000. It then climbed very rapidly to 74,000, and in the last eight months it has never been under 60,000. Those figures do not, of course, include migrants who are receiving special benefits or the parttime workers in the textile and other industries to whom **Senator O'Byrne** has referred. Such people may work only a few days a week. That is the tragic story of a government which promised to maintain full employment. On its own admission, there are 60,000 people out of work. That being so, it may be assumed that a quarter of a million of our citizens are in dire distress. Only a third of the 60,000 receive the paltry unemployment benefit. Why cannot those men be found work? If they were working they would, between them, earn £50,000,000 a year. That money would be turned over at least twice more and the Government would be able to add greatly to its tax collections as a result. There would, on last year's figure, also be a saving of £7,000,000 on unemployment benefits. What impact does the Budget make on unemployment? It will not put a single man back to work. Down the years, while this trend developed, the Government made not a move. In March, 1958, it finally gave £5,000,000 to the States, but that grant merely prevented more men from being put out of work before the end of the financial year. It did not put one unemployed person back into industry. The problem has not even been approached properly. In the Budget it receives scanty mention. The Government has rendered a vast disservice to large numbers of our citizens in not making unemployment its first point of attack. The Government's record in the social services field isscandalous. I have in mind, especially, child endowment. Certainly, the Government gave 5s. a week child endowment in1950, but to-day that sum has not half the purchasing power that it had then. Not one penny was offered to the second and subsequent children in order to help the family unit over difficult times. Since 1948 there has been little interest in the family unit, or in the work of nation-building. In this time of emergency and approaching depressionthe Federal Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden)** has drawn rather a bleak picture of the prospects for the immediate future. If ever there were a time when money should be injected into the economy to speed up activity, it is now. In what better way can one speed up economic activity than through the homes, by way of child endowment. The turnover of money would, in those circumstances, attain a high velocity. That would be a tremendous boon to the primary producers, who would be called upon to provide more fruit, vegetables, and meat. Such demands would enable them to get their requirements from the manufacturers, and would provide the best possible stimulus to production, as well as achieving a vastly important social end. I have referred to the little Budget of March, 1956. At that time, company tax was increased by1s. in the £1. The only relief since given was the reduction last year of 6d. in the £1 in company taxation. Companies alone got relief, against the little Budget, and that relief was to the tune of £14,500,000. The point I make is that if that extra tax of 6d. in the £1 had been reimposed, 10s. more a week could have been given to all the pensioners. The companies are let off 6d. in the £1 and the pensioners do without their extra 10s. a week. Nothing has been given to the pensioners in this Budget, apart from that given to a few who are paying rent and have no means other than their pensions. This Budget gives not the slightest relief to the other people in the social services field. The other great problem facing Australia is how to get costs down. What single thing is there in this Budget to help to do that? It is entirely a stay-put Budget. The £110,000,000 of central bank credit injected into the economy will not put one man back to work, because that policy does no more than maintain the level of total expenditure this year at the level of last year. That is not an infusion to stimulate the economy; it is merely to maintain expenditure at last year's level. It is no contribution to a solution of the problem ofreducing costs. Pay-roll tax collections amount to £50,000,000 and sales tax collections to £147,000,000. The sales tax is imposed on household goods, and foodstuffs in some instances. The Senate will remember that some two years ago the Tariff Board indicated that for every £1 collected by those two taxes, £2 goes on to the costs of the country. So by preserving the sales tax and the pay-roll tax, this Government is responsible for adding £400,000,000 to the cost burden of this country. {: .speaker-JQY} ##### Senator Courtice: -- No wonder we are costed out of the world's markets! {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- As **Senator Courtice** says, no wonder we are costed out of the world's markets. This Government promised to get costs down. What has it done? It has priced Australian goods out of foreign markets. If only the Government had had the good sense to exercise reasonable controls in its early years of office, this country could have been the wealthiest country in the world. It could have got its goods into every market in the world, instead of being hedged out. What new markets have been found under this Government? What is the Government doing now? Where is there any help for the farmers in this Budget? Other countries are subsidizing their exports. I say at once that we have got to export, even if we export at a loss. We must do that, or we cannot import. If we cannot import, our secondary industries will come to a stop. Where is the stimulus to help the farmer, or to help our export trade? Is there any suggestion of a subsidy in this Budget? The farmer has been let down and the unemployed have been let down. The country has been let down over defence and over taxation. I come now to a vastly important social matter, housing. The country is building at least 12,000 fewer houses a year than it was building some years ago. The rate of house construction has fallen shockingly. Here we are, thirteen years after the end of the war, still with a backlag of 100,000 houses. Is anybody on the Government side proud of that fact, after nine bountiful years, with the exception of last year? To say that there is a backlag of 100,000 houses is understating the position. The need is there, but the demand is less than the need because a lot of people have reached the stage when they are prepared to put up with sub-standard dwellings, such as garages, rather than pay 7i per cent, on a first mortgage and anything up to 20 per cent, on a second mortgage. How can the ordinary average working man buy a home to-day at such interest rates? {: .speaker-K0L} ##### Senator Pearson: -- 70 per cent, of the people in Australia are doing it. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- They are paying high interest and bearing an almost intolerable burden. I would say that the little people in Australia have been caught every way. They are highly taxed and their wages are frozen at 8s. per week lower than the wage that would have been paid if cost of living increases had been allowed. The amount that goes into their pockets does not enable them to keep up with rising prices. They have lost £24,000,000 a year. At the same time as that has been taken away from them, value is oozing out of child endowment payments, which have remained stationary for ten years. The people are forced into a position where they have the gravest difficulty in making ends meet. The position of the great majority of the people to-day is that they are in trouble from week to week in making ends meet. I wish to say a word about central bank credit before I conclude. The Labour party did not criticise the use of central bank credit. It has made its position completely clear. The situation to-day is that labour and materials are plentifully available, work is waiting to be done and a depression, or near-depression, is in the offing. That is the very time to use central bank credit. The trouble with this Government is that probably it has been too timid to go far enough. It should do something to give a stimulus to the economy, but this Budget will not do that. I refer now to all the broken promises of this Government down the years. It promised that taxation would be reduced. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- Was it not reduced? {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- It was, and then was put up further. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- It was reduced. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- I have surveyed every single year of this Government's operations in the taxation field, and I have shown that it has put on vast amounts in excess of what it has taken off. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- In income tax? {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- In income tax. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- The rates are lower. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- I have examined the figures that have been quoted in Budget speeches year after year. What about unemployment? This Government promised to put back value into the £1. Will **Senator Scott** say something about how successful the Government has been in putting back value into the £1? Does anybody remember the Government's promise at the first election after 1949 to abolish the means test and to eliminate restrictive controls? What about the promise to review and strengthen the laws against sedition? They have never been cited in nine years. I would say that this Budget is an abject failure, as **Senator Cole** described it. It fails at every point that is important to this country and its future. It has let down the farmers, the social service beneficiaries and the homeseekers. I wish it would let down **Senator Scott,** who is interjecting. It has let down the unemployed and the taxpayers, and has failed to do anything about the loan market and defence. This Government has shown very plainly that it is unable to manage prosperity and it is now demonstrating that it cannot handle adversity, either. Under its regime there has been a betrayal of the best interests of Australia and Australians. The complacency of the Government in the face of its failures is simply shocking. In this Budget, the Government makes to the problems of Australia, a cold arithmetical approach, completely devoid of feeling, completely devoid of vision and completely devoid of reality. {: #subdebate-21-0-s1 .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN:
General · QueenslandVicePresident of the Executive Council and Attorney · LP -- As the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator McKenna)** said at the commencement of his speech, the presentation of the Budget provides an opportunity for members of the Parliament to express their views on the state of the country's economy. The field is wide open; it is more or less unlimited. We can examine what has happened in the past year and express our hopes, wishes and views as to what the future may hold. I should like to congratulate my colleague the Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden)** upon having presented the Budget that is now under discussion. It is the ninth that he has presented since 1949 and, as honorable senators know, it will be his last. He is one of the few Treasurers who, in their own time, have known that they were presenting their last budget. In all the circumstances, this being the last budget to be presented by the right honorable gentleman, and this year being an election year, the lesser man may have been tempted to put a bit of icing on the cake. I think this Budget will go down in history as being one of the greatest monuments to **Sir Arthur** Fadden, because it shows his tremendous sense of responsibility at a time when there were all kinds of temptations to bring down a more elaborate, and what the man in the street might describe as being a more generous, Budget. I am sure it will be remembered on that account. I cannot hope to deal with all the points raised by **Senator McKenna,** but I wish to deal with some of them. I am not quite sure whether in his view the proposed infusion into the economy of £110,000,000 bank credit is too little or too much. {: .speaker-KPK} ##### Senator Kennelly: -- He said it was too little. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- I quite appreciate that one of the things of which the people of Australia are afraid is the irresponsibility of the Opposition as related to the frightful danger of inflation, lt would be quite easy, particularly in an election year, to say, "Why limit yourself to £110,000,000? Make it £200,000,000. Give everybody a party." But just consider the danger that would create. I am quite sure that, even if some of his colleagues do not appreciate it, the Leader of the Opposition appreciates that there is a very fine line between inflation and deflation. One of the greatest enemies of the working man, the man on a pension, the man on fixed wages, in fact of the whole country, is inflation. To have gone beyond £110,000,000 perhaps would have been most attractive, but it would have been quite irresponsible. As it is, **Mr. Deputy President,** I submit that to infuse £110,000,000 bank credit into the economy is a very courageous step to take, in the light of the inflationary pressures from which the economy is suffering at the present time. **Senator McKenna** quoted lots of figures, but we all know that we can prove anything if we take a mass of figures out of their context. The sum-total of the honorable senator's suggestion, as I understand it, was that the Commonwealth has been unfair to the States. I am indebted to the honorable senator for the pain and trouble to which he has gone to supply the figures that have been placed before us, but, without going into the pluses and the minuses and the elaborate tables that have been prepared, the bald facts are that in the last three years of the Chifley Government's term of office .the States got a total of £221,000,000 loan money and in the last three years of the present Administration they have received £582,000,000 - twice as much. **Senator McKenna** was fair enough to say that the Commonwealth borrows through the Australian Loan Council on behalf of the States. The loan programme is approved by the Loan Council. But since this Government assumed office it has forgone its right to participate in the proceeds of the loan market and has handed the lot over to the States. Not only has it done that, but it has also undertaken to make up to the States out of Commonwealth revenue that part by which the loan yield has fallen short of the approved works programmes. **Senator McKenna** complained that out of revenue this Government has built post offices and has contributed towards the Snowy Mountains project. Does any one else complain about that? Do we want post offices or do we not? How many honorable senators opposite have been on the back of the Postmaster-General asking for more post offices? Who objects to the Snowy Mountains project? Who objects to the expansion of Trans-Australia Airlines? There are various ways of financing these undertakings. The necessary money could come out of loan raisings, the whole of which has been dedicated by this Government to the States' works programmes and has been supplemented out of revenue. If the loan market dries up, what is to be the next step? Are we to get the necessary finance by way of taxation or are we to have more bank credit? We can take our pick. We cannot get it out of the air. The Opposition has suggested that we should have more bank credit. If we have more bank credit, we will have such an inflationary spiral that we will never catch up with it. There is a limited number of ways in which we can get money.- We can get it, as I said, by way of taxation, from loans, or, in an exaggerated way, by bank credit. If the Commonwealth had not paid for these various capital works out of revenue, we would have had to resort to bank credit or not have had the works. Those of us who have any wisdom or sense will be appreciative of what the Commonwealth has done, and I am quite sure that future generations will appreciate the fact that in this day and age we have had a very enlightened government. **Senator McKenna** referred to the cost of living. I agree with his statement that in 1949 the basic wage was £6 9s. a week and that in 1958 it was £13 ls. Certainly the cost of living has gone up, but the basic wage has gone up considerably in advance of the cost of living. Honorable senators opposite are shaking their heads, but it is of no use their doing that. What I have just said is a fact. We must bear in mind that during the war years and the immediate post-war years, that is from 1945, when the war ended, to 1949. the strictest of controls were maintained. Although all the inflationary pressures were there, they were kept screwed down by controls. In other parts of the world where controls were lifted immediately the war ended, things moved gradually; but, when this Government, being an anti-control government, lifted controls as soon as it was practicable and wise to do so, we got the full blast of those pent-up inflationary pressures. Those pressures continued for some time and it took us some years to get them back under control. I think everybody will agree that at the present time inflationary pressures have evened out and that we have a fairly stable economy. The cost of living indices indicate that. But I repeat that overall the increase in the basic wage since 1949 has long since overtaken the increase in the cost of living. Some slighting references were made to our defence services. I do not want to misquote what **Senator McKenna** said, but the note I made at the time was that he said we had nothing of use militarily, or in the Navy or Air Force. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKenna: -- That was in regard to national service training. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- When the honorable senator was referring to the defence expenditure of £190,000,000, I understood him to say that we had nothing worth while, militarily, in either the Navy or the Air Force. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKenna: -- No. I spoke of national service training. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- I shall take the honorable senator's word for that. On the question of where the money allocated for defence has gone, I point out that tens of millions of pounds have gone into the development of scientific warfare.. We recently had in this country the United Kingdom Minister of Supply, the Honorable Aubrey Jones. In discussing the developments at Woomera and Maralinga, he had the highest praise for the work done at those places by the Australian military scientists in the development of longrange and nuclear weapons. He indicated that, so far as he knew, no other work of parallel importance was being done anywhere else in the world. That is praise indeed for the work being done by our scientists in that sphere of defence. I agree with **Senator McKenna** that, if we have out of work a person who is able and willing to work, it is a tragedy. It is a particular tragedy for the person concerned1 and for those dependent on him. But in the type of world in which we live, and having regard to the fact that there is a certain amount of seasonal work and changing work opportunities, there must inevitably be some people out of work at some time. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'Byrne: -- That is a false philosophy. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- A very distinguished colleague of **Senator O'Byrne's,** the honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** - I do not want to misquote him - said that he would be very happy, or that the ideal position would be - his words were something to that effect - if we had no more than 5 per cent, of our people out of work. He said that just before the 1949 general election. I am happy to say that, under this Government, at the present time more than 98i per cent, of our employable people are employed. My colleague, the Minister for National Development **(Senator Spooner),** gave facts and figures in the Senate recently which indicated that our standard of employment is higher than that of any other country of the free work! - I am not talking about the slave world - and that our percentage of unemployment is the lowest in the world. No doubt honorable senators opposite heard the figures that he gave. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'Byrne: -- There is probably less unemployment in the slave world than there is in this one. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- Yes, but who wants to be a slave? {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'Byrne: -- Every one has to eat. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- If you want security,' of course you can go to Russia. In Brisbane, such t security is available at Boggo-road Gaol. In Europe, such security is probably available behind the iron curtain. But there are more things in life than security. Most of us prefer freedom, as I know **Senator O'Byrne** does. **Senator McKenna** said that we are pricing ourselves out of foreign markets, and he asked what the Government had done to. prevent this. **Senator Courtice** bows his head very wisely, but he knows that, in respect of an industry in which he is particularly interested, we have entered into very satisfactory agreements, both within the Commonwealth and internationally. I refer to the sugar industry. We are not doing badly, in that case, and the honorable senator knows that as well as I do. In the last days of the Chifley Government and early in the life of this Government, owing to the conditions that we inherited, Australia was importing coal. Fancy this country importing coal! {: .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator Sheehan: -- Good gracious! {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- Honorable senators opposite may think that funny, but I do not. I think it is tragic. At the present time, we are exporting coal. In the last days of the Chifley Government, if you wanted to buy a motor car you had to know somebody who could bring influence to bear on somebody else. Now, we are exporting motor cars. At that time we were importing steel. Now, we are exporting it. {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator Armstrong: -- You' are importing it, too. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- Only of a special type. My colleagues, **Senator Spooner** and **Senator Dame** Annabelle Rankin, have dealt adequately with the housing position, but I shall have something to say about it later in my remarks. In relation to taxation, of course it is true that the bulk of receipts from taxtion has increased, but we have 2,000,000 more people in this country today than at the end of World War II. Since this Government has been in office the population has increased by 1,000,000. Of course taxation collections have increased, but the point that the Government makes is that the rate of tax has declined. That is the only point that we attempt to make. I do not know why **Senator McKenna** wanted to know what we had done in regard to the laws against sedition. I was under the impression that he had claimed frequently with pride that he was one of those who destroyed the bill that we brought in to outlaw communism. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'Byrne: -- The High Court destroyed it. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- The High Court found on a technicality only. It had nothing to say on the merits of the bill. The court held that the legislation was ultra vires the power of the Commonwealth. The point is: What have we done in this respect? We have done our best to introduce laws with regard to sedition. I do not think that the 1949 policy speech of the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** contained a promise that the means test would be abolished forthwith, or anything like that. The abolition of the means test was mentioned as a long-term project, with gradual progression to the stage at which the means test would be eliminated, lt is very difficult, **Mr. President,** to make a complete note of all the matters with which an honorable senator deals during the course of his speech, and if I do not refer to all the matters that **Senator McKenna** mentioned, I trust' that he will not think I am being discourteous. It may be remembered that **Senator McKenna** himself indicated that this was an occasion when we could more or less roam around the world, provided that we did not get too far away from the state of the economy and our economic prospects. Running through the speech of the honorable senator to-night, I noticed again the theme of gloom and despair to which we have become accustomed. One would think that the Labour party had a vested interest in gloom, despondency and despair. Ever since this Government has been in office, the Opposition has been saying, " We will all be ruined ". Yet, in fact, we have gone from strength to strength and from prosperity to increased prosperity. One would almost think that this attitude of the Opposition was part of a campaign deliberately designed to destroy confidence in Australia. Honorable senators opposite have not said one encouraging word about our economic state of affairs. Do they think that, by spreading such gloom, they are encouraging people overseas to invest money in Australia? Do they think that they are encouraging people to emigrate to this country? In spite of this wail of despair that is being perpetually sent up by the Opposition, the development of Australia over the last nine years has been phenomenal, and its prestige abroad has never been higher. To get into proper perspective the job that this Government has done, let us have a look at the position that prevailed in Australia in 1949 and compare it with the internal situation to-day. Let us consider how we stood abroad with our friends, if we had any, in 1949, and compare that position with the present one. When the Menzies Government took office in 1949, Australia was experiencing industrial turmoil and unrest. Strife was rife everywhere. Employer-employee relations were never worse. In the year which has just ended, fewer man-hours were lost through industrial disputes than ever before in our history. As a matter of fact, the loss of man-hours through industrial disputes last year was only half of the loss in 1949, despite the fact that in the intervening nine years the labour force increased by nearly 1,000,000 people. That is remarkable when one considers the industrial chaos and turmoil, and the bitterness between employer and employee, during the years up to 1949. I suggest that the results speak for themselves. I shall leave it to my friend, **Senator Scott,** to say that that improvement had nothing to do with the coal strike. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- What was the reason for it? {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- The reason for that is that both employers and employees trust this Government to see that they get a fair go. It may also perhaps be a result of more enlightened relations between employer and employee. Whatever the reason may be, I am quite prepared to let the credit go where it will, but I am delighted to see the results that have been achieved. I do not personally want to claim credit for them. I should say that a lot of the credit is due to the greater wisdom prevailing as between man and management, something which I am delighted to see, as I am sure the honorable senator is also. From time to time we hear about coal, which is the basis of our industry. **Senator Spooner** on occasions gives us the details of the phenomenal, the magnificent, the spectacular development of our coal industry; but in 1949, when the Labour government was in office, Australia was importing coal. Prior to this Government assuming office, many factories in New South Wales and Victoria were working not five days a week but three days a week, and various suburbs and localities regularly suffered rationing of light and power, to such an extent that firms which could afford to do so bought package generating plants from the United Kingdom or America which, of course, added to costs and was a drain on our overseas funds. That was the position in 1949 and for a short time thereafter. We were importing coal and paying a heavy subsidy on it, while factories worked only three days out of five. That was a very sad state of affairs. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- Did not the Chifley Government lay the foundations for overcoming that position, by establishing the Joint Coal Board? {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- It did a lot towards it. It is quite true that the foundations were laid then, but the point is that when we came to office we had the sad state of affairs that I have mentioned. Now, in spite of the fact that the value of our production has trebled, and that the volume has increased by 60 per cent., since we took office, we have been able to abolish entirely the need for power black-outs. We have ceased to import coal. We not only have met the extra heavy demand for coal arising from the 50 per cent, increase of factory production, but we have also been able to produce sufficient to be able to export coal. Last year we exported 900,000 tons of coal. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- Cheap freights have something to do with that. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- No; the answer really lies in the fact that the production of coal has increased by about 5,000,000 tons a year. That is really the basis of it. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- And the number of men employed in the industry has decreased by 5,000. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- Yes, but they were not unemployed then. They went into other employment, as the honorable senator knows. During that period, **Mr. President,** that period of wail and woe and dismal forecasts by the Opposition, the number of factories rose from 4,070 in 1948-49 to 53,200 in 1956-57, and factory production rose from £1,425,378 in value to over £4,000,000. That has happened in the last nine years while honorable senators opposite have been prognosticating gloom and destruction. Well, I am very glad for the sake of our country that their prognostications have not been fulfilled. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- We are worried only about the future. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- You were worried! about the future nine years ago when you said that it would be all ruin. Yet, we have gone from strength to strength; and we will continue to go from strength to strength so long as the people have confidence in us - and I am sure that they will have a sustained and abiding confidence in us. No country can develop without steel. We are very fortunate in having such a magnificently constituted and well-directed steel industry, with enlightened dealings between men and management. It is something that would be a credit to any country, and of which Australia should be proud. Very few people appreciate exactly what our steel industry means to our economy. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- The men have something to do with that, too. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- I know that the director sitting in his office cannot do it all alone. The results are achieved by a magnificent combination of men and management, which is apparently a very happy combination that should give joy to the heart of any Australian. In 1948-49, we were importing steel; but last year we were able to export £22,000,000 worth of steel, chiefly because the annual production of steel has risen from 1,200,000 tons to 3,100,000 tons. That is a magnificent performance redounding to the credit of both men and management. **Senator McKenna** referred to the fact that we were about 12,000 houses short. But bear in mind that in the last year of office of the Chifley Government only 52,684 houses were built compared with the total of 73,000 built last year. The average requirement of houses is about 50,000 a year, and in five years the total backlag will have been overtaken. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- That has been said for the last five years. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- That has not been said for the last five years. **Senator Spooner** gives the figures from time to time, and **Senator Dame** Annabelle Rankin referred to the facts and figures in the Budget Papers. Irrespective of whatever political party is in office, the results achieved are something of which any Australian should be proud, because there is no country in the world with a higher proportion of home ownership. After all, if the best that the Labour government could do was 52,684 houses in its last year of office, and we can raise the figure to 73,000, what is the honorable senator growling about? He ought to be very proud of us for being able to do things so much better than the Labour government could do them. He should not be jealous of us. In our nine years of office we have erected half of the war service homes that have been erected since 1920. We have done more in that nine years than was done in the previous 30 years. That is not a bad record, is it, for a government of gloom, of despair, of failure? {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- There is not much in it. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- If we can do as much in eight years as it took other governments to do in 30 years, that is a pretty good indication df what is in it. Another prophesy of gloom and despair coming from the Opposition concerns confidence of investors in Australia. Since the war more than £400,000,000 has been invested in manufacturing industries in Australia. Any Australian should be proud of that fact. To show how good our position is, and how well we are regarded by the investors overseas, it is only necessary to mention that a great volume of money from the United Kingdom and the United States continues to pour into Australia for investment. I am comparing the picture of 1949 with the picture of to-day. In the last years of the Labour Government the people were made miserable and wretched by shortages of practically every commodity. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- There was a war on, you know. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- I know there was a war on, but I am more up to date than the honorable senator is. I am talking about 1949 not 1945. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- It was because of war neurosis. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- War neurosis does not last five years. With all due respect to the honorable senator, it was not war neurosis that was responsible for the state of the country when we took office. Sometimes regulation is necessary and, for that reason, during me period of the war the Australian .people .accepted it cheerfully, but as soon as the necessity for regulation had gone and it was retained simply for the sake of regulating, the people rebelled. It was .then that the Labour government, drunk with the love of regulation, was thrown out of power and that we assumed office. That was the year of queues, coupons, ration tickets, blackmarkets and under-the-counter deals. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- How did your Government cure them? {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- We cured them by getting rid of them. It was only a matter of months before every ration book in Australia was torn up and thrown away. {: .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator Tangney: -- Did your Govern-: ment .reduce prices? {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- Not immediately, but we returned freedom to the people. If it were a matter of standing in queues with a ration book in the hand, or paying a few extra pence, I am sure every housewife would prefer to throw away the ration book. We on. this side of the chamber - I think I .can speak for .the overwhelming majority of the Australian people - -do not like queues, ration books, coupons, black-markets and .underthecounter deals. Those were the days of the war. If one wanted to buy a refrigerator, one had to know somebody who knew somebody. If one wanted to buy a motor car, one had to complete umpteen forms, and then would have to know somebody who .knew somebody. If one wanted the smallest commodity, it was not a case of what one knew but whom one knew who could exercise -some influence to obtain the article. To-day, not only is there an abundance of commodities, but there is also the wherewithal with which to purchase them - so much so, that no other country except the United States of America has the same number of motor cars per head of population, the same number of sewing machines, washing machines, refrigerators and all those other commodities - God bless them - that help to make life worth while, and that take a lot of the drudgery out of dull housework. The opportunity for a black market in motor cars and refrigerators, for example, does not exist because those articles can be bought off the showroom floor. Although what I am about to say may offend the susceptibilities of some people, the need for a black market in beer or cigarettes no longer exists. I am not encouraging any one to indulge in beer or cigarettes, but ample supplies are available for those who feel so inclined. {: .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator Tangney: -- Is there no price rationing now? {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- I am not aware of any. According to the figures supplied by the Department of Customs and Excise, price does not seem to be an impediment to sales for the reason that the wages structure has gone ahead of the cost structure. So much for the internal situation. I have endeavoured to draw a sufficiently vivid picture of the wretched, miserable conditions that existed before we took office - a period of queues, ration tickets, coupon books and shortages - as compared with conditions to-day when one can buy practically any commodity from any store without requiring references, introductions and so on. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'Byrne: -- All one needs now is the money. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- Having regard to the way in which the basic wage has increased, the people now have the money. The basic wage is miles ahead of the cost of living. So much for the internal situation. How did we fare externally in 1949? {: .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator Tangney: -- We are still a free nation. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- Yes, we are still free. In 1949, the prestige of Australia abroad - was probably at its lowest depth. We had offended every person upon whom we could look as a friend - the Dutch, the Americans over the Manus Island position, and the British. I do not think Australia had a real friend, mainly for the reason that we were not friendly with any country with whom we should have been friendly. Generally, our external policy, if not openly hostile to the United Kingdom and America, was highly critical of those countries, and if not directly, then by inference, friendly and cordial towards the Soviet Union. What is the position to-day? {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'Byrne: -- We are amongst the thieves. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- If the honorable senator refers to our allies as thieves, I do not agree with him. Now we know where we stand and our friends know where we stand. The existence of Seato and the Anzus pact, whereby we have our own security guaranteed by strong and friendly allies, illustrates how far we have advanced in our external relations since those sad days when the Labour government was in office, the days of Manus Island and other incidents that I shall not stress to-night. This Government has had the longest term of office of any government since federation, a term remarkable in endeavour and rich in achievement. In the scheme of things, sooner or later - and in view of the mess, chaos and disunity in which the Labour party finds itself to-day, it will probably be rather later than sooner - this Government will give way to another. Such a government will come from what is now the Opposition. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- This is the best part of your speech. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- I have not completed it yet. Surveying the Opposition, I am sorry to say that I feel no confidence that, as a government, it will be able to carry on the good work of its predecessor. Rather, I am forced to the sad conclusion that under another socialist government the internal conditions of Australia will relapse into the sad and sorry mess they were in under the last socialist government. Similarly, our prestige abroad will again diminish. We on this side of the chamber derive no satisfaction from the present chaotic, unhappy and divided condition of the Labour party. For the good of the country we would prefer to see it strong, virile and robustly Australian. Instead of squabbling among themselves, we would prefer honorable senators opposite to explore the possibility of widening the area of agreement and narrowing the points of disagreement among the Australian people. In such important matters as tariff policy and immigration, substantial agreement does exist; so much so, that it can be said that in those matters there is an Australian policy. However, in other important matters such as defence and external affairs, can we not evolve an Australian policy so that, regardless of what particular party is in office, our friends and allies will know where Australia stands? In a tense and turbulent world it is very important to know who are one's friends, to know that in fair or foul weather they can be depended upon to stand steadfast. I commend this thought to honorable senators opposite in the hope that in the not-distant future they will, phoenix-like, rise from their ashes of despond and renew their magnificent contribution towards the building of a prosperous, contented and united Australia. {: #subdebate-21-0-s2 .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales -- As every honorable senator who has preceded me in this debate has done, perhaps I should congratulate **Sir Arthur** Fadden. However, all I can say is that the Budgets presented by the Treasurer since 1950 have been consistent - each has been a little worse than the one preceding it. The Budget now before us can be regarded as the Budget to cap all previous Budgets. 1 have been interested to observe the ingenuity of Government supporters in their efforts to praise something that deserves so little praise. With all the discussion we have had, I think we have covered in great detail the financial problems involved in this debate and now have a clear general picture of the position. That being so, I should like to deal first, in the short time at my disposal, with **Senator O'sullivan.** After all, what greater honour could there be than to deal with the Leader of the Government in the Senate? What disturbs me about the Leader of the Government in the Senate is that, occupying one of the highest positions in the democratic life of this community, he should glibly reel off arguments that have no foundation whatever and state as matters of fact things which have no foundation in fact. He gave a completely false and absolutely unfair outline of the position obtaining in 1949 when the MenziesFadden Administration assumed office. But, in all his arguments, he forgot one thing. I remind him of the fact that back in the days when we had a government of the same party as that which **Senator O'sullivan** leads in the Senate to-night, when we had as Treasurer the same gentleman who brought the present Budget before Parliament, when we had the same Prime Minister as we have to-day, war broke out. I remind him also of the fact that after twelve months of war under the Government of which he is a member, we still had almost 200,000 people unemployed in this country. The Government of that day had a basic duty to defend Australia, to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies in defending the democracies of the world, yet, after twelve months of war, it had still failed to take the first essential step - that of marrying the available man-power to the resources of the country in order to carry out a war effort that would be worthy of Australia. After twelve months of war, the people became so disgusted and dissatisfied with the then Prime Minister, **Mr. Menzies,** and the then Treasurer, **Mr. Fadden,** as he was then, that they bundled these two gentlemen out of office. The present Treasurer was Prime Minister of the country for a short time. His term of office was so short that it reminds one of the story about the 40 days and 40 nights. He was thrown out of office after only about three months as Prime Minister. {: .speaker-L8E} ##### Senator Cameron: -- Ignominiously. {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- He was thrown out of office ignominiously by the then United Australia party, whatever honorable senators opposite called themselves then - a rose by any other name would smell as sweet - after he had been Prime Minister for only three months. What has happened to the present Prime Minister who, according to honorable senators on the Government side, is a statesman to-day but who was a dismal failure then? Has that man changed? He certainly has not. By extraordinarily fortuitous political developments, the Labour Opposition has made the present Prime Minister a so-called statesman. In fact, he is still the man who was such a failure in 1940, but, because of the accident of politics in the Labour party, because of a snap election brought about by a double dissolution, and because of this split in the Labour party - we must face up to that - we made this man what honorable senators opposite choose to call a statesman to-day. But in actual fact, he is still the dismal failure he was in 1940. If we had another crisis in the community similar to that which confronted us in 1940, he would still prove to be the dismal failure he was then. The Labour government took over the reins of office, and the picture in Australia changed completely within months. Within a very short time, the whole community was working in a united war effort. Within only a matter of months, Australia had a higher percentage of the population engaged in the direct war effort than any other country in the world. Although I am relying on my memory now, I think it is safe to say that more than 11 per cent, of our population was in the armed forces. No other country in the world equalled that record. {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator Mattner: -- Did you say 11 per cent, in the armed forces? {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- Australia had the highest percentage of population in the armed forces of any country in the world. {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator Mattner: -- That is not correct. {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- It is correct. You were one of them. {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator Kendall: -- You cannot claim credit for that. We had four divisions overseas before your party came into power. {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- That is. not true. {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator Kendall: -- It is true. {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- It is not true. I will tell the true story. You will have plenty of opportunities to tell me where I am wrong. It is my opportunity, now, to tell you where you are wrong, and I shall enjoy taking advantage of it. The Labour government led the war effort with credit to itself and the citizens whom it led. When the war was over we re-absorbed every member of the defence forces in industry without adding one to the number of unemployed in Australia. We carried out our basic objective of full employment. Honorable senators will remember how the present Prime Minister ridiculed our claim that we had full employment, how he stated that that was impossible. They will also remember that when his Government came to office in 1949, he admitted that full employment obtained in this country. Not only were all returned members of the fighting forces gainfully employed, but also we had launched a tremendous immigration programme which has proved to be one of the greatest things ever to happen in Australia in the last twenty years. We were straining the economy to the utmost because we knew that it was of paramount importance that we have more and more men and women in the community. In the year 1949-50, 192,000 immigrants came to this country under the Calwell-Chifley immigration scheme. Of course there had to be queues at that stage, but, by 1949, there were no queues; by 1949, there were no ration books. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- What about tea, petrol and sugar? {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- That was different from the rationing which obtains today. It was different from the hip-pocket rationing which we have to-day when £1 buys only what 8s. bought when we were the government. I should say that it is most unfair to criticize the conditions obtaining in Australia in 1949, after five years of war- {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- After four years of peace. {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- That was the first total war in which this country had engaged, and, when it was over, we had many things to do to get the country rolling again. We did that job quicker than any other nation in the world. {: .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator Tangney: -- There was a depression before that war. {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- The present Government was in office before the war, and there were 300,000 people unemployed. What interests me is the way in which **Senator O'sullivan",** in a gentlemanly speech, spoke of the anti-control government which came into office in 1949. He said, "We let the controls go, and it took us many years to get them back on ". {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- I did not say anything of the sort. {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- Read "Hansard". That is exactly what you said. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- I said it was many years before we could catch up with the inflationary pressure. {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- You said it took years to get back your controls. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- Control of the economy! {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- The Government has many controls, and it enjoys using them. It should read what its newspaper friends say about government controls. Those friends are its sternest critics. **Senator O'sullivan** talks about this delightful Government - delightful for whom? It has certainly not been delightful for the great mass of the people, who to-day are faced with what seems to be a permanent unemployment pool. As I propose to show, the Government is making no effort, in this Budget, to reduce the size of that pool. A few weeks ago, the Minister for National Development **(Senator Spooner)** said that he had been too long in politics to be fair. The Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** has been too long in politics to care. That is the position to-day. The Minister at present in charge of the House is a new appointee who is burning himself out by over-work.' I do not know how long it will take him to settle down to the steady pace maintained by his older colleagues. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- How long did it take you to settle down? {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- I was not there long enough to settle down but, like the present Minister for Customs and Excise **(Senator Henty),** I realized that I had a wonderfully fit body and that it was my job to keep it fit. I am afraid that **Senator Paltridge** - whom I was trying not to name - feels compelled to work very hard indeed. He has done a tremendous job, but has allowed his work to have an adverse effect on his health. However, he may be the exception that proves the rule. **Senator O'sullivan** spoke of scientific warfare and, to show how well the Government was doing, quoted what **Mr. Aubrey** Jones, Minister of Supply, in the Government of the United Kingdom, had said. That gentleman praised the quality of the work at the rocket range and said that it was equal to, or better than, similar work being done elsewhere. That is indeed a compliment to Australian scientists and overseas scientists who are working here, but I do not know what significance it has for the defence of this country. Only last week a rocket was sent hundreds of miles into the air from Woomera, and a record was claimed. When we asked whether that rocket would have a role in the armed services we were told by a general that it would cost too much. He said that it had cost £60,000,000 to develop, but the next day someone came out and said that it had cost only £5,000,000 or £6,000,000. When one hears conflicting reports such as that, one wonders whether, after all, the Australian Army might be able to afford it after all. It might help to replace the ineffectual defence which we have to-day. Large sums of money were spent in giving army training to young men just about to enter industry, but after five or six years the National Service training scheme was found to be not the answer to Australia's defence needs. The Government was finally obliged to agree with its critics on that score. Our Air Force has two or three modern transport planes, and very little else. If we had to send up our Air Force against an enemy I am afraid that it would be in a position similar to that of the Wirraways which, during the last war, were knocked out of the sky in their first clash with the Japanese Zeros. The men who went up in those planes knew that they had no chance of surviving. They were the true martyrs of the war. When one looks at the Army one realizes that after a battalion has been sent to Malaya very little of our regular Army is left. The Navy is slipping back year after year, and I think that **Senator Kendall,** in his usual fair manner, would agree that we really have not a sea-going Navy of any significant proportions. Our Army is, of course, a joke. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator Benn: -- The Government let Manus Island go! {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- The Government let go the island about which there was so much talk! It would seem that the Navy has a total of twelve sea-going ships. One would think that an expenditure of £200.000,000 every year for four or five years would result in an improved defence system. Instead, there has been enormous waste of the taxpayers' money, and our defence has slipped back and back. **Senator O'sullivan** referred to steel production, housing and war service homes. Indeed, he dealt with many things in a general fashion and with none in a way that would permit an acceptable answer to be given to current problems. He said that, in 1 948. we were importing steel, but to-day were exporting it. In truth, we are still importing steel. Right up to this year, when there has been a serious recession in the steel industries of the world, we spent as much as £60,000,000 annually in importing steel. Generally speaking, it was not special steel which we did not ourselves make. It was ordinary structural steel - the sort still being made by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. I agree with **Senator O'sullivan** that that is a tremendously efficient organization. In producing steel at all it is doing a great job for Australia. I do not want to talk at length on that subject to-night. I hope to have an opportunity to discuss it in some detail before this session of the Parliament ends. **Senator O'sullivan** said that his Government had built more war service homes in the last nine years than all other governments had built in 30 years. I remind him that after World War II. we had to wait for things" to settle down. We had a war service homes organization which had not built a house for years. It was embarking upon a grandiose scheme for building four or five houses. The then commissioner was dismissed by **Mr. Lemmon,** and a War Service Homes Division of the Department of Works was set up. This laid the foundations for the tremendous results now being achieved. Those foundations were laid between 1946 and 1949. I am pleased with what has been achieved in the war service homes field. There is no point in saying that the Government does everything wrong or that the Opposition would do everything right. One must be fair in these matters, however, and . realize that the success of the scheme is very largely attributable to its sound foundations. Speaking of housing generally, **Senator O'sullivan** said that 52,000 houses were built in 1949, and 73,000 last year. Unfortunately, the Government's housing programme has been a stop-and-go programme. We have been hearing for a very long time **Senator Spooner's** promise that within the next two years the lag in housing would be overcome. Surely some one in the Government understands that the lag will never be overtaken; that it is necessary to build more and more houses and make them available on small deposits and at low interest rates so that people can buy their own homes. I am one of the greatest supporters of immigration in the Parliament, and I remind the Government that if. 115,000 New Australians are brought in every year a great many homes must be provided to meet their needs. How many homes do our new Australians need every year, apart from the old Australians? This year, on the latest figures available, the number of homes commenced is down to 63,000, whereas back in 1950 or 1951 it was up to 80,000. There is a process of stop and go. We have an organization that produced 80,000 homes in 1950 or 195L It should be producing 100,000 homes a year now, so that all young people who marry have an opportunity to have homes of their own. The Leader of the Government suggested that 60 per cent, of the people are living in homes which they own. That is true, but the fact remains that for a young couple who marry to-day the position is completely different from that which faced people who married 30 years ago. The first thing that a young couple did 30 years ago was to rent a house, but to-day it is very difficult to rent one. Young couples nowadays must save their money in order to pay a deposit on a block of land and then they gradually get together enough money to pay a deposit on a house, which they will pay for over the next 20 to 45 years. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'Byrne: -- They cut down their families in order to pay for it. {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- There is no question about that. I wish to make a very quick reference to a matter in respect of which **Senator O'sullivan** was inaccurate. He talked about the rate of unemployment in Australia as being the lowest in the world. He has only to look at New Zealand to find a situation better than that in Australia. In his frenzy of praise for the Government, he said that nowhere in the world except in the United States was there a greater number of motor cars per head of population than in Australia. Speaking from memory, I would say that New. Zealand has more motor cars per head of population than Australia. So also has Canada, and there may be other countries as well. However, those two instances prove that what the Leader of the Govern-, ment said was inaccurate. 1 now want to refer to a trend in the economy of Australia that disturbs everybody who sees it. We have 67,000 unemployed to-day, compared with 52,000 last year, 32,000 in 1956 and 19,000 in the early part of 1955. With the Budget we are now considering, it certainly looks as though the present unemployment figure will not decrease by more than 5,000 or 7,000. With unemployment at the present level, the Government has a chance to do some of the things that have been crying out to be done since the end of the war. Now is the time to spend the money required to build the roads that this country really needs. **Senator O'sullivan** spoke of our standards, but there is not one European country in which the roads are not better than the roads in Australia. There can be no comparison, of course, of Australian roads and the roads of Canada and the United States. While we have so many people unemployed, this is the time to engage in road building. This is the time also for the Minister for Shipping and Transport **(Senator Paltridge)** to make sure that our shipbuilding yards have sufficient orders to enable them to work at full capacity. It is admitted that, because of the recession in the last twelve months, the value of tramp and other cargo ships has been reduced, but that should not affect our policy. We must look at this matter from a long-term point of view and build not just coastal ships. We have the manpower and the know-how in Australia to build inter-ocean ships that could carry our cargoes to all parts of the world. The only way to break the monopoly of the conference line, which has been in a garden of Eden for many years in this part of the world, is to build more ships. I would say that now is our chance to do so. Do not let us be frightened because throughout the world there is now a surplus of ships. Let us do something for ourselves. Let us lay the foundation of a shipping line that will be able to take our goods to all parts of the world. Another worrying tendency is reflected in decreased savings in our community. We find that savings have become relatively static. Of course, the inroads of hirepurchase business have a great deal to do with that. The average working person in Australia to-day is forced into hire purchase to obtain the things he needs for his home. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- There are three or four more savings banks now. There is more money in the savings banks now than last year. {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- As the Leader of the Government said, there are 2,000,000 people more in the country now than there were at the end of the war. Last year the Commonwealth Bank opened 46 new branches and increased its agencies by 591. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- And made £203,000,000 net profit, yet you say we want to shut it down. {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- The Commonwealth Savings Bank made only about £850,000 profit. That is relatively small. {: .speaker-JZY} ##### Senator Paltridge: -- That was after the transfer. {: .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG: -- Before the transfer. It transferred about £450,000 and kept about £450,000. Those are the figures I have in my memory. That brings me to the subject of hire purchase. The Labour party does not oppose that. Hire purchase has become a necessity in this community, not only for the people who need goods, but also for the people who manufacture them. However, I feel that all of us believe that the interest rates charged are so high as to justify an investigation. The companies should be called on to justify their charges. If the Prime Minister were not past caring about the matter, he would call the conference that the Premier of New South Wales has asked him to call so that all the Premiers can have a talk with the object of co-operating in order to solve this problem. I should like to say finally that only a few weeks ago President Eisenhower gave a warning to the bosses and workers of America. He said - >You will be heading for trouble unless you hold down profit and wage increases to reasonable levels. He said further that people would rebel if wages went up more than was justified by increased productivity and profits were so excessive as to constitute robbery of the public. That is something that this Government has completely ignored. It is all right to talk about the great job that Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited has done for Australia, but, having done the job, the company showed a net profit of £19,000,000. According to financial writers, its true profit was twice that amount. My time has almost expired. There are many things I should have liked to deal with, but I spent too much time in answering the Leader of the Government. I warn the Government to be careful lest its " don't care " attitude is adopted by the community. All the political prophets say that the Government is sure to be returned, and it has put forward a Budget that shows its "don't care" attitude. It may get a shock at the coming election. The people may say, "If the Government does not care, we do not care; out it goes ". {: #subdebate-21-0-s3 .speaker-JXR} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia -- Because of the circumstances leading to my election to the Senate, I should like to take a few minutes to pay a tribute to my predecessor, our late friend and colleague, Harrie Seward. Together with many other people in Western Australia, I listened to the broadcast of proceedings on the opening day of this sessional period and heard tributes paid to this man who had served his country so well in peace and in war. I know, **Sir, that** those tributes have given a good deal of pleasure to the friends of Harrie Seward and that they have brought a certain amount of comfort to **Mrs. Seward** in her loss. I knew Harrie Seward best during his stay in the Senate. During that time, he made it his business to keep producer organizations in Western Australia fully informed of the business that came before the Senate and which directly affected them. If, at any time he was uncertain of their views, he would not hesitate to go to the leaders of those organizations and seek their views. I knew him as a man who had a very strong sense of responsibility and who at no time could tolerate an injustice of any kind. I knew him also as a man who loved Western Australia. During his long term of public service to the State he never at any time lost his eagerness to serve it, or the country people in particular. Having known him and worked with him, and now having followed him into this place, it is my earnest wish that during my stay here - I hope it will be a long one - I may continue to follow his example and so become a worthy representative of my State. This evening I wish to deal with matters affecting the primary producers, particularly those of Western Australia. I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to place before the Senate the views of a large majority of wool-growers in Western Australia. I feel quite sure that honorable senators on both sides of the chamber realize the impact that falling wool prices are having, and will continue to have, on Australia's income. Perhaps I realize that more than do many honorable senators, because over the past few years and before my election to the Senate I was president of the wool section of the Farmers' Union of Western Australia. That organization is unique in the history of growers' organizations in this country because of the fact that it speaks with one voice for all the farmerproducers of Western Australia. Prior to 1946, there were several organizations in that State which claimed to represent the primary producers; but, as is the case in several other States to-day, on matters of prime importance to the producer, those organizations often held opposing views. In 1946, the two principal organizations were able to come together, to sink their differences of opinion, to submerge their personalities, and to amalgamate. Over the past twelve years, this organization has gone from strength *to* strength until now it is the envy of growers* organizations throughout Australia. It was that unity of strength which enabled Western Australia to be the only State in Australia to obtain a " Yes " vote in the 1951 wool-growers' ballot on the post-joint organization wool plan. Recently, delegates to the annual conferences of the wool section of the Farmers' Union, over which I presided, carried the following resolution: - >This conference re-affirms the belief that the existing selling system fails to adequately safeguard the wool-growers' interests and seeks better method of organized marketing with majority grower control. Later, conference delegates, after hearing a report of the wool marketing committee that was set up some years previously because of circumstances prevailing in Western Australia - I refer to the time when growers, because of their dissatisfaction with the market and the great fluctuations that were taking place from sale to sale, sold more than 80,000 bales of wool on their farms - and because of the decline in prices, decided by an overwhelming majority to support in principle the setting up of a wool marketing board, similar to the Australian Wheat Board, through which to market the Australian clip. Delegates did that, **Sir, fully** believing that the plan which was thrown out in 1951 was the best plan that was ever likely to be placed before the growers. But it had been rejected; also the growers realized that they did not have the capital that they had previously. Delegates believed that, if stability was to be brought to the industry, some other method of disposal had to be placed before the growers as a basis of discussion. I know that many people will argue against the setting up of a wool marketing board, that they will pooh-pooh it and turn it down straight away. But let me point out to honorable senators that there are not too many wheat-growers in Australia to-day who would reject the orderly marketing that is carried out by the Australian Wheat Board. Later, at the annual conference of the Australian Wool and Meat Producers' Federation, the Western Australian delegates successfully moved the same motion that was agreed to at their own conference, namely - >This conference re-affirms the belief that the existing selling system fails to adequately safeguard the wool-growers' interests and seeks a better method of organized marketing with majority grower control. When the various plans that were placed before the conference were discussed, delegates decided to set up a committee consisting of one member from each State affiliated organization to look into the plans with a view to reporting on whether they were workable and would be acceptable to the majority of growers in the country. So far, that committee has not reported back to the federation. In the meantime, with the opening of wool sales in Perth last month and a further Tall of 7i per cent, in prices, other parties began to become interested in the everdeclining wool situation. The Parliamentary Leader of the Country party moved, in the State House - >That in view of the vital influence that a profitable price for wool has on general prosperity, employment and business in this State, and as such price has declined to a level which is causing grave public concern, this House requests the Government to ask for a urgent meeting of the Agricultural Council to consider making an early submission to the Commonwealth Government for action to be taken to stabilize wool prices under such conditions as will ensure the successful continuance of this national industry. I believe that that matter was to come up for discussion in the State Parliament this afternoon. So much for the action that has been taken in Western Australia. I now wish to turn to a statement made by the Minister for Primary Industry **(Mr. McMahon),** in answer to a question regarding the fixing of a floor price for wool. I am not quoting the exact words that he used, but he said something to the effect that he and his departmental officers had given a good deal of thought to the matter of a floor price for wool, but that because growers had so decisively rejected the previous proposal, he was reluctant to change the present auction system, which had stood us in very good stead over a number of years, unless he was certain that there were definite advantages in some other system, particularly a system of prices. Nonetheless, if producers themselves put up a proposal to the Government, it would be given careful consideration. I suggest that it is of no use the Government worrying over spilt milk. I know that the 1951 plan was thrown out, a fact that I regret, because I feel that growers now would be only too happy to accept such a plan. Let us look at the position that existed in those days. First of all, there was the discussion and the fight about pre-emption, when this Government fought tooth and nail for the retention of the auction system. That was followed by a levy of *7i* per cent, to raise capital for the post-Joint Organization scheme. Thus, because of wool prices of as much as 15s. per lb., the Government introduced the Wool Sales Deduction Act. That act was bitterly criticized at the time, but I think that all wool-growers will agree that it worked to their benefit. The fact that growers had just emerged from the Joint Organization scheme of the war years, that many young farmers had come back from the war and had either taken over the family property or had set up in farming on their own account, and that the future looked bright, may have made wool-growers reluctant to have anything to do with something which, to their way of thinking, involved the Government. The plan was thrown out. But let us look at the position to-day. The price of wool has fallen. A few days ago, we had an announcement by the National Council of Wool Selling Brokers to the effect that the. average price of wool for the August sales, throughout Australia was 48d. per lb. The fall in Western Australia has been even greater. The average price last month was only 43.22d. per lb. in that State. The plight of the growers in Western Australia is even worse than that of other growers, having regard to last year's average of 72d. per lb. When one looks at the figures, the position becomes even more disturbing from the point of view of the growers. I want to quote some figures for the years between 1950 and 1958 and to make some comparisons. In May, 1950, the average price of wool was 75d. per lb. I do not say that the rate for shearers is too high, nor am I trying to force down the shearing' rate. The shearers have succeeded in getting their present rates by going to the Arbitration Court and placing their case before, it, as a result of which the court- made an award. However, I want to make certain comparisons, because the figures that I intend to quote refer not only to the cost of. shearing but also to the price of superphosphate and everything else that the producer uses. Although the average price for wool was 75d. per lb. in May, 1950, the flock rate for shearing, at the same time, was 75s. a hundred. In May, 1958, the average price for wool was 49id. per lb., but the shearing rate had risen to 153s. 9d. a hundred. That is the position that the growers face at the present time. I feel sure that if the price of wool continues to fall, this Government will have to do more than investigate the need for a floor price. Before long, I think that the growers will be coming to the Government to ask it to take action. In to-day's issue of the " Canberra Times ", there is a lot about dumping, but I put it to honorable senators that this country is dumping wool. Month after month we place wool on the auction floor, in pre-arranged quantities, and sell it irrespective of price. If sufficient buying strength is not present, the man who makes the highest bid gets the wool. How do you think that New Zealand and South Africa view this system, when they have tried to put some sort of a floor price into operation? I say to the Government that if the price of wool continues to fall and it is necessary for the Government to step in and take action, such action may be too late so far as New Zealand and South Africa are concerned, because it is possible that they might have used all their capital in " buying in " wool, and Australia would have to face the music on its own. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to have a look at the situation. As I said before, I feel sure that if something it not done soon, the growers will come to the Government with a proposition. It is in the bands of the Government to bring stability to the wool industry, if it wants to do so. Finally, **Mr. Deputy President,** I say that if nothing is done arid if the price of wool continues to decline, this Government will have to take some action, not merely to protect the wool-growers but to protect all Australians. {: #subdebate-21-0-s4 .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia -- I take this opportunity to congratulate **Senator Drake-Brockman** on his speech, much as I regret the circumstances that have brought him here. It is very sad to come back to the Parliament after a short absence and And that two of your colleagues have passed away, both of them very great workers, not only for their States, but for Australia also. I refer to the late **Senator Ashley,** who was a personal friend of mine and who was of very great help to me in my early years here, and to **Senator Seward,** who was such a stalwart for Western Australia. I think that we could not have had two more hard-working men in this Senate. They never wasted their time, but did a great deal, each in his own way, for the parties to which they belonged and for the country. I hope that **Senator Drake-Brockman** does not think that I am detracting from my tribute to his maiden speech by referring to **Senator Seward,** his predecessor. Turning to the Budget, as honorable senators know, we are about to lose a great personal friend in the Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden).** For his own sake, I am rather pleased that he is going. I feel that for too long he has had to bear the brunt of most unpopular Budgets; and, while we regard him as a great personal friend, we cannot say anything as kind about the Budget which he has presented this year. There is very little comfort to be derived from the Budget by the people of my own State, Western Australia, particularly the people in the north-west of the State, who expect a great deal from the Government at this time. Shortly before the sessional period began, visits were made to that part of Western Australia by very important people, amid a great blaring of trumpets. The Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** made a trip to the remote areas of the north-west, and everywhere he went he was feted and greeted warmly because of the interest he showed in the area - for which I commend him. He told the people of the outback that he thoroughly appreciated their difficulties, and the people were very hopeful that some help for them would emerge as a result. But what has happened? There has simply been a slight extension of the taxation concessions previously granted to the people of northern Australia. That will not attract one additional person to that area. In Western Australia, north of the 26th parallel, there are only 9,000 white people. That part of Western Australia is more than one-fifth the area of this continent, yet it has a population only about one-quarter the population of the city of Canberra. Because of its sparse population and its proximity to the trouble spots of SouthEast Asia, the north-west of Western Australia is a very vulnerable part of this country. Apart altogether from the need to develop and to populate the area in the interests of Western Australia itself, there is a great need to develop it for the sake of the adequate defence of Australia as a whole. Quite recently I visited the north-west of Western Australia. I made the trip by one of the State ships, and I should like to pay a compliment to that great shipping service which does such an immense amount of good for that State and the people in its far north. It is not called a snipping company because it is not a shipping company. It is what its name states - a shipping service. The ship on which I travelled was "Kooiarra", which was built in an Australian shipyard by Australian workmen. It proved to be an excellent ship for travel. It was beautifully appointed and it had, of course, an all-Australian crew. The point I wish to make is that if ships such as " Koojarra " can be built in Australian shipyards there is no need for us to go elsewhere to have ships built for the Western Australian trade. Recently, for reasons which are unknown to me, a ship was ordered from overseas for the Western Australian shipping service. It arrived on the Western Australian coast while I was away in the north. On its maiden voyage to the north it had several mishaps, and I was very pleased that I was not aboard it on that voyage. Those mishaps could have occurred to any vessel, but I venture to suggest that Australian shipbuilders would have more knowledge of the various requirements that have to be taken into account in the building of a ship for our north-western areas than overseas shipbuilders would have. I do not know the reason that lay behind the mishaps which occurred on that first voyage, but I know that the ship on which I sailed was equal to, or superior to, anything that could be brought in from abroad. In 1944, I launched a ship at Walker's shipyards in Maryborough. " Shoalhaven " was the ship, and it gave very good service in the latter days of the war and has done so since. Like **Senator Kendall,** I would regret to see any depletion of the trained work force which for so many years at Walker's shipyards has given such good service to this country. I hope that within the next year or so the present depressing position in the shipbuilding industry will be overcome. {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator Kendall: -- Within the next week or so. {: .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator TANGNEY: -- Within the next week or so; so that workers in the industry need not fear that they will be ousted from it. In the far north of Western Australia we have an enormous potential in the fishing industry. I should like **Senator Kendall** to come with me, one of these days, to the north-west so that we can have a good look at some of the potentials of the area, which are at present not being fully exploited. If he would not like to come with me alone, we can take **Senator Agnes** Robertson along with us. There are wonderful fishing grounds in the north-west of Western Australia, in addition to the pearling industry at Broome. I notice that some small concession is given in the Budget to the pearling industry. There is, in the north-west of Western Australia a vast potential for tuna and turtle fishing, and other types of fishing too. When the ship on which I made my trip returned to port it looked like a fishing trawler returning from a working trip, because the passengers came ashore with anything up to 100 lb. of fish each, which they had caught when fishing from jetties while in ports along the coast. It was absolutely amazing to see the amount of fish which is so readily available in those areas. Yet, that fishing industry has not been developed. In addition to that lack of development we now have the menace of the importation of cheap fish from abroad, which is causing the closing down of canneries in the southern part of Australia. I fear that there is little hope of seeing new fishing industries started in the north so long as this free flow of cheap imported fish is allowed into Australia. I found in Darwin that there is a great deal of disquiet over the position of the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory. It was felt that the council was being unnecessarily hamstrung. Although since that time there has been a conference in Canberra between members of the Legislative Council and the Minister for Territories **(Mr. Hasluck),** nothing much seems to have emerged from it. During my short stay in Darwin I could not help but notice some features of the housing position there. I was in Darwin about two years after the end of the war, and I must say that since then there has been tremendous development in the area. However. I think that many of the houses erected there are not only a positive disgrace, but also a positive fire hazard. For instance, many of them are timber houses, which are built on stilts because of the tropical climate. They have only one means of ingress and egress. There is only one stairway, which is in many cases placed near the portion of the house in which fires would most easily occur, that is, near the kitchen and living quarters. Should fire break out in the living quarters of such a house there would be absolutely no way in which the occupants could escape. Only a few months ago a small child was burned to death in such circumstances. While on this point, I should like to say that one thing which is very sadly lacking in Darwin is an efficient fire service. I am one of the few members of this Parliament who have visited Darwin and has inspected the fire station. The people there were very surprised to see me, as the fire station is one place which is not very often visited, because' nobody is very proud of it. The firemen are doing an excellent job in very difficult circumstances. There are very few of them, so they have little relief from their duties. In addition, the fire officers are most inadequately paid. If the council had the power to do so, it could rectify these matters on the spot without the necessity of coming to Canberra. However, the Legislative Council in Darwin has only a token power. The progress that has been made in Darwin since the war is absolutely amazing, and must be seen to be believed. Following on the visit of the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** and parliamentary delegations to the north, a delegation was sponsored by a Western Australian newspaper. My only complaint is that lady senators were not included because the sponsors thought the going would be too rough. I told them that after fifteen years as a senator I, at least, was quite accustomed to rough going. The newspaper is to be congratulated on its initiative in sponsoring a tour of the northwest by a parliamentary delegation so that members of Parliament could see for themselves the potentialities of the area and become much more cognizant of the difficulties confronting settlers in the north. Of course, money is needed to carry out the development of the area. The Commonwealth Government has made a start. During the last session, we discussed the grant of £2,500,000 for the development of the north-west on the conditions, first, that the State matched the Commonwealth grant £1 for £1, and secondly, that the Commonwealth projects to be embarked upon were approved by the Commonwealth. Work is to begin soon on three projects. But that is only a start. An increase in the amount of tax exemption granted to the people in the north would cost the Government less than £1,000,000, a trivial amount in a Budget of this size. However, the Northern Territory Development Committee feels that complete freedom from the payment of income tax by all wage and salary earners is necessary. The people living in those remote areas suffer a great deal of inconvenience due to climatic conditions. It is difficult to realize that while the winter in the southern States was somewhat severe, the temperature in the north was around 100 degrees, with a humidity of 70 or 80 per cent. The isolation of the area and the lack of decent educational facilities and medical services are other inconveniences. However, the Royal Flying Doctor Service is doing a magnificent job. But tax concession alone will not develop the Northern Territory or the north-west of Western Australia. People with capital must be encouraged to invest it there. That can be done if investors are allowed exemption from taxes payable on 60 per cent, of their profits if the remaining 40 per cent, is re-invested in the area. Such plans should be envisaged for a period of at least twenty years so that the investors and the people planning the development of those areas will have sufficient time in which to consolidate their enterprises and to reap some benefit from the sacrifices that they must of necessity make. If something of a definite and tangible nature on those lines is not done' soon, the chance may not always be open to us to do it. As all honorable senators must know, I am bitterly disappointed because no concession is granted in the Budget to widows. Before I came into the chamber to-day one honorable senator said to me, " I hope you are not going to mention the widows tonight, Dorothy " and I replied, " I need only half a chance to do so ". The widows, because of their lack of numerical strength and voting power, have been neglected for very many years. The widows with children are not even eligible to receive the 10s. a week supplementary rent allowance although a tremendous task confronts them. I have mentioned to the Government time and time again the position of deserted wives who, while not really widows in the strict sense of the word, are regarded as such for the purpose of the act. The Government is maintaining at least 10,000 deserted wives. That is the Government's duty. But the Government has a duty also to try to recover from the husbands the allowances paid to the deserted wives, or to encourage the husbands to face up to their responsibilities. Whilst this responsibility should not be placed on the Government, the deserted wives should not be left to starve. However, as the Government is paying the allowance to the deserted wives, it should explore every avenue to ensure that the husbands meet their liabilities, if not to their wives, then to the Government. When I mentioned this matter to the Minister recently he told me that the Government could only help the wife find her husband. That is a waste of time because in nine cases out of ten the wife knows the whereabouts of her husband, but does not have the money to go to court. If she does go to court, the husband will probably be imprisoned. The wife will then receive no maintenance. The Government should take action on the lines I have suggested and devote the money it recovers from the deserting husbands to bettering the lot of other widows with children. The deserted wives appear to be a forgotten race, not worthy of even a mention in any of the speeches on the Budget. During the last few weeks, we have heard a great deal about butter and about the difficult times the dairy farmers are experiencing. I have always maintained that the dairy farmer is the hardest working of all primary producers because his is not a seasonal occupation. The cows have to be milked seven days a week. When the price of butter is so high that many of our pensioners are unable to buy it, the dairying industry would be assisted if the Government increased pensions sufficiently to enable the pensioners to purchase butter instead of margarine. The production of margarine should not be limited as long as people in Australia cannot afford to buy butter. National fitness has become the Cinderella of the social services. The National Fitness Council does a very important job on a shoestring income, which has not been increased materially over the years. If we are to have an effective counter to juvenile delinquency, the council, and other organizations assisting in the development of our youth, should receive an adequate amount of money to enable them to carry out their chosen work. Those remarks also apply to the lifesaving clubs of Australia. To grant them a mere £5,000 is an insult because the work they do is beyond price. Young nien and women in various parts throughout the Commonwealth keep themselves fit and give up their week-ends voluntarily to patrol our beaches for the purpose of saving lives. The life-saving clubs must have equipment if they aic to carry out their work effectively, but in many cases, In order to raise funds for the purchase of equipment, they find it necessary to run dances, conduct street appeals and so on. Life assurance companies owe a great debt to the life-saving clubs, and we as a community owe them an even greater debt for the number of lives they save. I do not know offhand the number of rescues effected on our beaches last year, but I do know that it was considerable, even in Western Australia, and I should like to see greater provision made in the Budget for lifesaving clubs. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the great work they do anc! have done over the years not only in the interests of physical fitness but also in saving the lives of Australians. The toll of the roads over the last few months must cause every deep thinking citizen very great concern indeed. Whether this heavy toll is due to the fact that our traffic laws and transport laws are lacking in some way, or whether it is due to the fact that the cars using the roads are not 100 per cent, roadworthy, I do not know: but. whatever the reason may be, the position is indeed grave. I know that present day motor vehicles are capable of attaining very high speeds, and I can only say that in my opinion high speed is most undesirable if it leads to casualties. The toll of life in the community over the last few months has been terrific, and. although the Australian Road Safety Council is doing excellent work in its endeavours to keep. down the loss of life, I think every honorable senator will admit that the allowance being made in the Budget for this worthy body is certainly not such as to encourage it in its work. I should like to see greater provision made for the Australian Road Safety Council. Although the matters I have mentioned may seem relatively unimportant agains; the great background of national politics they are matters of extreme importance to us as citizens; and I need hardly point out that this national Parliament has a duty to the most humble of our citizens as well as to those fortunate enough to be amongst the most elevated in the community. 1 repeat that the matters fo which I have referred are of the utmost importance to a vast number of people and anything we can do to solve the problems confronting those people is of national importance in that by solving those difficulties we pave the way to a solution of other problems confronting the community. I have not the time to deal at length with the immigration programme. It was introduced by a Labour government and has been continued and extended by the present Government. Here I take the opportunity of expressing regret at **Senator O'Sullivan's** somewhat unfair statement that towards the end of 1949 and during the beginning of 1950. Australia experienced a period of dreadful vice, crime and shortages. He is normally a generous man, and I thought that at least he would have paid the Labour government some tribute for the work done by it during the war years and for its endeavours in the immediate post-war years to solve the problems besetting Australia. I admit that we did not build as many houses as have been erected since that time, but. in all fairness, it must be admitted that houses could not be built because there were acute shortages of materials. Supplies had to be built up again. We had to start from scratch, and the Labour government deserves a great deal of credit for what it did in the immediate post-war years to build up supplies of materials and to ensure that never again would Australians be without houses, as they were during the depression years, when they were unhoused, not because houses were unavailable but because they had not the money to obtain the keys to them. I submit, therefore, that the picture painted by the Leader of the Government to-night was a little one-sided and not quite fair. I am certain that when he reads in " Hansard " to-morrow what he did say, **Senator O'Sullivan** will be sorry he said it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a first time. {:#subdebate-21-1} #### Second Reading Motion (by **Senator Spooner)** agreed to - >That the bill be now read a second time. Bill read a second time and committed pro forma; progress reported. Senate adjourned at 10.58 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 17 September 1958, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1958/19580917_senate_22_s13/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant