Senate
14 May 1959

23rd Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 23rd Parliament
  3. 1959

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMuIlin) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1407

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I preface it by stating that it concerns an organization known as the Federation of Parents and Citizens’ Associations, the object of which is to provide amenities, school books and general facilities in aid of primary education, and to donate scholarships for primary education. I might add that donations for scholarships tenable at universities are allowable deductions for income tax purposes, but that donations for scholarships provided by this federation, or its members, are not so deductible. Will the Treasurer request the Government to give approval for donations in excess of £1 to the Federation of Parents and Citizens’ Associations for the provision of school books, equipment and amenities to be regarded as allowable deductions for income tax purposes? Will he also support the proposition that moneys expended in providing scholarships for school students shall be similarly regarded?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I will refer the matter raised by the honorable senator to the Treasurer. I have no doubt that he will consider it during the preparation of the Budget, when all these matters come up for close consideration.

page 1407

QUESTION

OVERSEAS INVESTMENTS IN AUSTRALIA

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Will the Minister invite the attention of the Attorney-General to a proposition attributed to a body known as the Australian Industries Development Association, which was reported in the “ Sydney Morning Herald “ on 5th May? The association claimed that State authorities should be careful not to offer to overseas investors special inducements which are not available to local industries, as certain sections of the Federal Constitution prohibited the granting by a State of any aid to the production of goods without the consent of both Houses of the Federal Parliament. Will the Minister please have this rather dogmatic statement examined and, after that has been done, will he enlighten the Senate on any issues affecting the States that may be involved?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · VICTORIA · LP

– An answer to a question in this House is not a satisfactory medium for expressing considered views on a constitutional matter. The AttorneyGeneral, however, has examined the statement to which attention has been called. The constitutional position, by virtue of section 51 (iii) and sections 90 and 91 of the Constitution, is that, except in the case of mining, only the Commonwealth can, as of right, grant a bounty on the production or export of goods. A State cannot do so, but there is a rather unusually worded reservation by virtue of which, with the consent of both Houses of this Parliament, a State can grant an aid or bounty even on the production or export of goods.

Without particular examination of the circumstances of each instance said to involve an aid or bounty on the production of goods, it is not possible to say whether or not an aid or bounty is being given. However, it cannot be said that, in general, an inducement to the establishment of an industry is an aid or bounty on the production or export of goods. Nor will the question be answered by comparing the situation or advantages of one industry with that of another. Consequently, the statement under question is scarcely supportable in its generality.

page 1407

QUESTION

FOOTWEAR

Senator SHEEHAN:
VICTORIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Trade noticed a news item in this morning’s “ Canberra Times “ to the effect that Mr. M. E. Bylos, president of the Bespoke Bootmakers and Repairers Association, speaking in Sydney yesterday, is reported to have said, amongst other things, that an overall rise of 10 per cent, in the price of boot repairs had just been announced but that present trends indicate that prices will have to go up again and that rising hide prices would cause shoe repairs to reach a new high of 25s. before the end of the year? Mr. Bylos attributes this position to the entry of United States and Continental buyers to the Australian hide market. As these increases will adversely affect low wage-earners and persons who are in receipt of social service benefits, will the Government, if it will not limit the export of hides from Australia, favorably consider the payment of a bounty on leather used in the manufacture or repair of boots in Australia in order to keep prices at a reasonable level?

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

– I did see the newspaper report. Senator Sheehan asks an interesting question to which I can reply only in general terms. It is true that the price of hides on world markets has risen quite appreciably. From the viewpoint of Australia as a whole, that factor would need to be taken into consideration with other influences such as the fall in the prices of our metals, to which we turn for export income. The honorable senator suggests that we might overcome the difficulty by paying a bounty or giving some other form of assistance to keep local prices at as low a level as is practicable. I can only remind him that it has long been the established policy of the Government not to give bounties or enter upon bounty arrangements without a Tariff Board inquiry, which permits an examination of all the circumstances. So I cannot give the honorable senator the assurance that he seeks. I can only say to him that I shall ask the Minister for Trade to have a look at the situation generally.

page 1408

QUESTION

DIESEL FUEL TAX

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Customs and Excise whether he believes that the diesel fuel tax is operating smoothly. Is there any indication that people who operate diesel-engined vehicles are endeavouring to obtain fuel without paying the tax?

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · TASMANIA · LP

– Senator Scott asked me this question last week. I said then that the department was making an examination of the first three months of the working of this scheme and that I would be in a better position to answer him later on. I now have some statistics which were not available to me then. The scheme is working quite smoothly. We have issued 100.000 certificates to users of diesel fuel for other than road purposes. Although the certificate scheme is working quite smoothly, the procedures are being examined from time to time in order to streamline and improve them, where necessary. One aspect of the matter which did cause some concern was the use of industrial fuel in road vehicles. That has now been taken up. The statistics disclose some 460 cases of excessive use of industrial fuel, and the department felt that those 460 cases should be examined. They are under active examination at the present time. Action will be taken in appropriate cases.

page 1408

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT LOANS AND FINANCE

Senator COURTICE:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface a question to the Leader of the Government by saying that I believe that Queensland has been unfairly treated by this Government since it has been in office, due to lack of assistance to State projects and the small grants made to the State. In order to enable the Senate to judge this Government’s fairness or otherwise in its treatment of all States, I ask the Minister to supply a detailed statement of all projects completely financed or assisted from Consolidated Revenue, showing the amounts provided by this Government, and showing also the grants made to individual States from Consolidated Revenue.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I refute the suggestion that Queensland has been unfairly treated by this Government. The general approach of the Government is that Queensland has perhaps the greatest potential of any State. We look with very great interest indeed upon all proposals that emanate from Queensland and attempt to see that they are brought to fruition. T think it would be love’s labour lost to prepare a statement such as Senator Courtice requests, because, generally speaking, the existing pattern of Commonwealth-State financial arrangements is for the Commonwealth to provide the greatest possible volume of funds through the tax reimbursement arrangements. Superimposed upon that is the provision of loan moneys, the details of which and the arrangements for which are agreed upon by the Australian Loan Council. In order to give a comprehensive picture, it would be necessary to delve into the records of the State Government, examine its tax reimbursements and its Loan Council allocations, and then ascertain the sums that the Commonwealth spends directly on postal services, war service homes and other government activities.

page 1409

QUESTION

BASS STRAIT FERRY SERVICE

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. In view of the fact that preparations are already in hand to provide a special and spectacular welcome to the new Bass Strait ferry, “ Princess of Tasmania “, on its first visit to Devonport, and in order to assist the people of Devonport to finalize details of their plans, will the Minister make an announcement as soon as possible as to the exact date of the first voyage of the “ Princess of Tasmania “ and the scheduled time of arrival at Devonport? Can he supply the Senate with any details of plans the department may have for the maiden voyage?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Australian Coastal Shipping Commission is in close touch with the port authority at Devonport about the maiden voyage which will be undertaken by the “ Princess of Tasmania “. lt is hoped that shortly the commission will be able to announce the date of the first voyage to Devonport, and to make a fairly comprehensive statement about all the arrangements which will be put in hand to celebrate an occasion which, I appreciate, is of first-class importance to Devonport, to Tasmania and, I believe, to Australian shipping generally. As soon as we are in a position to make a statement, we shall do so. Meanwhile, Senator Marriott may be assured that the closest co-operation exists among all persons who will be connected with the operation of this vessel.

page 1409

QUESTION

OVERSEAS INVESTMENTS IN AUSTRALIA

Senator COURTICE:

– I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has the Minister’s attention been directed to a recent report in the press to the effect that much concern is being felt because large profits that are being made by a number of American undertakings are being taken out of Australia? Will the Minister endeavour to induce or compel these people to invest a percentage of their profits in this country?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The newspapers have carried a number of comments on this matter which is, I think, exciting a good deal of interest and attention. My own views about it are that there is so much to be done in Australia in so many directions, that it is of vital importance to us to secure continuing investments from overseas. Our future will depend very largely upon the maintenance of our migration programme and, in order to maintain that programme, we need to ensure that our manufacturing industries shall develop very substantially. I should think that Senator Courtice probably would agree with me to that extent. The next point that arises is as to whether we can attract overseas investment into Australia. Before we impose limitations upon the manner in which the investors deal with their profits, I should like to see some statistics upon the matter. Although we hear a number of general arguments we do not see - at least I do not - supporting statistics.

Overseas investment in Australia which becomes profitable and successful is, to an appreciable extent, re-invested in the development of the industry that the entrepreneur commenced or, alternatively, in other industries. The extent to which profits are being exported at this stage can be overstated. As it is so vital for us to continue to obtain a level of overseas investment in Australia, it is necessary that we be more certain of our facts than we are at present before we seek to impose any restriction upon the export of any profits that result from the investments.

page 1409

QUESTION

ATOMIC RADIATION

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question to the Minister for National Development by stating that in recent months I have noticed articles in newspapers and journals dealing with the possibility of producing new strains of primary products and, in particular, new varieties of grain by subjecting the seeds to radioactive radiation. Realizing that much has been done already to increase plant productivity by the use of radio-active isotopes and by the testing of soil element requirements, I now ask the Minister, in his capacity as Minister in charge of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, whether the commission has given any consideration to the question as to whether atomic radiation can be applied to the advantage of our primary industries by the use of this new means of propagating better varieties of grain.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I reply to Senator Buttfield. first, by striking a cautionary note to the extent that the fruits of research are sometimes deferred and that it is not wise to expect quick results. Having said that, I now state that the work that is going on is one of the first fruits of the establishment of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and the research reactor at Lucas Heights. The first contribution of Lucas Heights will be to provide isotopes to meet the requirements of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization which, in turn, will use the isotopes in experimental research work on grains and seeds. There is certainly a consensus of opinion that so far as Australia is concerned this may well be one of the most fruitful fields for research work. As I understand it, from a layman’s point of view, the characteristics of many seeds change so dramatically after radiation that there is a very great effect upon the fertility of the seeds themselves and the quality - whatever the correct term is - of the crop that they produce. This is without doubt one of the directions in which the Government will give every encouragement to both the C.S.I.R.O. and the Atomic Energy Commission.

page 1410

QUESTION

INFLUENZA

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health by stating that, on 5th May, I placed a question upon the notice-paper in relation to the campaign of immunization against virus influenza. Will the Minister consider telling his colleague that I think it was entirely wrong of him to ignore my question and, at the same time, supply information to the press on the matter before furnishing me with an answer. Secondly, will the Minister ask his colleague to abandon the practice of treating honorable senators with contempt?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I am quite confident, of course, that no Minister would in any way wish to treat any honorable senator’s question with contempt, and I think that Senator O’Flaherty has completely misstated the position. Indeed, the reply furnished by the Minister for Health is now available, and when the President makes the appropriate announcement concerning questions upon notice, I shall supply it to the honorable senator. I assure Senator O’Flaherty that both the Minister for Health and I acknowledge that questions are placed upon notice for the purpose of eliciting information, and we endeavour to furnish answers to them at the earliest, possible moment. We have always followed that practice and will continue to do so.

page 1410

QUESTION

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION

Senator WARDLAW:
TASMANIA

– 1 should like to preface a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service by directing his attention to a statement in a leading daily newspaper this morning to the effect that Australia’s system of maintaining industrial peace is proving of great interest to officers of the United States Government who are seeking a solution to violent labour unrest in American industry. Those officers are reported to have stated that - . . of all the systems interesting Government officials, the Australian practice intrigues our specialists the most.

Does the Minister consider that this generous comment on the success of our system of conciliation and arbitration proves beyond doubt that the Commonwealth Government has handled, and is continuing to handle, labour disputes in Australia with sympathy and is achieving conspicuous success? Has the Government received any intimation from the American authorities of their desire to visit Australia for the purpose of obtaining first-hand information and full particulars of the system that has proved so successful in this country?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I did see the item in the newspaper to which the honorable senator refers. I should say that if this is indicative of a general opinion in the United States of America - and I would not be surprised if it is - it is also indicative of the fact that the Commonwealth Government, the unions in this country that are not under Communist domination, and the employers have all - at any rate, since 1950 - approached their problems with toleration one to the other, and with sympathy and common sense. I think it may also be indicative of the fact that the action of this Government in ensuring that a union can elect its controlling officers on a secret, fair, universal and uncorrupted basis through a secret ballot also has contributed to a record of great industrial peace. 1 have no information as to whether the Commonwealth Government has had a direct approach, but 1 am sure that if such an approach is made, this Government and, indeed, the other parties concerned in industry in this country, will be only too happy to place their experience at the disposal of the United States authorities.

page 1411

QUESTION

REARWARD-FACING SEATS IN AIRCRAFT

Senator BRANSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Civil Aviation seen the report of a reply given in the House of Commons by the Parliamentary Secretary to the United Kingdom Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, in respect of backward-facing seats in aircraft, in the course of which he stated that that method of seating gave greater protection to air travellers? If this is so, what steps is the Minister taking to see that passenger airliners that are brought to Australia in the future will be equipped with seating of this type?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I have not seen a report of the statement made in the British House of Commons by Mr. Watkinson, but I am very interested to hear of it, because, both verbally and in writing, I have discussed this matter with him from time to time, and we have exchanged views. In point of fact, I think it fair to say that Australia has not been behind the times in exploring all modern developments in aviation. Some years ago - I think in 1955 - the Department of Civil Aviation determined that all aircraft introduced into Australia for use in Australian air services after two years from the date of the decision - which would have made the proposal operative in about 1957 - should be fitted with rearward-facing seats. However, the airlines objected to this proposal. We held a number of conferences with them. They maintained that it had not been established beyond doubt that rearward-facing seats were inherently safer than the conventional forward-facing seats, and they said that their contention was more or less supported by the fact that action to implement such a proposal had been taken in but few other countries. Having that in mind, the depart ment, in 1957, at a conference of technical experts which was held under the sponsorship of the International Civil Aviation Organization, presented a case in support of rearward-facing seats, and a most interesting discussion ensued.

The outcome was that although the Australian idea did not receive the support of the majority, it did receive the support of a great number of the larger civil aviation countries. Australia will pursue that matter at forthcoming conferences of this sort, keeping a close watch meanwhile on investigations which are being made now in a number of countries as to safety factors and other technical matters involved in the installation of rearward-facing seats.

page 1411

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN HISTORY

The PRESIDENT:

– Yesterday I promised Senator Laught that I would make a further statement in reply to his question about the possibility of obtaining for theNational Library of Australia copies of a great number of hitherto unpublished documents concerning the explorations of the Spanish navigator, Qui ros, in the Pacific, and other material relating to the early history of Australia, New Guinea and the Pacific, which Father Celsus Kelly has discovered during his researches into the archives of the Spanish Government and the Vatican.

The National Library is actively concerned to gather a comprehensive record of the history and development of the Australian people. Since much of the record of discovery, exploration, settlement and government consists of original documents in government and private archives overseas, the National Library has developed, with the valued partnership of the Mitchell Library which is part of the Public Library of New South Wales and has a similar interest, a comprehensive project to locate and where possible copy such documents on microfilm. About 2,000,000 pages of manuscript have already been copied and brought to Australia.

The Reverend Celsus Kelly, who is a recognized authority on early exploration in the Pacific, especially that done by the Spaniards and Portuguese, made proposals early in 1954 as a result of which an arrangement was made within the general framework of the micro-filming project for him to list, describe, and microfilm appropriate documents which he found in the course of his researches in Europe and particularly in Spain, where a vast amount of such material has been accumulated much of which still remains to be searched. As a result copies of several hundred important documents have been received together with valuable information concerning probable sources of similar material. 1 feel sure that honorable senators generally will be gratified to know that the National Library is in touch with these matters, and that resources of this kind for the study of our own past are being systematically gathered.

page 1412

QUESTION

REARWARD-FACING SEATS IN AIRCRAFT

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation supplementary to that asked by Senator Branson. I ask the Minister whether in view of the fact that modern aircraft such as the Electra and the one we had the opportunity of testing the other day - the Hercules - are equipped with very highpowered turbo-prop engines, which exert a great amount of thrust and centrifugal force on take-off, he considers it is time to educate the travelling public to the disadvantages of forward-facing seating in aircraft. Further, will he consider publishing in airline publications which are issued each week and are available to the travelling public semi-scientific information on the actual pressures exerted on the bodies of people by the terrific thrust that is generated in modern aircraft? Will he also consider the adoption by the Government now, with the advent of these highpowered aircraft, of a general policy of educating the public to the advantages of rearwardfacing seats?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I will be pleased to consider the proposal advanced by Senator O’Byrne. At whatever point of time it is decided to introduce rearwardfacing seats, a campaign of public education will be necessary, because there is a natural public resistance to all changes of this type.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– They want to see where they are going!

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– As Senator O’Flaherty remarks, it is only natural that people should want to sit facing forward. There would be a need to educate t.’:s public on the reasons why that is not the most advantageous way to sit in an aircraft. I shall be pleased to consider the quite’ interesting suggestion made by Senator O’Byrne.

page 1412

QUESTION

IMPORT LICENSING

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– My question to the Minister for Customs and Excise refers to an announcement - which, I hope he will permit me to say, as a first step was very satisfactory - to the effect that for the benefit of those who felt they had been denied justice in import licensing he would constitute a board of appeal from departmental decisions on licensing irregularities. Have appointments to this board or committee yet been made? If so, is the Minister in a position to announce its personnel? Will he say whether the scope of the new committee will extend to decisions to revoke or defer licences for imports, as well as to forfeiture of unauthorized imports?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I cannot yet make an announcement as to the personnel of the committee. As 1 indicated earlier, I have been in touch with members of the appeals committee in New South Wales which undertakes the examination of cases involving refusals or rejections of applications for licences. I have asked them to undertake this additional task, but I cannot yet make an announcement on the subject. The honorable senator asks whether the committee will have the right to inquire into cases involving the imposition of all types of penalty, following action by my department on irregularities in import licensing. I hope that the appeals committee will investigate all such matters. There will be a right of appeal, irrespective of the penalty that has been imposed.

page 1412

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport whether it is a fact that the “South Esk”, a Commonwealth Line ship, sailed from Melbourne for Sydney on 17th April with a cargo of nine experimental cargo containers? Were the goods carried in these new cargo containers those of one transport agent only? Did any other agents apply for space in them? What were the freight rates, and do they conform to the schedules of the Australian National Line and the Australian Steamship Owners Association? Was the experiment successful and, if so, what were the receipts and expenses of the trip, including stevedoring and crane hire charges? Are any further experiments of this nature contemplated? If so, will the Minister give the Senate an assurance that no one transport agent will have a monopoly of such shipping space?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I am sure that Senator Hannan would not expect me to have on hand the details as to income and expenditure which he seeks, but possibly 1 may be able to give him some information of interest. The “ South Esk “ did carry experimental containers, as he suggests. Also, I understand, the cargo carried in them was consigned by one firm only, lt was the result of an arrangement between the Australian National Line and the consignee, who realized that it was an experimental cargo only. It is not intended, of course, if and when these containers come into general use, that they shall be restricted to any one consignee. Indeed, the reverse is the case. If the experiment has proved a success, the containers will be available to any one who wishes to use them.

I am reminded, as I speak, that both the Australian National Line and the private shippers have in recent years conducted some very interesting and successful experiments in cargo handling methods. They have introduced new ideas, especially in the loading of timber in Tasmania, in the preslinging of steel, in refrigerated containers and so on. All of these have been placed at the disposal of users of shipping. The honorable senator can be assured that if these containers are adopted generally they will be available to all users of ships of the Australian National Line. I would trust that other shipping companies would also use them, especially if that would lead to a downturn in shipping costs.

page 1413

QUESTION

REARWARD-FACING SEATS IN AIRCRAFT

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

– I preface my question to the Minister for Civil Aviation by stating that the aircraft of some airline companies already contain four seats which face rearwards. I am sure that those companies would be delighted to have the names of any members of Parliament who would like to travel that way. Is it not a fact that some passengers refuse to travel in aircraft if they are given a seat facing rearwards, and that airlines have difficulty in disposing of such seats if others are available?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I do know that in some aircraft the seats in the front pair of seats face each other and that, as a result, some passengers face rearwards. I do not know that occupancy of such seats has ever been rejected by prospective passengers, but because there is, as Senator O’Byrne has mentioned, a natural reluctance to sit in an unusual way, I should not be surprised if that were so.

page 1413

QUESTION

LAND SETTLEMENT OF EX-SERVICEMEN

Senator GORTON:
LP

– On 7th May, Senator Laught addressed a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry as follows -

I address a question to ihe Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I understand that the Government has decided that, in agent States, no further acquisition of land will be made for war service land settlement after 30th June, 1959. Can the Minister assure me that land already acquired will be developed and marie available to suitable ex-servicemen? I have been informed by the South Australian branch of the Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Fathers* Association that there are approximately 100 settlers in South Australia awaiting land. Can the Minister ascertain the approximate number of blocks that will be made available in South Australia after 30th June, 1959, from land acquired or likely to be acquired before that c’ate, and the location of those blocks?

The Minister for Primary Industry has replied in the following terms: -

The honorable senator may be assured that all land purchased for war service land settlement will be developed as envisaged under the scheme and will be allotted to classified ex-servicemen. On the figures available to me up to 31st December, 1958, and excluding such single unit farms as have been approved in the meantime, it appears that about 80 additional farms will become available in South Australia for exservicemen. The majority will be on Kangaroo Island, but there will be some in the Canunda and Reedy Creek areas.

page 1413

QUESTION

LEAD AND ZINC

Senator SCOTT:

– I address to the Minister for National Development a question relating to American importations of lead and zinc, about which I asked him yesterday. Has he any further information about how these importations will affect Australian producers of these commodities?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– Senator Scott asked me a similar question yesterday. I told him that I had done some homework on the matter but that I did not have the figures in my mind. I shall now give my analysis of the situation as it relates to lead. In 1957, we exported 75,000 tons of lead to the United States of America. Under America’s import quota arrangements, we are restricted to 42,000 tons. The estimate of the international committee which met in Washington recently is that for 1959 world production of lead will be 148,000 tons in excess of consumption. The arrangement that the mining companies have made on an international basis contemplates that world supplies of lead will be reduced by 45,000 tons in the second half of 1959, which means a rate of 90,000 tons a year. Australia exported 217,000 tons in 1958. It is estimated that we will export 207,500 tons in 1959, the decrease being due to the loss of some markets as well as American import restrictions. The present estimate is that we will export at the rate of 178,200 tons per annum as a result of the private international arrangement entered into by the mining companies and the American import restrictions.

I summarize all that information in this way: This year, our exports to the United States of America will be 42,000 tons instead of the 75,000 tons we exported in 1957. The result of the international agreement appears to be that the Australian mining companies have agreed to reduce their exports by 29,300 tons per annum. These figures, which have been collated from various sources of information available to me, have been checked by the Department of National Development. The conclusion is that the extent to which it is now expected that Australian exports of lead will be reduced will be less than the market we have lost in the United States. In other words, we anticipate gaining in other directions to offset that restriction.

page 1414

QUESTION

MARGARINE

Senator WARDLAW:

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

  1. Is it a fact that, during a session broadcast to schools on the- national stations, the origin and manufacture of margarine was recently discussed?
  2. Is it a fact that the subject was presented as a discussion between a mother and her children at the family breakfast table, during which the mother expounded on the merits of margarine as a spread and boosted its value as a table commodity in lieu of butter, which she stated was too expensive to buy?
  3. Does the Postmaster-General consider that broadcasts of this nature are in the best interests of dairy farmers and the production and sale of a national product so important to our economy?
Senator Sir WALTER COOPER:

– The

Postmaster-General has supplied me with the following information: -

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. The Postmaster-General has discussed the broadcast with the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission who has informed him that the broadcast in question was prepared by an officer of the State Correspondence School of Tasmania in the regular series to correspondence children in that State.

The commission discussed this matter at a recent meeting and felt that it would be indefensible to prohibit the objective discussion of the food value of any product which is purchased by the public. In particular, the commission points out that margarine is a product of Australian manufacture and that a proportion of the materials used are primary products of Australia and its Territories. Full recognition of the value of butter not only as a food but as an important element in our economy is given in A.B.C. broadcasts.

page 1414

QUESTION

NEWS AND INFORMATION BUREAU

Senator KENNELLY:
through Senator O’Flaherty

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

Will the Minister give an assurance that no final decision having the effect of reducing the personnel of the Government News and Information Bureau film unit, as recommended in a report submitted to the Government, will be taken before Parliament has had an opportunity to discuss the matter?

Senator Sir WALTER COOPER:

– The

Minister for the Interior has now furnished the following reply: -

It would be unusual for a report of the kind mentioned by the honorable senates, which does not have its origin in the direct authority of Parliament but which arises in the course of administrative routine, to be dealt with as he suggests and I regret that I am unable to give the assurance asked for.

page 1414

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator KENNELLY:
through Senator O’Flaherty

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

  1. Has the Government received any applications for the grant of television licences in the country areas of Victoria?
  2. If so, is the Australian Broadcasting Control Board examining these applications?
  3. Will the Postmaster-General give an assurance that Parliament will be provided with an opportunity to discuss the granting of such licences prior to final decisions being made?
Senator Sir WALTER COOPER:

– The

Postmaster-General has furnished the following replies: - 1 and 2. Many inquiries have been received concerning the grant of licences for commercial television stations in various centres, as I indicated in a recent statement. Applications for licences for stations in the Canberra, Newcastle-Hunter River, Illawarra, Richmond-Tweed Heads, Central Tablelands, Ballarat, Bendigo, Latrobe Valley, Goulburn Valley, Darling Downs, Rockhampton, Townsville, and North-Eastern Tasmania areas will be invited shortly.

  1. The procedure to be followed in connexion with the grant of licences for commercial television stations is prescribed in the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1956 and will be strictly followed by the Government as on past occasions.

page 1415

QUESTION

DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA

Senator HANNAN:

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

  1. Relative to a news-photograph appearing in the “ Canberra Times “ of 30th April, depicting two Russian scientists from New Zealand being welcomed by one Victor Lessiovski, will the Minister advise (a) whether it is a fact that Mr. Lessiovski is, as described, “ the advance guard “ of the Russian Embassy returning to Canberra, and (b) if so, how many Russian diplomats have already arrived in Canberra and when they arrived?
  2. What size staff will the embassy be permitted here, having regard to the fact that Australia has negligible trade and no cultural ties with Russia?
  3. Is it not a fact that the Petrov commission found that one of the things assisting the Russian espionage in Australia was the ridiculously large staff of 53?
  4. Is it not a fact that during the last month the left-wing Government of Mexico has been compelled to expel the Russian Embassy in that country because of espionage?
  5. In view of this will the Government, even at this late hour, reverse its decision to allow the Russians to return?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Minister for External Affairs has replied as follows: - 1. (a) Mr. Lessiovski was a member of the Soviet delegation to the Ecafe conference which was held at Broadbeach in March of this year. Following the agreement that Australia and the U.S.S.R. should re-open their respective embassies in Canberra and Moscow, it was also agreed that Mr. Lessiovski should remain in Australia to make the necessary preparatory arrangements for the re-opening of the Soviet Embassy in Canberra, (b) Mr. Lessiovski is the only Soviet diplomat at present in Canberra.

  1. The principal features of the agreement for the re-establishment of the Australian Embassy in Moscow and the Soviet Embassy in Canberra have already been outlined. As already stated, I believe that Australian interests in regard to the size of the respective embassies have been effectively safeguarded.
  2. A figure of over 50 persons attached to the staff of the Soviet Embassy in Canberra in 1954 can only be arrived at by including wives, children and domestic staff, &c. In February, 1954, the names of eight Russian officials were in the diplomatic list.
  3. The Mexican Government did not last month expel the Soviet Embassy from Mexico.
  4. See answer to question 2.

page 1415

QUESTION

INFLUENZA

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

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

  1. Is it a fact that immunizing vaccines against virus influenza are available in Australia?
  2. Are any arrangements being made for an immunizing programme against such virus influenza?
Senator HENTY:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. It is not known whether State governments have any such arrangements under consideration.

page 1415

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator LAUGHT:

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

  1. What is the reason for the fact that the recent statement by the Postmaster-General on country television services excludes completely the possibility of any country district in South Australia having its own television station in the next phase of television development?
  2. Is it a fact that the areas of Goulburn Valley, Latrobe Valley, Ballarat and Bendigo, all closely situated to each other, will each be entitled to separate television stations in the next phase of television development?
Senator Sir WALTER COOPER:

– The

Postmaster-General has supplied the following replies: -

  1. The Government in its recent decision relating to the extension of television services made it clear that in the next or third stage it was proposing to provide television services to the major provincial and country areas. The selection of areas in this stage was based broadly on population density in accepted regional divisions. Other areas will be included in the next stage of television development. A large proportion of the population of South Australia will in fact receive a service from the Adelaide stations.

    1. Yes. Each of the areas named has a substantial population in a well recognized geographical region and also definite community of interest. While the location of the transmitters in these areas will not be determined until after the public inquiry into applications for licences it is not expected that there will be any overlapping of services in the different areas.

page 1416

QUESTION

TEXTILES

Senator BRANSON:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that under regulations relating to textile labelling a margin of 5 per cent. for inaccuracy is allowed?
  2. Is it also a fact that certain articles are being labelled “ pure wool “ when actually there is an admixture of synthetics and the reference to “ pure wool “ is true only of the wool content in the article?
  3. If the answers to 1 and 2 are in the affirmative, will the Minister, in view of the fact that such labelling is very misleading to the buying public, consider a closer policing of the regulations?
Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answer: -

The legislation governing the labelling of wool textiles manufactured in Australia is the responsibility of the individual States. However, all State acts have uniform provisions resulting from agreement in the Australian Agricultural Council regarding this matter. The labelling of imported wool textiles is controlled by the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905-1950, and the Commerce (Imports) Regulations, which contain similar provisions to the State acts, and are administered by the Minister for Customs and Excise. With these points in mind, the answers to the honorable senator’s questions are - 1 and 2. The respective State acts and the Commerce (Imports) Regulations provide that the trade description applied to textile products which contain 95 per cent. or more by weight of wool shall include the words “ pure wool “. The term “ pure wool “ cannot be used where the textile product contains less than 95 per cent. by weight of wool. Where the textile product contains less than 95 per cent. by weight of wool the description must indicate the actual percentage by weight of wool with other fibres shown in order of dominance by weight.

A tolerance of 5 per cent. for other fibres is allowed for trimming, pattern effects and other such incidentals or for the inadvertent admixture of other fibres during processing. This provision is in keeping with modern textile labelling practice. In respect of imported wool products the textile labelling regulations are actively policed by the Department of Customs and Excise. It is a matter for the various State authorities to police their respective textile labelling provisions for wool products manufactured in Australia.

page 1416

QUESTION

INFLUENZA

Senator HENTY:
LP

– On 12th May, Senator La ugh t asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health the following question relating to supplies of anti-influenza vaccine: -

On Monday, in the Adelaide press, there appeared a statement, which was attributed to the Minister, to the effect that considerable supplies of anti-influenza vaccine were available in Australia for people who wished to be inoculated. But according to an article in this morning’s press, two leading drug houses were reported to have denied last night that adequate supplies of anti-influenza vaccine produced by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in Melbourne were available in Adelaide. Will the Minister kindly inquire into this matter, as the report in to-day’s press appears to be a direct contradiction of his earlier statement?

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

There was a very short period during which supplies of vaccine, which are distributed in Adelaide largely by Drug Houses of Australia Limited, were completely taken up. As soon as this was known a message was sent to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, and a consignment of several thousand doses was immediately - as the press would say - rushed to Adelaide. 1 am sure that doctors in Adelaide will now be able once more to get all the vaccine that they require.

page 1416

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Discharge of Motions

Motion (by Senator Spooner) agreed to -

That the following orders of the day, Government Business, be discharged: -

Foreign Affairs - Asia - Statement by the Minister for External Affairs, dated 23rd April, 1959.

Indonesia and West New Guinea - Statement by the Prime Minister, dated 24th February, 1959.

Motion (by Senator McCallum) agreed to -

That the following order of the day, General Business, be discharged: -

Public Service Recruitment - Report of Committee of Inquiry.

page 1416

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL (No. 2) 1958-59

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12th May (vide page 1351). on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

.- This is a short bill that did not, apparently, warrant a great deal of discussion in the other chamber. However, there were some items dealt with in the second-reading speech of the Minister that I should like him to explain to the Senate. 1 suppose we have advanced a little from the days when a simple bill could be introduced appropriating a large amount of money, and no information be given at all. This bill seeks parliamentary approval for an appropriation of £7,399,000 for capital works and services. The items include the expenditure of £200,000 for the purchase of a tandem generator by the Australian National University. I think some details of that item should be provided to the Senate and some information given as to what its purposes are. To say the least, £200,000 is a very substantial amount to be paid for a generator. It must be a generator of very special quality, to do some special work.

Senator Wright:

– Does not the item cover permanent buildings, acquisition and erection of dwellings, equipment and works?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I am dealing with the Appropriation (Works and Services) Bill (No. 2) 1958-59, and I am referring to the second-reading speech of the Minister.

Senator Wright:

– The item is No. 2, in Division No. 2, on page 3 of the bill, is it not?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I am not looking at the bill.

Senator Wright:

– Perhaps you ought to look at it before you speak next time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Perhaps the Minister will answer my question and not leave it for the clown to answer.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid). - Order! The honorable senator has used an unparliamentary expression.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I do not think that that expression is included in the long list of unparliamentary expressions.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Order! I decide whether an expression is unparliamentary when I am in the chair.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– If it is unparliamentary, I withdraw it.

Senator Wright:

– You are very smart.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– That is a parliamentary remark, and very true. Before being so rudely interrupted I had been asking the Minister, first, whether he could give us some details as to the manner in which the £200,000 will be spent; and, secondly, whether he could give us some details of the proposed further capital subscription of £2,000,000 to Qantas Empire Airways Limited. Whilst I feel certain that the proposed subscription has no relation to the hotel that Qantas is proposing to erect, it is important that we know the exact purpose for which the money is being granted. I am sure that the Government has some reasonable and obvious explanation for the appropriation.

Another compliment to the great drive and energy of the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority is the fact that £4,500,000 is being sought to meet the cost of new works because major contracts are being completed so quickly. I have no desire to discuss this matter at length because this is the last day of a long sitting period and many bills still remain to be debated, but I should be grateful if the Minister can give me the information I have sought.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– The speech to which we have just listened illustrates the difficulty confronting the Senate in dealing with a measure of this kind. Many deficiencies are apparent, not only to Senator Armstrong but also to the chamber as a whole, in the manner in which such legislation is presented to the Parliament. No appropriation for capital works and services should be presented to us for approval until we have had an opportunity to investigate each project for which the appropriation is sought. Our parliamentary system in this regard contains grave weaknesses. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works has been constituted for our assistance. Before we can consider intelligently an appropriation for capital works and services, the Parliament should have the opportunity to inspect the location of the proposed works. We should receive a brief description of the proposed works, information as to the capital cost involved and a statement as to the necessity for the proposed works.

The Senate is equally as entitled as the House of Representatives to have information along those lines presented to it, because a bill such as we now have before us is introduced separately from the ordinary appropriation of revenues in recognition of the fact that the Senate has the right to amend the legislation. That right imposes upon us a responsibility to consider any item in the bill, but an imperative responsibility to consider major items. No honorable senator would contest the fact that the possibility of waste, and even worse, exists in the expenditure of large sums of money on capital works. It is a cardinal principle of the British parliamentary system that the ordinary member of Parliament retains and guards very jealously the right and responsibility of giving, or withholding, assent to the appropriation of money. Parliament’s authority rests in its power to control the public purse, particularly in the field of capital works and services. Parliament cannot discharge its duty unless we have the opportunity to discuss details of a proposal with the people who have planned the project, and to hear representations from contractors and interested members of the public. Whilst the Public Works Committee has the opportunity to obtain the relevant information about a proposal, the Parliament as a whole is greatly handicapped. For that very purpose, each of the State parliaments as well as this Parliament has constituted a committee called the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. The members of such committees are required to investigate each proposal which involves capital expenditure and decide whether the proposal should be approved or curtailed in any respect. However, in 1936, in the case of this Parliament, investigations by the committee were limited to proposals which involved expenditure above a certain amount, and which were referred to it by resolution of the House of Representatives or, if it were not sitting, by direction of the Governor-General. Strangely enough, that resolution of the House of Representatives is re.ained in the present legislation, but I shall not discuss it in detail at this stage. The fact is that the Public Works Committee has the authoriy to investigate only those proposals for expenditure on capita! works that have been referred to i. by resolu- tion of the House of Representatives or by the Governor-General which, in effect, means the Minister.

As long ago as October or November, 1957, I stated to the chamber my thesis - which I repeat now for the consideration of the Government - that the committee should be strengthened as the “ watchdog “ of this Parliament so that we may be assured that every proposal to expend an amount exceeding £100,000 shall be scrutinized by the committee before we are asked to vote an appropriation for the work. I stress the fact that there should be no exceptions to this rule. Although there is the possibility that some exceptions may be permitted, such exceptions should not be a matter for decision by the Minister. He should not have the right to select the proposals that should not be subjected to the scrutiny of the committee. The committee should be required to accept responsibility for all proposals of capital expenditure over a certain sum. I have nominated £100,000 as that sum.

Then those who plan the proposal, those who originate it and those who estimate it, will be under no mistake; they will have to justify it before a vigilant parliamentary committee. At the present time, from the practice that has grown up in this Parliament during the ten years I have been here, it could not be conscientiously claimed by any member of either House that these measures receive in any degree a proper consideration as to any item. Even though we may engage in a debate for two or three hours on one particular proposal, without the information that comes to one from seeing a specification of the proposal, from hearing the architects and the people who have planned it, from hearing the relevant contractors and seeing the submissions as to the need for it, I believe that we cannot give proper consideration to the proposal. It is most appropriate that moneys be voted only when, from the back benches of the Parliament, from the rank and file members of the two Houses of Parliament, there is a committee representing both or all parties in the chamber - a most valuable ingredient of a Public Works Committee-

Senator Maher:

– It is a joint committee.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Quite so. I emphasize that that is one of its virtues, as well as the fact that no Minister of the Crown is permitted to sit on it. This emphasizes again the responsibility that resides in the ordinary members to scrutinize these proposals before appropriating the moneys.

Mr. President, if honorable senators will be so good as to look at the original 1913 act, they will find that the Joint Committee on Public Works was there required to scrutinize, consider and report upon every public work involving an expenditure above £25,000, except works that had been authorized at the time the act was passed - we need not trouble about them - and except works - for the naval or military defence of the Commonwealth exempted by Order in Council from the operation of the Act -

Not defence works, which those entrusted with security and secrecy - special defence works - took the responsibility of advising the Governor-General to exempt by proclamation from the scrutiny of the Public Works Committee. Not only was that applicable to original works, but the statute made it quite clear that it applied where such work was a continuation, completion, repair, reconstruction, extension, or new work. If we look at the .1936 debate when that legislation was torpedoed and undermined, we see that it gives no satisfaction at all to anybody who wishes to claim for this Parliament its proper responsibilities. The debate was most unsatisfactory.

I remind honorable senators that the amendment made in that year was followed by very unusual times that led to the Second World War, when the Executive, of course, quite properly was given power during the war period transcending any of these powers. There was a peculiar period of post-war parliamentary administration from 1945 to 1949, when every effort was made by the socialists to drive inroads into the parliamentary system for the aggrandisement of the Executive; and since 1949 in this particular respect no improvement has been made. It is, therefore, a matter that amazes me that we have had the patience over this period to pursue the wish to have this legislation strengthened, not that during that period there has been complete inattention to the matter. Repeated representations and requests have been made to the Government to give the matter consideration, not only in the first part of the decade, but over the last two years. I am taking this opportunity to put the matter before the consideration of those who have prime responsibility as an urgent request for a long overdue strengthening of the legislation, because I believe that no parliament with a sense of responsibility should appropriate money for a project unless it has the advantage of a report from a parliamentary committee that has the opportunity, on evidence, of examining the matter on the basis of factual information.

Mr. President, the fact is that year after year the capital works and services appropriation measure comes down. In this instance, it is a supplementary appropriation, but even as to that, Senator Armstrong has found items of real magnitude. I regret that I did not follow his remarks fully, because I was concerning myself with the bill.

Senator Armstrong:

– I thought we were at cross purposes.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I do not propose to make anything but a passing reference to that. I refer now to item 2 under Division No. 2 - Prime Minister’s Department - “ Australian National University - Permanent buildings, acquisition and erection of dwellings, equipment and works, £200,000”. This item is included in a supplementary appropriation measure, and I submit that an item involving an expenditure of £200,000, even considering present money values, is of such magnitude as to require detailed justification - justification that is not satisfied merely by reading fifteen lines of typescript as to the nature of the matter, without submitting it to such scrutiny as any man would apply before spending his own money on a building project.

I turn now to item 3, Division No. 15 - Department of Civil Aviation - “ Qantas Empire Airways Limited - Provision of additional share capital - £2,000,000”. I ref:r also to item 1 - Division No. 45 - Department of National Development - “ For expenditure under the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act, £4,500,000 “.

Senator O’Byrne:

– That is what Senator Armstrong was criticizing - the brevity of the Minister’s second-reading speech.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I did not attack Senator Armstrong. I merely asked for information that would enable me to identify in the schedule to the bill the item to which he was referring. If I remember aright, he said that the proposed vote of £200,000 was for a generator, but the schedule shows it to be in relation to permanent buildings, the acquisition and erection of dwellings and equipment and works for the Australian National University. I only wanted to follow the honorable senator’s submission, but he churlishly interrupted me with what I thought was offensive language which afforded me no assistance whatever, except that it put an edge on my resentment. 1 want to say in regard to this matter that 1 am one whose time is fully occupied. I appreciate not merely the willingness, but the anxious desire of members of this chamber and of the other place to serve effectively on this Public Works Committee. The men are available. They are competent, but they are not being used under the present system. Even if their services were being availed of. I would not be satisfied with a system that gave to a Minister the right to select projects to be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny, and to exclude those which, for some reason or other, he might be advised should go through the race without being dipped. I quite agree that the dip is used for some projects.

The position is that we have a committee that has been constituted by the Parliament, lt consists of competent and willing men whose services are not being fully used. The next point I make is that in those cases where their services have been used in the past the records show that they have achieved real and substantial economies, and also improvements, in the projects that they have considered. When we realize the possibility of extravagance through overestimating, and when we realize, too, the possibility of corrupt practices once loose estimating is permitted, it must be agreed that it is imperative that this committee be required by the Parliament to discharge its responsibilities in respect of every major project.

Senator Maher:

– In regard to the taxation office in Brisbane, the Public Works Committee saved the Commonwealth something of the order of £500,000 or £600,000.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I am most obliged that Senator Maher should permit himself to go on record, by way of interjection, to that effect. I had that information, but I did not know whether I was at liberty to use it. lt is now before the chamber. I claim that we are not discharging our responsibilities unless we see to it that this committee applies its mind to every major project involving capital expenditure. I propose to give certain examples of the type of thing that is going on, Mr. President. May I say that I speak, not on the suggestion of anybody associated with the Public Works Committee, but entirely on my own initiative. 1 have had no consultations with any member of the committee, except to indicate that I proposed to raise this subject. I have had no consultation with the secretary of the committee beyond the fact that this morning I asked whether he would give me, by way of illustration, a list of items that had not been submitted to the committee. 1 shall refer to some of them. They include -

In respect of the Lyneham High School contract, which I hope will attract special attention because of information which has recently reached me, surely the kind of specification and the accuracy of estimation required for a high school to cost £407,000, would warrant the most careful and experienced scrutiny.

I point to the magnitude of those figures, in a period when we all are determined to see that the cost factor is properly represented by value, so that money will be spent economically. It is important, too, to ensure that requirements that are surplus to one project are available for some other utility for which the country has pressing need. To my way of thinking, those considerations make it imperative that the Public Works Committee should be employed to scrutinize all projects costing more than £100,000, a figure which, for ihe purposes of my argument to-day, 1 have submitted as a reasonable dividing line. ! ask, Mr. President, that not all defence projects be excluded from the committee’s authority, but only those defence works which the Minister responsible for the maintenance of security and defence states, in the form of a proclamation, should be excluded. 1 agree that in matters of that sort it is quite proper that one Minister should have discretion to exclude a work which he declares, from his special knowledge, involves defence secrecy and security, and should not be submitted to a parliamentary committee. But in the next breath, let me add that a parliamentary committee may be trusted.

The present act would be improved if, in addition to the oath or declaration that it provides that members should take, it also provided for the taking of an oath of secrecy limited, of course, in proper terms so as not to prevent the members of the committee from discharging their parliamentary responsibilities. The oath could also include a declaration with the object of preventing any possibility of intrusion of personal interests into a decision by providing that the member had no interest whatever, such as by way of shares, in any contracting company involved in the project. I mention these matters in the hope that they will receive thoughtful consideration. Finally, Mr. President, in regard to the scope of the committee’s authority, I urge that it be extended not merely to cover new works but also to cover a work which, in the language of the original act, is a continuation, completion, repair, reconstruction or extension of any existing work.

I pay tribute to the work that has been done by the committees of the past. It is because I value the nature of the work which a private parliamentarian may do in a committee which reports to the House in a full and responsible way, that I ask for this legislation to be amended so as to ensure that all capital projects of the kind 1 have described shall undergo investigation by the committee. As I have said, this is not the first time that I have raised this matter. I raised it in a most deliberate way, if I may be permitted to remind the Ministry, in October, 1957. I did so in a spirit of consultation and request, and that is the spirit in which T advance it to-day.

But, of course, one would be refusing to accept responsibility if one allowed unjust delay to impose on one’s patience.

We are confronted with the need to decide the remedies that are available. The first and best remedy is for the legislation to be strengthened at the instance of the Government. The next, as a possibility, is that the legislation be strengthened at the instance of a private member. Another remedy is that the Senate itself, by standing order, should constitute, as auxiliary to the Joint Statutory Public Works Committee, a standing committee of the Senate to scrutinize all public works of this character. That is one area of responsibility in which I am sure honorable senators would find a field of great satisfaction and in which the public would find a recognition of their experience. Then, of course, if we cannot get any satisfying process by which these measures are presented to us, and one’s mind can be resolved that there is at least reasonable information upon a project so that we can arrive at a judgment on such things as the Canberra High School costing £407,000, we shall be in duty bound either to reduce the amount requested, as an indication that the Senate insists upon that form of machinery as a safeguard to our vote, or to defer it while the Senate goes into committee and gets, through the responsible Minister the plans and specifications for examination and consideration and so waste, in the committee, three days on doing something which the Public Works Committee could do much more efficiently in much shorter time. I mention these matters because we receive great encouragement to think that proposals like these, genuinely designed to restore to the Parliament its proper functions and responsibilities, will receive thoughtful and proper consideration.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– There is really no need to add anything to what Senator Wright has said. I endorse most of his remarks. I know that the Government has great difficulties in these matters, but, to rush about twenty bills into the Senate on the last day of the session, and to expect us to have an intelligent understanding of them and do justice to our responsibilities, is expecting too much. There are several bills in which I am interested, and about which I feel T have a good deal of knowledge. But how can I make investigations outside as to the actual position that might obtain when these bills become law? 1 do not say these things in any criticism of the Ministers. I realize that they have always had great difficulties in these matters; but, I have been here for twenty years now, and 1 have witnessed this occurrence at the end of every session during that period. As Senator Wright has said, we must be jealous of our responsibilities as a parliament. I know that some of the Ministers must experience great difficulty in obtaining a thorough knowledge of all the responsibilities of other Ministers and what is being done. Every facility should be given to honorable senators for considering everything that comes before this Parliament. It is physically impossible for us to give them all mature consideration under the present system. I know that many of these bills are not of great importance, and that probably we can safely leave them in the hands of the Government, but that does not give one any personal satisfaction. Under the present system, one certainly needs to be a Solomon to understand all the things this Government seeks to do. I have always protested at having a great number of bills thrust upon Parliament at the last minute, because I have found it physically impossible to give them the consideration they deserve.

Senator Wright has spoken of committees. Perhaps that can be overdone, but something should be done to so arrange the business of the Parliament that we shall have a little longer time to consider everything. I confess that I cannot discuss intelligently all the matters covered by this bill. For instance, I am interested in certain matters pertaining to universities, and although the Government does its best, one does like to have the satisfaction of understanding fully all the implications of the Government’s proposals. I endorse a good deal of what Senator Wright has said.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– I should like to say a word or two, and to add one or two points, about the matters raised by Senator Wright, because they are of great importance. One of the greatest things the Public Works Committee has done in recent years has been to co-ordinate public works throughout the Commonwealth. I well remember the time when this committee drew attention to a number of public works which had been approved and which had been put on the stocks to go to contract, in that case, it was found upon analysis that a number of departments were making application for works to be done in various cities and that these works were in fact complete duplications of the work of another department. I well remember that the Public Works Committee gave close attention to one aspect of this matter and declared over £2,000,000 worth of buildings to be unnecessary because departments were vieing with one another for similar buildings in the various cities and seeking what were in fact duplications of work. I thought I should mention that fact, because the Public Works Committee has a tremendous task to do, and it will do that job if given the proper opportunity.

As time is short, I cannot develop all that I should like to develop in this direction, but I point out that we have capital works being carried out in other parts of the world. It is mandatory for the Public Works Committee to investigate any work estimated to cost over £100,000.

Senator Wright:

– I intended to exclude the works outside Australia.

Senator HENTY:

– I think there would be quite a bit of competition for appointment to the Public Works Committee if they were included, and I do not wish to detract from the value of what Senator Wright has said because I know that he would wish to exclude such works. Of course, it could well be that in these days when there is so much governmental activity in connexion with buildings, one public works committee might not be sufficient.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– You could appoint another.

Senator HENTY:

– We might have to have more than one. There is an immense field of work to be covered, especially when we take in alterations and all the other matters to which Senator Wright referred. The discussion we have had on this matter has been of great value.

Senator Courtice has referred to the number of bills brought before the Senate. I point out to him that quite often honorable senators seem to overlook the fact that a number of these measures have been before the House of Representatives for a few days - perhaps this might not be Jong enough; but at least for a few days - before being brought before the Senate; and if ^honorable senators were to exert themselves enough to go over there and get those bills as they came before the House of Representatives they would have much more time to consider them. We of the Senate have much less to complain about than have the members of the House of Representatives, because it often happens that bills are brought straight on to the plate there without any notice at all being given. At least we here have the time, if we had the desire .and the energy, to get those bills as they come before the House of Representatives, and obtain all the information we want on them. That is one great advantage the Senate enjoys. If honorable senators do not obtain their information in that way, then they should not blame the system; they should blame themselves for lack of energy and initiative.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

.- I join with Senator Courtice in commending Senator Wright for referring to the responsibility of honorable senators to understand fully the reasons why appropriations are made.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Before the suspension of the sitting I had begun to make a few observations about the Appropriation (Works and Services) Bill, which is now before the Senate. I had complimented Senator Wright on his contribution to the debate. Senator Wright pointed out the importance of appropriations such as these being explained in full to the Senate, and the use of an instrumentality such as the Public Works Committee to provide background detail where that was necessary. Senator Armstrong very properly drew attention to the curt reference to the expenditure of £200,000 towards the purchase of a tandem generator for the Australian National University, but in the bill there is no mention at all of the tandem generator. In Division No. 2, the following appears - “Australian National University - Permanent buildings, acquisition and erection of dwellings, equipment and works - £200,000 “. Another curt reference is made to a further capital subscription of £2,000,000 to Qantas Empire Airways. A similar item is to be found in Division 34 - “ 1. Ship construction - £1,165,000. 2. Less amount recoverable from sales of ships- £1,165,000 “. That is not mentioned at all in the second-reading speech of the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner). It is a considerable item of which details should, in al! justice, have been made available to the Senate.

Senator Paltridge:

– It is just a matter of refund, is it not?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Yes. It is just shown as a self-cancelling item, without any details at all. Our complaint is borne out by this patently obvious curtailment of information to the Senate.

I just want to add a little to what Senator Wright has already said about the matter of investigations into major public works projects by the Public Works Committee. 1 can tell the Senate that the committee has reached the stage where it feels completely frustrated in its attempt to fulfil the purpose for which it was set up. In 1946 the then Prime Minister, Mr. Chifley, was approached by the members of the Public Works Committee on this matter. Mr. Chifley refused to incorporate mandatory clauses in the Public Works Committee Act, but said that he would do so later when things became normal. Ever since, the various Public Works Committees elected by the Parliament as watch-dogs on the expenditure of public moneys have made consistent and repeated representations to the Prime Minister, to the Treasurer, to the Minister for Works, and various other people pointing out how important it is for these mandatory clauses to be re-inserted in the Public Works Committee Act.

For some reason or other, we have never been able to get a satisfactory reply from any one on the matter. We have even gone in deputation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies). That gentleman has received us with graciousness and charm, and has heard our story, but somehow or other the matter has been referred back again from Caesar to Caesar. When it has eventually come to Cabinet it has gone no further. It is very interesting that, through the years, the Public Works Committee has had members such as Mr. Beale, Senator O’sullivan, Senator Henty and Mr. Cramer who, after serving their apprenticeship and getting good training with the Public Works Committee, have become Ministers, but then, for some reason or other, they have adopted the customary reticence of their predecessors towards the Public Works Committee and have prevented it from fulfilling its proper function.

The request of the committee is quite simple and i believe that eventually it will become an issue for the Parliament itself to decide. The Executive is given the responsibility of administering, on behalf of the Parliament, the affairs of the nation, but in this issue 1 think that eventually we shall reach the stage where individual members of the Parliament will have to take action.

The original measure provided that works which would cost £25,000 or more should be investigated by the committee. In 1913 that was a considerable sum. It was thought that works costing less than that sum did not warrant the same kind of scrutiny as larger works - though that is a debatable point. The Public Works Committee feels that in the case of buildings costing £250,000 or more a reference to the committee should be mandatory. We admit that there should be a right to exempt specific works such as those relating to security and defence, but we also believe that, to carry out our proper function, discretionary power should reside within the Public Works Committee to examine other projects, such as those enumerated earlier by Senator Wright.

As has been pointed out previously, a saving of between £400,000 and £500,000 was effected by the thorough investigation and scrutiny of the projected taxation building in Brisbane. Only recently in Sydney, in the case of the post office at Pott’s Point, a similar situation arose. During the course of our investigations the estimates for the building were reduced by about 30 per cent. I repeat, that happened during our investigation. That is surely proof that the Parliament should have full knowledge of the trends in costing, and in the general technique of tendering for major public works. I feel that the plea of the Public Works Committee is misunderstood by individual members of the Parliament and that the valuable work done by the committee is not fully appreciated. I believe that Senator Wright has done valuable work to-day in bringing very forcefully before the Senate the need for extra mandatory power to be given to the committee.

The fact that departmental chiefs have given on this occasion such scanty explanation of a measure which seeks parliamentary appropriation of a sum of £7,399,000, when they know that the time for debate is limited, is an indication of how careless they can become. This measure was in another place from 30th April, and it has come into the Senate only within 24 hours of the end of this sessional period.

Senator Paltridge:

– It has been here since Tuesday night.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Yes, together with other bills. But the time for debate is limited and there are still a number of other bills to be debated. Unless the Public Works Committee has made available in detail the background of the various works for which appropriation is to be made, it is the responsibility of departmental chiefs to furnish that detail through the Minister’s second-reading speech. I voice my protest at the scantiness of information about the proposed appropriation of £2,000,000 for Qantas Empire Airways Limited. One cannot find in the bill any background information concerning that item. I understand that in another place the bill was agreed to without any questions concerning these matters being asked. It is easy to understand the need for an appropriation of £4,500,000 for the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority. That is because of the fact that certain major contracts are proceeding ahead of schedule. I am quite satisfied with that information. At least we have been extended the courtesy of being furnished with an inkling of what the appropriation is for.

I can understand, too, that the PostmasterGeneral’s Department could quite easily and justifiably need £210,000 towards the cost of co-axial cable. I appreciate the nature of the work that is done by that department and the expensiveness of the equipment used. The explanation offered there is quite acceptable to the Senate. But I am not so happy about being presented with the bare bones of an explanation and being told that £200,000 is to go towards the purchase of a tandem generator when the relevant item in the bill is “ Australian National University - Permanent buildings, acquisition and erection of dwellings, equipment and works “. That sum of money is only to go towards the cost of a tandem generator. We do not know whether the generator will cost five times as much as that, or whether it will be enclosed in buildings, dwellings and other works! What I have said can be taken as a criticism of the way in which the secondreading speech has been prepared for the Minister by departmental heads. 1 hope that, not only will we be furnished with wider explanations of such items in future, but also that the Senate will have readily available to it the benefit of a thorough investigation of major items by the Public Works Committee.

Senator Wright has referred to projects that have not been referred to the committee but which have already been begun. He mentioned the Lyneham High School, the construction of which is well under way. Having seen the high school, I think it is a credit to the workmanship of the contractor and to the designers. But there are perhaps some aspects of it which, if the building had not reached its present stage of construction, may have been the subject of criticism. I like to feel that a standard has been set. 1 think the Lyneham High School will become known as being the finest example of modern school architecture in the Commonwealth. It is for the National Capital to give a lead in these things, and we can justifiably say that the Lyneham High School is doing just that. 1 do not wish to say anything further beyond placing on record my protest at the paucity of information that has been presented by the Minister in explanation of the items contained in the bill.

Senator MCCALLUM:
New South Wales

– Mr. President, in supporting the bill, I should like, first, to endorse the plea that has been made by Senator Wright, and I think all honorable senators who have followed him, for the giving of fuller powers to the Public Works Committee. I have never been a member of that committee, but I have had some experience of the value of its work. Those of us who were members of the Senate Select Committee on Canberra found that, wherever the Public Works Committee had investigated any work contemplated for Canberra, it had either been responsible for saving money or had suggested an improvement. 1 wish to go a little beyond that and say that both the Senate and another place need eyes and ears to help them in their work. I do not intend to complain to the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) about the scanty time that is available to us to debate this measure. I do not think that it is in any way his fault or is altogether the fault of Cabinet. Whether we give full time to the consideration of bills depends to a large extent upon ourselves, and before I criticize the Minister or anybody else outside this chamber I would like to be assured that ©very member of the Senate was willing to stay here for another week or more to consider these matters fully. However, I think legitimate criticism can be offered about the arrangements that are made for the introduction of bills. I know that very often, despite the best of intentions, bills are delayed. I have been told that on this occasion the delay was not due to a lack of diligence on the part of Cabinet but to the conscientious attention to duty of Ministers who were determined not to present measures until they had done all the preliminary work.

I come back to this matter of committees. Almost from the beginning, committees have been the instruments by which the British Parliament has worked. Public debate is of little use unless it is well informed. As far back, at least, as the time of Queen Elizabeth of England in the sixteenth century, the committee system was fully developed in the House of Commons. It was the committee system which made it an effective body. During the great civil war of the seventeenth century, Mr. Pym - the first of the great parliamentary leaders of England - ran the House of Commons and fought the war, which ultimately he won. Although the credit for winning the war went to some one who came later, I am quite satisfied, from my reading, that the war had been won when Pym died in 1643. He ran the war, and the whole of the administration of England, on a system of committees. Of course, we cannot go back to that system. To-day we have the Cabinet and, under the Cabinet, a body of public servants who do all the routine work, and do it very well.

One point about this has not been made, and I think I should make it. When we stand up here as individuals and attempt to question or criticize a Minister, we have nothing behind us except such private research as we may make. I am greatly indebted to the Library, and I hope that in the future we will be more greatly indebted to a more adequate Library, but my point is that at the present time we have only the Library as a source of information. If a Minister, with a serried array of public servants at his right hand, says, “ This is so “, what can we do? He has a certain set of alleged facts and figures. However, if we had a committee, we should have the services of an expert officer of this House. The officers of this House are by no means inferior to the officers of the Executive. In fact, I would say that in relation to the Public Service of this Commonwealth, the officers of this House, and those of another place, do a most admirable service to this country. One of the great values of the committee system is that, under it, there would be no question of the amateur pitting his strength against the professional. There would be professionals on both sides and amateurs on both sides. I think that if we refer more matters to the Public Works Committee and to other committees, we will find that the Government of this country will be much sounder and much healthier.

I have read all the items to which I could refer in detail, but I have no criticism to offer on them. In the brief time that we have, I am mainly concerned to deal with what is being done in Canberra. As honorable senators know, we now have a National Capital Development Commission. That commission, I think, is doing, on the whole, very admirable work. However, I am not prepared to drop my role of critic. Yesterday I asked a question which was critical of some of the commission’s activities. I have not yet received an answer, and I presume I will not. I just mention that in passing to show that I have not become simply a yes-man to the commission or any one else, but I am quite satisfied that what the commission is doing is good.

We now have a scheme to make this city the National Capital within a few years. Wc are moving the defence departments here and finding houses and providing services for them. We are putting up schools and all the other things they need. Following the transfer of the defence departments will come the transfer of the remnants of the Public Service still concentrated in other places. Then Canberra will havebecome the National Capital. Two honorable senators in this chamber have criticized one aspect of this bill. One of them wascritical on the ground that the money could be better spent here in Canberra, and theother on the ground that it could be better’ spent in one of the States - I think in. Queensland.

I want to say something about what hasbeen called the lakes scheme. The Senate select committee some years ago examined, the whole problem of the lakes scheme. It thought that there was some little doubt about what has been called the West Lake_ It was uncertain whether there should be a great sheet of water there or a small ribbon of water. But any one who has ever examined the plan for Canberra and has seen what was contemplated can have no doubt whatever that the central basins, as they are called, are not merely an ornament -something that can be left done or undone - but a vital part of the plan of the city. If I may use a homely illustration, without them the city would be like a pair of cuff links without the chain in between. Griffin unified the city by the proposed central basins. If you leave out the two central basins then, instead of having one city, you will have two towns. Sir William Holford, the eminent town planner, who was brought over here - I do not know whether it was to criticize the select committee’s report - did, in the main, endorse the lakes scheme. He found that the scheme was essential to the whole plan of the city. If you do not have those central basins, you will not have a city at all.

Anybody with an eye for country should know that the land in between Civic Centre and where we are at present is lowlyingand quite useless for building purposes. It is fairly good agricultural land, but you do not normally have farms in the middle of a city. Tt has either to be parkland, which would be very expensive to keep up, or it has to be made into the central basins. All the authorities who have investigated the problem have found that the cheapest proposition in the long run would be to have the central basins. If you had to maintain the area as parkland, it would be enormously expensive to do so. The commission has fully investigated all the arguments against having water there, and has found that it is essential to have it. It has decided that the lakes will unify the city and that they will be a delight and a joy to everybody. if I might refer to two other capital cities, J would say that without their water features, little as they are, they would be much inferior. I am not, of course, referring to Sydney, where the water feature is the greatest feature of all. I often think that it -was the harbour that made the city, and not the other way round. Adelaide has the dammed-up Torrens, where you have a respectable central lake, and without it Adelaide would be much inferior. Melbourne has the little country river that John Batman discovered in, I think, 1836. I give the city fathers who planned Melbourne great credit for their work. Melbourne has far more civic feeling than has Sydney. It it a fine city which has been developed on rather ordinary natural surroundings. If the city fathers had determined to turn the central part of the river into a lake, I think Melbourne would look much finer than it does.

We have nothing here in Canberra but the little Molonglo River, which is quite a beautiful little country stream. I can say that with feeling because every morning when I am here, if I have the time - I usually do have it - I walk down and have a look at the river. With the provision of two central lakes, we will have here a great and wonderful city, unified by lakes. The important thing to remember is that this is being done, not for a few luxury-loving politicians or public servants, but for the people of Australia. It is a great thing for any country to have a central focal point - a national capital - to which every one can come and say, “This is ours.” This city does not belong to the people who happen to live here. It belongs to the people of Australia. What Athens was to Greece, what Rome is to Italy, what Paris is to France, what Edinburgh is to Scotland and what London is to England, Canberra will become to this country, because it belongs to all of us.

From the point of view of revenue and expenditure, it is a capital asset. Even to-day hundreds of thousands of tourists come to Canberra. Every year, as time goes on and the city is built, more tourists will come and the expenditure will be repaid. We are not wasting money at the expense of people in the remote parts of this continent when we build up this city. We are giving the people something that has a great capital value, something that will bring in returns, not only in money, but in something much more important than money - the satisfaction that comes from feeling that this is the centre of our country, this is something of which we can feel proud before the eyes of all the world. Largely because of the excellent work that I know has been done now by the commission, I support this bill with much more enthusiasm than I otherwise would.

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

– I wish to refer briefly to some of the queries and criticisms that have been made during the debate on this measure. I have listened with very close attention to Senator Wright’s remarks in relation to parliamentary supervision of the works programme. He may possibly draw some satisfaction from the fact that I have already set in train action which will lead to a close study of his remarks by the Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works (Mr. Freeth) and, I hope, by other Ministers. I was pleased that Senator Henty, a former chairman of the Public Works Commitee, and Senators O’Byrne and Maher, members of the committee, were present in the chamber during Senator Wright’s speech.

My only reaction to Senator Wright’s criticism is this: Whilst the necessity may exist to review and, if necessary, to revise or replan the work of the committee in order to bring within its scope a greater proportion of public works than is at present the case, we could not impose anything like the restriction that Senator Wright has envisaged, that is, that all works costing over £100,000 should be investigated by the committee before Parliament is asked to vote an appropriation for the work. We could have projects coming within that category located all over Australia and even outside the Commonwealth. I have in mind some works which will cost over £100,000 that are being undertaken in the various States. If the commi.tee were required to examine those projects, an immense amount of time and money would be involved. In fact, such work could well be supervised by methods other than those now being employed by the committee which include, as I understand it, a physical inspection of the work or of the site. If we are to think in terms of an expansion of the work of the committee, then coupled with the kind of expansion that Senator Wright has in mind I should think that to meet the situation that flows from the immense amount of work that is now being undertaken by the Commonwealth, some modified form of supervision might be extended to some projects, judged by their nature as much as by their cost.

Senator Wright:

– The act contains a provision whereby the committee may sectionalize itself into sections of three.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– That is so, but the honorable senator mentioned an examination of specifications and costs and I ask whether such examination could not be carried out instead of a physical inspection, this, in some cases, shortening the time taken by the committee in relation to works which lend themselves to that kind of examination. However, I am merely expressing thoughts that came to my mind while Sena or Wright was speaking to indicate that his statements did not pass without leaving their mark on my mind.

Senator O’Byrne criticized the lack of information contained in the bill. When preparing a measure of this nature a practical consideration must be borne in mind: What should be included by way of explanation, and what should be excluded? Information that might satisfy some honorable senators and honorable members would not satisfy others. If we were to write into the bill a complete explanation of every item of expenditure, we should have a bill which would need to be produced in 100 volumes. I have around me in my place in the chamber data and files that I have collected as this debate has proceeded.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Minister should not make that statement otherwise he will be overwhelmed with questions.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I had thought that I would have the opportunity to read a very interesting four-page article on the equipment that has been supplied to the Australian National University. I have mentioned the data that I have collected merely to indicate to honorable senators that the information is available if required.

The practice has developed - a not altogether undesirable practice - that honorable senators request information on various matters during the debate; and I wanted to be prepared.

I shall deal with the queries that have been raised concerning the department which I administer. One query was in relation to Division No. 34- Department of Shipping and Transport. The variation in the amount under that heading is selfbalancing, as was indicated by Senator O’Byrne during his speech. The expenditure that has been incurred has been recovered from the sale of ships. The variation arose in this way: The gross, expenditure on ship construction is now estimated at £7,090,000, an increase of £1,165,000 over the original provision. The increase was caused by variations in building costs of a number of vessels. The particulars are as follows: An increase of £402,000 was incurred in relation to the vessels “ Mount Kembla “ and “ Mount Keira “. The increased provision for expenditure on these two vessels is due to increased capacity and substantial additions to the labour force at the Whyalla shipyard of Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. An increase of £159,000 was incurred on “ Lake Sorell “, and a decrease of £157,000 on “Mundoora”. Both vessels are under construction by Evans Deakin & Company Limited, Brisbane, and the variations represent a change ‘ effected in the shipyard programme. An increase of £221,000 was incurred on “Princess of Tasmania “ in this way: When the original provision was made, it was anticipated that the cost of the main engines for the vessel would be met in the financial year 1957-58. However, payment was not effected prior to 30th June, 1958, and provision for this item has now been carried into this financial year.

Senator Wright:

– Can the Minister inform me from memory the total cost of the vessel?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I am unable to give the honorable senator the exact figure, but it is just under £2,000,000. In addition, increased expenditure has been incurred on this vessel because construction is ahead of schedule. It is desirable that the vessel be completed and available to replace “ Taroona “ on *he Tasmanian run at the earliest possible date. As a consequence, the rate of construction work on “ Princess of Tasmania “ has been increased deliberately wherever possible. There was an increased expenditure of £147,000 on the Bass Strait cargo vessel “ Bass Trader “. I do not know whether honorable senators are interested in the detailed reasons why that occurred. The increase on “ South Esk “ and “ North Esk” was £91,000. Tasmanian senators will be interested to know that the final construction costs of the two vessels were £50,000 more than was estimated by the builders when the original provision was made.

Senator Wright:

– How was the building of them undertaken?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– It was undertaken by Walkers Limited of Maryborough on contract. It was also necessary to provide funds for the installation of bulk grain handling equipment on “ South Esk “. I think that most Tasmanian members of the Senate will know of that particular bulk grain handling equipment that went into the vessel. Those are the main items which make for a variation, from the original estimates of £334,000, and as I say, it entails no extra charge against revenue as it will be recovered from the sale of ships.

The next item in connexion with my own department is the additional capital subscription of £2,000,000 to Qantas. This requirement, of course, is a result of the Qantas re-equipment programme which is currently taking place, under which Qantas has acquired seven Boeings and five Electras, and this year took delivery of two Otters for New Guinea. A re-equipment programme of this size entails the purchase of a variety of equipment in addition to the actual aircraft, and provision has to be made for ground installations of varying types. As an example of some of the equipment that goes with a new type of aircraft, I mention the flight simulator, which runs to almost £1.000,000 in cost. One was recently installed at the head-quarters of Qantas in Sydney.

Senator Wright:

– What does it do?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– A flight simulator is a replica on the ground - actually in a building - of the cockpit and flight deck of the machine itself. Its predecessor was the old Link trainer which was used by the Royal Australian Air Force. In this simulator much of the training of the crew is carried out. It is a most interesting piece of equipment. Although it is extraordinarily costly, the saving that it effects in training costs is quite significant.

Senator Kendall:

– That is the only training that the young pilots get. They are not allowed to take off or to land. One day an aircraft will be lost through it.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I have not heard the training scheme of Qantas criticized before. If there are deficiencies in it, I would be pleased if the honorable senator would make them known to me His suggestion that junior pilots or pilots in training suffer because of the fact that they are not permitted take-off or landing training is something that I shall immediately look into.

Senator Gorton:

– Simulators are in use all over the world.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I understand that the flight simulator was purchased for in-flight training, and that it is accepted as the most effective and cheapest way to train crew. I do not have to explain to the honorable senator that 1 am not a technical man, but I have seen” a flight simulator and I have been in it. I can well appreciate its value as a training aid. In addition, there is the construction of such things as test cells. Generally speaking, these are very large buildings containing complex electrical equipment, in which the new jet engines are run and tested. Apart from that type of equipment, there is electrical equipment which, in this year, at the Mascot installation in Sydney is going to run into £200,000. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are required for hard standing and other workshop accommodation, and the like. The amount of £2,000,000 is required for the purposes I have indicated.

With regard to the proposed expenditure of £200,000 at the Australian National University, the position is that the university proposed that the Government should finance the installation of a 10-12 million electron volts tandem electrostatic generator for development of work at the university in low energy nuclear physics. Work in this field of physics would lag behind in Australia unless a machine of this nature was acquired quickly. The Australian Academy of Science was asked to furnish a report on the advisability of purchasing a tandem generator for the Australian National University. The report recommended its acquisition as a matter of urgency on the basis that it be regarded as a national project. The decision to outlay £600,000 was made by the Government after the Estimates for 1958-59 were framed. Work to the value of £200,000 has been undertaken in this financial year, in line with the recommendation that there should be no delay in providing this aid for Australian scientific investigation. The amount of £600,000 is to be provided as follows:- £200,000 in this year, £270,000 in 1959-60, and the balance of £130,000 in 1960-61.

With regard to the Snowy Mountains scheme the Additional Estimates provide £4,500,000 for expenditure by the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority, making a total of £24,000,000 for this financial year. Of the amount of £19,500,000 originally provided in this year’s Estimates for expenditure by the authority on its construction programme, £11,000,000 was for the payments that it was expected the authority would be required to make to the constructing firms through whom contracts for the construction of major works in the Snowy Mountains scheme have been entrusted. The remaining £8,500,000 was for the authority’s other net expenditure. During this financial year, exceptionally rapid progress has been made on the three new major contracts that were awarded in June, 1958. These contracts are for the Tooma-Tumut diversion, the T2 project, and the Murrumbidgee-Eucumbene diversion. Mainly as a result of the extraordinary progress made with these contracts, a further amount of £4,700,000 is required to meet additional payments estimated to be due on major contracts by 30th June, 1959. As a partial offset to this additional expenditure, the authority anticipates that it will be possible to effect savings of £200,000 on items other than major contracts, leaving a net requirement of £4,500,000 to be appropriated.

When I was speaking of the Qantas capital subscription, I overlooked answering a direct question by Senator Armstrong as to whether any of this amount had to do with the financing of an hotel project in Sydney. I should tell him at once that none of this subscription is related in any way to providing further accommodation of that kind for Qantas in Sydney or elsewhere.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– With regard to the Qantas Empire Airways Limited investment, I notice from the balance sheet of the organization for the period ending December, 1957, that authorized share capital amounted to £15,000,000, and that issued capital amounted to £8,700,000. Loans already debited in 1957 amounted to £6,200,000. No specific item relating to interest is shown in the profit and loss account, but the amount in respect of sundry creditors is stated as £3,500,000. Can the Minister say whether that is a normal amount for sundry creditors? What is the position regarding the loans to which I have referred. Why has it not been possible for Qantas to finance this expansion of its fleet from ordinary operational activities? Is it that some big expansion of the plant programme is envisaged? Does not the Minister agree that this is the kind of thing for which reserves are created and that reserves should provide for the purchase of new plant when the occasion arises?

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

– I have not readily at hand all the information that the honorable senator seeks. I should imagine that a proportion of the amount of £3,500,000, in respect of sundry creditors, would probably be due to the purchase of equipment, payment for which is outstanding. With regard to the financing of the re-equipment programme and the large capital requirement as a result thereof, I can only tell the committee that the experience of Qantas is precisely the same as that of every other airline operator, great or small.

Immediately after the war there wasavailable a spate of aircraft which could be, and were, acquired by various operators at charges which, by modern standards, were almost nominal. There were surplus aircraft available after the war ended, and also, aircraft manufacturers who had been engaged in the construction of military aircraft quickly modified their plants and their plans to produce aircraft which they could make available at quite reasonable figures. For two or three years immediately following the war there was a settling down process in this industry. Then we saw vast development and advances, technically, operationally, and in every other way. The production of aircraft took on a completely new aspect. 1 have had the opportunity to see, in the United States of America and England, some of the plants which have been established to produce modern aircraft. The capital outlay involved in the construction of those plants runs into astronomical figures. If we add to that the costs which necessarily attend the technical developments which have resulted in the advance from ordinary piston engines to the jet engines that we know to-day, and if we also add the other expenses attendant on this rapid leap forward by the aircraft industry, I think it will become apparent that airline operators could not, from their own capital resources, make adequate provision for replacement. Therefore, replacement has meant an increased injection of capital for all aircraft operators.

Senator Wright:

– Is this a final injection, or will it recur?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I have learned that in this industry one cannot be dogmatic.

I express the hope, which I think I have already expressed privately to the honorable senator, that we will not be faced with a recurring incidence of this rapid and vast change which has occurred during the last decade. The explanation, briefly, is that there has been such a vast expansion of the airline industry, and the need for such a great injection of capital for the development of aircraft, that airline operators have not been able to provide, from their own internal resources, for replacement, and have had to seek further capital.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I do not want to precede any other honorable senator who wishes to speak, but I desire to refer to the proposed vote of £4,500,000 for the Snowy Mountains Authority. I suppose. Sir, that we have gone about onethird of the way along the path to completely financing this enormous project. Each year, a huge vote comes forward for approval by the Parliament. The Minister has been good enough to inform us of the aggregate vote ‘this year which, including the figure that we are now voting, amounts to £24,000,000. I believe that we are unworthy of the people whose experience and skill are combining to do great credit to this country in constructing that undertaking, if we do not see that, as responsible Parliamentarians, we are kept informed of the progress of the scheme, the capital costs involved, and the revenue returns.

No doubt, Mr. Temporary Chairman, there will be those in this chamber who will say that this is a matter that cannot be related to parliamentary procedures at all. A big project such as this is authorized to begin, and once you have committed yourself to the first section of it you are bound to follow it through to its conclusion. I speak in no sense of criticism. Recently, I had an opportunity to pay a visit to the completed parts of the project. The atmosphere that prevails at the project is a most exciting one, and it is absorbing to assess, as best one can as a primitive layman, the skill and efficiency that lies behind the execution of the work. The fact that world records have already been achieved in the construction of the project speaks highly for the organization. Of course, that is only what one would be led to expect from an undertaking presided over by a commissioner such as Sir William Hudson.

When we consider this vote year by year, Sir, it might be well to think of adopting provisions that have been found to work remarkably well in my own State of Tasmania, where the act controlling the development of hydro-electric resources requires that, before proposals for power development are submitted to the Parliament the Hydro-electricity Commission shall furnish to the Minister a report, and the Minister shall supply to the Parliament a report setting out the necessity for, or the desirability of, the new development, its nature, the estimated cost, proposals for increasing the annual amount to be set aside by way of sinking fund, and the annual estimated cost of working, maintenance and depreciation. We have the infinite pleasure, in the Tasmanian Parliament, of the services of a man whose skill and experience are as deserving of admiration as those of Sir William Hudson. I refer to Mr. Allan Knight, the Chief Commissioner there.

When he brings forward a report, he brings into the committee chamber, to where we repair, a model of the project, and he demonstrates to members, usually during a discussion lasting from an hour to an hour and a half, just exactly what is involved. The members absorb a continuing appreciation of the whole of the business considerations involved in the constantly increasing development of hydro-electric resources in Tasmania.

Senator Nicholls:

– Would every member understand it?

Senator WRIGHT:

– 1 have had some thirteen or fourteen years’ experience of parliaments now, and I think every one of the members would be capable of understanding it, especially with the aid of the model and the simplicity of explanation of which these great scientists are capable, i might say that in forming that judgment I do not step up my ordinary appreciation of the understanding of the average member of Parliament. But I do say to Senator Nicholls that 1 am putting forward a proposition which I believe would absorb intense interest from this Parliament if it were carried out. Far from affording an opportunity for destructive criticism of undertakings managed by people like Sir William Hudson and Mr. Allan Knight, it would be an occasion when, after all the criticism, their efforts could not escape intense congratulation.

The real advantage would be that it would give to members of Parliament the satisfaction of responsibility assessing the way in which the money they vote is being expended, and of following, as a matter of national interest, the growing construction of these projects. I believe that if provisions such as that were incorporated, even at this stage, in the legislation controlling the Snowy Mountains scheme and other continuing projects such as the Australian National University, the interest and knowledge that we in this chamber would gain thereby would be of tremendous assistance in galvanizing that interest which sometimes is so sadly lacking in committee debates of such proposals as these.

Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council and Minister for National Development · LP

– With Senator Paltridge’s permis sion, 1 should like to comment briefly on Senator Wright’s contribution to the debate. First, I remind him that the circumstances surrounding this undertaking are totally different from those surrounding an ordinary State project. Honorable senators may remember that only a comparatively short time ago the legislation confirming the Snowy Mountains agreement came before the Parliament. The complexity of that situation was that not only had we to make up our own minds, as a Commonwealth Parliament exercising control over a constructing authority, as to what was the correct course to pursue, but we had also to reach agreement with three State governments: and that took some years to effect. The agreement eventually arrived at contains, in effect, a programme. The agreement says that the Commonwealth will do certain things, subject to the usual reservations, in various directions, and that the States, on their part, will do certain things. The foundation of it is that the States are to pay for the cost of the undertaking in the price of the power which they take.

Under that agreement, there is superimposed upon the Snowy Mountains constructing authority a body known as the Snowy Mountains Council. In some ways, it follows the pattern of the River Murray Commission in that, as the works are completed, they go to the Snowy Mountains Council as the administrating authority. In practice, of course, the result is that, when the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority evolves a programme of works, it is scrutinized very carefully by the Snowy Mountains Council which speaks for the respective State governments on these matters. On that council are represented the Governments of New South Wales and Victoria; and, of course, the South Australian Government has certain rights now as a result of the recent amendments we made to the agreement. It will be appreciated, therefore, that this undertaking is more complex than a work which is entirely within the responsibility of one government.

Senator Wright’s suggestion is that individual works should come to the Parliament for consideration. I do no more than say that it is much more difficult to do that in the circumstances of the Snowy Mountains scheme than it would be in the case of a single undertaking in which one government is concerned. It would be very hard indeed to differentiate between where a contract ended and where a contract began. Take the Tumut River proposals as an example. The cause of the requirement of additional funds in that instance is three gigantic contracts, and I think it would be hard to try and pick out the stages at which the matter should come before Parliament.

I appreciate the point of view that such a procedure would create added goodwill for the scheme as a whole, and if I am hesitant or critical, or if I have any reservations about the suggestion that has been made, I certainly have no reservation about the desirability of attracting as much attention and examination to the scheme as possible. And I think that, in fairness to the commissioner, and myself as the Minister, that has been our deliberate policy right from the word “ go “. We have encouraged trips by parliamentarians to the scheme. We have had exhibitions of the scheme in King’s Hall, and I should say that we have published more comprehensive information about the scheme and the various contracts involved than is usually done in connexion with public undertakings. 1 feel that I should mention these things in order to illustrate that our policy is very close to what Senator Wright has in mind, although 1 admit without hesitation that it does not bring the direct parliamentary control or examination which Senator Wright has advocated.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I thank the Minister for noticing my remarks. I plead with him to give fuller consideration to my proposal, not in any sense to expose this project to criticism, but to expose it to knowledge and increasing support from the Parliament. We are encouraged to go there. The public has been going there, I have been informed, in increasing numbers. In 1957, there were 17,000 visitors, in 1958, 44,000 visitors and, so far this year, there have been 44,000 visitors. However, we are not merely members of the public. We have added responsibilities. We are put here to watch the expenditure of £24,000,000 on this project this year. We must see that that expenditure is being properly and faithfully made. I should think that nothing less than a complete explanation of the part of the construction to which that money has been devoted should satisfy the standard of our interest. If it were decided to embrace other sections, I do not think any one would have the slightest objection. It is capable of being considered in segments. I urge the advisability of the Government taking the Parliament into its confidence and getting, by that process, real support.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1433

SUPPLY BILL 1959-60

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12th May (vide page 1352), on motion by Senator Spooner -

Thai the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– The purpose of this bill is to appropriate £247,000,000 to carry on the normal services of government, other than capital works and services, during the first five months of the 1959-60 year. This procedure has been a source of great worry to members of the Parliament over many years. The former Treasurer, Sir Arthur Fadden, tried to bring the Budget date as close as possible to the end of the financial year. Like others before him, his efforts were not outstandingly successful. We are in the extraordinary situation of voting, in this month of May, moneys to be spent in the first five months of the next financial year. When we come along, late in August, to discuss the Budget, we shall be virtually wasting time because the money needed for the first five months of the year will already have been authorized in a debate which has lasted not more than a few hours. Can any one wonder why there is such a lack of interest during Budget debates? All this money for the normal services of government is being made available here in the course of a short debate. For instance, we are authorizing the expenditure ot £82,000,000 upon the defence services, £35,000.000 upon war and repatriation services and £46,000,000 upon business undertakings - all to be spent during the first five months of the coming financial year. We are also voting an advance to the Treasurer of £16,000,000. Each year we are asked to grant a similar sum. I do not know whether it is bad planning, but the Treasurer always seems to need a few millions to apply here and there as the months pass.

I am not going to examine the bill in detail. It would be quite inappropriate, on the last day of a session, to discuss in detail an appropriation of £247,000,000, to be spent, I repeat, over almost one-half of the next financial year. When, beginning in August, we discuss the Budget for two months or so, we shall be confronted with a fait accompli. I admire the unsuccessful efforts of the former Treasurer to bring back the Budget date so that the Parliament could at least examine proposed expenditure before it took place. Surely that is not impossible. It cannot be, because it is the normal procedure in other countries. It is adopted in private financing, whether in the home or in business. We see how much money is available, discuss how it shall be spent and then spend it. We are now making available £247,000,000 for expenditure over five months, well in advance of any serious discussions as to its disposal. I take this opportunity of protesting against the procedure adopted in this matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1434

COMMONWEALTH AID ROADS BILL 1959

Message received from the House of Representatives, intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate in this bill.

page 1434

BANKRUPTCY BILL 1959

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion bv Senator Gorton) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill has been introduced at the present parliamentary session for two reasons. The first reason is to provide for the Federal Court of Bankruptcy a formal seal, and to provide further for a stamp embodying the features of the seal, that will be used in the everyday business of the court.

This matter is one of some importance and urgency. It derives its importance from the necessity of ensuring that the seal of the Bankruptcy Court is validly established and that adequate provision is made for the sealing of documents in the ordinary course of business in the court. It derives its urgency from the fact that the existing provisions concerning seals in the Bankruptcy Act are considered to be unsatisfactory and, on one view, inadequately prescribed. This position should be remedied without delay.

The bill further provides for the custody of the seal of the court and for a document stamped with the Registry stamp to be as valid and effectual as if it were sealed with the seal of the court. All courts, whether exercising federal jurisdiction or not, are to take judicial notice of the stamp. A provision has also been included in the bill the effect of which is to deem any seal or stamp used at any time on documents in proceedings in the bankruptcy jurisdiction to be a valid seal or stamp. This provision is necessary to remove doubts concerning the validity of seals or stamps that have been in use in the Federal Court of Bankruptcy or the Registry from time to time and to ensure that proceedings already heard and determined by the court should not be impugned or be open to be set aside on the ground that a seal used on the documents in the proceedings was defective in form or not adequately prescribed.

The second reason for introducing this bill is to extend the validating legislation contained in the Bankruptcy Act 1958. Honorable senators may recall that the High Court decided in 1957 that the practice of Registrars in Bankruptcy of extending or abridging time, although it was a practice of nearly thirty years’ standing, was invalid, on the ground that, under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, extending or abridging time was a judicial function and could, therefore, be done only by the court. This decision of the High Court gave rise to a doubt concerning the validity of the large number of cases where the Registrar in Bankruptcy had purported to extend or abridge time. It was sought, by the Bankruptcy Act 1958, to remove doubts about the validity of all these proceedings. Experience since that act shows that there are still quite a number of cases where the doubt as to the validity of the proceedings continues to exist. A clause has been inserted in this bill to deal with these cases as well as those covered by the Bankruptcy Act 1958. 1 commend the bill to the Senate.

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

page 1435

JUDICIARY BILL 1959

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Judiciary Act of the Commonwealth so as to enable the Commonwealth to be sued in the Supreme Court of a Territory of the Commonwealth in respect of a claim in contract or in tort in the same way that the Commonwealth can be sued in the Supreme Court of a State in respect of a claim arising in that State. The effect of the bill will be to put residents of all the Territories on the same footing, in respect of the right to sue the Commonwealth in contract or in tort, as residents of a State.

The bill is important in that it will give to residents in the external Territories of the Commonwealth, for the first time, the right to sue the Commonwealth in contract or in tort in the Supreme Courts, or the principal court where there is no Supreme Court, of their own Territories, as well as in the High Court of Australia. The Government’s intention to extend in this way the judicial remedies against the Commonwealth was intimated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) towards the end of the last Parliament. Hitherto, the right to sue the Commonwealth in the Supreme Court of a State or Territory has been confined to residents of the States and of certain Territories only. These Territories - the Australian Capital Territory and the “Northern Territory - have laws conferring a right on residents of the Territory similar to that conferred by section 56 of the Judiciary Act on residents of the States. Section 56 provides as follows: -

Any person making any claim against the Commonwealth, whether in contract or in tort, may in respect of the claim bring a suit against the Commonwealth in the High Court or in the Supreme Court of the State in which the claim arose.

The Judiciary Act contains no provision enabling a person making a claim against the Commonwealth in a Territory to bring a suit against the Commonwealth in respect of the claim in the Supreme Court of the Territory. The position hitherto has been that a resident of a Territory in which there is no right to sue the Commonwealth in a court of the Territory has been left to pursue his claim against the Commonwealth as best he may in the High Court.

The present bill seeks to remedy this position by extending section 56 of the Judiciary Act so as to confer a right to sue the Commonwealth in a Supreme Court of a Territory similar to the right at present given by that section to sue the Commonwealth in the Supreme Court of a State. The new provisions being of a procedural character, they will apply - subject of course to the relevant periods of limitation - not only to future causes of action but to causes of action that have already arisen. The proposed amendment to section 56 of the Judiciary Act entails the addition of references to the Territories at appropriate points in other sections of the act governing the procedure and the rights of parties in suits to which the Commonwealth is a party.

The bill will also amend certain sections of the act governing the localities in which proceedings for the recovery of penalties and taxes under Commonwealth law may be brought, so as to make them operate in the Territories as well as the States. The rest of the bill is concerned with machinery and drafting amendments.

I commend the bill to honorable senators.

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

page 1435

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SUPREME COURT BILL 19S9

Bill received from the House of Repre-, sentatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to make an amendment to the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act consequential upon an amendment to the Judiciary Act which honorable senators are being asked to consider to-day. The amendmen. to the Judiciary Act will give the right to a person in a Territory of the Commonwealth to sue the Commonwealth in contract or in tort in the Supreme Court, or the principal court if there is no Supreme Court, of that Territory.

Part HI. of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act, which already gives this right in respect of claims against the Commonwealth in the Australian Capital Territory, is therefore no longer necessary. Indeed, its continued presence on the statute book might lead 10 confusion. The purpose of this bill is, accordingly, to repeal the material provisions of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act.

I commend the bill to honorable sena’.ors.

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

page 1436

STATUTORY DECLARATIONS BILL 1959

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to repeal and re-enact, with certain amendments, the law relating to statutory declarations. The present Statutory Declarations Act was passed in 1911. Under the act a person may make a statutory declaration in relation to any matter. He may also make a statutory declaration for any purpose or in connexion with any matter arising under a law of the Commonwealth, or in connexion with the administration of any Commonwealth department. The act has, therefore, been one of great practical utility, especially in facilitating dealings between the public and Commonwealth departments.

As it stands, the act applies only within the mainland of Australia and in Norfolk Island. It has not been extended to the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, which has its own ordinance similar to this act. Outside Australia and its Territories the act as it stands can have no application and consequently its facilities cannot be used in overseas countries. lt has been found that the occasions on which it is necessary or desirable for a person outside the Commonwealth to make a statutory declaration for some purpose in the Commonwealth are increasing with the number of Australians living or travelling overseas. It has, therefore, been thought desirable to amend the act to give it extraterritorial effect. In doing so, it is appreciated that there will be difficulties in taking criminal proceedings against a person who makes a false declaration under the act outside Australia. However, in the event of such a person coming to Australia, it will be possible to take proceedings against him in Australia, and it is hoped that the fact that such proceedings can be so taken will in most cases be a sufficient sanction against the making of a false declaration outside Australia.

The act at present provides a penalty of four years’ imprisonment for making a false declaration, which means that all proceedings for offences against the act must be taken on indictment. Section 16 of the Crimes Act, which permits a fine to be imposed in lieu of imprisonment, applies only to offences under that act. It is considered desirable that proceedings for offences under the Statutory Declarations Act should in ordinary cases be taken in a court of summary jurisdiction, and for a fine to be imposed in lieu of imprisonment.

The drafting amendments to the present act which would be necessitated by these two amendments are such that it has been considered desirable to repeal the existing act and re-enact its provisions with these amendments in a new act. Clause 5 of the bill provides that the act applies within and without the Commonwealth, and this is the provision that will give the act extraterritorial effect. Clause 8 prescribes the classes of person before whom a statutory declaration may be made; the existing classes prescribed by section 5 of the present act have been extended to include certain officers of the Departments of External Affairs and Trade serving in overseas posts. Clause 11 provides the penalties for making a false declaration; if the offence is punishable summarily, the penalty is a fine not exceeding £100 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both, or, if the offence is prosecuted upon indictment, the penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding four years.

The remainder of the bill substantially follows the present act. There is, however, one matter to which 1 would direct the attention of honorable senators. The form of statutory declaration prescribed in the schedule at present contains a footnote, which is in the nature of a warning as to the penalty for making a false declaration. In this bill, the form of statutory declaration has been re-cast to include the warning in the body of the form, so that a person who makes a statutory declaration will actually declare that he makes it subject to the penalties provided by the act for the making of false statements in statutory declarations. This alteration will also dispose of any future difficulty in regard to the omission of the footnote from the form, this omission in the past having been held by the Supreme Court of Victoria to absolve the declarant from punishment. T commend the bill to honorable senators.

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

page 1437

SUPPLY (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL 1959-60

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12th May (vide page 1352), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– This bill seeks to appropriate £55,723,000 to carry on the necessary normal capital works and services of the Government for the first five months of the financial year 1959-60. It is, in effect, an addendum to the bill we just discussed, which sought to appropriate £247,000,000 for the purpose of carrying on the normal services of the Government for the first five months of the next financial year, with the exclusion of capital works and services, which are covered by this bill.

This bill, of course, is not quite as bad as the last one we discussed, because, after all, we have to continue to provide finance for work that is in operation and will not be completed by the end of the financial year. However, in general terms the principle involved is the same as that in the last bill under discussion. We are in the position that, two months before the end of the financial year, without adequate debate or consideration, we are giving to the Government an amount of £55,000,000 to carry the normal works and services of government for the first five months of the next financial year. When we discuss the Budget in August and September we will be discussing something that has already happened. All we will be able to do will be to put our seal on something that has already happened, and our discussion will not alter the position one iota. I protested against the last bill, and I make the same protest about this bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I wish to say only that I think the speeches which emanate from the Labour Party on these bills are rather artificial and unreal. The Government has introduced a supplementary supply bill and supplementary appropriation bills. These interim supply and appropriation bills afford an opportunity for any member of the Opposition - if he is ready, willing and able - to debate these matters in relation to the present time, in relation to a proper anticipation of the position in August, or in relation to an assessment of the situation up until October next. Why does not the Opposition make some really thoughtful contribution to the debate by choosing one or two items of this bill and seeing whether or not the Government can stand up to criticism of them.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Th-; bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I wish to refer to item 01, under Division No. 835 - Parliament - “ Buildings, works. fittings and furniture, £15,000”. I have a rooted objection to the false roof that has been placed on this building. I do not know where lies the difference between the £15,000 and the actual cost of the enormity, something of the order of £38,000. Is it in the space between the original roof and the false roof? This is a matter that has aroused my feelings, and 1 should like some information on it before we proceed to a discussion.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– I should like some information on the item relating to broadcasting and television services particularly in relation to television which, to my mind, should be run as a business undertaking with a vigour and intelligence equal to that displayed by private television companies in Australia. Television has been with us now for a year or two and any comparison between the services provided by the Australian Broadcasting Commission and by the private companies, shows the commission in a very poor light. The Australian Broadcasting Commission station and the private stations commenced operating at the same time. Why should we be asked to appropriate money to assist the operation of the Government station when the private

Operators are now self-supporting and can meet the cost of any extension or development out of the profits that they are making? I should like the Minister to inform me how the £1,259,000 will be spent.

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

[3.57J. - I regret that I am unable to inform Senator Wright of the cost of repairs to the roof at Parliament House.

Senator Hannaford:

– Will the new roof keep out the rain?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– We hope so. This bill is designed simply to provide supply to enable the Government to carry on for the next four months and to ensure that we will be able to continue purchasing articles, paying wages and so on. These estimates are written into the bill on the basis of last year’s expenditure and the anticipated expenditure in the first period of the new financial year. The items are not supported by any explanation as to particular jobs undertaken, and therefore, I regret that I am unable to supply the information that has been sought. However, I shall obtain it and inform Senator Wright at a later date.

Senator MATTNER:
South Australia

– I wish to refer to the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, Division No. 955, in which specific reference is made to an amount of £9,830,000 for telephone exchange services and £2,680,000 for trunkline services. Can the Minister give some assurance that the Budget will contain some provision for expenditure on automatic telephone services in the country? Will he obtain from the Postmaster-General some information about the practice that has. developed in the trunk-line section whereby, after ringing and asking for a trunk-line number, the operator tells the person making the call to ring again if the desired number is engaged. Very often people make several calls to the exchange, sometimes waiting an hour or more beforeobtaining the number.

Senator Armstrong:

– The honorable senator has plenty of time.

Senator MATTNER:

– Some peoplehave plenty of time, particularly the silvertailed people opposite, but the producers have very little time to- spare. If the honorable senator were to visit my district during harvest time he would see just how little time we have to spare. Will theMinister obtain some information about this practice that has developed?

Senator Wright:

– What was the practicepreviously in operation?

Senator MATTNER:

– If a person booked a trunk-line call and the number was engaged, the telephonist would call back when the line was free. Now the caller is asked to hang up and ring again. That could go on for hours. It is most inconvenient.

Senator Willesee:

– Does the honorablesenator live in Snake Gully? Is he a backwoodsman?

Senator MATTNER:

– We are quitehappy to be called backwoodsmen by thesocalled enlightened senators opposite, and I trust that the backwoodsmen will never attain a standard of culture that is intolerant to the views of other sections of thecommunity.

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

– I shall bring Senator Mattner’s remarks to the notice of the PostmasterGeneral. As to Senator Armstrong’s query regarding television services, I can only inform him that the Government has announced its television extension programme and the appropriation sought is to finance, in part, that programme for the next three or four months.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– I remind the Minister that broadcasting and television services have been grouped together. I was seeking some detailed information. I am particularly interested in the television section, because it is time that the Government investigated its television services very closely.

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

– I have not had any information supplied to me. I shall ask the Postmaster-General to let me have some details.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I am obliged to the Minister for the information that he has given me, but I ask him to consider the validity of his statement that the votes before us are supplementary and represent portion of last year’s votes. When dealing with capital works and services we are not concerned with recurring ordinary annual services. I should not have thought that there was any justification for saying that because a certain amount was expended last year, a proportionate amount should be authorized for the next corresponding period. Let me test my statement by an item appearing under Attorney-General’s Department, Division No. 855. An amount of £120,000 is sought for buildings, works, fittings, and furniture, which is a small amount compared with the expenditure in respect of other departments. I recall that over a long period of time we were first of all contemplating, and then constructing, the Arbitration Court building in Melbourne, and T should imagine that would have accounted for a considerable sum of money by way of capital expenditure from the votes for the Attorney-General’s Department in past years. I wonder whether the Minister can say whether this figure of £120,000 is related in any way to the construction of that building. Having visited it, I should like to say that it seemed to me that it had been completed in a very agreeable fashion and in such a way as to promote a great deal of acceptability to those who use it.

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

– I can only say that this amount relates to works in progress. I do not know whether work on the Arbitration Court building has been completed. I shall inquire whether any of this amount is applicable to that building and let the honorable senator know. I have not the information before me. This bill, I repeat, relates to the provision of money for works in the first four months of the next financial year, assessed on the current year’s expenditure. Provision is also made for the purchase of materials.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– It is not my purpose in the slightest degree to embarrass the Minister.

Senator Armstrong:

– That is what you are succeeding in doing.

Senator WRIGHT:

– This morning, there was some cross-fire originated by Senator Armstrong, which did no credit to this chamber. He should not repeat such kindergarten nonsense now. Impressions get abroad, and my purpose in rising again is to disclaim any intention of embarrassing the Minister. It has been my experience that during a consideration of Supplementary Estimates in the past, we have been afforded information on the various items as is the practice when the Estimates are under consideration. If the information tor which I have asked is not forthcoming, I am quite prepared to pass over the items that have drawn a non suit. I wish to refer to Division No. 874 - Department of Civil Aviation, item 01, “Building and works, including shore bases and marine facilities, fittings and furniture, £1,500,000”. I wonder whether the lucid information against that relatively insignificant item can be comparted in any way. Can the Minister indicate the three main centres where the expenditure is to occur?

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

– I can only say that the proposed vote of £1,500,000 to which Senator Wright refers is related to works in progress that are being undertaken by the Department of Civil Aviation. Some of the bigger works are the Sydney airport extensions, the building of the new Sydney airport terminal, and the construction of the international terminal at Melbourne.

Senator Armstrong:

– Is any provision made in this amount in relation to Tullamarine?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– No. Probably, the only amount that will find its way into a vote this year in respect of Tullamarine will be an amount for acquisition purposes.

Senator Wright:

– There is no provision for that in this bill?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– No. Another big work included in the proposed vote is the construction of Perth airport. The shore bases and marine facilities for which provision is made in the proposed vote in the main are at the department’s establishments at Cocos Island and possibly at Nandi in Fiji. The proposed vote includes provision for fittings and furniture at a number of the department’s establishments.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1440

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1959

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13th May (vide page 1380), on motion by Senator Gorton -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– As the bill now before the Senate is supplementary to the Public Service Arbitration Bill 1949, I propose with the leave of the Senate to discuss both measures.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- That will be in order.

Senator WILLESEE:

– The Public Service legislation is being amended in order to bring it into line with the amendment of the arbitration legislation. These bills give effect to a recommendation that was made by the President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, Mr. Justice Kirby. Provision is also made to meet a union’s costs in having a ballot conducted by the court to the extent that those costs exceed the amount for which the union could itself have conducted the ballot. I note that the conciliation and arbitration measure now before us follows the second report of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission sooner than did the amending bill that was introduced following the commission’s first report. On that occasion I recall - I thought it was a strange thing at the time - that although the report of the commission indicated that its work was completely up to date, within the ensuing few months two extra appointments were made to the commission. Mr. Horan became a conciliator and an additional presidential member was appointed. According to the report this year, there will have to be another appointment to the commission, and most probably it will be an appointment of a presidential member. The report also indicates that there will probably have to be an amendment to the Navigation Act in order to make the jurisdiction of Mr. Justice Foster more effective. I presume we will hear about these things before the next report is submitted.

The amendments made by the bills before us are additions to the very long series of amendments that have been made to the conciliation and arbitration legislation. Since the act was first placed on the Statute Book in 1904, there have been 30 amendments of it. This Government has not been lacking in getting the number up. because since 1951 there have been seven amendments; and this one, when passed, will be the eighth since that year. It is very difficult to deal with these amendments without being tempted to go into the history of arbitration. However tempting that might be, I shall confine my remarks to the amendments that were made in 1952 and 1956. A commission, to deal with wages and conditions, and an industrial court, to deal with industrial offences, were established. The Industrial Court is something that it was never intended to be, in that it may impose punishments. Amendments of the act by this Government have rendered arbitration procedures slow, cumbersome and costly. Now the Government is again trying to whittle down the progress that has been made in arbitration in the past.

Senator Wright:

– How does the honorable senator make out that the amending legislation has slowed down arbitration procedures?

Senator WILLESEE:

– 1 was referring to the 1952 and 1956 amendments.

Senator Wright:

– Yes, which established the commission and the court.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I think that if we study the legislation we are discussing to-day, ii becomes perfectly obvious how the processes have been slowed down.

Senator Wright:

– I have given a little study to it. I should like the honorable senator to show why it is obvious that there has been a slowing down.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I know that it would be very difficult to convince the honorable senator, but if he will be patient I shall try to make him understand.

The bill before the Senate at the moment is ano.her attempt to streamline a system which has been streamlined so often before. The Opposition intends to vote against the measure. We on this side of the chamber believe that we should do so because the whole of the amending legislation introduced by this Government has been bad. The Government has been on the wrong track. In voting against the measure, we shall lodge our protest at the unwieldly and cumbersome nature of the act, at the expense in which it is involving unions, and the delay that it is causing. We also will be lodging a protest against court-controlled ballots and the way in which the Government has developed that matter.

Senator Wade:

– What are your objections to court-controlled ballots?

Senator WILLESEE:

– If the honorable senator listens, 1 shall tell him. The first legislation to provide for court-controlled ballots was introduced by a Labour Government, but the Labour Party objects to the legislation introduced by this Government because it has had the effect of taking the conduct of union ballots out of the hands of the trade union movement. It has made the conduct of ballots expensive and slow.

If Senator Wade stays in the chamber, he will hear me dealing with this matter in more detail later.

The Labour Government’s legislation of 1947 provided a system of conciliation commissioners which actually worked. Prior to that, there had been conciliation commissioners, but they had not functioned very effectively. They had, so to speak, withered on the vine. In 1947, we saw a new set up. The Labour Government introduced the very valuable principle that industrial affairs should be sectionalized That principle was applied with eminent success, but this Government is now attempting to depart from it. Under the Labour legislation, a commissioner dealt with a group of industries, and he made decisions which were final. This Government has moved away from that principle by providing for commissioners and. above them, presidential members of the court who deal with matters affecting the male and female basic wage, standard hours and long service leave.

The next move that the Government made, and which has made the arbitration system more cumbersome than it was previously, was to provide for appeals from the commissioners to the full bench of the court. As if that was not bad enough, the Government then provided that, not only was an appeal possible, but that, during the course of a hearing, either the parties or the commissioner could decide that the case should go to the full bench. The only stipulation was that, before a case could be transferred from the lower court to the higher court, as it were, the president had to declare that it was in the public interest to do so.

Senator Wright:

– But trade unions would often want to take advantage of that procedure, would they not?

Senator WILLESEE:

– I assume that at times they would, because if they did not, they would be presented with a fait accompli. Senator Wright, as a lawyer, will appreciate the importance of a precedent. The Labour Party objected to this procedure when it was proposed, and pointed out that by providing for a right of appeal, the commissioner would not have authority to make a decision, because the moment a precedent was cited, his hands would be tied. That is why I say that the Government has been narrowing arbitration procedures until they have almost reached the stage of one-man court control.

Senator Wright:

– But without such a system, you have no co-ordinating method for the whole 16 commissioners.

Senator WILLESEE:

– Is there any coordinating control with a system of wages boards, Public Service arbitrators and the rest? That is the mistake that the Government is making.

Senator Wright:

– Wages boards are entirely different. Each governs itself. You do not want co-ordination. The honorable senator is mis-cueing. There is no reason in his argument.

Senator WILLESEE:

– There is quite a lot of logic in it, but the honorable senator is so hopelessly biased in this matter that he cannot see it.

As I have said, Mr. Deputy President, the Government amended the act to provide that an appeal could be made from the commissioner to a higher body. Now, the Government is taking a further step. On the recommendation of the president of the court, it is proposed to prescribe the stage at which a hearing before a commissioner may be cut off and taken before a presidential member. We of the Labour Party oppose that proposition because of the spirit in which it is put forward. Perhaps the president of the court thinks that this will improve the act, but in our view that is not correct. We can see the danger involved in taking evidence, writing it out, and then considering the evidence in another court which has not had the benefit of having heard the witnesses.

Senator Wade seemed very worried that I would fail to mention court-controlled ballots. This is an old political favorite, particularly of the Australian Country Party. The moment that the words “ courtcontrolled ballots “ are mentioned, Country Party supporters scream that the Labour Party is against such ballots, and so on. I suggest, Mr. Deputy President, that the mere fact that this Government proposes to pay some of the expenses involved in conducting court-controlled ballots justifies the protests that we of the Labour Party have made about the amending legislation over the years. We have said time and again that the Government has been forcing the unions to undertake such heavy expense that it will succeed in ruining them in the course of time. Of course, in this matter of meeting expenses of ballots, the Government is really not going far enough. Because the unions have been forced to seek the assistance of the court in conducting their ballots, they are obliged, in order to pay counsel, to spend thousands of pounds every year. As I say, the Government, by means of this legislation, is justifying our protests over the years.

If this Government had stuck to the 1947 legislation of the Australian Labour Party, it would not be in half the difficulties that it faces to-day. Let me make the attitude of the Labour Party perfectly clear. We believe that the trade unions are quite capable of looking after their own affairs. Most of them, particularly the older unions, have far greater experience of industrial mattei: than this Parliament has. Because of the importance of the trade union movement, and because the Communists were trying to rig ballots, the Labour Government in 1947 provided that where malpractice could be proved, or where there was a suspicion that a ballot had been rigged, if an interested person in the union could make out a prima facie case to the registrar - without a court hearing, but merely by providing evidence to the registrar - responsibility could be placed on the court to conduct another ballot. We also provided for the payment of not only the expenses of the person making the claim but also the full cost of the ballot, if the Attorney-General was satisfied that such payment should be made.

Further, when an offence was committed, it was possible under our legislation to rectify the position by the due processes of law. But this Government departed from that legislation. Although it still stands on the statute book, this Government’s provisions relating to court-controlled ballots has led to the setting up of more expensive machinery; and the provisions of the Labour Government’s act are not ‘being applied. First, when providing for courtcontrolled ballots at the request of certain people, this Government made no provision for costs. Then, in 1951, the law was amended to make a ballot possible upon the application of a percentage of financial members of an organization, but the organization was still required to bear the whole of the cost with the exception of the salary of any Commonwealth officers connected with it. I was interested to learn, on reading the regulations, that an application from an organization must be made by 1,000 members or one-tenth of the total membership, whichever is the lesser, whilst in the case of a request by a branch, the required number was 500 members, or one-fifth of the total number of members of that branch, whichever is the lesser. That, of course, gave the minority the right to enforce a ballot. Under that provision, provided they were organized, a minority could, for mischievous reasons, put a union to great expense even though that union might have done no wrong whatever.

Senator Wright:

– Has not the court got to be satisfied that there is reasonable cause for intervention?

Senator WILLESEE:

– But what has been the effect of that requirement?

Senator Wright:

– But is that not the statutory provision?

Senator WILLESEE:

– I do not know.

Senator McManus:

– It is not the statutory provision. If 10 per cent, apply, they get it as a right.

Senator WILLESEE:

– If 10 per cent, apply, the court is under an obligation to move. The next move this Government made was in 1956 when it accepted responsibility for the salary of the Commonwealth officer conducting the ballot. Then it also waived any charge for use of premises. Under the legislation now before us, the Government proposes to accept responsibility for travelling allowances and for any costs which, in the opinion of the AttorneyGeneral, are excessive. The only other proposal is that, should the returning officer die or be replaced, it shall not be necessary to conduct a fresh ballot. The new returning officer is to be enabled to carry on with the one already under way; and that is only sensible.

I understand that this legislation arises out of a case in which the Amalgamated Engineering Union was involved. I point out here that the Amalgamated Engineering Union has been established for 150 years in Great Britain and about 100 years in Australia, and therefore has vast experience. Further, honorable senators should appreciate that all organizations do not follow the same procedures in carrying out their ballots. For instance, some might conduct the ballot by post, whilst others adopt other means. The Amalgamated Engineering Union has always followed the principle of what it calls a star meeting. Under this system, the union calls a meeting at which one of the important items on the agenda is the election of officers. That is a completely foolproof system. Under it, members are required to produce either union tickets, or badges, to prove that they are financial before the vote is taken. As I have said, this organization has been established in Australia for 100 years. I think it is the only international union in Australia.

Under the Government’s proposal, control of ballots is to be placed in the hands of a minority who, for no valid reason, can put such an experienced organization as trieAmalgamated Engineering Union to the expense of a ballot costing perhaps thousands of pounds. When a court conducts a ballot, it makes no attempt whatever to follow the particular union’s rules; it rides roughshod over every tradition and rule of the organization and carries out the ballot in its own way. After all, the rules of these unions cannot be repugnant to the court because they are registered in the court. That being so, the court must first approve of them before registering them. Yet, when the court conducts a ballot, it completely ignores those rules to which it has given approval. We intend, to oppose these particular proposals. That might seem paradoxical, but we oppose them because we abhor the legislation so much that we feel that these proposals, good as they might be, could not effect any great improvement to what is an undesirable piece of legislation.

I come now to the proposal to allow certain people to take evidence and furnish copies of that evidence to the court. Again I am reminded of the warnings we gave on a previous occasion when we suggested that such a system must cause delays in the court. This has proved to be so. Because of the big lag existing to-day, and because of dissatisfaction arising from that lag, the Government seeks a way out by proposing that written evidence be taken by some one else and then furnished to the court which is to make the decision. I suggest that it is bad in principle not to allow the court which is to make the decision the advantage of observing the demeanour of witnesses. It is all very well to argue that the person hearing the evidence under the Government’s proposal will have the advantage of hearing the witness being examined and cross-examined, but it is essential that the court making the decision shall have the opportunity of observing the demeanour of a witness, for it is only in that way that it can hope to gain some idea of the capabilities, reliability and credibility of the witness. lt is only by observing his demeanour that the court can get some appreciation of just how expert the particular witness is in the matter about which he is giving evidence. I suggest, therefore, that the proposal before us is indeed a retrograde step. lt would seem, too, that the Government is moving away from the principle of concilia. ion. If, while we have this lag, the parties are referred to a conciliator, something might be achieved because the conciliator is the one person in the whole of the arbitration set-up who can do much to establish a satisfactory relationship between employer and employee. When the court makes a decision, it leaves a bitter taste in somebody’s mouth. No matter what the judge does, he will offend half the litigants appearing before him.

Senator Wright:

– Not in a court of arbitration, for it is very rarely that the whole of the claim is allowed.

Senator WILLESEE:

– That is my point.

Senator Wright:

– The judge compromises, and therefore pleases both sides.

Senator WILLESEE:

– But the parties do not compromise in a court hearing, whereas, if they appear before a conciliator, they can compromise. When the court gives a decision, the union might be only half satisfied and the employer might be only half satisfied. So, invariably there is 50 per cent, dissatisfaction on both sides. It has to be remembered also that often those who represent the unions are rank and file members who have not a full understanding of court procedure, and when there is a rehash before the court there is the possibility of creating bitterness. That has been an unfortunate feature of arbitration over the years. The conciliator is one person who can do much towards establishing good feeling and promoting agreement between both sides.

I turn now to the proposals relating 10 joint sessions of the commission. It is proposed to make it possible for full benches of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, at the President’s discretion, to sit on the one bench as a tribunal under the Public Service Act. Its members will deal jointly with the dispute but, of course, will bring down separate findings. Governmentsupporters have been emphasizing that. Naturally they bring down separate findings, because they are operating under completely different acts.

We oppose th-s measure because, first, it affects people working under two completely different acts of Parliament, and the Government is attempting to bring those people together. The Public Service Arbitrator can deal with only one set of workers - with people in the employment of the Commonwealth Government. The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission deals with all the rest of the people in employment, except one or two specialized categories such as coal industry employees and waterfront employees. The commissioners deal, not with Commonwealth Government employees, but with State Government employees - tram drivers and the rest, through the whole spectrum of the industrial field. They are obliged to stand by different considerations. The commission is always bound by the ability of industry to pay, about which we hear so much whenever the basic wage is being considered. On the other hand, the first Public Service Arbitrator, Mr. Ashley Hunt, applied a different standard in 1921. His position was established under legislation introduced by the late Billy Hughes, and he laid it down that he was not bound by the ability of the Commonwealth Government to pay in arriving at what were fair and decent wages for the Commonwealth Public Service. We see two different sets of circumstances applying. I suggest that it is, therefore, ludicrous to have those people hearing one lot of evidence, applying two different standards to it, and bringing down in their various jurisdictions the decisions that they have to make.

Because of the very nature of the Public Service, an award made by the Public Service Arbitrator fixes a maximum payment. The Commonwealth Government, unlike private employers, cannot enter the region of over-award payments. I do not have to point out how impossible that would be - bringing in considerations of political patronage and the rest. Therefore, when the Public Service Arbitrator fixes an amount that shall be paid to any of the employees under his jurisdiction, he fixes a maximum amount, and that is the way it remains. Conversely, the commission lays down minimum rates. That is the law of the land. No employer may pay, without penalty, less than the minimum amount if the required number of hours are worked. Over-award payments have been used a great deal since the war. The trend is probably diminishing now, but a few years ago it was a common thing to obtain overaward payments. Away back in the days of Mr. Justice Higgins, over-award payments were held to be completely valid. There again, we have a completely different set of circumstances applying as between the two jurisdictions which it is proposed should hear evidence jointly.

The decisions of the Public Service Arbitrator are subject to a further check. They come before this very Parliament. There have been occasions in the Parliament when a member has moved to disallow regulations that have arisen from decisions of the Public Service Arbitrator. There is no such check on the decisions of the commission. This legislation will be a first step towards destroying the Public Service Arbitrator set-up. I remind honorable senators that he is paid £5,500 a year, as against a commissioner’s salary of £3,000 a year. He is a very senior person in the arbitration set-up.

In 1921, when the first Public Service Arbitrator was appointed, it was thought valuable to set up these special fields of jurisdiction. I suggest that that is the direction in which we should be moving in arbitration - not away from it, as we shall be if this bill is passed. Honorable senators can see the way things are going in the coal industry to-day. They can see the efficiency with which the arbitration system works in regard to the waterfront, and also the efficiency with which it has worked under the Public Service Arbitrator. The wages boards are in a slightly different category, but they also give effect to the principle of having one set of people to deal with one industry - getting to know its atmosphere, its tradi tions and so on. The Public Service Arbitrator is especially in that category, because he is dealing with a body of people in the industrial field whose conditions are vastly different from those of other people who are outside the Public Service. If honorable senators examine such matters as long service leave, sick leave, special leave and annual leave in the Public Service, they will find them very different from similar provisions relating to other industries.

One of the most important things for the Public Service Arbitrator to bear in mind is that he is dealing with a field which has a tradition, probably handed down from the public service of England, a tradition which is jealously and efficiently guarded by the Australian Public Service. He is dealing with some of the people who are making tremendously important decisions. He works in that field of tradition, in that atmosphere, by virtue of his authority under the Public Service Act. I suggest that to bring him from that field for the purpose of setting up a join commission - ignoring all the differences that exist - could lead us into a situation the end of which could not be foreseen.

If the Government insists on bulldozing this legislation through, I would plead with it to take out the provision to which I have referred. If it will not do that, I say to it, “ For goodness’ sake, use it very very sparingly indeed when you get your hands on it “. These frequent amendments to the conciliation and arbitration legislation are an admission that the Government is being led into a morass. This is one of the worst possible mistakes that the Government could make. If it starts to move away from the principle of having special fields of jurisdiction, it will be doing the very reverse of what it should be doing.

I do not think that the Government is following this course intentionally, but I warn it that in trying to make these bitsandpieces amendments from time to time it is being led along the garden path. I suggest that every honorable senator would agree that the work of conciliation must always precede that of arbitration. I consider it significant that “ conciliation “ is the first word mentioned in the act, not the last. Great work has been done in these special fields of jurisdiction, because of the special knowledge of particular industries which is in the hands of the conciliation commissioners. The Government is moving away from that field, lt did so when it changed the name “ conciliation commissioner “ to “ commissioner “ and gave a right of appeal. The object was to have a centralized form of arbitration. The great value of the conciliation commissioner was that he was able to deal with his own group of industries and make decisions which he knew would be final. The Government has destroyed his confidence to that extent because it now knows - and the commissioner knows - that lie cannot give a true decision. It will not -work because there will be an appeal against it. You can now even stop cases in the middle of proceedings. It is proposed that evidence should be taken and considered by some one who does not even see it being taken. Slowly, by a piecemeal process, the Government is turning arbitration into a centralized system.

No one regrets more than I do the necessity to offer criticism in regard to this important and complex field of arbitration, but if any one looks back over the history of the matter he will see that the attitude of the Australian Labour Party is justified. That has been proved time and time again. The Government has not streamlined and improved the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and its corollary, the Public Service Act, but has gone backwards. I regret to say that the Government, instead of undoing the damage that it has caused, is stubbornly standing by its mistakes, trying to patch them up. The only result of that will be that your last position will be worse than your first.

What I should have liked to have been debating to-day is what conciliation and arbitration should really be. It must be expeditious. It must not be cumbersome and unwieldy, as it is at present. Above all, it must be inexpensive for the trade union movement. If it is not, it will place an undue strain on that movement. Do not run away with the idea that because we have had this act for so long, it is necessarily inviolate and must last for ever. If you examine other systems, such as those in the United States of America and England, you will see that they are vastly different from ours. We think ours is a good system, but in other parts of the world they are sometimes not quite so sure that it is. You cannot go on putting a strain on the trade union movement, which is, I suppose, the most important ingredient in this set-up. If you go too far along the way of imposing pressure you could get back to the industrial strife of only a few years ago. I regret very much the stand that the Government has taken on this. The Government could, even at this late stage, go back and re-examine the amendments that it has made over the last few years. It should be big enough to face up to its mistakes. It should produce a quick and inexpensive machinery. If it did so, it would get the support of this Parliament.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– The Australian Democratic Labour Party supports those provisions in the bill which relate to court-controlled ballots and the payment of additional expenses incurred by unions in connexion with such ballots. However, the party is opposed to those provisions which relate to the hearing of wage claims by certain organizations, Therefore, we shall oppose clause 8, which provides for a dual or joint sitting of the presidential commission under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the Public Service Arbitration Act.

We have consulted trade unions associated with our party and have been informed by them that they consider that that latter provision could take away from certain organizations valuable privileges and rights they at present enjoy. Those unions have informed us that they support the representations made by the Australian Council of Trade Unions against the proposal. We have examined the arguments that have been advanced and have decided, as I indicated, to vote against clause 8. We do not think it is in the best interests of the unions or organizations concerned. 1 do not propose to go very fully into the arguments that have actuated us in arriving at that decision. We agree with the arguments that have been advanced by Senator Willesee in regard to clause 8, but I emphasize that in no circumstances do I agree with the inspired propaganda that is being produced in the community to-day against the principle of courtcontrolled ballots. I say that that propaganda comes from the same sources as some of the propaganda that I have seen in the press in the last few days and which apparently is designed to influence the decision of a conference being held in this city. I have seen attacks on opposition to unity tickets by such people as Mr. George Seelaf, who is secretary of the Victorian branch of the Meat Industry Union. Mr. Seelaf, of course, is one of Victoria’s best known Communists, and the office of the Meat Industry Union, which is under his control, is the depot for the distribution of Communist propaganda throughout the trade union movement of Victoria. The office of the Meat Industry Union was also the publishing house for the notorious novel “ Power Without Glory “. It is remarkable that we should find a man such as Mr. Seelaf giving advice to the community on whether unity tickets should be adopted.

It is interesting to find him supported by the secretary of the Building Workers Industrial Union, Mr. Joe Chandler, whose activities as a Communist ten years ago in rigging ballots and victimizing decent trade unionists caused the Chifley Government to pass the first legislation in favour of court-controlled ballots. It is interesting to find also supporting this clack about unity tickets the secretary of the Plumbers Union, Armstrong, who is also a notorious Communist and who succeeded Mr. Courtnay, a member of the Australian Labour Party, who was recently elected to the other House. Mr. Charlie Young, the secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation, who is also one of Victoria’s leading Communists, is lending his support. I repeat that it is interesting to note that the propaganda against court-controlled ballots is inspired by and comes from the same sources as the propaganda in favour of unity tickets.

In order to understand fully the position in regard to court-controlled ballots, I think it is necessary to look at the history of the matter. Most people know that in 1935 a decision was made by the Comintern to endeavour to establish a united front with labour organizations throughout the world. That was the well-known trojan horse policy. It was following that that the Communist Party first began to make its way towards a position of influence in the trade union movement in this country. It introduced the practice of unity tickets, which in those days were used against members of the Australian Labour Party. People who were not Communists were approached and promised positions with trade unions if they would run on a unity ticket with the Communists. In a number of cases throughout the war period, through these unity tickets, the Communists were able to get control of trade unions. When they got control of the unions, they made it their business to see that they kept control.

After the war, when members of the trade union movement and of the Labour Party became shocked at the extent of Communist influence in the unions, they determined to destroy it. When they atempted in a democratic way to go into the unions and vote the Communists out, they found that their efforts failed because ballots were corruptly rigged to prevent them from getting control. The method, of course, is well known to us all. It was set out by Cecil Sharpley, who was the industrial or trade union organizer of the Communist Party in Victoria for some years. He defected from the party and made a statement about his activities.I propose to read it, because it indicates the method that was employed in order to ensure that unions that had come under Communist control would be kept in that position. Sharpley said -

In rigging union elections we worked to a well-practised four-point programme: -

Election of Communist or fellow-traveller returning officers. Usual drill in achieving this is to “ pack “ a meeting with Communists and fellow-travellers and rely on the absence and indifference of the majority.

Wangle to have the union ballot papers printed at Left Wing printeries, (in Melbourne, we did this usually at the office of Federal Press Ply. Ltd in Corr’s Lane, where the “ Guardian “, Victorian organ of the Communist Party, is printed).

Print many more ballot papers than there were voting members, to facilitate “ switching “.

Organize Communists, not members of the union, to vote in the name of union members who cannot be bothered to exercise their vote or in the name of fictitious members.

Some may say that Sharpley defected from the Communist Party and informed on his mates, and therefore we should take no notice of what he said. But there is authority for the truth of what he said in the fact that when his statement was brought under the notice of J. B. Stout, the secretary of the Melbourne Trade Hall Council, Mr. Stout said -

Sharpley has only told us what we know has been going on for years in certain of the trade unions in this State.

I emphasize the words “ certain of the trade unions “, because in the great majority of trade unions to-day the ballots are clean. The possibility of rigged or crooked ballots and the need to apply a court-controlled ballot occur in a minority of unions where the battle between those who do and those who do not support communism is hard. repeat that in the great majority of unions the ballots are clean.

Some may ask, “ Why do you require court-controlled ballots? “ I make this reply: We have policemen in the community. But when you appoint policemen, you do not suggest that everybody in the community is crooked. The great majority of people are law abiding. We have policemen to deal with those people who are not law abiding, and we have court-controlled ballots to deal with those members of the trade union movement who are not decent - the minority who have to be fought and kept down.

The classic example of union ballot rigging was that which occurred in the Victorian branch of the Building Workers’ Industrial Union. I saw a lot of it. After the war a number of good labour men, including some very fine ex-servicemen, came back and found that the union was a Communist puppet. Its offices and funds were used in the interests of the Communist Party. Those Labour men set to work in a democratic way to form their own organization to defeat the Communists, to drive them out, and to place the union under Labour control. They stated one of their objectives quite clearly in this way: “ The Building Workers Industrial Union has been disaffiliated from the Labour Party by the Communists. We are going to get control and re-affiliate with the Labour Party.” They organized and got Labour men who supported them to go to the union meetings and vote. On the votes that were recorded at union meetings in 20 or 30 branches they had a clear victory. But just when it seemed that they had won by a majority of several hundred voes, Chandler, the Communist secretary of the union, produced more than 800 votes which he said were postal ballot papers - votes that had been put in by men who he said were to busy or too sick to come to the union meetings.

He was asked to supply a list of those people, so that others could go round and check whether they had voted. He declined to do so because, he said, it might destroy the secrecy and the purity of the ballot! Then the men who were opposing the Communists went to the Supreme Court and asked for a declaration that the ballot was crooked. They received all the sympathy in the world, but when the facts were investigated they were told that there was nothing in the law to cover the case. Then they went to the Melbourne Trades Hall Council and asked the Trades Hall Council to take action against the B.W.I.U., which was an affiliated body of the council. ‘Ihe B.W.I. U. officials thumbed their noses at the council, and said they refused to appearr before it to discuss the ballot in their union. These men then appealed to the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which said, “ It is the Trades Hall Council’s baby; we are not going to get mixed up in this “.

Finally, these men asked a number of leading personaliities in the Labour Party and the trade union movement in Victoria to meet them. The personalities included Reg Broadby, the secretary of the A.C.T.U., and Fred Riley, one of the best-known union veterans in the movement. I was there, too. They put the position to us. They said, “ We tried to beat the Communists democratically in a properly controlled union ballot, and they rigged it on us. We went to law, and we were told that the law could do nothing for us. We went to the Trades Hall Council, and they told us they could do nothing for us. The A.C.T.U. said it could do nothing for us. You are the leaders of the Labour movement and the trade union movement. What can we do? “ The answer they got was, “ We cannot tell you what you can do “. They then said, “ Is it your view that we should settle down from now on in a union where we can never win because ballots are corrupt? “ They were told. “ Unfortunately, that appears to be the case”. When people tell me to-day that the trade union movement can manage its own affairs, my thoughts go back to the day when leading personalities of the Victorian Labour Party and the Victorian trade union movement told these men - decent men who merely wanted an honest vote in their union - that they could do nothing for them and that the men had to settle down under Communist, crooked control for the rest of their lives.

The result was that the Labour Party decided to take action. I am proud of the fact that 1 moved in the executive that wc send a deputation to the federal conference in Canberra to ask that body to take action to enable unionists to get a clean ballot. I. emphasize that we did not do that until we had tried in every other conceivable way to get a fair ballot for the men concerned. The deputation came to Canberra. One member was Mr. E. W. Peters, now the member for Scullin in the other House. Others were Mr. John Mayne, now the president of the Clerks Union, and Mr. Alec Miller, the man who, because he opposed the Communists in the B.W.I.U., was hounded from job to job and victimized time and again Another was Frank Scully, from the Australian Railways Union - a man who was expelled from the union for the crime of opposing Brown, the Communist secretary of the union. They put the case to the federal conference of the Labour Party, and a decision was made, and endorsed, I understand, by Mr. Chifley and Senator McKenna. I pay tribute to both of them. The decision was that the Labour movement would take action to provide for properly conducted ballots in cases where there was malpractice.

That was a very big decision for the Labour movement to take, because the party had always been very chary of any interference with trade union affairs, but it was a decision which had to be made because it was admitted frankly that in this case there was no other way in which a right decision could be arrived at. The legislation was put through, lt was a step forward. I do not think it went as far as it might have gone, but I would1 not criticize those concerned for that, because they did a very big thing in passing legislation of that character at all.

Senator Hannaford:

– What year was that?

Senator McKenna:

– It was 1949.

Senator McMANUS:

– I think Senator McKenna was in charge of the legislation.

Under that legislation there were, of course, one or two cases where it was then possible to get justice. In the Victorian branch of the Clerks Union a number of good Labour men had been trying for several years to defeat the Communists in control of the union. They failed because the ballots were being rigged by the orthodox method set out by Cecil Sharpley. More ballot papers were being printed than there were people to vote. Towards the last day of an election, when they had’ an idea how many ballot papers had come in, they put in another 700, 800, 1,000 or even 2,000 papers, ail marked by the office girl with the names of the people they wanted to win. As a result they triumphantly won the ballot. In this particular case, the returning officer panicked. He was not a Communist but he supported the people in control at that time. Early in the election a large number of ballot papers were returned, because of the great interest that was being taken in the election. So many ballot papers were returned that he became scared that when the number was totalled up, it would be found that more ballot papers had been returned than he had sent out. He became so scared of that prospect that he seized the ballot papers and burnt them in his backyard. When that happened, action was taken under the Chifley legislation to get a clean ballot, on the grounds that there had been malpractice. A clean ballot was taken and the Communists were cleaned out of the Clerks Union.

Of course, it did not take very long for the Communist Party to realize that it was in difficulties and that something had to be done about this legislation. It decided - I say this with due respect to Senator Wright - to take advantage of the delays of the law. One example of this occurred in the boilermakers’ union in New South Wales. There was an allegation of corruption in the union ballot. First of all, it took some weeks to collect all the evidence. Then, when the matter was taken to court, the Communists demanded an adjournment. Following that adjournment, they demanded a second adjournment, with the result that the case was strung out to such an extent that the people who alleged that the ballot had been crooked did not get a verdict in their favour until three or four days before the results of the next election in the union were declared and the newly elected executive was about to take office. The Communists negatived to a large extent the Chifley legislation by deliberately using the processes of the law to ensure that months would be taken up in litigation and that it would be time for the next election to take place before a verdict was obtained.

That was the reason why a number of unionists asked that the legislation should go further. The Chifley legislation provided that malpractice had to be proved in order to obtain a court-controlled ballot. The unionists asked for legislation which would provide for a court-controlled ballot if a reasonable percentage of members of the union wanted such a ballot. That legislation was passed by the Menzies Government. I make no bones about saying that it would not have been necessary to have such legislation if the Communists had played fair by the Chifley legislation, but the action they took in deliberately holding up the hearing of cases made it necessary for further legislation to be introduced.

Senator Laught:

– Why did the Australian Labour Party oppose the legislation of the Menzies Government?

Senator McMANUS:

– That is a matter for them to answer. Some one else, no doubt, will speak on their behalf in this matter.

That is the situation as I see it. Neither the Government nor any other body wanted to interfere in the affairs of trade unions. It is ridiculous to accuse people of interfering in the affairs of trade unions when I myself have heard leading personalities in the trade union movement say, “ We have not got power to-day to deal with these matters “. That has occurred on more than one occasion. I can remember the victimization to which certain people in Victoria were subjected because they opposed Communist union bosses. The Lloyd and Miller cases come to mind. Lloyd received several thousand pounds damages because when he opposed the Communists in the ironworkers union they attempted to deprive him of the right to work. The Communists went from job to job, and called the men out on strike if any employer dared to employ Lloyd.

Lloyd himself has told me that he then went to the leading officials of the trade union movement - even to Mr. J. V. Stout - and asked, “ What can you do to defend me? You know that I have done nothing wrong “, Stout replied, “ You have done notning wrong except to oppose the Communists in the trade union movement “. Lloyd asked, “ What can the union do to get me my right to work? “ Stout replied, “ We cannot do anything for you “. Lloyd then asked, “ What do you suggest I do? “ Stout replied, “ Have you ever thought of trying to get a job under an assumed name? “ Apparently that was all the trade union movement could do for Lloyd. As a result of the Lloyd case, the Chifley Government again passed legislation to protect people against victimization. Nobody can tell me that the Chifley Government wished to introduce such legislation. It did not desire to interfere in the affairs of the trade unions, but it considered that if the trade union movement could not deal with cases of victimization, then as a government it had a duty to interfere. I give credit to the Chifley Government for doing its duty.

Let us not attack the principle of courtcontrolled ballots. They have not been foisted on the trade union movement. In fact, they have been made necessary because the trade union movement apparently had no machinery of its own to deal with victimization, and with the Communists. I am sorry for the people who have levelled a great deal of inspired propaganda at this measure. I have heard people say that a fascist procedure is adopted when courtcontrolled ballots are conducted, because people knock on doors and ask unionists to vote for a particular ticket. I know that people canvass for votes in union elections in Victoria, but the first people to do that were members of the Communist Party. Years ago, canvassing in trade union elections was almost unknown in Victoria, and it only came to prominence after the Communist Party set up its organization for winning union elections - a very efficient and clever organization - and they went from door to door asking unionists to vote for a particular ticket. As a result, their opponents adopted the same procedure. After all, what is wrong in canvassing for votes? Every person in this chamber has knocked on doors during political election campaigns and has asked people to vote in a certain way. I have no doubt that the people please themselves in the allocation of their vote in a political election, just as unionists please themselves in the allocation of their vote in a trade union election.

I have heard suggestions that a postal ballot is undemocratic and that a much more democratic system is merely to open a polling place to which all the unionists can go and cast their vote. In the majority of trade unions in which the returning officers and officials are honest, that system would be quite satisfactory; but when we consider the minority of trade unions in which returning officers and officials are one-sided, that system is too risky. I challenge any honorable senator to convince me that the system of placing a ballot-box in the union office with the returning officer sitting beside it and with a small number of people coming in and casting their vote every five, ten or fifteen minutes, is corruptionproof. Under that system, only a small minority of the unionists cast a vote. 1 have heard the statement that if only 10 per cent, of the union membership signs a petition, the court will order a courtcontrolled ballot. That is quite right. I know many trade unions in which it is problematical whether even 10 per cent, of the membership votes. Let me refer to the union that has been mentioned - the Amalgamated Engineering Union. If any member wishes to vote in that union, he must attend on star night. It is almost unheard of for more than 12 per cent, of the members to vote in the elections in that union. Although the A.E.U. is regarded as one of the top-ranking unions in this country, only 10 per cent, or 12 per cent, of its members vote at its elections. That is why the majority of the members of the Commonwealth council of that union who have votes - I emphasize that fact; three of the five members have votes - are Communists who hold their positions because only a minority of the members - the Communist minority - bother to cast a vote. The simple fact is that the majority of the members who hold Labour views do not bother to attend the meetings.

I do not support the attacks that have been made upon the principle of courtcontrolled ballots. I know, from my. experience in the trade union movement, that the rank-and-file members have no objection to such ballots being conducted. I have spoken to members of the Victorian branch of the Australian Railways Union who have told me that in the old days when J. J. Brown was returning officer, the Communist or the unity ticket always won. They have also told me that since courtcontrolled ballots have been conducted, on some occasions people opposed to communism have been elected. The rankandfile members of the A.R.U. have no doubt in their minds that the court-controlled ballots accurately reflect the will of the men. Similarly, they have no doubt in their minds that in the old days before the court-controlled ballots were held, the ballots were crooked.

I shall now refer to the matter of minorities. It is all very well for some people to say that 10 per cent, of a trade union membership is a minority; but any one who knows the organization of trade unions to-day and the distances over which members are spread, knows that a person is rather successful if he manages to get 10 per cent, of the membership to sign a petition for a court-controlled ballot. It would be impossible to obtain the signatures of 10 per cent, of the membership of some trade unions in Australia. If 10 per cent, of the membership is prepared to sign a petition, that indicates a pretty strong interest in the court-controlled ballot. The allegation has been made that a minority of the membership could call for court-controlled ballots and thus adversely affect the union’s finances. That objection will be removed by this legislation. For that reason the Australian Democratic Labour Party supports the measure so far as it relates to courtcontrolled ballots.

If I needed any justification for supporting the right of governments, whether Labour or non-Labour, to take action to ensure that right and just principles exist in trade unionism - provided that the unions are unable to take action themselves - I should merely need to quote from a speech made yesterday by one of my political opponents in another place. I refer to the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) who expressed himself in these terms -

Tt would be silly for anybody to say that things that are common in all other walks of life could not possibly occur in a trade union. T will go so far as to say that I know that in respect of one trade union - a very big one at that - nearly every official of one branch of the union would lose his job to-morrow morning if a ballot could be conducted of the rank-and-file members of the union in such a way that malpractices could not be perpetrated thereby enabling the rank-and-file members of the union to express their opinion of their officials through the ballot-box. Such union officials are detested, loathed and distrusted by the rank and file, but because malpractices are so rife in the union, there is not the ghost of a chance of getting rid of them. They have fastened themselves on to the union and they know that because of malpractices they can ignore any attempts made to shift them. They know that they can remain in office year after year. They are so confident that when their terms of office expire they do not bother to notify the members of the union of the opening date or closing date for nominations of officials for a new term of office. The members of the union know about the elections only when they read the union paper, which invariably pays glowing tributes to the union officials by saying that they have been elected unopposed for another three years.

He does not mention what the union is, but 1 would like to have a ringside seat when the federal council of the Australian Workers Union meets in a couple of months’ time. I conclude by saying once again that the trade union movement is not something sacramental. It is a great movement. I am a member of two unions, and 1 esteem it a privilege to belong to both. It would be best that the trade union movement should deal with these matters of corruption itself in the same way as is done in the United States of America, where federal union organizations themselves dealt with corruption in the Teamsters Union, and by so doing made governmental action unnecessary. Honorable senators have the words of Mr. Cameron, if they do not believe me. There is the clear statement from him that the most serious evils can exist in a minority of unions - T emphasize that as the great bulk of trade unions to-day are well and cleanly conducted. But when you have this situation that the trade union movement, the A.C.T.U. and all trades halls councils apparently admit that they have not the power to deal with such matters, and when the Supreme Court says that the law does not cover them, then any government - Labour or Liberal - has an obligation to step in, in the public interest, and take action such as was taken by Labour, and by the Liberals later, to ensure the possibility of clean ballots in trade union elections.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I do not intend to take a great deal of the time of the

Senate in relation to this matter, because Senator Willesee has quite accurately and fully put the view of the Australian Labour Party. I enter the debate for fear that the impression is abroad in the Senate that the Australian Labour Party is opposed to courtcontrolled ballots. The truth of the matter is that not only are we not opposed to them, but Labour was the very initiator of them. Senator McManus, only lacking knowledge of what happened in the Cabinet and at the completely top level in the parliamentary party in 1949, has detailed the events that led up to the legislation of 1949 - Act No. 28 of 1949, assented to on 12th July, 1949 - which provided for the curing, or the prevention, of irregularities and malpractices in connexion with union elections and enabled the court in a proper case to step in and order a new election and conduct it itself. The question of costs is relevant there in that, as Senator Willesee explained. it was left to the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth in a proper case to pay the costs of an applicant for a court-controlled ballot, whether successful or not, and in a proper case even to pay the costs of the organization itself.

Under that legislation it was competent for any one individual, who could make out a prima facie case of malpractice, to satisfy the registrar of the court. He would then recommend that the court intervene, and the court would make the necessary orders and proceed to a hearing and all the consequential orders. The provisions are set out in detail in the measure. T have the pleasurable recollection of having fought for that legislation for a period of years before it was accomplished; and in the absence of the Attorney-General of the day it was my privilege to draw up the instructions to the Crown Law Department for that legislation. The parliamentary party was somewhat ahead of the trade union movement in this type of legislation. They were consulted. They did not go the whole way that this legislation took them, but it is a matter of history and great credit to the trade union movement that in the following September at their all-Australia trade union congress they affirmed and confirmed every word of that legislation. It was that legislation that put a weapon into the hands of those who were fighting the Communists in the unions - an instrument that enabled them to succeed. They had done magnificent work. They had been bashed and vilified, and they had had a most difficult time. They had plenty of heart but did not get results until the 1949 legislation was put in their hands.

Anybody who looks at the statements that have been made by successive Ministers - Attorneys-General and Ministers for Labour and National Service in this Parliament - will find the details, the records, of the applications that were made and the particular successes recorded. I have just had put in my hand in the last few moments the report of a question that I asked in June, 1952, in which I asked what steps were taken under the 1949 legislation, and with what results. It will be found in “ Hansard “ of 5th June, 1952. I was informed that there had been nineteen applications under the irregularities section. Those that succeeded were in unions such as the Ironworkers’ Union, where there had been more violence than in any other union. This legislation threw Thornton and the Communists out of that great union and put into power Short and the others who had been fighting the Communists. They have remained in power ever since. Union after union was affected. I agree with Senator McManus that malpractices operated only in a small section of the trade union movement

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA · LP

– How many were successful out of the nineteen applications.

Senator McKENNA:

– As there was a very long answer to my question, running into many pages, I shall hand the “ Hansard “ report to the Minister so that he may peruse it. I do not want to embark on a discourse on it, but the results are shown there. Amongst the results shown on the second page, he will find the one that I have just indicated - the ironworkers’ body. That is the position regarding an irregularity that can be established by one individual on a prima facie basis - not proof beyond doubt. The applicant just makes a prima facie case and the whole operation importing the court into union elections and enabling the court to conduct the ballot comes into play.

That was not the end of this legislation in relation to court-controlled ballots. Provision was made where the court could intervene and conduct a ballot without any irregularity being established. Section 96 (m), then written in, provided that an organization, or a branch of an organization, may request the industrial registrar to conduct an election for an office in the organization or in the branch, as the case may be, with a view to ensuring that no irregularity occurred in, or in connexion with the election. It was left either for the whole organization or an individual branch to make that application. In a proper case, the registrar was authorized to then proceed, notwithstanding anything contained in the rules of an organization or of a branch, to impose such conditions upon the conduct of the ballot as would ensure that it was fairly and properly conducted.

There was no provision in that legislation that costs should be paid by the union, or the organization or the branch affected. If they liked to make the request and the registrar liked to take it up, there was nothing to prevent him doing that. Then, at Commonwealth expense, an election was conducted. That opened the door wide to any organization. It meant, of course, majority decision, by an organization or by a branch. Then, on the question of costs, this Government, by section 41 of the 1951 legislation, provided that the cost had to be borne by the organization when an application of that type was made. That is where the question of costs was first introduced by the present Government, not by the Labour Party. We left the matter of costs free, when organizations applied under that section. In 1951. this Government provided that if a branch or an organization applied, and its request was acceded to and a ballot conducted by or under the court, the organization had to pay the costs. I submit to the Senate that that was a plain discouragement of that type of application.

In the 1951 legislation, only one item of cost of a court-controlled ballot was excluded. Except for the salaries of the Commonwealth officers involved, all expenses had to be paid by the union. In 1956. when very extensive alterations of the arbitration machinery were made at the instance of this Government, the Government came back to that provision and exempted the costs involved in renting premises required by the officers of the court to conduct ballots. Now, this legislation proposes to carry the matter a little further by providing that the travelling expenses of a Commonwealth officer so engaged shall be excluded. The final point reached by the bill is that if the AttorneyGeneral is satisfied as to the further costs incurred through the court conducting the ballot, the surplus is to be paid by the Commonwealth.

We do not object to those provisions, so far as they go. They are all improvements on the present position, but they are relatively tiny improvements on the position that Labour set up, whereby the costs incurred by a request for a courtcontrolled ballot were borne by the Commonwealth. The position has been worsened and weakened by this Government. In 1951 it introduced the provision mentioned by Senator McManus, for which he contends. It is on that point that we differ from the Government. We do not think that a minority of members in a trade union - one-tenth in the case of the whole organization, or 1,000 members, and onefifth, or 500 members, in the case of a branch - should be free to apply to the court for the court to intervene and conduct a ballot.

I hope I have made it quite plain that Labour is in favour of court-controlled ballots. We initiated them. But as we said in 1951, we are not in favour of a minority of unionists taking the matter out of the hands of the union or the branch. There may be difficulties in getting signatures, and that kind of thing, but after all is said and done, surely the principle of majority control ought to apply in relation to unions as it does in relation to parliaments.

Senator Wright:

– But that is what has to be ascertained.

Senator McKENNA:

– The majority?

Senator Wright:

– Yes.

Senator McKENNA:

– The majority can be determined, I suggest, because the membership is known. It must be borne in mind that the Labour Party legislation provided that if an organization requested a ballot, that did not involve a tally of the membership. It involved determination by the federal organization controlling the union, or the controlling body of a branch. One or the other would suffice. If necessary, there was a referendum of the members. I think it is acknowledged that what we then predicted would happen, has in fact happened in various cases. We predicted that very great expense would be incurred by unions under this Government’s legislation. It turns out now, as 1 think is conceded, that expenditure of about £3,000 was involved in a court-controlled ballot in relation to the Amalgamated Engineers Union, whereas had the ballot been conducted according to the union’s rules, the cost would have been about £400.

That position has persisted from 1951 until the present time, and it is only now, eight years later, that the complaint that we made about the 1951 legislation is being proved correct. Of course, when one thinks of minorities one does not think merely of right wing minorities; one also thinks of left wing minorities. I say to the Senate that the provision that small minorities may apply has been used by Communist minorities in unions to embarrass the organizations and to involve them in enormous costs. That is another argument that we address against the type of legislation that was introduced in 1951.

Senator Wright:

– Has the honorable senator any real evidence of that occurring?

Senator McKENNA:

– At short notice, I am not prepared to name a particular union to the honorable senator. Nevertheless, I have heard statements from trade union leaders that that has occurred. At such short notice, I am not prepared to state cases without having considered the position and without being quite accurate in what I say. But people at the top level of the trade union movement have complained of that at high level conferences of the trade union movement with the Labour Party. I can inform the honorable senator that it has happened.

The point of difference is not whether there should be court-controlled ballots, because the Labour Party has always stood for that. In fact, we instigated such ballots. When we oppose this bill, as Senator Willesee has indicated we shall, we will do so because we oppose the whole pattern of industrial legislation launched by this Government in the Parliament, particularly in 1956. We debated the matter exhaustively on 19th, 20th and 21st June, 1956. We moved scores of amendments to the legislation that was then before the

Senate. Senator Spicer was then AttorneyGeneral. 1 think that that debate ended with everybody convinced that there were great complexifies in the system that had been set up, and that there were real dangers in the interplay of one arbitral body with another and in the power of one to override the authority of another in certain particulars. When we look at the legislation that is now before us, we concede that the proposed amendments are improvements, but they seek to improve something to which we were basically opposed in 1956. We record our objection on that account.

It is undoubtedly better that some of the election costs should be taken off the shoulders of the unions, and that surplus costs are now to be paid. As Senator Willesee stated, the principle of our opposition is based not on those details but mainly on what has been done to section 34. Again, if one looks at the proposed amendments of that section alone, they are unexceptionable They give to the full bench power to refer part of a dispute to a commissioner; if the matter is part heard before a commissioner prior to it being referred, the full bench may have regard to the evidence that was taken. Looked at in isolation from the basic provisions of the 1956 legislation, one might say that these are improvements, but they are improvement of something to which we have already expressed our total opposition. I agree with Senator McManus. As I think Senator Willesee has indicated, we oppose the provision whereby two full benches of the arbitration commission will sit jointly to hear a matter and then divide, amoebalike, to make separate decisions. We think it quite wrong to subject the Public Service Arbitrator to that provision. We think that this proposal will weaken and depreciate his position. We have been opposed to the question of appeals, in the interests of speed, the saving of expense, and the avoidance of complexity.

As I have said, I have risen merely to correct a certain impression that Senator McManus may have made. I am not saying that he did so, or that he even attempted to do so. I want to make it perfectly clear that the Australian Labour Party is in no way opposed to courtcontrolled ballots in proper circumstances. In normal circumstances, one can say this bill is an improvement on the existing legislation; but, for the reason that we are opposed to the existing legislation, we record an official protest against this bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I wish to contribute to the debate for only a few minutes because, frankly, I am amazed. We welcome some sign of virulence on the part of the Oppositon emerging so late, and it is nice to hear a little spirit in the argument, but I must confess that I followed, with the utmost sense of novelty, the argument that is put. I must ascribe it to the stunning and gruelling experience to which the Leader of the Opposition has been subjected by the Labour Party’s executive in the City of Canberra during the last few days. Honorable senators opposite have not recoiled from that experience. According to them, we produced a dreadful piece of legislation in 1951 under which, at the request of a minority of 10 per cent, of the union membership, a court can order a ballot.

Great use has been made since then of one point of criticism - the injustice of putting a union to great expense. Then the Prime Minister, in his last policy speech, promised to amend that provision in full measure. Now is introduced a bill to meet the complaint of the Labour Party as to that particular court ballot, and despite the fact that this bill has that remedial provision in it, the Leader of the Opposition says, in effect, “ My prejudice is so strong against the 1951 provision that I am now going to vote against its being improved.” If the Opposition is still in a state of stunned indecision, I should like it noted so that we will have from further speakers on the Opposition side an explanation of just what their position is.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– At least it seems to be established that there is unanimity of opinion on both sides of the Senate that the clause of this bill which seeks to help the union finance elections under courtcontrolled ballots is a good one. I have heard no criticism of it from either side. That being so, we can take it as having the unanimous approval of the Senate.

The other point which has emerged from this debate is abundantly clear, and, in spite of the length of time it has taken in the debate, 1 think it can be quickly stated. It is that the Opposition is in favour of court-controlled ballots provided one can first prove there has been corruption, or provided one can produce significant evidence of there having been corruption. History has shown, of course, that both those things are extremely difficult to do and that both limit the opportunity of unions to make use of the secret-ballot legislation. It is equally clear that the Opposition is opposed to a proposition in the bill which seeks to allow a minority of union members - and it must be admitted that minorities have their rights - to have the right to ensure that their union affairs are run by a majority. Personally, I do not think that objection is valid.

The objections voiced to other provisions in the bill by Senator Willesee were, I am glad to say, qualified in all but one case by the admission that the amendments were improvements to the existing legislation in that every one of them is designed to enable cases before either the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or the Public Service Arbitrator to be heard and decided more speedily. He objected to the provision for appeals. That, of course, is in the act now. It is not something proposed by the bill. He also objected to the right of a reference of a matter to the full bench of the commission. That, too, is provided for in the act already, and is not proposed by the bill. His third objection was to the amendment which seeks to allow the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to say at what stage some matter should goto the commission. I think it is agreed that that is designed to promote a speedier turnover of cases before the commission.

As the law stands, whenever a matter is referred by a commissioner to a full bench, that commissioner cannot continue with the hearing of the case and the matter is held in abeyance until such time as it can come before the full bench of the Conciliation and Aribitration Commission, which maybe some considerable time in the future, if there is a pressure of business. This means that time is completely lost between the date when the reference is made from the commissioner and the date when it can come before the full bench. Although the particular matter under consideration for reference might well be one of great public importance, it does not follow that a single commissioner can continue hearing evidence until such time as the full bench can reach its decision. This amendment will allow that to happen. It will allow the commissioner to continue hearing evidence so that the case will be that much nearer completion when the time comes for the full bench to make its decision. I submit that this proposal does streamline the legislation.

Another point to which attention is not specifically drawn is that the amendments envisaged in this bill allow evidence which has already been taken at the time the matter is referred from a commissioner to the full bench to be admitted before the full bench. Under the present provisions of the act, if a matter is referred from a commissioner to the full bench, all the evidence that has been taken by a commissioner up to that point is wiped out - it becomes inadmissible. The proposed amendment will make that evidence admissible, and that much time will be saved.

I think Senator Willesee objected to an amendment which seeks to give power to appoint a person to take evidence on behalf of the full bench. That power is in fact contained in section 43 of the present act. The proposed amendment merely seeks to extend it, not to introduce some new power which was not present before. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

page 1456

ROAD SAFETY

Proposed Senate Select Committee

Senator ANDERSON:
New South Wales

– With the concurrence of honorable senators I shall amend the notice of motion standing in my name. I now move - (1.) That a select committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon -

  1. What, in the opinion of the committee, are the best means of promoting sound road safety practices in Australia;
  2. What, if any, are the deficiencies in the methods at present being adopted in the promotion of road safety requisites;
  3. To what particular aspects of the problem could those concerned with the promotion of road safety most advantageously direct their efforts;
  4. In view of the fact that there is a disproportionately high rate of road accidents associated with the 17-23 years age group, what are the basic causes of the high rate in this age group and what are the most effective steps which might be taken to remedy the situation;

  5. Excluding those factors which it is not possible to assess, such as loss of human life and the suffering of victims, is it possible to measure the cost to the community of road accidents in Australia arising from -

    1. material damage,
    2. loss of man hours and earning capacity, and
    3. cost of treatment of accident victims. (2.) That the committee consist of Senators Anderson, Aylett, McManus, O’Byrne, Sir Neil O’Sullivan, Scott, Sheehan and Wade. (3.) That the chairman be one of the senators appointed from the ministerial parties. (4.) That the chairman of the committee may from time to time appoint another member of the committee to be the deputy chairman of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee. (5.) That in the event of an equality of voting the chairman, or the deputy chairman when acting as chairman, have a casting vote. (6.) That the committee have powerto send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken. (7.) That the committee report to the Senate on or before 31st December, 1959. (8.) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

It cannot be gainsaid that the problem of road safety is a world problem. I think we all accept the fact that many organizations and many committees the world over -I speak of the free world - have been directing attention to that particular problem. However. I want to say at the outset that we in Australia could hardly accept that as an excuse not to grasp the nettle and to do likewise. There are aspects of road safety which are peculiar to our own continent. The very fact that we are a federation, a vast continent with six sovereign States, of itself quickly brings to mind a problem that could arise. Sooner or later we shall have to face up to our problems. We have vast distances in Australia. We have a dense population on the seaboard. We have thousands of miles of roads. All those features have brought problems in relation to road safety that are peculiar to this continent.

I could not think of any better committee to put its mind to these problems than a select committee of the Senate. I ask the Senate to reflect upon some frightening facts, as they relate to Australia. In Australia, road accidents have maimed more people than have all the wars in which Australian troops have taken part. In every four hours of the day some one is killed in Australia as a result of a road accident. For the year ending 30th June, 1958, 2,050 people were killed and 53,442 people were injured as a result of road accidents. For the decade ending on 30th June, 1958, no fewer than 19,203 people were killed and 433,930 people were injured as a result of road accidents.

One may very properly ask: For how long can a vast country such as ours, with a population of a mere 10,000,000, afford so many deaths on the road? I could go on to give many more figures - frightening figures - but I do not think that I need do so. I feel that the Senate is conscious of this world-wide problem of road safety, and even more conscious of the Australian aspects of it.

I do not want to anticipate the work of the select committee, but even a quick thought must bring vividly to the mind of every honorable senator a series of questions which bear upon this problem. I can think of some that I might put quickly to the Senate. We have not the answers to them, and it would be the task of the committee to put its mind to the task of providing them. 1 pose these questions, which might be answered within the framework of the proposed terms of reference. As excessive speed is accepted by all as a known killer, are our speed limits, State by State, in need of adjustment, first, on the open road, and, secondly, in build-up areas? As intoxication of drivers is a known killer, are our laws adequate? Are some States doing better than others in this regard, because of their particular laws? What is the pattern of traffic offences, vehicle inspections and licence qualifications? Is there a chance, in this field, to arrest the killer who is the result of weaknesses in these particular laws? What are we doing about migrant education in regard to road safety? What progress is being made at the school level, State by State, to alert the young on sound road safety practices? Across the whole face of the Commonwealth, is any worthwhile attempt being made to educate the motorist on the one hand and the pedestrian on the other? How does what we are doing compare with the pattern of overseas education in these matters? What effect has radio, television and newspaper publicity upon the problem? Is ‘the Commonwealth subsidy for road safety adequate? If the Government decided to increase it, how could it be used most effectively? Are local government bodies and States taking a real interest in the problem? How can we stimulate greater help on their part? Is there a case for uniform traffic law, especially in regard to heavy road hauliers? 1 could go on and put a further series of questions which need answering. I imagine that every honorable senator could readily do the same. I have by no means exhausted those that have come into my mind. It is a challenging problem. I suggest that it is not only one which will excite the interest of this Senate, but one to which the Senate might well put its mind. Hardly a week passes without some aspect of this problem being dealt with in the press. Road safety, in the broad, is of wide public interest. A select committee sitting in open session should, with the aid of the press, be able to stimulate the public to a lively interest and a greater sense of responsibility. If the committee, as a result of hard work, thoughtful application and sound recommendations, is the means of saving some good Australian lives, it will have justified its existence.

I ask the Senate to give the committee its blessing and to let the members of the committee bend to the task with a right good will.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is the motion seconded?

Senator Scott:

– I second the motion.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Mr. President, without pontificating, I extend the blessing of the Opposition to the motion, having been invited to do so by Senator Anderson. T congratulate the honorable senator upon the terms of the motion and the comprehensiveness of the inquiry that is sought. Moreover, I congratulate him on the brevity of his speech, which contained a great deal of matter.

Quite obviously, it is not necessary to develop the theme of road safety at the moment. On many occasions during debates honorable senators on both sides of the chamber have canvassed the matter’ with a full appreciation of its great significance from the viewpoints of the sadness occasioned by injury, economic loss, and the necessity for adequate steps to be taken to solve the problem. We of the Opposition wish the committee well. The proposal for the appointment of the committee is well conceived. The appointment of such a committee at the Senate level should be a very potent factor in road safety propaganda.

I hope that the investigations of this committee will be one activity of the Senate that the press of Australia will note for the sake, not of the Senate, but of the very worthy purpose to which the committee will have to direct its attention. I think the committee should seek the widest publicity for its activities. I trust that the press will give the proceedings of the committee, which I take it will be conducted in public in the interests of both road safety and the people of Australia, the widest publicity so that it may have all the help the community can afford and that ultimately we may have the advantage, in its report, of the best thinking that is available on the subject in Australia.

I do not wish to detain the Senate. The fact that I have been brief must not be taken as indicating any lack of cordiality towards the proposal. On behalf of the Opposition, I wish the committee well and trust that it will bring in a report that will be a credit to itself, a matter of pride to the Senate and, above all, a matter of use and importance to the people of this country.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1458

GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE BILL 1959

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

18.15].- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill to amend the Gold-mining Industry Assistance Act 1954-1957 has three purposes. First, it extends the duration of the act for a further three years; secondly, it provides an increase in the maximum rate of subsidy payable to large producers; and thirdly, it raises the flat-rate subsidy payable to small producers.

As honorable senators know, the goldmining subsidy has played a most important role in maintaining gold production in this country. It now seems clear that, without the offer of subsidy, several significant gold-mining enterprises would have found it very difficult, if not impossible, to continue to operate in recent years. If these mines had gone out of production, the existence of several small communities, which are largely dependent upon the mines for survival, would have been threatened. This applies in particular to some settlements in Western Australia. The Government has this situation well in mind. Our offer to extend and increase the gold-mining subsidy is intended to ensure that the industry will receive reasonable returns so that it may carry on. In addition, the industry earns significant amounts of foreign exchange.

All gold produced in Australia must be sold to the Commonwealth Bank. The official Australian price of gold has remained virtually unchanged since 1949, although for a time the industry received some assistance by buying gold from the bank and selling it at premium prices on free gold markets overseas. In recent years, however, the opportunities for premium sales have been very rare. Faced with rising costs, due in some cases to a decline in the grade of ore mined, there is little doubt that some significant gold mines would have been unable to carry on without the subsidy scheme. The benefit to the industry of the Commonwealth’s assistance is shown by the fact that about 30 per cent, of present output is being subsidized. Meanwhile subsidy payments have grown from about £400,000 in 1955-56 to an estimated £900,000 in the present financial year. The scheme has, however, been successful in keeping the industry going. Australian gold production, after falling in 1955-56, has risen slightly each year since then.

Under the subsidy scheme, there are two classes of gold producers - large producers and small producers. Large producers, defined as those whose output of gold exceeds 500 ounces a year, may claim subsidy if their average cost of production exceeds £13 10s. per ounce. The rate of subsidy payable to large producers varies with a mine’s cost of producing gold. Under the formula laid down in the act, the amount of subsidy payable in a year on each ounce of fine gold produced is three-quarters of the excess of average cost of production per ounce over £13 10s. with a present maximum rate of £2 1 5s. per ounce. Subsidy is not, however, payable to a large producer to raise his profits above 10 per cent, of the capital used by him in the production and sale of gold. Small producers - those whose annual output of gold does not exceed 500 ounces - are eligible for subsidy at a present flat rate of £2 per ounce.

The present act provides only for the payment of subsidy on gold produced up to 30th June this year. The Government has recently received representations, both written and oral, from the Chambers of Mines of Western Australia, Queensland, Victoria and the Northern Territory, requesting extension of the scheme for a further three years. The chambers also sought an increase in the maximum rate of subsidy payable, provision for a revaluation in certain cases of capital employed for the purpose of the profit limitation test, and special subsidies and loans for further development and expansion of the industry. The Government has given very careful consideration to all these requests. We have decided to continue our existing policy of offering financial assistance on a level adequate to allow efficient producers to remain in production. To that end, we have decided that the subsidy scheme should be extended for three years from 1st July, 1959, and that the maximum rate of subsidy payable to a large producer should be raised by 10s. an ounce. The proposed new maximum rate of £3 5s. per ounce will be payable at a cost of production of £17 16s. 8d. per ounce or more.

As many honorable senators will already know, representatives of the industry sought a somewhat larger increase in the maximum rate of subsidy. The industry’s request included something to cover cost increases which it considered might occur during the next three years. The Government could not agree to this. We believe it would be wrong in principle to ask taxpayers to agree now to pay subsidy at a rate the need for which has not been demonstrated and may never arise. On the other hand, as long as we maintain our policy of granting financial assistance to efficient gold mines to enable them to stay in production, we must take into account actual movements in the cost of producing gold. Although costs are fairly stable at present, there has been some increase since the rates of subsidy were last revised in May, 1957. The Government has obtained much detailed information on the extent of the rise since then. In our view, the increase certainly does not exceed 10s. per ounce, and in fact the proposed increase of 10s. is on the generous side in relation to the objective we have in mind.

The bill also provides for an increase of 8s. per ounce in the flat-rate subsidy payable to small producers, which will then be £2 Ss. per ounce. This proposed increase will preserve the approximate relationship, which has prevailed from the beginning of the subsidy scheme, between the rate for small producers and the maximum rate for large producers. The lower rate paid to the small producers is justified on the grounds that they are not required to demonstrate their eligibility for subsidy by reference either to costs of production or capital employed.

The Government is unable to accept the proposal that, for the purpose of the profit limitation test, a revaluation of capital assets to present-day values should be allowed. This proposal would mean the virtual abolition of the profit limitation test for some of the older-established companies. The Government is not prepared to do this, because it regards as of basic importance in bounty and subsidy legislation the principle that public funds should not be used to increase profits beyond a reasonable level, and the only practicable method of determining what is a reasonable level is by reference to the amount of capital actually employed. Moreover, the proposal would doubtless involve the payment of subsidy to some gold-mining companies that are paying very high rates of dividend.

The special subsidies and loans sought by the chambers were claimed to be necessary both to maintain and expand gold production. The Government has no evidence that the industry needs such special assistance to maintain output. The fact is that gold production is not falling. Furthermore, development expenditure, which includes expenditure on prospecting, testing and preparing an ore body for mining operations, is already admitted as a cost for the purposes of the subsidy scheme to the extent to which it can be regarded as a proper operational charge according to generally accepted accounting principles.

As I have already mentioned, the industry also asked for special financial assistance for expansion. This took the form of requests for a special development allowance, a prospecting subsidy and Government loans. At least at this stage, and on such information as it now possesses, the Government is unwilling to approve the provision of additional finance to expand the industry. These specific requests have, therefore, not been accepted. In the time available, we have not been able to give full consideration to whether it would be in the national interest to divert more government revenue and the additional resources of the community required to expand the production of gold, and, if so, the ways and means by which this might be done. We propose to give further consideration to these questions which raise complicated issues in the light of our overall policy of not subsidizing export production. Meanwhile, I believe that the amendments proposed in this bill will offer the gold-mining industry useful assistance. Accordingly, I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cameron) adjourned.

page 1460

HOUSING LOANS GUARANTEES (AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY)BILL 1959

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The primary purpose of this bill is to enable the Commonwealth to guarantee loans raised by co-operative building societies for home building in the Australian Capital Territory. Corresponding legislation for the Northern Territory will be introduced shortly. If the Senate agrees, the two measures will be dealt with together.

The Government considers that demand for home ownership in the Australian Capital Territory is now sufficiently strong to support the formation of co-operative building societies, already well known in New South Wales and Victoria. This increased demand for home ownership and housing finance, stems, of course, from the rapid growth of Canberra itself, where there is now a substantial and increasing number of families who wish to build or buy their own homes.

Many of these families have come from Melbourne, in consequence of the transfer of certain Commonwealth departments. Most of them will already be aware of the role of building societies in facilitating home ownership. They will have some knowledge, too, of what has been achieved by building societies in recent years. In 1957- 58, for example, some 14 per cent, of all houses built in Victoria were financed through co-operative building societies; for the same year, the New South Wales figure was 19 per cent. With this background, the families now coming to Canberra will expect to be able to avail themselves of sources of home finance similar to those previously open to them in the major States. Older residents, too, will no doubt welcome the advent of co-operative building societies.

The Government’s support for home ownership through co-operative building societies is already exemplified in the 1956 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. There is good reason to believe that such societies can play a significant part in meeting Canberra’s present and future housing demand. In the circumstances, the Government feels bound to encourage the development of co-operative building socie ties in the Australian Capital Territory. The offer of a Government guarantee for their borrowings is a practical means of helping them to start operations. Without such a guarantee, building societies might at the outset strike difficulties over securing funds on reasonable terms. Thus, we believe that the present bill is a necessary first step in the successful establishment in the Territory of co-operative building societies.

The bill also makes provision for Commonwealth guarantees for loans raised by the Housing Commissioner for the Australian Capital Territory. The validity of the guarantee provision in the existing Territory Ordinance has been questioned; this measure will put the matter beyond doubt. The present proposals represent an important advance towards a comprehensive housing policy for the Australian Capital Territory. They are fully in accordance with the Government’s continuing and practical support for home ownership and private home building. I commend the bill to the Senate.

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

page 1461

HOUSING LOANS GUARANTEES (NORTHERN TERRITORY) BILL 1959

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

In speaking on the second reading of an equivalent bill for the Australian Capital Territory, I mentioned this further measure dealing with the Northern Territory. As I have already indicated, this bill is prepared in similar terms and, as well as empowering the Commonwealth to guarantee loans raised by co-operative building societies, it also makes provision for a Commonwealth guarantee for loans raised by the Commissioner for Housing and the Housing Commission of the Northern Territory. I commend the bill to the Senate.

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

page 1462

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported: -

Aliens Bill 1959.

International Monetary Agreements Bill 1959.

page 1462

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1959

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1456).

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– Prior to the adjournment of the debate on this measure, I had been endeavouring to reply to a number of matters that had been raised by the honorable senator opposite who was leading the debate for the Opposition. The objections to this bill seem to centre on what may be called the joint session of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Public Service Arbitration Commission. As matters stand at present, a claim may come before a commissioner of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which may affect a large number of workers in a particular industry. That claim is referred by the commissioner, or at the direction of the president, or at the request of one of the parties, to the presidential bench of the commission. That bench consists of the president or one or two presidential members or one or two commissioners. They hear the evidence and argument relative to the case that has been referred to them.

At precisely the same time another group of workers in the Public Service, having a claim based on the same foundation, appear before a member of the Public Service Arbitration Commission or before the Public Service Arbitrator by whom, for the same reasons as those applying in the case of the application before the commissioner, the claim is referred to the full bench that has been set up under the provisions of the Public Service Arbitration Act. That full bench consists of the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, one or two presidential members of that commission and the Public Service Arbitrator. Therefore, under the present set-up we have two separate benches different only to the extent that the Public Service Arbitrator is a member of one. The matters in issue are likely to be the same; the people whose interests are being discussed are likely to be the same class of people. In one case they could be Commonwealth public servants and in the other they could be State public servants or white collar workers in some other category.

If three men and two others are required to spend a good deal of time listening to evidence and argument, and then the same three men and one other are required to spend a good deal of time listening to the same evidence and the same argument, surely it is clear that twice as much time is consumed than if the two benches were amalgamated and if the evidence and argument was heard only once. If there are differences in the interpretation which the two courts place on the evidence or on the rules by which they consider themselves bound, that makes no difference at all to the fact that a saving of time will be effected it the evidence in a complicated case is heard once instead of twice. To sum up, the proposed amendments to the legislation will make it possible for evidence in a claim to be heard once instead of twice and then for the court - separate legal entities - to come to their decision on that evidence. I should have thought that anybody who is interested in ensuring that the people who go before the court have their claims dealt with as speedily as possible, would be glad of the saving of time that could be effected. I think that was the last point on which objection to this bill was voiced.

I find it difficult to understand how the Opposition, by its votes, can indicate that it is opposed to lightening the burden of expense on unions which are ordered to hold court-controlled ballots, and that it Is prepared to condemn members of unions to greater delay in having their claims heard than would be the case if the proposed amendments become law. How the Opposition can justify refusing to help lighten the burden of expense of the unions, and how it can justify refusing to shorten the time in which claims may be heard, merely on the ground that it does not like the existing act, is something that I find difficult to understand. I am sure that the proposed amendments will lighten the expense on unions and will shorten the time in which claims may be heard. For that reason. I hope that this bill will be passed by the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 7 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 8 (Joint sessions of Commission).

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– During my speech on the motion for the second reading of the bill, I indicated reasons why the Opposition intends to vote against the clause. I shall not again deal at length with those reasons, but shall content myself by re-stating the headings only. We oppose the clause, first, because it provides for joint sessions by separate bodies which exercise different jurisdictions. Secondly the separate bodies are changed with the different responsibilities. On the one hand, as I pointed out at the second-reading stage, awards are based on the capacity of the community to pay, whereas experience of the jurisdiction exercised by the Public Service Arbitrator has been quite the reverse of that. Whereas the Public Service Arbitrator fixes the maximum amount of salaries, the commissioners fix the minimum payable in various industries.

Furthermore, regulations made under the Public Service Act and amendments thereto come before the Parliament, and they arc therefore under our constant scrutiny. Fifthly, we believe that whatever may be the intentions of the Government in this regard, this clause will operate as the first step towards destroying the jurisdiction of the Public Service Arbitrator. We believe that that is a completely wrong attitude for the Government to adopt. We believe that in the history of arbitration in Australia, separate jurisdictions have been the one bright speck on the horizon. We believe that the provision to weld these two jurisdictions is a retrograde step, that separate jurisdictions should be preserved in the arbitration set-up.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– T rise simply to say that I do not agree with Senator Gorton’s statement that opposition to this clause is inexplicable. I point out that the Australian Council of Trade Unions has consulted the unions and i other organizations which would be mainly concerned with this particular matter, and whilst I admit that probably the Government had in mind the streamlining of some of the procedure, the A.C.T.U. was advised by the unions concerned that, in their opinion, this clause is not in their best interests. They did not make that decision capriciously or foolishly, but for the very good reasons that Senator Willesee has outlined. I may say that not only has the A.C.T.U., the corporate body, taken up an attitude of opposition, but the Victorian Branch of the Federated Clerks Union, of which 1 am a member, has communicated with me and expressed its opposition to the clause, which it feels could possibly result in serious disadvantage to its members. The Federated Clerks Union is very moderate in character, but it has very strong views on the rights of its members. When a union such as that, whose membership embraces a considerable number of people, feels so strongly about this matter after examining the clause that it has asked a number of members of Parliament to oppose it in the interests of its members, I think we have to accept the position that the union has not acted unreasonably. It had very good reasons for the arguments that it put forward, and 1 think that those arguments have been very well advanced by Senator Willesee. The Democratic Labour Party opposes the clause.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– All I want to say in reply to the arguments that have been advanced by Senator Willesee and Senator McManus is that the sole purpose of the clause is to enable a joint session to hear applications more quickly than is possible under the present legislation. Having heard the evidence, those comprising the joint session will come to their conclusions in exactly the same way as they do at present. The only difference will be that the time taken in the hearing of evidence will be cut in half. As far as I know, when matters have been referred to the full bench, the Public Service Arbitrator has sat on the full bench with two presidential members of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to hear the evidence and to determine the matters.

Senator Willesee:

– Has he been sitting as an observer?

Senator GORTON:

– No. Under the Public Service Arbitration Act, if a matter is referred to the full bench he sits with two presidential members, I understand. He has been sitting as an observer recently because he has been sitting with the full bench. Under this amendment, he will be able to sit with two or three presidential members and a couple of lay commissioners for the purpose of hearing evidence. As far as I know, that is the sole difference; and that is all I can say in answer to Senator Willesee’s submissions.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– The Minister’s statement surprises me. He said, in effect, that all the clause will do will be to enable a continuation of the present practice. I believe that its purpose is to enable to be done something that the Government has found necessary. The Opposition is concerned at the practice under which the Public Service Arbitrator, having made what he considered to be a just and proper determination, is informed by the Government that the case has been referred to the court. Then follows the first delay. Another twelve months may elapse in the hearing of further argument, appeals and so on, and the application becomes bogged down. In the case of the white collar workers’ application, the delay has extended to nearly two years as a result of the matter being referred from one authority to another.

It has been the experience of people who have had anything to do with the presentation of logs of claims, that delay always occurs when a rise in wages is due. On the other hand, in a falling economy the niceties are cast aside. It will be recalled that during the depression a reduction of salaries by 22£ per cent, was accepted by the Public Service Commissioner and other bodies and applied without delay. The Government should realize from the experience of the white collar workers’ claim, that the provisions of the clause will not streamline matters at all. Admittedly, a joint session may lead to the determination of f.a.q. conditions to apply to an industry. It has been found in the past that an industry may obtain an award granting certain conditions or another award granting other conditions, but it cannot get one award containing the best features of both.

I contend that the clause will operate disadvantageously against bodies which, practically since the inception of arbitration in this country, have enjoyed classifications of salaries and conditions of employment determined by special tribunals. I point out that public servants are subject to very restrictive conditions compared with workers in outside industries. Whilst on the one hand a public servant enjoys certain privileges, on the other hand he is precluded from performing any other remunerative work in the community. The maximum amount that he may be paid is determined by the arbitrator. He cannot engage in other employment, whether foremuneration or otherwise, without the consent of the Public Service Board. In my opinion, it is very unfair to break up the association that public servants have enjoyed with this tribunal. I point out that railway officers have special boards and tribunals that are distinct from those that operate under the Arbitration Act.

I do not think that this legislation will lead to streamlining of the arbitration system. In my opinion, the system will remain just as slow and cumbersome as it is now. It is said that a useful object will be achieved by joint sittings at which evidence is heard. Such sittings may or may not be satisfactory from the point of view of the commissioners and the Public Service Arbitrator, but the members of the unions have made it quite clear that they consider this proposal to be unsatisfactory.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

.- Whether Senator Cooke’s remarks are correct or not, they have no relation to any provision in this amending bill that is before us. As the act now exists, matters may be referred from the Public Service Arbitrator to the commission. The bill before us does not affect that procedure. The only effect it will have will be to enable that to be done with more speed.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 11 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1465

PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATION BILL 1959

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 13th May (vide page 1381), on motion by Senator Gorton -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1465

GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE BILL 1559

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1460).

Senator CAMERON:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

.- I move -

Leave out all words after “ That “, insert “ the bill be withdrawn and redrafted with a view to providing (hat the bonus should also be paid on gold recovered from gold mine dumps and tailings “.

I remind honorable senators that on 23rd April last Senator Vincent stated, in referring to the need to increase the gold bonus -

The operators are taking out the rich portions of ore and are leaving the poorer grades of ore unmined in the stope. The stope is filled in and that gold is lost to posterity and to the nation. The more costs go up, the more do companies mine the richer ore. The life of the mines is correspondingly shortened.

Years ago, I had considerable experience in gold-mining. I can remember the goldmining activities at Coolgardie in 1895. In those days, gold-mining was restricted to the outcrops or places that gave promise of the greatest quantities of gold. I can well remember, later on, that a German geologist visited Coolgardie and pointed out that an enormous amount of gold could be recovered from low-grade ore such as that to which Senator Vincent has referred. As a result of investigations which were made at that time, the cyaniding process, involving the use of potassium cyanide, was introduced. From that time on, a great quantity of gold which otherwise would not have been recovered, was won. Mountainous gold-mine dumps and tailings yielded considerable quantities of gold. That process has been going on ever since those days. During the war years, I visited Bendigo, in Victoria. There I saw huge dumps that were being treated by the cyaniding process, and considerable quantities of gold were being recovered.

I have in my hand a book, “The Monetary Puzzle “, written by Ian M. Sutherland, who is academically qualified according to the alphabetical abbreviations after his name. They are, “ M.C.E., M.Am.Soc.C.E.”. In his book, the author deals exhaustively with the monetary system. At page 111, chapter 10, he states -

It appears that the present large production of gold is due more to improved and cheaper methods of extracting the gold than to new discoveries of gold-bearing rock.

My experience over the years has proved that to be correct. He goes on to quote Professor W. T. Layton in an article headed, “ An introduction to the study of prices “. I quote Professor Layton because in that way I shall take less time than if I elaborated the scheme myself. He said -

The chief improvement in method has been the introduction of the prusso-cyanide process, by which minute quantities of gold are dissolved by potassium cyanide, the gold being subsequently precipitated by chemical action or electrolysis. It is not too much to say that the present dominant position of the South African mines is the result of this discovery, though the process has also been successfully applied all over the world.

That had been the experience in Western Australia right up to the war years. He goes on -

Its importance lies in the fact that the ores containing very minute quantities of gold may be treated at a profit.

Further on, he says -

Seeing that such forms of gold extraction are the chief source of our present supply, the question of the world’s gold is seen to turn on an abundance of such low grade ore.

This is the low grade ore to which Senator Vincent referred as not being worth exploiting. Professor Layton continued -

This question is one for geologists. But, according to De Launay, we may expect to find low grade gold-bearing ores in increasing quantities.

In his opinion, gold is distributed throughout the earth’s crust on the following principle: pure gold is exceedingly rare, but gold in very minute quantities is to be found almost everywhere.

That has been my experience. Even to-day, I can point out in many parts of Western Australia almost unlimited quantities of low grade ore. He went on to say -

Between these two extremes, rocks with a low proportion of gold are plentiful, and rocks with a high proportion are scarce. This view is based on his theory of the place which gold holds in the world’s geological evolution . . .

The future therefore depends on the progress of mining and the possibility of working and extracting gold from the enormous masses of rock in which minute quantities of gold are combined.

Experience over the years has proved that to be so. According to Senator Vincent, the mining companies which are seeking this subsidy are ignoring entirely the wealth potential of low-grade ore; they are concentrating on what they call the high-grade ores which they are endeavouring to discover by the diamond-drill process. Senator Vincent suggests these companies should be paid the subsidy. Sutherland goes on to say -

The production of gold in Australia is very much less than it was formerly and it is still, on the whole, declining. Private enterprise has failed, not because gold is not there but because it does not pay to get it. The Commonwealth of Australia is vitally interested in the production of gold, and it therefore seems desirable that this industry should not be left entirely in the hands of adventurers who carry it on with the primary object of making profit and to whom the production of gold is only a secondary consideration, the production should, if possible, be arranged more sympathetically, and the first step in this direction seems to be the appointment of a gold production commission with the following duties: -

To make a survey of all known deposits of gold in the Commonwealth of Australia.

Senator Scott:

– Are you going to finish that book?

Senator CAMERON:

– If the honorable senator will wait long enough. If I gave it to him multum in parvo, he would not understand it. I know he is in a hurry to get away, just as I know that honorable senators on the Government side adopt the mechanical attitude that unsophisticated persons like myself should accept them ex-cathedra. I am not prepared to do that. Sutherland continues -

  1. To investigate all known methods of gold production.
  2. To conduct and encourage research with the object of developing or discovering, improved chemical and other methods for the production of gold and making use of the enormous quantities of cheap power that are now available.

T know only too well that years ago it cost a great deal more to produce gold than it does at the present time. With the introduction of labour-saving machinery and the potassium cyanide process, the cost of obtaining gold is ever so much lower today. Sutherland goes on -

If the results of these three types of investigation were favorable, a fourth duty, as follows, would be added to the functions of the gold production committee: - to put the best available methods of gold production into operation and to make use of the available resources such as unemployed labour and cheap power for the production of gold on a large scale.

That is exactly what the amendment proposes. We do not accept the proposition that the Government should merely subsidize private companies to please themselves as to the methods they will adopt in obtaining gold which is so necessary from the viewpoint of international trading. If we were not trading internationally on the present basis, gold would not be necessary. I should like to direct the attention of honorable senators to this fact. The price paid by the Commonwealth for gold is £15 12s. 6d. per fine ounce of 24 carats. The Government proposes to add to that the subsidy set out in the bill. When international balances are being adjusted, Australian gold is sold to the United States of America at £15 8s. or 35 dollars, an ounce. I should like to know how the Government can justify that. I know full well that in Asian countries, where you have a comparatively free market, gold can be sold at a considerable profit, but when we adjust our international balances with the United States of America we sell it at a loss. That seems to me to be a state of affairs to which attention should be directed. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) should certainly explain why that is so.

Reading further, we find the observation that the gold obtained would simply be exported for the payment of external public debts; that the cost of systematic gold production on a large scale would compare favorably with the present cost of haphazard production by private enterprise. The latter is exactly what Senator Vincent desires. He wants haphazard production by private companies. He wants them to please themselves about it, whether it is profitable for the nation or not. Sutherland then goes on to say that the apparent loss in the production of gold may be an actual gain if the gold exported enables the community to adjust its other exports to external requirements, thus avoiding the selling of produce in a glutted market. He means that if we have a surplus of wheat we have either to sell it at a loss in a glutted market or pay our debts in gold. The dumping of gold is not objectionable. You may object to the dumping of agricultural surpluses by the U.S. in what were previously Australian markets, but there could be no objection to the dumping of gold, so, under existing conditions, you have much better control of your international trade if you have gold at your disposal. But you can have gold at your disposal only if the Government steps in and controls production on the lines suggested. The writer continues -

Even if the community, considered as a whole, made an absolute “ loss “ per ounce of gold produced and exported, this loss would be of little consequence under the scheme proposed.

Senator Scott:

– You have missed a page!

Senator CAMERON:

– Government supporters are not taking the business of the nation seriously. They are adopting the mechanical attitude that if the Government proposes a bill they must adopt it. No doubt they lack the capacity for critical examination; for thinking and understanding these matters. That illustrates exactly what was being emphasized in connexion with the presentation of other bills in the dying hours of the Parliament. Because something thought-provoking is being said about a measure Government supporters want to get rid of it, as they did previous measures. They do not wish to submit bills to discussion or critical examination. They are quick to pose, and postulate themselves as statesmen, before the public when opportunity offers. They pretend that they are pepole who give serious consideration to the problems of the nation.

The writer continues -

For reasons set out above, a gold-bearing property that could not be worked at a profit . . . might be of very great value to the community.

That is the very point that I am emphasizing. He continues -

No doubt, attempts would be made by private holders of properties of this kind to obtain large compensation when the properties were taken over by Ihe Commonwealth. These attempts could be forestalled by only allowing tenure of goldmining property so long as it is being worked on a reasonable scale.

The chief disadvantage of devoting large sums and large amounts of labour to the production of gold is that “ technological “ unemployment would be reduced or abolished, and that therefore the community would not be in a position that would allow it to make a universal reduction in working hours, so long as it continued to devote all ils surplus resources of labour to the payment of external debts.

That reference is to the payment of external debts in terms of gold. The implication is that if the production of gold under existing conditions, and in the light of our present-day obligations, were conducted more successfully we would be a great deal better off than if we merely accepted what the gold-mining companies said. The proposed bonus will increase the dividends of private shareholders, rather than the quantity of gold available for use by the nation in international trading. I felt it incumbent to direct the attention of the Senate to that state of affairs.

If the Government does not exercise greater supervision or even take control of the situation, the bonus for which the bill provides will be used merely for increasing the profits of company shareholders and the enormous quantity of gold that exists all over Australia, but particularly in Western Australia, and which could be obtained by adopting more scientific methods, will remain in the ground. I can recall the early days in Coolgardie when the streets were paved with a metal that was called telluride ore. When it was discovered that that ore was saturated with gold that was as fine as flour and which could easily be won at a lower cost, steps were taken to recover it. Now, according to Senator Vincent, and in the absence of any Government proposal to the contrary, the fine gold potential is to be ignored and the companies are to be subsidized to enable them to deal with what they regard as being more profitable deposits of gold.

The amendment that I have proposed seeks to make provision for the treating of gold recovered from mine dumps and tailings. Wealthy companies are not needed to recover gold from mine dumps and tailings. Such gold can be recovered quite easily by private individuals. The amendment seeks to give to those persons an opportunity to earn a living from the gold resources of this country for which provision is not made in the bill. On previous occasions I have referred to the fact that gold is being sold at a loss to the nation. Whether or not my information is true I do not know, but i have been informed that the reason why the price of gold has been fixed at 35 dollars an ounce and why America, in particular, does not want the price raised is that Russia possesses enormous quantities of gold which it could place on the market. When ! examined this question two years ago, it was stated in what purported to be an authoritative report that Russia had enormous quantities of gold in stock.

Almost all the gold that is won goes into cold storage. It will never again circulate as a form of currency, for the obvious reason that, if it did, it would be seen quite clearly that the wage that is being paid to the worker in terms of gold is a diminishing quantity. Every effort is made nowadays to convince the present generation that the purchasing power of the £1 is the same as it was in 1914 when £1 notes were made nonconvertible. People are told by the arbitration courts that they are receiving so many pounds more per week than did past generations, and that therefore they are so much better off. They are being deliberately misled mainly for the purpose of enabling the gold mining companies and the private banks, operating in collaboration with th-; Government, to inflate the currency.

If the present state of affairs is allowed to continue, more likely than not we will be faced with a position similar to that which occurred in Germany in 1924 when the currency became valueless and fixed capital in all its forms, including land and stores, was appropriated by creditors. I conclude by saying that the Senate should not accept the position as being as it is stated or is implied to be in the bill. The whole economic position is changing, and unless the Government changes its policy the very people whose interests it proposes to protect will suffer. I hope that what I nave said will receive the attention of honorable senators opposite. If it does not they will have to put up with the consequences of their action, or inaction.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood). - Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Cooke:

– I second the amendment.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– I rise to support the bill but not the amendment. I do not like the tone of the amendment. The whole purpose of this bill is to provide finance to enable gold mining operations in Australia to continue. As we all know, the tailings are the refuse after the gold has been extracted. Of course, the tailings do contain small quantities of gold, but that gold will be there for time immemorial and can be extracted later if the price of gold is increased by America or any other nation. I repeat that the purpose of the bill is to keep in production mines at present operating.

Senator Cameron:

– And to provide dividends.

Senator SCOTT:

– That remark is quite stupid, and could only be uttered by a person who did not know the provisions of the bill or how they will operate. I again say that the purpose of the bill is to keep in operation mines that cannot pay their way. The honorable senator talks about dividends. How can the gold mines that were receiving the equivalent of 35 dollars an ounce for their gold in 1935 hope to keep going with the increase in costs that has occurred since that time? The Government realizes that thousands of people, particularly in Western Australia, would have to leave their residences and towns if the industry were not kept going It is not a question of paying dividends; it is a question of keeping the low producing mines in existence.

Senator Cameron:

– And profits.

Senator SCOTT:

– And profits, he says again. We have to realize that gold mines closed down in Western Australia because there were no profits to be made. Before this act was introduced, Big Bell, a lowgrade producer working on two or three dwt., had to close down because it was making no profits, and 500 or 600 people were put out of employment.

Senator Cameron:

– Because of incompetent management.

Senator SCOTT:

– The honorable senator says that it was because of incompetent management. I should like honorable senators to study the reports that were issued by that company. They disclose that the company tried, with all the goodwill in the world, to carry on production with a large ore body that averaged somewhere about three dwt. Costs caught up with the company; it could not pay a dividend and eventually it could not carry on. It worked out its known ore reserves and closed the mine down. A sale was held some three or four years ago and some £12,000,000 worth of plant was sold. When I say £12,000,000, I mean that that is what it would cost to replace the plant at the present time, lt is the replacement value of the plant.

Senator Cameron:

– Do you mean real cost or inflated cost?

Senator SCOTT:

– I am talking about replacement costs to-day. You know very well that costs have increased since 1935.

The whole purpose of this bill is to help to keep these low-grade producers continuing to produce gold. It is not a matter of profits at all; it is a matter of keeping those people who are happily engaged in the industry established in their towns.

Senator Mattner:

– It is good business to keep them there.

Senator SCOTT:

– Of course it is good business to keep them there. That is the whole purpose of the bill. The bill is designed to increase the subsidy on gold by 10s. a fine ounce, from £2 15s. to £3 5s. an ounce. The Government has decided to increase the subsidy at the special request of the gold-mining industry, which was able to prove that the cost of producing a fine ounce of gold has increased by approximately 10s. since 1957. The Government knows that costs have increased. The industry asked for more than the amount that has been granted, but when the Government went into the matter it said, in effect, “Working on the best statistics, we cannot give you the total amount you are applying for, but we believe that this increase of 10s. a fine ounce will more than compensate for the increase in costs since 1957 “.

Senator Cameron:

– That is what you said last year.

Senator SCOTT:

– We did not say that last year, because this matter did not come up last year. The last time this matter came up for consideration was 1957, if I remember correctly. The present subsidy has been paid for three years.

We also have small prospectors who are out searching for gold who are unable to keep their own accounts. In their case, the Government has agreed to increase the subsidy per fine ounce of gold by 8s., as long as their production is less than 500 ounces.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– Has the small prospector to prove that he mined the gold?

Senator SCOTT:

– Yes, he has to prove that he mined it. I think that is most difficult for some people. Some people spend their weekends prospecting for gold..

Senator Mattner:

– Do not be personal.

Senator SCOTT:

– I am not being personal at all. I am talking about people in Kalgoorlie, who normally are engaged in business. They go out at weekends and do a little bit of prospecting and dry blowing. Over a period they collect a certain quantity of gold. Those are the people who will find it very difficult to get this subsidy. However, the genuine prospector who spends the whole of his time searching for gold, provided he does not produce more than 500 ounces per year, will have no difficulty in obtaining the full subsidy, which at present is £2 per ounce, but under this bill will be to £2 8s. per ounce.

I believe that the gold-mining industry of Australia deserves special attention. I have mentioned what will happen under this bill, but if we want to increase gold production in Australia the Government will have to look into the whole question of gold-mining. It will have to look into the matter of diamond drilling, for instance, because I have no doubt in my mind that there are in Australia large ore bodies containing enrichments of gold. That gold could be located provided finance was available to carry out diamond drilling projects throughout the Commonwealth. In some of the States we find that on a number of approved sites the State Government will subsidize diamond drilling on a £1 for £1 basis. If cold is found, the amount paid by the Government is repaid bv the company concerned. If gold is not found then the Government carries its share of the loss. I think that is how the scheme operates.

Because of the necessity to increase our export earnings the Commonwealth Government, in conjunction with the States, should and could quite easily subsidize diamond drilling on approved sites. Many companies operating in Australia to-day are using diamond drills in an endeavour to prove that ore bodies still exist at depth. We all know of many gold mines that have been worked to a depth of 3,000 or 4,000 feet and which, because of the lack of sufficient ore at that depth, have been closed down. But geologists and people who have studied the industry, now believe that the ore bodies continue at depth. Only recently a company in Western Australia drilled a mine, known, I think, as the “ Great Fingal “, to a depth of some 3,500 feet, where an ore body was discovered. The company believed that ore body to be a continuation of the old body that had been worked out and, at a distance of about 1,000 feet from the existing drill hole, drilled another hole to see whether the ore body continued along the line that it was expected to follow. If the company makes a strike at the 3,500-ft. level in the new drill hole, it will float another company to obtain finance to set up equipment on the spot to treat the gold that it expects to extract from the ore. Of course, the process is very expensive, and I would estimate that an amount of some £70,000 or £80,000 has been expended in drilling the two shafts. However, the company is prepared to take the risk of finding gold in the ore at the second drill hole and, as I have said, will soon float a company that will have a capital of about £3,000,000. Although I have mentioned only one mine, we have hundreds of mines throughout Australia that have been worked out but which, according to the geologists, will still produce ore at depth.

I have now dealt with both sections of the bill as they relate to the increase in the subsidy to the industry, both for small and large producers. I have referred also to the necessity for the Commonwealth to subsidize the industry to encourage increased gold production. Even without any help from the Commonwealth, gold production has increased over the last three or four years. Last year it was in excess of 1,000,000 fine ounces, which returned to Australia an amount of over £15,000,000.

Unfortunately, despite continued representations by this Government to the Government of the United States of America, we have not been able to obtain an increase in> the price of gold.

Senator Cameron:

– Why?

Senator SCOTT:

– Because the American Government said, “ No “. The Commonwealth Government should not relax its representations to America to have the price of gold increased. It is interesting to notethat America owns practically 80 per cent, of the gold in the free world. When America faces financial difficulties she sells some of her gold. I would not say that America is experiencing difficulties at present, but £80,000,000 worth of gold has. left America during the last fortnight. There is a continual ebb and flow in her currency. I understand that America hassome 21 billion dollars worth of gold in reserve and that her commitments in foreign’ exchange amount to fourteen billion dollars. The time must come when America will Deforced to increase the price that she iswilling to pay for gold. Canada, the United Kingdom and South Africa, as well as Australia, have approached the American Government to have the price of gold increased, but without success.

Recently Canada has taken steps to enable private people who wish to do soto purchase small gold ingots worth from about £50 to about £300. Some people like to hold a certain amount of gold in reserve for their own purposes. A privateperson in Australia is not permitted to own gold. The Commonwealth Bank purchases all gold in the country and sells the gold toAmerica, subject to a certain amount that may be sold on the free market. However, the price on the free market to-day is practically the same as the Americanprice. The Government might investigate the possibility of allowing private persons to purchase gold in small quantities, such gold lo be held as reserves to suit their ownpurposes. I am very sorry that I cannot support the amendment that has been proposed by Senator Cameron. I regard it as a complete farce. Being a true supporter of the Government, I support the’ bill.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

.- Some weeks ago Senator Vincent made a> plea for assistance for the gold-mining industry. He was supported on that occasion by a number of honorable senators, including myself. I am pleased to learn that Senator Vincent’s plea has been heard by the Government and that the measure now before us will give some assistance to the industry. After all, the metals industry is a very important one to Australia, and anything that can be done to develop it will be to our advantage.

I come from a State in which at one time gold-mining was a very important industry. I remember being surprised some years ago> when reading the rule book of the Victoran Branch of the Australian Labour Party to find that more than three pages of the policy of the party were devoted to mining - a relic of the days when gold-mining was of some significance to Victoria. Most people recall the days of the gold mines at Ballarat and Bendigo. Not long ago I saw a monument at Clunes which commemorated the fact that the richest alluvial deposits ever discovered in Australia had been worked in that area. But there has been a decline, of course. The cost of obtaining the gold rose. It was not so readily available, but one of the chief causes of the decline in Victoria was the fact that the gold-mining companies preferred to distribute their profits in dividends rather than to apply them to development and exploration, which would have kept the industry alive.

The position in regard to gold-mining in Australia by experts is generally regarded as being that there have been no significant surface discoveries except perhaps in the Northern Territory and one or two other areas for 30 years, and that the future of the industry, therefore, depends not so much upon the small companies, as it might have done in days gone by, as on the possibility that bigger companies will be able to mine big deposits, or reasonably big deposits of low-grade ores. The only way in which that can be brought about is by development, and for development exploration of our gold resources on planned scientific lines is required. First of all, there must be a geological examination, followed by diamond drilling. In other words, we have to go after the gold resources scientifically in the same way that we are going after oil. I believe that the Government’!* bounty is a good thing, but I also believe that if the- Government has money available for the development of the gold-mining industry that money should be supplied in two ways. There should be a bounty to keep the industry on its feet as it exists at the present time. In addition, some of the money that is available should be provided on certain definite conditions for development and for exploration on the lines that I have suggested.

There is very little exploration of a serious nature going on in Australia to-day. One of the few examples is the Norseman mine. That is an example of where there was some well-planned exploration; and good results have been obtained. I believe that if we want to get good results as far as the gold industry is concerned, we have to do as the proprietors of that mine did. We have to go in for exploration, geological examination and drilling and we have to do the job in a scientific way, because surface gold is no longer to be obtained. I would suggest that if the Government has the money available, for a start it might be able to make available for development and exploration only,, perhaps the sum of £100,000 on a £l-for-£l basis, but I do say that the drilling or exploring should be subsidized only where the trained geologists of State Mines Departments report that good possibilities exist in a particular area. I believe that in all those cases the subsidy should only be available where the drilling is in excess of a depth of 500 feet.

I believe that if the Government looks at the question of exploration, it will realize that there is more to be done than just paying a bounty to keep the industry as it is rather than looking at the possibility of further exploration. In Australia, there are only two mining companies doing any serious work on exploration, seeking what might be termed a future for the industry. They are the. Western Mining Corporation in Western Australia and Gold Mines of Australia, two organizations which,. I understand, are allied to some extent as far as their shareholders are concerned. Gold Mines of Australia is at the moment proposing to undertake an exploring or a drilling programme in my own State, and I am very pleased to know that is so. That concern has already drafted or mapped out a drilling programme at Stawell, which has a famous history as a gold-mining area. I understand the concern also proposes to undertake drilling in the Clunes area, where, as 1 have said, the richest alluvial deposit in the world was discovered.

Senator Laught:

– Are operations still being continued there?

Senator McMANUS:

– I do not think so. In the programme that Gold Mines of Australia envisages undertaking, it will receive some assistance from the Victorian Mines Department, but the budget of that department is very limited. Because of the decline in the gold-mining industry, the Mines Department in Victoria has not been taken very seriously in recent years. It has not much money, and it has not been able to give a great deal of assistance to people who want to carry out exploratory work in the interests of the future of the gold-mining industry. So, I hope that the Government will give consideration to the future by not merely paying a bounty to keep the industry as at present but also by providing assistance for development and exploration, which should take care of the years to come. Due to the decline in surface mining, there is not a great deal of work being done in gold-mining in my own State. I understand that the only goldmining concerns at present operating in Victoria are Wattle Gully, Morning Star, A.l Consolidated and three or four smaller concerns. I know that some people had faith in the Castlemaine field in the early stages. Senator Sheehan knows a good deal about the position there, and perhaps he will want to say something about it.

I point out that as far as Victoria is concerned, if money is to be made available for drilling and exploration, the Wattle Gully concern has done one good thing, in that it has set up a modern treatment plant. Any discoveries that are made there could well be grouped around that particular plant. That concern has set the pace, and I think it is deserving of some assistance.

This is all I wish to say on the subject. I believe that the gold-mining industry could become a very significant industry, but I believe also that if we merely give bounties to the industry as it stands at present, it will continue to decline. I believe there are bie possibilities for it, if we go further and provide assistance for development and exploration in the same way as we are doing to-day for the oil industry.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I am pleased that the Government is increasing the bonus on gold. Whenever 1 think of this industry, I recall the valuable part that was played by the Hon. Victor Johnson in its establishment in Western Australia. Now, 76 per cent, of the gold production in Australia is won in that State. Senator Scott stated that the price of gold has not been increased because America did not want it to be increased. I think a long period of time will elapse before she says “ Yes “ and therefore, if we want our gold industry to survive it is necessary for us to provide it with assistance in addition to the bonus. In any event, I do not think that the bonus is over-generous. This statement which appeared in an authoritative journal in 1958 is worthy of attention -

The United States gold reserves are now nearly 21,000,000,000 dollars (about £A9,500,000,000) which is still more than half the free world’s total.

After allowing 25 per cent, required by law as backing for currency and bank deposits, the balance of free gold amounts to nearly 9,000,000,000 dollars (about £A4,000,000,000).

The reason why America does not desire a rise in the price of gold is therefore apparent. I want to make a plea on behalf of the battlers in the gold-mining industry - the young prospectors with geological knowledge whose cash resources are very limited. As we know, the small producers, those who produce less than 500 ounces a year, are to receive a bounty of £2 8s. per ounce compared with £2 per ounce previously. I think that the small producers should be treated more generously.

The Opposition’s amendment refers to the treatment of dumps and tailings. That, of course, would not produce new gold, but I ask: Who is expanding gold production these days? Are any really new mines coming into being? It is true that old mines are being rehabilitated. If the treatment of tailings is permitted, there will certainly be a recovery of gold. If the Opposition’s amendment were accepted by the Government, small gold producers would be encouraged to go into the back country and to the ghost towns where there is still a big residue of gold, both in the ground and in the tailings on top of the ground. It might lead to young men going to country areas, trying to win their 500 ounces. They might sink a shaft here and there, and manage to keep going.

There are mighty dumps that are held by the big mining companies which are not prepared to cyanide the dumps. As Senator Scott has said, the companies prefer to leave the dumps to lie there until the price of gold increases. Therefore, in effect, they have in their possession considerable resources, while the Government finances the continued operations of their mines, provided that they do not earn more than 10 per cent, profit. I submit to the Government that the gold bonus is not overgenerous. The Government should set out to increase the production of gold, provided of course, that the gold is legitimately obtained - there may be a good reason why the Government is a bit doubtful about the treatment of dumps and residues - and to encourage prospecting.

In Western Australia, there are goldbearing areas that could be operated quite easily and efficiently. AH that is necessary is for them to register about 6 or 7 dwts at the present price of gold, plus the subsidy, but of course the plant required to open up such new areas is so expensive that great problems are involved. Senator Scott referred to Big Bell mine. That mine was the acme of efficiency. The company was working low-grade ore. It was really astounding to see the work that it had done. It closed down, after a very vigorous and brave battle, having put everything into the industry and installed an enormous plant, because it had worked out the low-grade ores. There is only one thing necessary to permit the proper development of the goldmining industry and that is an increase in the price of gold. That is something that must be done internationally. As I have said, America has no reason to agree to an increase, except out of magnanimity.

I plead for a better deal for the small prospector. The large mining companies bring as much gold to the surface as they think desirable, collect their profits and keep their dividends at the rate of 10 per cent. It is a nice little party for them. The Government legislation, so far as they are concerned, is very beneficial, but it does not encourage development. I hope that, with the increase of the bonus, the industry will be encouraged to see to it that the mines are developed to the fullest extent, so that not only will their budgets balance, but something will be left over for exploratory work. The mining companies are not being encouraged to increase production and to open up new areas at the moment because they can get along by keeping within the 10 per cent, margin of profit. If gold-mining is to advance, more than that is required. There is a need for a subsidy for prospecting, early examination of the ore, and development away from the existing mines.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

.- I have a few words to say on this measure, although it is not my intention to engage in an academic discussion on gold production and so on. I wish to support the amendment that has been moved by Senator Cameron on behalf of the Opposition. As 1 understand the position, this bill and the original act that was passed by the Parliament some years ago, have for their purpose the encouragement of the gold-mining industry. The Minister, in his second-reading speech, pointed out that had it not been for the assistance which this bounty has given to the industry, goldmining would have petered out in certain localities, with the consequence that the population would have disappeared and some of the smaller towns, especially in Western Australia, would now be nonexistent. One has only to travel through Victoria and other States to see what has happened to the once-flourishing towns that depended on gold-mining as their mainstay. Most have disappeared. Some still remain as small hamlets.

Of course, one could say a lot regarding the advisability of maintaining the industry which, in the past, has wrought havoc amongst the workers engaged in it. There is one school of thought that believes that we would be much better off if we forgot about seeking for gold, especially at the deep levels. We have read of the deplorable conditions which have existed in the various goldfields of the world; of how the natives in Africa were exploited, and how our own people died an early death because of the unhealthy conditions associated with this industry. There is also a school of thought which suggests that, since the currency of the country is largely based on our ability to render services and produce goods for consumption, it does not matter very much what particular metal backs the currency. We in Australia have been off the gold standard for quite a number of years. Our £1 note to-day, even though its value may have depreciated, serves the purpose for which the sovereign was used in days gone by. However, I do not want to discuss the depreciation of the currency, a subject that was mentioned by Senator Cameron. I merely comment that it does not matter very much whether we have a gold currency, or whether our currency is backed by the ability of the country to render services and to produce goods.

The Government has introduced this measure for the purpose of increasing gold production. I am pleased to say that, so far as the few mines that are working in Victoria, and of which I have knowledge, are concerned, their conditions have improved considerably. I agree with what has been said regarding the Wattle Gully mine, which 1 have known all my life. In the early days of gold discovery in Australia, the Wattle Gully workings were among the richest in the country. This wonderful quartz mine, which is Victoria’s greatest gold producer to-day, lay idle for more than 50 years. Nobody thought that, in that locality, there was such a rich quantity of ore. However, the gold was re-discovered by perhaps the greatest fluke that has ever occurred in mining exploration. When the bore was put down, by some means it was deflected and went into the gold-bearing stone. Had it gone in the direction in which it was intended it should go - that is, straight down - it would have missed the body of ore. I suppose that but for that, Wattle Gully would still be an abandoned mine. I mention that instance to show what can result from exploration. This company is putting back into the industry a good percentage of its profits. It is continuing to pay a small dividend, and it has installed up-to-date plant. I am pleased to be able to say that the employees in the mine are working under conditions entirely different from those which obtained in the earlier days of gold-mining. All safety appliances have been installed. Further, the miners in this undertaking no longer run the risk of early deaths from miners’ pthisis caused by inhaling dust, for all the up-to-date methods of eliminating the dust nuisance have been adopted there.

That is typical of the companies that will come within the ambit of this legislation should our amendment be accepted. All the Opposition asks is that the bonus be applied to gold that is still in the earth. Nobody knows where this gold is. It is possible that 50, 60, 70 or even more years ago it came out of the bowels of the earth, and was crushed with the quartz and lost. The methods of the olden days were not scientific enough to capture this gold during the crushing operations and it has gone into the battery dump. If a party of miners, by adopting new scientific discoveries, is able to win that gold and bring it back into circulation to play whatever part gold does play in the economy of the nation, why should not they receive a bonus? These men have to undertake the expense of obtaining cyanide, erecting their plant and buying the materials necessary to capture this gold just as a mining company bears the expense of erecting a winding plant or battery. What is the difference? They are seeking gold, and it will be new gold which will be put into circulation.

The same thing is happening with regard to abandoned alluvial mines. I can see no difference between a prospector or miner going to one of our abandoned fields and there, by sinking a shaft, getting down to a bit of the solid that was left in the days that are gone, and the man who, by using the improved method of hydraulic sluicing, attacks the whole face and discovers new gold. I do not know whether Senator Scott has the authority to speak on behalf of the Minister, but I cannot understand the Government’s refusal to apply this bonus to that type of mining operation. If the Government wants gold to play a part in our economy, then it should encourage its winding by applying the bonus to all who go out for it. I support the amendment and hope that the Government will accept it. Even if it will not accept the amendment in its entirety, I suggest it might be possible to provide, by way of regulation, that the bonus shall be paid in instances which I have mentioned.

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

– I rise to indicate quite briefly that the Government does not accept the amendment moved by the Opposition, and I am grateful to Senator Scott for the very lucid explanation he gave for its rejection. It is obvious that, with the circumstances of a firm demand and a possible rise in price, that the treatment of low-grade ores, either exposed or unexposed, would have some advantages to both the industry and the nation were there a market available for its export. But conditions to-day are entirely the opposite. We know that for the gold-mining industry there is no firm and continuing demand and that the price for gold has been fixed for a number of years.

So, in approaching this industry, the Government has taken a realistic view that the best purpose it can serve is to maintain the mining industry. Whatever might be said in the circumstances of a rise in demand for exploring by drilling for unexposed resources underground, the case for the treatment of tailing dumps where the resources are actually uncovered is the weaker at the moment. They can be treated at any time a market exists for low-grade ores. We know they are there, and the Government says that cuts right across the policy of this bill. Despite what Senator Sheehan said about the recovery of gold from dumps, not by any stretch, of the imagination can one describe the operation of dump treatment as mining. It is not. Dump treatment is entirely distinct from mining operations, and this bill is directed towards the maintenance of gold mining.

I listened with interest to- what my COleage Senator Scott said and what Senator McManus had to say about the advantages of deep drilling and exploring. I agree with them, but what they said is not applicable in these circumstances. I repeat that there is no assurance of a profit in increased production, because there is no market. The Government, in its wisdom, has decided that in the circumstances it should maintain mining by the payment of a subsidy, and that it should increase the subsidy to cover the rise that has taken place in costs since this matter was last reviewed. Indeed, we have done more than that; we have increased the subsidy to almost 2s. beyond what the Government assesses to be the advance in costs since the legislation was last reviewed. Having done that, and having so ensured that we will maintain the industry, we have said, as was pointed out in my second-reading speech, that we will give further consideration to the expansion of the industry and the production of gold for export beyond merely maintaining the industry over the period of operation of this measure.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1475

CELLULOSE ACETATE FLAKE BOUNTY BILL 1959

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13th May (vide page 1398), on motion by Senator Henry -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– The Opposition supports this bill, the purpose of which is to amend the Cellulose Acetate Flake Bounty Act to extend for another two years the period in which bounty can be paid to cover sales of the flake. As the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) pointed out in his second reading speech, the Tariff Board has recommended the continuation of assistance by way of bounty till 30th June, 1961, under the same conditions as are operating at present. The Government has accepted this recommendation. At the present rime there is only really one company manufacturing the flake. It is the C.S.R. Chemicals Pty. Limited, at Rhodes in New South Wales. The flake is sold to Courtaulds (Australia) Limited which is, of course, an off-shoot of an overseas company. It is being converted into continuous filament acetate rayon yarn at Tomago. The yarn is used in the textile trade. The bounty will continue to operate on sales of flake to the 30th June, 1961. The Government contemplates that the Tariff Board will again examine assistance to the industry before the- period of the bounty expires.

As I have said, the bounty has been in existence for a number of years. It supports a very important industry, inasmuch as it supplies acetate to Courtaulds for the manufacture of rayon. If that substance had” to be imported-, the economy of this country would suffer accordingly. The Opposition approves the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1476

RAYON YARN BOUNTY BILL 1959

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13th May (vide page 1 399), on motion by Senator Henty - That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– The Opposition supports this measure. The rayon industry has an interesting history, and is very important to Australia. 1 have seen some of the products of the industry and there is no doubt that it is valuable to Australia. The continuance of the bounty to the end of the year is intended to cover the period during which the Tariff Board will be considering the new case for protection. That case was submitted last year, and I think it very necessary that the new recommendation should include the granting of a bounty for a further period after the expiration of the short term authorized under this bill, which will expire in about eight months’ time.

Weavers in this country are supplied with acetate at the price that they would pay if they were situated in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Italy or Germany. That is only possible because of the bounty and the very high degree of efficiency in the industry. I have been interested in the work of Courtaulds for many years, and have watched its progress. The undertaking was formed in 1949. I am familiar with its progress because Mr. Chifley, who was then Prime Minister, made great efforts to have the industry established. It was a very long time before he was successful. There was a good deal of competition between the States as to where ;t should be located. Eventually New South Wales won, as it very often does.

Senator Wade:

– Queensland missed out again?

Senator COURTICE:

– That is so. The industry is located in a little mining centre outside Newcastle. The employees in the industry number 1,600 or 1,700. They are former miners or members of the families of miners. Ninety per cent, of those who are in the industry are men. It is a very efficient undertaking and the workers are enjoying very good conditions indeed. The provision of this bounty is one of the best things that we have done, lt has supported an undertaking which produces rayon cord and the like and is very necessary for the prosperity of our textile industries. I should think that there would hardly be a tyre on any of our motor vehicles that was not manufactured from rayon cord produced in this factory.

I am very pleased indeed that the Go vernment has seen fit to continue the bounty payable to this great Australian industry. 1 sincerely hope that the Tariff Board, which places the searchlight of investigation on all these matters, will come to the conclusion that the bounty should be continued. Tyre cord is very important. Just after the war great difficulty was experienced in getting that material. To-day, in association with the acetate industry, Courtaulds is producing material that is used extensively in the manufacture of underclothing, cloth and the like. Courtaulds is a fine Australian industry which is competing with industries in other parts of the world where mass production is practised and working conditions are very much less attractive. Those at Courtaulds are equal to any in Australia. I feel sure that the Senate will agree that this industry is very valuable to the national economy. I wish it all the best for the future. We offer no objection to the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1476

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin). - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 1476

SULPHURIC ACID BOUNTY BILL 1959

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13th May (vide page 1400), on motion by Senator Henty -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COURTICE (Queensland) 110.31]. - The purpose of ‘the bill is to extend the operation of the sulphuric acid bounty for a further period of one year.

Before that time expires, the Tariff Board will again examine the operations of the industry, which came into existence originally because of the very short supply overseas of materials that are used to produce sulphuric acid. As honorable senators well know, sulphuric acid is produced in Australia from pyrites and certain gases. But sulphur brimstone is now in great supply overseas and the Australian industry is feeling the effects of competition from that quarter.

Sulphuric acid is used particularly in the manufacture of superphosphate, the production of which in Australia has increased many times in recent years because of its wonderful value to primary producing industries. There is no doubt that the sulphuric acid position has taken on a different complexion. I think the Government feels that it has a responsibility to the people whom it encouraged to engage in the production of this commodity by providing a bounty for them, particularly in view of their present-day costs of production. The Tariff Board recommended an extension of the bounty. As I indicated earlier, the Government has decided to continue it for a short period and to ask the board to have another look at the position. 1 think the Government wants to proceed cautiously. The Opposition supports the measure.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– I have studied the operation of the sulphuric acid bounty for some time. I note that the Government has decided to continue it for a further period of twelve months. The Tariff Board recommended that it should be continued for a longer period, but the Government wants the board to have another look at the position. It was at the request of the Government that the manufacturers of sulphuric acid from pyrites were encouraged to erect plants. The reason for the Government’s action was the inadequate supply of brimstone and the high cost of landing it in Australia.

Senator Wright:

– Where do we get our brimstone?

Senator SCOTT:

– At the present time it comes from America where, I understand, large quantities have been found in the past three or four years. The Government has a responsibility towards those people who have established treatment plants to produce sulphuric acid from pyrites. The idea the Government had in mind originally was that, within a period of three or four years from the inception of the bounty, Australia would produce from its own resources 60 per cent, of its sulphuric acid requirements. I hope that the Government, when reviewing the position within the next twelve months, will consider these people who have spent large sums of money on the construction of plant and equipment and who have, indirectly, assisted the primary producers, and that it will be able to see its way clear to ensure that they are catered for.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I was pleased to hear the plea made by Senator Scott. I believe that the Government has done a mighty job in the provision of a bounty for the production of sulphuric acid. But the cost to the Government continues to increase, even though the quantity of pyrites used is declining. It is the policy of the Government to import sulphur brimstone from overseas. Senator Scott was asked where our brimstone came from, and he said it came from America. It did not come from America. I should like to say something about that.

There are two sides to the question. One is that the importing interests here were able to get a considerable quantity of sulphur brimstone from a certain source at a very good price. It was allowed into Australia even though pyrites had been mined and was on hand. Stockpiling occurred at Norseman. The demand for production was good, and the treatment plants were available. I have received the following communication from the Conference of Goldfields Local Bodies: -

At a recent meeting of the Conference of Goldfields Local Governing Bodies the following resolution was received from the Dundas Road Board: “ That the Conference view with alarm the continued importation under Licence of Sulphur Brimstone into Western Australia for the manufacturing of Superphosphate to the detriment of local industry. “

It caused a temporary depression in the area. The communication continues -

It would now appear that Sulphur Brimstone is being imported into this State from Communist China and I have been directed to forward the matter to you and other Senators representing Western Australia in order that it be taken up v!:h the Federal Government.

Senator Laught:

– Have you checked that?

Senator COOKE:

– It has been acknowledged in this chamber. At the time there was very little said about it.

Senator Wright:

– It has been acknowledged by whom?

Senator COOKE:

– It has been acknowledged here in the Senate by the Government, and also by the importers.

Senator Laught:

– What was the date of that communication?

Senator COOKE:

– I will follow it up with you. I will give you the communication and you may follow it up with the board. The fact that sulphur brimstone came in is irrefutable. It was acknowledged in the press, and the matter was brought up in this chamber. It is bad broth for the Government continually to decry trade with red China when sulphur brimstone, bought at bargain rates, can come into Australia and affect our industries. The Government pays once again by providing a bounty because our raw materials are not used. This mine had plenty of pyrites at grass ready for treatment, but it was embarrassed for the time being. That caused temporary unemployment in Western Australia. I think the position should be more closely watched. We give a bounty to our industry and at the same time bring into the country cheap materials that would not be available to us during a time of war. I do not think red China would be a source from which we could get supplies if we were ever in the position in which we were previously, when we had to use pyrites to make superphosphate and sulphur for our industries. I think that is something that warrants keen examination by the Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– In view of the statement made by Senator Cooke that brimstone is imported from Communist China and that it does not come from the source from which we thought it came, namely America, I ask the Minister from where the brimstone that is used in Australia for the manufacture of sulphuric acid does come.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– I was unable to hear all that Senator Cooke said, but Senator Scott has now given me the gist of his remarks. To the best of my knowledge, the brimstone imported into Australia comes from Mexico and America. I have no knowledge whatever of brimstone coming into this country from places other than Mexico and America.

In reply to the question asked by Senator Scott about the Government’s past policy of encouraging mines to put in plant to deal with pyrites, I refer him to that part of the second-reading speech in which that matter was dealt with. I shall read it again. It is as follows -

Because of the extra costs involved in using pyrites and other Australian materials, the Government has re-examined the position and concluded that economic reasons no longer justify continuation of the past policy. At the same time, it is fully recognized that there are obligations to those producers who have up to now co-operated in the production and use of Australian materials.

The Government has decided that, because the recommendations in the Tariff Board’sreport are designed to continue the past policy, the board should be directed to make a fresh inquiry. It will be asked to recommend rates of bounty which are not designed to encourage further conversion to the use of indigenous materials but which will honour the Government’s obligations to the people who have co-operated in the past.

I think that makes the position quite clear. The Tariff Board’s report recommended an incentive to further conversion to Australian materials. The Government believes that further conversion to Australian materials is not justified in view of the present position of brimstone supplies and prices.

Senator Courtice:

– How much of our requirements is being manufactured in Australia?

Senator HENTY:

– About 55 per cent.

Senator Courtice:

– The remainder is brought in under licence?

Senator HENTY:

– Yes. The Government is fully conscious of its duty to those people who helped us when we were making the product from indigenous materials, and it has asked the Tariff Board to report on that aspect and to recommend to the Government a bounty which will keep these people in business.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1479

TRACTOR BOUNTY BILL 1959

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13th May (vide page 1401), on motion by Senator Henty -

That thebill be now read a second time.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– The Opposition does not oppose the bill. It feels that a bountry on tractors manufactured in Australia is still necessary. It is pleasing to see that production has increased from 381 tractors, carrying a bounty of £84,886, in 1956, to 2,041 tractors, carrying a bounty of £358,022, in 1958. We need to develop heavy industries in Australia, but the policy of the Government seems to be to pay a bounty only sufficient to keep an industry going. Therefore, the rate of development is not as great as it might be. We have just dealt with the Sulphuric Acid Bounty Bill, under which ‘the Government proposes to continue the subsidy to keep the pyrites industry going, but it will maintain the importation of brimstone at the present rate. The Government’s policy seems to be to pay just sufficient bounty to keep an industry from going into liquidation and out of existence.

Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited has had a very difficult time. Mr. Bert Chamberlain has very little interest, if any, in the factory at the present time. The company has had a very tenuous existence, just hanging on from year to year. It has incurred liabilities and lost a good deal of money. It is still manufacturing under bounty, at a very heavy cost to the nation. Very little regard has been paid by the Government to the problems of marketing and distribution. That is a matter which, I think, warrants attention in an industry where a bounty has been paid for so many years and is going to be extended for another seven years. The industry is not yet anywhere near established, even though the number of tractors it is producing has increased. Of course, the amount of the bounty being paid has increased.

Big international combines have established tractor factories in Australia with the object of being paid a bounty. These big combines have distribution set-ups infinitely superior to those of our local industries. We are continuing to pay an increasingly large bounty to local undertakings that sooner or later - probably sooner - will find that the plant that was initially installed at terrific cost will have to be replaced or regenerated, for the purpose of tooling up to produce newer types. That is what has happened in relation to the Chamberlain company. We commend the policy of continuing to pay bounties in Australia to keep Australian tractor companies in production and also to maintain a reserve of plant and skilled workers, which would be most valuable in the event of war, but there should be a wider outlook on the development of our industries. The other day I spoke about American capital coming into this country and about Australians not being able to invest in the new companies established here. Chamberlain’s are quite capable of producing and manufacturing tractors, but let their business stop at the door of the factory. Some really competent selling organization should be established that will take cognisance, not only of the Australian market, which is becoming over-supplied, but also of other markets which are available. There should be some sort of selling organization at least comparable with those of Chamberlain’s competitors. This is a young Australian industry, competing with experiences!, seasoned overseas concerns. Those concerns are getting the advantage of the bounty - and good luck to them - but they have a much more highly organized sales service both inside and outside Australia. I think notice should be taken of that fact. These remarks apply, not only to the tractor industry, but to many other of our industries. If something along these lines is done, perhaps we will not be required to extend the bounty continually for periods of seven years. Although thebounty is continued, the industries are still scratching. They are not by any means well established, and probably in the near future they will be involved in heavy expenditure for the purpose of bringing their plants up to date and tooling up for the production of more modern products. Whilst not opposing the bill, we feel that the bounty should be continued but the Government should cooperate with the industry in marketing its products.

Senator WARDLAW:
Tasmania

– 1 rise to support the bill. I note with pleasure that the Opposition is supporting the measure although Senator Cooke has been somewhat critical of the marketing arrangements that have been entered into by Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited. However, that is a matter which concerns only Chamberlain’s. . In my opinion, the company is well able to take care of itself.

The bill before us will replace the existing Tractor Bounty Act. It will come into operation on 1st July next, and remain in operation for a period of seven years. The increased rates of bounty provided for in the bill are very generous. In his secondreading speech the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) stated that t’-.e prevailing rates of bounty commenced at £80 on a tractor exceeding ten belt pulley horse-power and rose according to the horse-power to £240 at 70. The Min:ster continued -

The amended rates of bounty commence with a higher rate of £269 for tractors of 20 belt pulley horse-power, and an increase by £2 for each unit rise in the horse-power to £389 for a tractor with a horse-power of 80 . . . The full rate of bounty, applicable to the particular horse-power, is only payable where the cost of parts made in Australia and used in the assembly of the tractor is 90 per cent, or more of the total factory cost of the tractor.

Although the bounty has been available to manufacturers since 1922, they did not take advantage of it until about 1938 or 1939. At the end of World War II., five companies were manufacturing wheeled tractors in Australia, but in 1955 three companies ceased production. At present Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited of Western Australia and International Harvester Company of Australia Proprietary Limited, Victoria, are the only companies operating in this field. We attained our greatest production of tractors in 1951-52 when 4,419 units were manufactured. Since then production has been falling steadily and, as T have stated, only two companies are now manufacturing agricultural tractors.

After considering the evidence that had been submitted to it. the Tariff Board decided to continue and, in fact, to increase the bounty in the interests of Australian production. No doubt, the board felt some what hesitant about its proposal to increase the bounty because it would result in an increased cost of production to primary industries, and all honorable senators know that increased costs are of vital importance to primary industries. I think that the Tariff Board, in coming to its decision, took a long range view in an endeavour to develop this particular industry in Australia. It is interesting to note the bounty payments that have been made on the production of t; actors during the last three years. For the year ended 30th June, 1956, a bounty of £84,886 was paid on 381 tractors; for the year ended 30th June, 1957, a bounty of £128,467 was paid on 735 tractors, and for the year ended 30th June, 1958, a bounty of £358,022 was paid on 2,014 tractors.

The Tariff Board recommended the deletion of the profit limitation provision from the act, and recorded the view that a restrictive profit limitation must be expected to frustrate the purposes of the bounty. Nevertheless, whilst recognizing the force of the arguments advanced, the Government felt that it could not be committed to considerable expenditure of public funds for an extended period without regard to the profit levels achieved in the industry. The limitation of profits, however, has been raised from 5 per cent, to 10 per cent, before tax, with discretionary power given to the Minister to disallow interest. The limitation to which 1 have referred is necessary. It indicates that the Tariff Board has taken the view that the limit on profits should be raised to enable the industry to become established in Australia. In its report, the board has mentioned also that bounty payments at the amended rates could rise to £600,000 a year. The board has stated also that Australian production could reach 10,000 tractors at some time in the future. If that is so. bounty payments could rise progressively to £3,000,000 a year. The Tariff Board has taken the view that the tractor industry has something of the same potential for economic and efficient Australian production as has been amply demonstrated in the allied agricultural implement and motor vehicle fields. Unless the industry develops to a greater extent in the next seven years than it has in the past, the Tariff Board probably will not continue the bounty after the expiration of the proposed seven-year period.

United Kingdom production of tractors is 130,000 units a year. Eighty per cent, of that production has been achieved by two firms, so honorable senators can appreciate the advantage of developing efficient methods of manufacture in Australia. In the year 1957-58, Australia imported 18,504 tractors; an increase of 50 per cent, on the imports for the previous year. It is apparent that a market for tractors exists in Australia. The great proportion of tractors used in this country are in the 21 to 55 belt pulley horse-power field, with those betwen 30 and 40 horsepower being in greatest demand. The Commonwealth Government is fully aware of the importance of boosting Australian production to meet our agricultural and defence requirements. Tt is of prime importance that costs in primary industries should be kept within limits. If we can manufacture these units in sufficient numbers, we shall go a long way towards reducing costs of production. I have very much pleasure in supporting the bill.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– I. rise to support this bill because it largely affects my State of Western Australia. With the broad national outlook that we all exhibit in this chamber, T have no hesitation in saying that this bounty will be of considerable help to Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited of Western Australia. This concern was originally taken over by Chamberlain from the Government, which set it up during the war period to manufacture armaments, and it was re-designed to produce tractors and agricultural machinery. The Tariff Board has recommended to the Government the payment of a bounty on tractors exceeding 20 horse-power but not exceeding 80 horsepower, and this bill implements that recommendation. In future, a bounty will not be paid on tractors of less power than 20 horse-power.

I have had the opportunity, together with other supporters of the Government who reside in Western Australia, of going over the Chamberlain plant and of interviewing its executive officers. They believe that if the bounty is paid for a period of years the industry can be placed on a sound footing. It has been a big job, and a lot of thought has had to be given to changing equipment in order to keep the plant in operation. This has cost the revenue a considerable amount of money, and I think that the Tariff Board has adopted the right approach to this matter. We in Australia want to manufacture our own tractors, if it is possible for us to do so. The board has recommended that the bounty should be paid for seven years, at the end of which period the whole position will be reviewed.

There has been a good deal of unemployment in Western Australia during the last couple of years. I point out that for some time past the Chamberlain factory has kept from 600 to 700 people in employment. If the bounty were discontinued, in all probability many of those workers would be dismissed. The Commonwealth Government, by paying this bounty to Chamberlain’s, to the International Harvester Company of Australia Limited, and other tractor manufacturers is actually keeping people in jobs. I believe that the tractor industry, after receiving the bounty for the next seven years, will be able to stand on its own feet for all time.

Senator MCKELLAR:
New South Wales

– On the whole, I support the provisions of the bill, but I have some doubt concerning the wisdom of prescribing that the bounty shall be paid until 1966. I should prefer the period of payment of the bounty to terminate in 1964, by which time we could see whether the increased bounty had operated satisfactorily and, if it had, we could then extend the time. Reference has been made to Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited, of Western Australia, which has produced good tractors. I point out that we have paid quite a lot of money also to the other company concerned - the International Harvester Company of Australia Proprietary Limited.

I should like to bring to the notice of the Senate the great alteration that has come about in the distribution of tractors and other farming equipment. Up till a few years ago, it was the usual practice of the retailers of tractors and other farming implements in New South Wales to carry quite a large stock of duplicates, which were available for purchase by the users of that equipment. Nearly all of the companies in this field to-day, including the two I have mentioned, seem to have adopted high pressure selling tactics. In effect, they have set themselves out to make the retailers finance first the purchase of the tractors and other implements and, subsequently, the stocking of the duplicates for them. In many instances, firms that are not in a large way of business have been forced to give up their agencies for these items. It is true that they have received compensation in the form of larger commissions on the sales of tractors and implements and their duplicates; but this does not pay them having regard to the large amount of capital they have to outlay to carry on the business, and the result is not nearly so satisfactory as under the former procedure, from the point of view of the purchasers, the users of the equipment.

I agree with Senator Wardlaw’s contention that it is necessary to-day to pay a lot of attention to costs. That is one of our main problems. The important thing to a trader is not so much the amount of money he gets, but how much of it he can keep. There is a big difference between his gross income and his net income. I support the bill, because I am very keen on local, industries being able to obtain equipment produced in this country. The Holden motor car is an excellent example of the quality of motor vehicles that can be produced in Australia. It would be very nice if we could see the same degree of development take place in the tractor industry within a few years’ time. Although I do not think that that is possible, one never knows. As I have said, I should have liked the period of payment of the bounty to be limited to 1964, instead of 1966. However, I have read the Tariff Board’s report and I conclude by saying that I hope the board’s opinion is right and that mine is wrong.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– I should like to correct the impression that might be left from what Senator Cooke said. He expressed the opinion that big international combines would establish their industries in Australia in order to obtain the bounty, and so make enormous profits.

Senator Cooke:

– The profit of the industry is limited to 10 per cent.

Senator HENTY:

– That’ is the very point. But I am reminding the Senate of what you said.

Senator Cooke:

– I did not say that.

Senator HENTY:

– The honorable senator went on to say that those concerns would make enormous profits at the expense of local industries. The very fact that there is a profit limitation on the industry takes care of that aspect of the matter. There is a profit limitation of 10 per cent. When I visited Western Australia quite recently, I went over the Chamberlain factory. I was very impressed with the new management. The man who is in charge of the factory is endowed with tremendous energy. He came from private enterprise. He was as keen as mustard to develop the plant and to bring it up to date, and he is doing a very good job in that direction. Of course, he has a battle ahead of him because he inherited very old-fashioned plant. The concern is now really a government enterprise.

This report of the Tariff Board will give encouragement to the industry in Western Australia, which will now have seven years in which to prove itself. That has been made quite clear by the Tariff Board. I believe that if the present management is given the support that it is entitled to receive, it will do that. I have great faith in the management and also in the Australian tractor industry generally. A number of small subsidiary industries have been established throughout Australia. Those are specialist industries that can now make the spare parts which are so important for the tractor industry. Our motor car industry has developed with the aid of such subsidiary industries, and that is how the tractor industry also will develop. There is no question that the small, specialist industries play a great part in an industry such as this. Eventually, tractor production will be merely a matter of putting together parts that are made in specialist plants throughout Australia. I hope that we will see a production rate of 10,000 tractors before very lone. As I have said, I am sure this bill will encourage the industry to rehabilitate itself.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I rise to assure the Minister that 1 was under no misconception about the 10 per cent. limit on profits. If we are promoting in Australia an industry that has no international associations and if we expect the industry to expand and produce, not merely the number of tractors that the Minister is so confident it will produce, but more than that, we must consider something that international organizations have given a great deal of attention to - that is, marketing. I am under no misconception, and I hope that the committee is not, either.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1483

HOUSING LOANS GUARANTEES (AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY) BILL 1959

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1461).

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– The Opposition does not oppose this bill. We want to encourage cooperative building societies. However, there are one or two points that I wish to put to the Minister with the purpose of safeguarding the interests of those seeking homes. In the States, where co-operative housing societies have been established, somehow or other land agents and other agents seem to have had sufficient influence with the societies to receive what might be called preference in regard to the sale of land that they either own or handle, and are able to make large profits thereby. I shall give an instance. A co-operative society may give preferential treatment to those seeking loans from it if they obtain land from certain agents. Those agents, of course, make a handsome profit.

As we know, the co-operative building societies work on the principle that prospective home builders must have land before they begin to build. I should like the Minister to look into this matter and make sure that there can be no maladministration or preference to land agents. I think that the land in both the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory is vested in the Crown, and possibly land agents have not the same opportunities to exert influence in those Territories as they have in the States. Perhaps the Minister will consider this matter and, if necessary, provide proper safeguards.

The only other query 1 have is this: Why is the Government guaranteeing loans by co-operative housing societies in the Territories, whereas in the States provision is made for finance to be advanced to the co-operative building societies? Why cannot the money be provided in the Territories in the same way that it is being provided for building societies in the States?

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

– I am gratified that the Opposition does not intend to oppose the bill. We believe that this is a good measure and one that will make a considerable contribution to the solution of the housing problem in Australia. Senator O’Flaherty dealt, in his first point, with the possibility of activities of an undesirable kind on the part of land agents, but that problem will not arise for the reason that all land is owned by the Commonwealth, both in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. Leases purchased from the Government will be subject to normal government procedures of disposal involving, as they do, the approval of the Minister for the Interior. The answer to the other matter raised by the honorable senator is that the Commonwealth will supplement finance for building societies by advances from revenue to the extent that the societies cannot meet their requirements from private institutions, for example, banks, insurance companies, and so on.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1483

HOUSING LOANS GUARANTEES (NORTHERN TERRITORY) BILL 1959

Second Reading

Consideration resumed (vide page 1462). on motion by Senator Paltridge -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1484

WESTERN AUSTRALIA GRANT (NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT) BILL 1959

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

.- I move-

That the bill now be read a second time.

I do not need to remind honorable senators of the importance which this Government attaches to ensuring a reasonable rate of development of the potentialities of the north-west of our continent. The bill now before the Senate proposes an increase in the amount of financial assistance to be provided by the Commonwealth to the State of Western Australia for expenditure by the State on developmental projects in the area of that State north of the twentieth parallel of latitude during the five-year period ending on 30th June, 1963.

The provision of Commonwealth assistance of £2,500,000 for this purpose was authorized by the Western Australia Grant (Northern Development) Act which was passed last year. Subsequently the Government decided to offer to double this amount, the added amount to be available on the same terms and conditions as those applying in respect of the original grant. This offer has been welcomed and accepted by the Government of Western Australia.

In arriving at its decision to offer increased assistance of £2,500,000 to the State, the Government had prominently in mind the potential the area offers for development and the desirability of enabling that development to proceed at a faster rate than would be possible if the State had to rely on its own financial resources and the initial Commonwealth grant.

However, we had also to bear in mind that, no matter how much we may desire to speed up the development of the northwest, we must also have regard to the many and heavy continuing calls on the Commonwealth’s purse. There is a limit to the extent to which the Commonwealth may reasonably assume new financial obligations. In accepting our offer to double the existing grant the Premier of Western Australia has also accepted an understanding that £5,000,000, over the five-year period, is the present limit to direct financial assistance by the Commonwealth to all developmental projects in the north of his State. As I have already mentioned, the terms and conditions of the additional £2,500,000 grant are the same as those attaching to the existing grant.

Briefly, they are that the State will submit to the Commonwealth for prior approval projects which it proposes should be financed from the grant, so that we may be satisfied that they are developmental projects which the State would not have been able to undertake without Commonwealth financial asssitance. In other words, we wish to be sure that our contribution to the projects will be additional to that which the State would make, in the ordinary course, from its own resources and that it will make a real contribution to the development of the area. Responsibility for the selection, planning and execution of projects financed from the grant will continue to rest with the State. We regard the latter as highly important.

Four developmental projects - one within the last few days - have been formally submitted by Western Australia to the Commonwealth for approval. The first three have been approved as eligible for assistance under the act. There has, of course, been insufficient time for us to consider the latest submission which is a proposal to construct a diversion dam on the Ord River.

The three projects which have been approved are the construction of a deep water port at Black Rocks near Derby, the construction of a new berth at the Wyndham jetty, and the carrying out of extensive investigations in the Napier-Broome Bay area to decide the most suitable and economic method of servicing the north Kimberley area which was recently opened up for pastoral settlement.

In submitting the first three proposals, the State emphasized the great importance it attaches to the provision of suitable transport outlets for the produce of the Kimberley areas. The port at Black Rocks is intended to meet the requirements of both local and oversea vessels, oversea shipping companies being reluctant to have their ships rest on the bottom at low tide. The State considers that the existing single berth at Wyndham is far too small to accommodate modern vessels used in the beef export trade. The investigations in the Napier-Broome Bay area are intended to provide information to determine the most effective means of access to the recently opened up North Kimberley area.

The former Premier warned that the final cost of the first three projects might exceed the initial grant of £2,500,000. The grant of a further £2,500,000 will, we hope, not only enable the State to finance the full cost of these works, but will also permit other projects to be undertaken, and the whole programme of development of the area to be speeded up.

Commonwealth funds have begun to flow to Western Australia to assist in meeting the cost of development projects in the northern part of the State. The scheme is under way. All that is needed now to accelerate the work is the assurance of additional finance. This will be provided in the bill now before the Senate, and I commend the bill to all honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cooke) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 11.28 to 12 midnight.

Friday, 15 May 1959

page 1485

FISHERIES BILL 1959

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13th May (vide page 1406). on motion by Senator Gorton -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– The purpose of the bill is to amend the Fisheries Act 1952-56 so as to give legal authority to the Commonwealth to co-ordinate the management of fisheries outside State territorial waters. The amendments proposed by this bill deal specifically with the crayfishing industry and certain features of the school shark section of the fishing industry.

The responsibility for the control of fishing within State waters rests with the State governments, and it is to deal with the control of fishing in territorial waters outside the State limits that this amending legislation is largely designed.

The history of Commonwealth control of the fishing industry goes back to 1907, and only recently has there been legislation to deal with the control of the fishing industry in territorial waters outside State jurisdiction. It is very pleasing indeed to see this addition, in the form of this amending legislation, to the overall plan for co-ordinating control of the fishing industry on an Australia-wide basis.

It has been well said that the seas around Australia abound with fish and that the industry must be scientifically controlled and exploited so that we can get the best benefit, on the national level, from it. The purpose of this amending legislation is concerned with the crayfishing industry in particular. Crayfish abound in coastal areas of Western Australia and around practically the whole coast of Tasmania, the latter area being generally described as the south-eastern portion of Australia. The measure has been made necessary mainly because of the outcome of prosecutions in June last year against certain fishermen, and is designed to provide uniformity in measures to protect the crayfish species. Those provisions of the bill dealing with crayfish concern principally the taking of female crayfish during certain times of the year, particularly when they are spawning. It is of great importance that spawning crayfish be protected, since their value in replenishing the crayfish population in the coastal waters in the areas I have mentioned is obvious.

The industry itself has developed, and is developing further, into a very sound economic proposition both from the national point of view and from its dollarearning capacity through the export of crayfish tails to the United States of America. Therefore, this measure is opportune inasmuch as it will bring some co-ordination into State and Commonwealth jurisdiction over the areas, not necessarily within the 3-mile limit, but off the coast of Australia, where crayfish abound.

The crayfish industry in Tasmania is developing along lines which I consider are very progressive. The Tasmanian Government has seen the wisdom of co-ordinating the fishing industry. One of the great difficulties facing the individual fisherman is the lack of capital to equip himself suitably so that he can exploit these fishing grounds. The fishing industry in Tasmania has been co-ordinated as a result of the formation of co-operatives at Dunally, St. Helen’s and Bridport, where co-operative fishing enterprises are being carried on with the assistance of the Tasmanian Government. I believe that this is a field which will need to be given more consideration in future, at the Commonwealth level, in order to provide some assistance for the equipment and development of the industry.

Another part of the bill deals with the defining of classes of fish, but this is more or less a machinery matter. This part states specifically the protection that is intended by the measure, and applies to the crayfish family during the spawning period, and while the female crayfish is carrying the spawn or the embryo crayfish. It is important, also, to note that in Western Australia regulations have been promulgated defining the size of crayfish tails that may be garnered along the coastline, and although it is not specifically stated in this legislation, this has been dealt with by legislation. That, in turn, gives protection in accordance with the policy of conserving our crayfish-producing areas.

The bill also deals with another matter which is very important, and which was the cause of dispute in the not distant past. I refer to the taking of school sharks, which has been the subject of a certain amount of controversy in Tasmania as a result of the activities, just outside Tasmanian waters, of Victorian fishermen, who were able to engage in school shark fishing there although Tasmanian fishermen were prohibited, under the State law, from engaging in school shark fishing. That was adjusted by previous legislation, and this bill now provides that fishermen who operate in these school shark areas must observe the provisions governing the minimum size of school sharks which may be taken. The regulations lay down that the minimum is 3 feet.

So that this provision can be policed efficiently the bill prohibits the cutting up of fish at sea because, as honorable senators will realize, if undersized fish were cut up before an inspection of the catch was possible, it would be impossible to identify them as undersized fish. I believe that this is an important improvement to the principal act, and will prevent people from defeating the conservation measures contained in the Commonwealth and State acts.

The definition of proclaimed waters - the unauthorized waters in these areas - is dealt with in the amendment to section 13 of the principal act.

The registration of fishermen and fishing boats has been made uniform as between State and Commonwealth. The act had loopholes which allowed its purposes to be defeated. It has been tidied up and will now state specifically that people who are in any way engaged in fishing for commercial purposes shall come within (he jurisdiction of the Commonwealth legislation when fishing outside State territorial waters. The bill also provides exemption for private fishermen who indulge in fishing as a sport. However, that aspect will also have to be looked at more closely because some private fishermen have been known to get as many as 150 crayfish in a pot, and skin divers have been known to take the same number during a single operation. Whether that can bc policed properly is a matter for consideration.

The registration of boats and equipment is of great importance, lt has been streamlined so that officers who are policing the act on behalf of the Commonwealth will be able to identify people registered thereunder. After all, the registration charge is not very high. The professional fisherman has only to pay 10s. a year for his licence. He has to pay 10s. a year for his boat if it is under 50 feet in length. If it is larger than that he must pay a licence fee of £1. The fee for vessels up to 200 tons is £2. Equipment must also be registered. I am led to believe that this is a great improvement because it gives patrol officers who go outside territorial waters a chance to identify the equipment with the fisherman.

Clause 7 repeals section 16, which deals with the apprehension of persons who have been contravening the act, and their arraignment before the court. Formerly an officer had only to make an averment that the person in question was engaged in fishing. Under the amendment it will be necessary for an officer to have evidence that he suspects the fish to which the charges relate to have been taken in proclaimed waters, or to have been taken for trading or manufacturing purposes. Moreover, the court must be convinced that, having regard to the evidence, the suspicion is reasonable. The Minister for the Navy (Senator Gorton) pointed out in his second-reading speech that the new provision substitutes a modified form of averment for the old provision. 1 believe that this gives a certain measure of protection to fishermen against over officious officers.

Many aspects of the industry could be canvassed on a measure such as this, but 1 should especially like to direct attention to the great need, in Tasmania in particular, for co-ordination of State and federal fishing laws, as well as a Commonwealth plan to refund to fishermen a portion of the tax that they pay on fuel. A similar privilege is claimed by other sections of the community. I have in mind the claims of civil aviation, and of road users who pay petrol tax.

Portion of the money allocated for the development of the fishing industry should be directed to the fostering of fishing cooperatives and the expansion of fishing fleets. After all, Australia’s coastline abounds in pelagic fish. We have only scratched the surface of this matter. I believe that our production of fish could be stepped up amazingly with more concerted action on the part of fishermen, acting as a group and using more modern equipment. Also, proper incentives must be provided. The use of modern aids such as radar and depth-sounding equipment enables fishermen to venture further afield to new grounds. A fund could be established to encourage more fishermen to instal such equipment. Assistance could be given to fostering inter-communication by the installation of radio throughout fishing fleets. That could be of great advantage to the industry generally.

Senator Kendall:

– Have you any suggestions as to where the money might come from?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Money is available for use in the fishing industry. I do not know how it is distributed, but I understand that the Western Australian branch of the industry benefited from the proceeds of the sale of the Commonwealth’s whaling establishment. Whether those funds are sufficiently large to enable the Tasmania industry to be assisted I do not know. The bill before us co-ordinates the fishing industry from the point of view of conversion. That is an achievement on one level. The next step is to approach the whole of our extra-territorial waters as a new area awaiting farming. After all, fishing is very like farming. Over-fishing has the same effect as overstocking of land. On the other hand, there is a harvest to be reaped if fishermen act in co-ordination and use the very best equipment available. The Opposition supports the bill and hopes that it will have a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1487

BANKRUPTCY BILL 1959

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1435).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The measure now before the Senate deals with two topics which I thought we had disposed of in May of last year. The question of seals for the Bankruptcy Court and the difficulty that arose from the James case in 1957, when the extension of time by a Registrar in Bankruptcy was held to be a judicial and not a ministerial act, were dealt with then. Many acts that had been so performed by the Registrar were invalid and we validated them retrospectively. I certainly thought, and I believe that the Senate thought, that we had effectively disposed of both matters. I dealt at length with the James case, on behalf of the Opposition, on 6th May, 1958, and I shall not repeat what I said then. It is obvious that further doubts have arisen as to whether the legislation has gone far enough. This bill now purports to cure the defects in the 1958 legislation. The Opposition has no objection to it.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– in reply - I shall briefly explain the point raised by Senator McKenna. ‘The previous legislation validated occasions on which the Registrar had extended the time within which something could be done. It validated all things done within that time, but it was found that on occasions the Registrar had extended the time within which things could be done and those things had not been done within the extended time. It was felt, therefore, that these actions needed further protection.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1488

JUDICIARY BILL 1959

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1435).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

.- The Opposition supports this measure. Its purpose is simply to amend the Judiciary Act so that residents in external Territories of the Commonwealth - that is, those apart from the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory - may, if they wish to pursue a claim against the Commonwealth, bring an action in the local court of superior jurisdiction. The main amendment is made to section 56 of the Judiciary Act. There are a number of consequential amendments.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1488

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SUPREME COURT BILL 1959

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1436).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This measure is consequential upon the bill that the Senate has just passed. It repeals Part III. of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act, which deals with actions against the Commonwealth. The position is now covered by the bill that has just been passed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1488

STATUTORY DECLARATIONS BILL 1959

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1437).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This measure repeals the existing act and reenacts it in the new form that is now before the Senate. It gives it wide application, including application outside Australian territory. It is clear that statutory declarations for Australian purposes will be made, pursuant to the bill, before consular and trade officers abroad, from time .to time. If an offence is committed in the making of such a declaration, crime being territorial, no action can be taken here, at least until we get the body of the criminal here, and it may well be that, even when we do so, we will run into difficulties about a prosecution, the crime having been committed elsewhere. However, power is taken pursuant to the bil! to deal with the matter if the offender does not come within jurisdiction.

We do not object to the provision in the bill. The one matter to which I should like to direct attention is that power is taken to deal summarily with offenders. That is an advantage. Power is taken to impose a fine or, as an alternative, to impose a term of imprisonment. That leaves a proper discretion to a court in awarding a penalty. However, I notice that the penalty for prosecution upon indictment and conviction is imprisonment for a term not exceeding four years. I note that no provision has been made there for a pecuniary penalty. Would the Minister care to comment on that? The Opposition supports the measure.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

, - I support the bill and wish to make some further observations. I compliment the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) on his initiative in presenting the bill. He could have achieved his purpose by a couple of provisions in an amending bill, but I think that he has acted properly in introducing an entirely new bill. T hope that this will be a forerunner of further attention to the procedural law of the Commonwealth; it could well be a pattern for the States to follow. The Commonwealth should give a lead in these procedural matters.

As the Leader of the Opposition <Senator McKenna) pointed out, the bill extends the operation of the law to statutory declarations made outside the territorial limits of Australia, and for that purpose it is very valuable. I should like to add to what the Leader of the Opposition said about penalties. The present act, of course, is rather impossible, because it makes it absolutely essential for anybody charged with an offence under the act to be brought before a judge and jury. Such a trial for a false statement made in a statutory declaration would cost a State well over £100 and could cost £500. As you, Sir, will appreciate, in this age hundreds of declarations on Commonwealth matters are made every day throughout Australia. I think that this bill will greatly clarify the law, because it will now be possible for matters - and especially minor matters - to be tried in the lower courts and for fines to be imposed if the accused is found guilty.

I am interested in the question put by the Leader of the Opposition to the Minister for the Navy (Senator Gorton), who represents in this place the Attorney-General, as to whether the higher court - the Supreme Court - can impose a fine after a jury trial.

I want to direct attention now to the last paragraph of the Minister’s secondreading speech, which relates to a very valuable contribution which has been made to the law. I think that the form of statutory declaration provided for in the existing act gives rise to a good deal of misgiving. The schedule to the act stipulates a form of statutory declaration containing the following words: -

And I make this solemn declaration by virtue of the Statutory Declarations Act 1911-1944 conscientiously believing the statements contained therein to be true in every partitcular

The schedule to this bill prescribes the following form: -

And I make this solemn declaration by virtue of the Statutory Declarations Act 1959, and subject to the penalties provided by that Act for the making of false statements in statutory declarations, conscientiously believing the statements contained in this declaration to be true in every particular.

The words “ and subject to the penalties provided by that Act for the making of false statements in statutory declarations “ have been added. They direct the attention of the person making the declaration to the penal provisions, whereas statutory declarations in the old form could be taken as being rather meaningless, especially by the 1,000,000 new Australians who have come to this country over the last ten years, i think that the added words are a great improvement in the form of statutory declaration prescribed by the Commonwealth law.

I compliment the Attorney-General. I think that we are moving in the right direction when he causes his officers to turn their attention to these important features of the Commonwealth law.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– in reply - Mr. President, with respect to the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), there is no provision for the imposition of a fine, if the offender is found guilty, when proceedings on indictment are taken against somebody who has signed a false statutory declaration. The sole provision is for imprisonment, as the bill states. That is the provision in the existing act, also. This bill does not alter the existing provision, lt merely provides a different method of prosecution, and where this different method of prosecution is adopted, a fine may be imposed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– Mr. Chairman, I desire to direct the attention of the Minister for the Navy (Senator Gorton) to the form of Statutory declaration prescribed in the schedule. The Minister will see that there is a number of footnotes which are designed to help persons who are required to make declarations. The second footnote reads -

Here insert matter declared to. Where the matter is long, add- the words “ as follows: - “ and then set the matter out in numbered paragraphs.

I think the words “ Where the matter is long “ are confusing. What is a long matter? Can the Minister tell me that? I think it would be far better to use words in the form -

Where the matter extends over more than one paragraph, add the words “ as follows: - “ and then set the matter out in numbered paragraphs.

I invite the Minister’s attention to that point in passing.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– I suppose it is a matter of relativity as to what is long and what is not, Mr. Chairman. Occasionally things go quickly, and occasionally they go slowly. If Senator Laught can tell me how long is a piece of string, I can tell him how long is any specific matter. Whether the matter set out in a statutory declaration is long depends, I should say, on two things - first, the judgment of the person who is filling in the form, and secondly, the amount of space provided on the form for particulars. Presumably, if the person thought the matter was too long to be written in the space provided he would write it somewhere else. I agree that the form of words used could be confusing. But I do not think that I am qualified, philosophically, to enter into a discussion at this time about what is long and what is not.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1490

WESTERN AUSTRALIA GRANT (NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT) BILL 1959

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1485).

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– Mr. President, it is very pleasing at this late stage to find that the Government has decided to introduce this measure. When the 1958 bill was before the Senate, the Opposition and all Western Australian senators contended that the Government was merely throwing out chickenfeed by allocating £2,500,000 for expenditure on the great and challenging task of developing the north-west that confronts the nation - not merely Western Australia, although the area is part of that State. In 1958, the Government said, with some justification and great pride, that its generosity in allocating that sum was beyond all bounds, and that the nation could not be expected to spend more on the north-west. It is gratifying that, less than twelve months later, the Government has seen fit to double the amount.

Senator Wade:

– I warn the honorable senator that this will be the last.

Senator COOKE:

– The honorable senator, who comes from Victoria, says that Western Australia is being developed with the proceeds of the taxes that Victorians pay.

Senator Wade:

– That is exactly what I say.

Senator COOKE:

– I shall give the honorable senator back his penny and be independent of him.

Senator Mattner:

– What will the honorable senator do for a penny then?

Senator COOKE:

– I should be poor indeed, because Senator Wade would not reciprocate.

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA · LP

– Senator Cooke should be careful not to spend his money like that.

Senator COOKE:

– A little mirth at this hour of the morning can be very enjoyable.

The introduction of this bill is a clear indication that the Government has reconsidered the suggestions made by the Opposition in 1958 to such good effect that the allocation of funds for expenditure on the development of the north-west of Western Australia is to be increased by 100 per cent. I am very glad that the Government has reconsidered the matter. All nationallyminded Australians, and not only Western Australians, will be pleased to see that the Commonwealth Government is accepting its responsibilities and doing what it can to develop the territory in the north-west of Australia, which presents a great challenge to us and affords an opportunity for some people to criticize Australia for holding, and doing nothing to develop, a huge, sparsely populated area which has a great potential and which could be highly productive. That is the sort of story that we generally hear from people who consider that Australia is selfish in holding this territory and not developing it. In this bill, we see the beginnings - perhaps we could say the embryo - of real development of the north-west - if we are at last prepared to grapple with the challenging problem of developing this valuable area of rugged terrain. As the Minister mentioned, three proposals have been put up by the Western

Australian Government. They are all important. These projects will give encouragement for further development of this area.

At this stage, I want to say that the people of Western Australia are full of gratitude to the late Sir Langlois Lefroy, K.C.M.G., who for many years sponsored the development of the north-west. He spent a considerable amount of his own money there and tried to convince other people that it was necessary to develop this area. In every possible way he tried to encourage interest in the area and displayed a really national outlook.

Probably the most interesting and encouraging part of the report is the proposal by the Western Australian Government to develop the Ord River area. It is proposed to construct a dam for the purposes of water conservation and irrigation. I am satisfied that, if examined, the Ord River scheme would prove suitable for the development of hydro-electric power. The Ord River rises about five miles south of the eighteenth parallel of latitude and, after flowing through about 250 miles of beautiful country, empties into the Cambridge Gulf. It passes through Lewisdale, Argyle Downs and Ivanhoe Stations. The dam will be situated somewhere in the Argyle Downs area. Those who have been there will agree that the scenery is as beautiful as that to be found on the Snowy Mountains, without the snow. It is rugged, heavy, mountainous country which has, at the same time, rich areas that are available for development. In 1901 there were more cattle in this area than there are at the present time. The cattle population has been gradually declining. It makes one very unhappy to think how the area has been neglected. There has been no national outlook.

Tn relation to the development of the north-west of Western Australia, it is to the credit of Western Australia that more money has been spent there than has been expended in the Northern Territory, for which the Federal Government is responsible. Of course, before the Federal Government took it over, it was under the administration of South Australia for some time. The Western Australian Government has done a very good job in the north-west.

Senator Hannaford:

– South Australia did not do a bad job when it was in control of the Northern Territory.

Senator COOKE:

– I suppose that is so. Reverting to the Ord River, the great need is for water conservation and irrigation. Anybody who has been to the Kimberleys Research Station must realize the great possibilities of the area.

It can be said, perhaps, that a grant of £5,000,000 is generous, but when it is remembered that the Government is sparing that amount out of an income of somewhere in the vicinity of £1,161,000,000, we see that the grant is not really so generous. The cost of developing this area will be great. Plant will have to be brought in, and roads developed. Decent living conditions will have to be provided for the people who go to the area. A vast amount of money will need to be spent to develop this area, but it is good to see that a start is to be made. I think that once a national project like this is commenced, the nation is big enough to grapple with it and complete it.

The report of Mr. Dumas on the development of this area is most enlightening. There will be no doubt about the success of the project if the national Government and the Western Australian Government are prepared to handle the job between them and see that the work is carried on. The money that is to be provided by the Commonwealth is not really a gift; it is an investment. The expenditure will be well justified. I am pleased that, as a result of the protest made about eleven months ago, the Federal Government has seen fit to increase its grant to at least double that which it initially proposed. I am quite sure that the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who has been through the area, realizes its great potential. I am sure, too, that he appreciates the great work of the citizens who are working up there under real difficulties. They not only deserve this help; they should be able to demand it. I repeat that the area demands further development. The grant that is to be made should be the first of many; these grants should continue. I am quite sure the nation will be repaid in every sector of the economy. The development will provide employment and extra revenue, and it will show other countries that Australia is now taking responsibility for an area that she has neglected over the last century.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– 1 shall delay the Senate for some little time, and I apologize for doing so. I feel that this bill is so important that it should not be allowed to pass without some comments from the Government side. First of all, I should like to reply to my political opponent and friend, Senator Cooke, who represents Western Australia in such a statesmanlike manner. I should like to tell him that the amount to be made available by the Government is not chicken-feed. This is the first time in the history of Australia that the Commonwealth Parliament has made available, in the form of a gift, money to be spent on the development of the north-west of Western Australia. It is to be spent over a period of five years, at the rate of £1,000.000 a year, on projects approved by the Commonwealth Government. This follows the Government’s generous gesture last year in making available £2,500,000 to be spent at the rate of £500,000 a year for five years on approved projects. As I said, this is the first time in the history of Australia that a government has made a gift for the development of the Kimberleys in Western Australia. Of course, this action was brought about by pressure from back-bench Government supporters, with the assistance, of course, of Western Australian Ministers.

I want to say something about the projects that have been proposed by the State Government. If the money is spent wisely, we shall achieve vast and rapid development in the areas concerned. If it is spent unwisely, the responsibility will be on the head of the State Government. The last Government of Western Australia, which, thank goodness, is now no longer in office, recommended that some of the £2,500,000 should be spent on the development of Black Rocks. I believe that a responsible government would not venture to spend money on the development of a port to provide facilities for overseas vessels when the tonnage of cargo available for shipment does not warrant the calling of more than one vessel a year, and possibly warrants the calling of only one vessel every two years. 1 believe that the State must have another look at the matter. I was pleased to read in the press recently that the Government of Western Australia has stated that before going ahead with the provision of a deep water port at Black Rocks, it will examine the matter further, and I sincerely hope that it will, in its wisdom, find projects that will result in the development of the outback area before providing a deep water port.

I took out the figures a year or so ago, and I clearly remember that in the last two years the port of Derby exported about 12,000 tons of cargo - not in one year, but in two years. Although the people of the area have differing opinions as to the expenditure of the money, and many believe that it should be spent on the development of roads, I, having studied the area, believe that we could get the best out of the expenditure by adopting several courses. One is the establishment of a station for research into dry farming methods. Another is the development of small irrigation projects. I do not mean large projects, such as the one at Ord River, which will cost £10,000,000 or £20,000,000. I mean small projects, some costing £3,000 or £4,000, others costing £300,000 or £400,000, and possibly some costing £2,000,000 or £3,000,000. In the area there are many small rivers, including the Gibb River and tributaries of the Fitzroy, which could be dammed for irrigation.

Senator Spooner:

– A parliamentary joint committee in Western Australia gave a No. 1 priority to the Black Rocks project.

Senator SCOTT:

– In 1951?

Senator Spooner:

– No.

Senator SCOTT:

– 1952?

Senator Spooner:

– No, a couple of years ago.

Senator SCOTT:

– I remember the report of an independent committee that went north. I think it recommended that the first project in the development of the area should be the provision of a deep water port at Black Rocks.

Senator Spooner:

– That has been confirmed and confirmed again.

Senator SCOTT:

– It may have been. I do not mind what other people think or say. In my opinion this would be a complete waste of money at this stage. The joint committee was not necessarily right.

I have been in the area. In Derby itself, not 5 per cent, of the population want a deep-water port at Black Rocks. Not 2 per cent, of the station owners in the outback areas want it. They think that the time is too soon. Let us find what can be done in the outback. The Government may spend as much money as it likes there and I shall be right behind it. A person with £20,000 who takes up a block of virgin land for farming purposes does not spend £20,000 on a house, because he would get no return from it. If £2,500,000 is spent on a deep-water port there will be no return from it for twenty years. I ask honorable senators to come and have a look at the area. I am not criticizing this Government. The responsibility is on the State. If the States make recommendations to us, it is our responsibility to make the money available to them. They know what is required. I do not think it would be sound politics for the Commonwealth Government to refuse to accept a recommendation from a State Government, as long as the State Government fulfilled the requirements in relation to the gift. It is provided specifically that this money will be spent on new projects. The deep-water port project is new, and if Western Australia wants to proceed with it, and our political party in the State wants it proceeded with, I think the Commonwealth has to agree to the proposal, although in my opinion the provision of such a port would be a mistake. I finish on this note: This is a generous gift by the Commonwealth. If it is spent wisely, it will return untold dividends. If it is spent unwisely, it will be wasted.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I want to say a few words on this bill. First, I want to protest at such an important bill being considered at this hour of the morning. The bill is important, as it is an instance of generosity by the Commonwealth Government towards one of our States, Western Australia. A matter such as this should be considered at an hour when senators are fresh and can debate it adequately. We are giving away up to £5,000,000. That, as I say, is a fairly generous gesture.

Senator Wedgwood:

– Does the honorable senator object to the measure?

Senator WOOD:

– I do not; but I do object to the bill coming before the Senate at this late hour. This measure could have generated a lively debate. The Commonwealth has been very generous to-night. It has been generous with the gold mining industry; it has been generous with the tractor industry and now it is being generous with Western Australia.

Senator Hannaford:

– Victoria has received something from the other legislation.

Senator WOOD:

– Yes. I am very keen that Australia should be developed, but the Minister’s second-reading speech has left doubts in my mind as to whether finance for development is being channelled in the right directions. I disagree with Senator Scott’s statement that the State has the sole right to dispose of the money. As the Commonwealth Government is handing out the money, it should make sure that the money is not wasted.

In his second-reading speech, the Minister said that three schemes that had been submitted to the Commonwealth Government had been approved. Then a fourth scheme had been submitted only three days ago. The Government proposes to grant £5,000,000 to Western Australia without knowing how the money will be spent. That system should be reversed. When money is granted to a project, we should know at the time of the grant whether that project deserves it. What will be the total cost of the schemes that have been submitted to the Commonwealth? We should have more details to enable us to assess the value of the projects on which the money will be spent. Mention has also been made of the fact that there is great room for development in the area. What will be produced there? That is another matter on which we should have information. I do not object to the bill, but it should have been presented to us at a time when we were better able to discuss it and at a time when honorable senators’ minds would have been directed towards the development of Australia. A few moments ago Senator Scott delivered an address which contained more meat than any address we have heard to-day.

Senator Hannaford:

– It contained more meat than the whole of the north-west contains.

Senator WOOD:

– He presented a very meaty argument. He mentioned the Black Rocks project, and I wondered whether we might be devoting money to a project which will not return us full value for our investment. This Government could be blundering by subscribing a lot of money to a project that is not worthy of consideration. I gathered the impression from the honorable senator’s speech that he had a practical idea as to how the money should be spent. He mentioned a research station to investigate dry-farming methods. He mentioned also the Ord River scheme and suggested that a number of small irrigation schemes might be more effective and give more assistance to the people in the area than one large dam.

What guarantee have we that the grant will be spent wisely? At this late hour one does not think as clearly as one does during the day or in the early hours of the evening, but we should give this matter serious consideration. It is refreshing to see the north-west portion of Western Australia being developed, and I sincerely hope that the grant will be used to extract the utmost benefit from the area. Although the area is remote, let us hope that the Commonwealth assistance will bring about that development which is so necessary to our country.

I did not rise in my place to speak in any spirit of criticism. I have spoken in what I hope has been a constructive manner. I trust that in the future bills such as the legislation before us, which should stimulate lively discussion in this chamber where senators represent States and, therefore, should take a national view of our country, will be presented to us at a reasonable hour. The Government’s generosity in this matter gives me hope that it will extend similar generosity to my State of Queensland and to other States that need assistance to enable them to develop. Queensland has many projects that warrant assistance, and I hope that the Commonwealth Government will not overlook that State.

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

– I assure honorable senators that I sh:ll not detain them for more than a few minutes, but the challenging statement that has been made by Senator Wood surely calls for some reply. I do not think the honorable senator has grasped the concept of this proposed grant. The money is being made available for the development of a vast area, an area in which there are not three or four projects to be completed but literally dozens that could be undertaken. Our difficulty was in deciding on an order of priority. When I referred to a vast area, I was directing my remarks to the West Kimberleys which lie to the south of Napier-Broome Bay. Thousands of square miles in that area recently have been thrown open for selection, and the method by which that area was thrown open was the old fashioned method that had been used in all parts of Australia during our developmental stages - selection before survey. Aerial surveys are the only surveys that have been made of the area. In 1954 I had the unique and pleasurable experience of walking with a survey party from Hall’s Creek to a place called Kalumburu. After we had crossed the Forrest River, we became the first white men to walk across the Napier Ranges to Kalumburu. There are not many countries in the world to-day that have not felt the tread of white men’s feet. This is the kind of country to which the Commonwealth has agreed to extend assistance.

The Western Australian Government, in its search for a priority of projects, has selected three. Senator Scott has expressed the view, which is shared by many people who come from this area, that the transference of the port site at Derby to Black Rocks is premature. I am sure that not even Senator Scott will say that the project is not sound, but it is somewhat premature. As I stated during the second-reading speech on this measure, if we are to develop shipping from Derby, even for the existing turn-off that goes through that port, we have to provide a port that will attract modern shipping, because shipowners do not like to have their ships resting in a tidal port on the harbour bed and taking the risk of damage to the vessels. I say this, that any two Western Australians or north-western Australians will argue by the hour and by the day as to what projects should have priority, because there is so much work to be done there. This grant is something which is unique; it is a grant to an area, not to a project, for area development. My friend, Senator Wood, asks “ What are you going to do there? Why cannot we hear more about the area’s potentialities? “ I should not have thought it necessary, especially in view of the debate only 18 months ago that we had in this Chamber, to dilate at much length as to what the northwest or the Kimberleys can produce. I need only refer to the great cattle industry, which has a direct relation with Senator Wood’s own State, Queensland, because many thousands of cattle are moved from Queensland to the Kimberleys and eventually find their way south, or through the Kimberley ports to the overseas markets.

Senator Wood:

– Has the area any possibilities?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– It has magnificent possibilities, but at a quarter past one o’clock in the morning I do not want to spend much time enumerating them. Let me mention that at the Kimberley Research Station - my friends from Queensland will greet this remark with warm approval - under experimental conditions sugar superior to Queensland cane sugar has been grown. I am not suggesting for a moment that this might be the start of a sugar industry, but it is one of the things that must be taken into account.

Western Australian’s, exercising what I believe to be a broad national outlook, would always take the view that the existing sugar industry in Queensland, which has grown up magnificently under protection, should continue. But let me mention some of the other things that grow there. Both sorghum and rice are grown in the area. I have seen crops of wheat and oats in the Ord River region, but to my mind, the most spectacular possibility is the development of a cotton industry. Now think, an expenditure of £5,000,000 against the possibility of establishing a cotton industry which would save this country, not £5,000,000 a year in foreign exchange, but many millions of pounds a year for the cotton that goes to clothe every Australian! That is why I put it to the Senate that this £5,000,000 grant made by the Commonwealth for area development is one of the most imaginative actions ever taken by any Commonwealth Government in respect of Australian development.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

” AUSTRALIAN SENATE PRACTICE.”

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMuIlin). - I lay upon the table the following paper: - “ Australian Senate Practice “ - Second Edition - by J. R. Odgers.

The first edition of this work appeared in 1953. It has been revised and brought up to date. The main addition is a new chapter which presents a Chairman’s guide to procedure in Committee of the Whole. In 1953 the Senate agreed to the printing of the first edition of this work. The second edition is now presented for the consideration of the Senate.

Senator SPOONER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– Mr. President, I move -

That the paper be printed.

In explanation of the motion, I point out that the formal order by the Senate means not only that the “ paper “ will be printed but also that it will be distributed in accordance with the list that is maintained. It has a pretty wide distribution to members of Parliament and others. Approximately 400 copies of the first issue were distributed. The book will be kept by the Government Printer for sale to the public. Probably about 850 copies will be printed.

The cost of printing the first edition was £1,080, which was charged to the parliamentary printing vote. If the motion now before the Senate is agreed to, the cost of printing the book on this occasion also will be charged to the parliamentary printing vote.

The work is familiar to us all. As to the actual mechanics of the printing of it, I have found from my own experience - and T use the work a good deal - that it is printed in a form which will not fit in ordinary bookshelves. It is quite convenient for use in the Senate where it may be put in the drawer that is provided but others like myself who use it not only in the Senate but at home and in offices find that it will not fit in a bookshelf. Therefore, I am hoping that the Government Printer, in addition to printing a supply in this form, will also print a proportion of the total in another size, such as octavo, which is about the “ Hansard “ size, so that we can use it in library work.

Mr. President, there is little need for me to say much of a commendatory nature. We are fortunate that we have an officer of the Senate who has taken the time and performed the work involved to produce this work, which is of such assistance to us. I should like to say something else, even though the time is now twenty minutes past one o’clock in the morning. Although it is in almost constant use in the Senate, it is not an authoritative work. To the extent that the contents are comments and not records of decisions of Presidents of the Senate, they are not binding on Senate procedure. It think it well to say that, Mr. President, while this motion is being discussed. There may well be occasions when the comments contained in Mr. Odgers’ book are quoted in the course of argument and you, having the responsibility to make a final ruling, rule in contradiction of a view expressed in the book, at a time when the author is one of the clerks at the table. Mr. Odgers understands the position. I think that it is well for us to understand it also and to keep it at the back of our minds. I have nothing more to say other than, I think on behalf of all honorable senators, to congratulate Mr. Odgers on producing a second edition of this book. We are fortunate to have it to assist us in the work that we have to do.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I welcome your announcement, Mr. President, of the presentation of a second edition of “ Australian Senate Practice “. We understand thoroughly that the book is not authoritative in the sense that the President or any member of the Senate is bound by its conclusions and opinions, but it has the most persuasive effect of any document I have seen circulating in an arena such as this. If it becomes a matter of setting the book, which I have known and valued, against a lot of opinions in this place, I shall place my money on the book.

This book that Mr. Odgers has produced has been invaluable to me and, I have no doubt, to everybody else in the Senate during the last six years. It is well indexed, and every conceivable point of procedure is covered in it. I join with Senator Spooner in saying that we are indeed for tunate in having, as the Assistant Clerk of the Senate, a man of such keen observation and such quick interest in the Senate and its affairs and procedures and, above all, a man with the great industry that is demonstrated by the production of this very comprehensive document. I take the opportunity to say, in Mr. Odgers’ presence, that I am deeply indebted to him for the work that he has produced. I have still much to learn from the first edition, but I can now, with an easy conscience, put that aside and start afresh with the second edition.

I welcome the book. 1 am intrigued to note that there is a special chapter that has been prepared for the benefit of Chairmen of Committees. I wonder what observation from the Chair prompted Mr. Odgers to write that chapter. Whom was he looking at when he had it in mind? As honorable senators know, we have a number of Temporary Chairmen of Committees. I should be very interested to see that theme developed.

I know that it is not necessary to second the Minister’s motion in this matter, Mr. President.

Senator Spooner:

– The honorable senator has been reading the book.

Senator McKENNA:

– No. I take the Minister up on that instantly. The book requires that all motions shall be seconded, if I read it aright. I shall refer to the book in a minute to see whether I am right but I would commit myself to the proposition that, under the Standing Orders, every motion has to be seconded, and that it is only practice that has got us to the position where motions moved by leaders do not have to be seconded.

I express great interest and pleasure in the production of this new book, and I join with Senator Spooner in congratulating Mr. Odgers. I am certain that such changes as have been made will be improvements and. accordingly, the new book will be of greater benefit to all of us.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1496

RETIRING SENATORS

Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council and Minister for National Development · LP

– by leave - Late as the hour is, I do not think that any one in the chamber would like to finish the work of this sessional period without at least a brief reference to the fact that, with the ending of the session and the commencement of the new Senate, we shall lose the friendship and comradeship of seven honorable senators who are retiring. We look back over a period of some years, valuing their friendship and regretting that some of them are retiring because of illhealth. It would not be appropriate, Mr. President, for me to make references to some senators without saying something about each of them, so I shall keep my comments entirely on a non-party basis and speak in general terms. We send our good wishes to each of the seven senators on the termination of his association with us.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– by leave. - I am glad that Senator Spooner has sounded an impersonal note. We had a personal note recently in the form of a very pleasant function in honor of the retiring senators, and I should be embarrassed if I had to repeat now what I said then. In fact, some of the things that I said I should not like to see permanently enshrined in “ Hansard “. T join with Senator Spooner in expressing real regret at the passing of all seven honorable senators from this place. They have been loyal to their parties and to the Senate, and there is very great talent amongst them. It hurts to sever associations that grew up in conflict and high endeavour, serving high ideals for the party and the nation. It hurts whether one agrees with their views or not, when the time comes to part.

I join Senator Spooner in paying a tribute to each of them and in wishing them well in their retirement, or in whatever careers they later embark upon. I trust that they have good health and real happiness. I hope that the disappointment occasioned by the determination of their parliamentary careers will not be long with them and that they very quickly will find new interests to absorb their time and their activities.

page 1497

QUESTION

TAXATION IN PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator WRIGHT:

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

With regard to legislation for the introduction of income tax in New Guinea - (a) what proposals have been put before the Legislative Council in New Guinea in respect of an income tax, indicating the yield and the rate of tax; (b) from whom did the proposals emanate, and (c) if they emanated from the Commonwealth Government, when will be the appropriate time for them to be debated in this Parliament?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

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

  1. Two income tax measures were introduced in the Legislative Council for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea on 20th April, 1959. They were the Income Tax Bill 1959 and the Income Tax (Rates) Bill 1959. The first is based in many respects on the Commonwealth Income Tax Assessment Act but provides concessional deductions much higher than the standard Australian provisions. The second measure declares rates on taxable incomes of individuals at about 50 per cent, of the Australian rates and on companies at 4s. in the £1. The estimated yield of income lax in the first year of operation is about £1,250,000.
  2. Cabinet decided that income tax should be introduced and that export duties should be abolished and a net reduction made in import duties. The legislation was introduced into the Legislative Council by the Papua and New Guinea Treasurer and Director of Finance and the secondreading debate has been adjourned to 22nd June.
  3. A debate took place in the House of Representatives on 12th May on a motion for printing a ministerial statement. If and when the bills have been passed by the Legislative Council and assented to, they will be tabled in both Houses.

page 1497

QUESTION

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Senator WOOD:

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

  1. Is it a fact that Australia will be represented by an official delegation at the conference of the International Telecommunications Union shortly to be held in Geneva to revise the currently operating telecommunications convention?
  2. Is it a fact that Australian departments have prepared a series of proposals, altering present arrangements, which will be sponsored by the Australian delegation?
  3. Do these proposals relate to the use of telecommunications by business men, commercial interests, private users of telecommunications services, and to the incidental use of radio services by various non-governmental authorities and interests, and are some of the proposals designed to curtail facilities at present available?
  4. Have the Commonwealth proposals yet been publicly announced in advance of the meeting, so that informed Australian public opinion can pass judgment on their desirability for the guidance of the Australian delegates?
  5. Have the proposals been forwarded, or will they be forwarded prior to the meeting, for the information of delegations from other participating States?
  6. Are the proposals being disclosed in advance to other Government authorities, and, if so, will the Postmaster-General explain why such information is not being disclosed to the Australian public?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The PostmasterGeneral has now furnished the following replies: -

  1. Yes.
  2. Proposals designed to improve and rationalize certain aspects of the existing International Radio Regulations have been prepared for consideration by the conference.
  3. The proposals concern licensed radio services of all classes used for official, commercial, industrial and private purposes. Some of the proposals are concerned with the adjustment of radio frequency bands to meet changed conditions and new developments and to provide for more efficient distribution of available spectrum space.
  4. No. The several hundred proposals being studied involve complex and technical matters which cannot be comprehended without intimate and expert knowledge and an understanding of the administrative aspects and factors affecting international agreements in radio working. Moreover, any proper understanding of the problems would call for disclosure of certain security information affecting defence.
  5. Yes, in accordance with agreed international procedure.
  6. Expert representatives of all Australian government authorities concerned conferred in formulating the proposals, but for reasons set out in reply to question (4) public discussion thereof is impracticable and undesirable.

page 1498

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT LOANS AND FINANCE

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– On 6th May, 1959, Senator Wright asked the following question: -

My question to the Minister representing the Treasurer relates to the statement that has been circulated to members of Parliament, showing the details of loan fund expenditure as at 30th April, 1959. I direct the Minister’s attention to the fact that although the estimate of expenditure for the current financial year was £133,000,000 up to 30th April, the expenditure has amounted to only £66,000,000. or approximately 50 per cent. of the estimate. Is this an indication that expenditure of loan funds during the current financial year will fall short of the Budget estimate? If that is not expected, will the remaining £66,000,000 be expended in the next two months, thus confirming the view held by some people that an annual appropriation of this nature tends to lead Government departments to inflate their expenditures in the last couple of months of the financial year, without warrant, so that subsequent votes will not be reduced?

The Treasurer has now furnished the following reply: -

The principal items of expenditure from the loan fund in which the published transaction to 30th April, 1959, might suggest the likelihood of a short fall in expenditure for the financial year 1958-59, are those for defence services and advances to States for housing. In the case of defence expenditure, the Treasurer announced on 30th April that an additional appropriation of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of £40,000,000 was being sought, and thus the amount to be met from the loan fund would not now exceed £38,000,000. Actual expenditure from the loan fund to 30th April, 1959, was £30,764,000. Although advances to States for housing to 30th April totalled only £18,956,000, it is expected that expenditure for the full year will reach the Budget estimate of £35,810,000. The rate of expenditure under this heading is dependent entirely upon the requests for advances made by the States under the Housing Agreement and in general the States do not seek the greater part of the funds to be provided under the approved programmes until the closing stages of the financial year.

page 1498

QUESTION

TRADE PRACTICES

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister repre senting the Attorney-General, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that on 24th April, seventeen firms again submitted identical tenders of £11,742 to the Brisbane City Council for the supply of an 11 k.v. underground cable?
  2. If so, will the Attorney-General refer the facts relating to this form of cartelized tendering to the Minister for Trade, so that he can cancel the import licences held by the seventeen firms and arrange a re-allocation of the electrical goods they were permitted to import to other traders who will not exploit public bodies?
Senator GORTON:
LP

– The following answer is now supplied: -

The Attorney-General does not think that the matter raised by the honorable senator falls within his administration but, in case any matter affecting the Commonwealth is concerned, he will refer the honorable senator’s question to the Minister for Trade.

page 1498

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL SENATORS

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

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

page 1498

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Spooner) agreed to -

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

Senate adjourned at 1.30 a.m. (Friday), till a day and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 May 1959, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1959/19590514_senate_23_s14/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant