Senate
29 November 1960

23rd Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 23rd Parliament
  3. 1960

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

page 1781

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported: -

Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1960.

Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Bill (No. 2) 1960.

States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill 1960.

Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Bill 1960.

Loan. (Housing) Bill 1960.

page 1781

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SUPERANNUATION AND DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister representing the Treasurer tell me why persons who are entitled to Commonwealth superannuation benefits or defence forces retirement benefits cannot have their entitlements paid into their bank accounts?

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

– I am quite unable to give an answer offhand. I shall look into the matter and see that the honorable senator gets an answer at an early date.

page 1781

CIVIL AVIATION

SenatorLILLICO. - I preface my question, which I direct to the Minister for Civil Aviation, by saying that both Ansett-A.N.A. and Trans-Australia Airlines operate flights to the north-west coast of Tasmania, the aircraft of both companies arriving and departing at approximately the same time, namely, the middle of the day. Will the Minister investigate the possibility of staggering the schedules of both operators so as to allow a daily return trip to Melbourne? If such a request has been previously considered and the proposal rejected on the ground that it was uneconomical, will the Minister agree that an important factor to consider is that after people became accustomed to such a service it would be a more economical proposition than the present service, which gives people little choice as to times of arrival and departure?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I know that both operators in fixing time-tables, always try to meet the public convenience’ as well as to serve operational requirements. I am not. aware of the circumstances affecting the north-west coast of Tasmania. I shall be pleased to inform the operators ofthe opinion expressed and to see whether anything can be done about this matter.

page 1781

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator COLE:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister for

National Development in a position to say whether a new Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement is to be signed? If a new agreement is to be entered into, when will the details be announced? Whether or not a new agreement is to be entered into, will the Minister give an assurance that the housing co-operative movement, which has made such a great contribution to the solution of the Australian housing problem, will not be neglected by the Commonwealth?

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

– I am not in a position to make a statement about the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. The matter has not progressed to the stage at which I would be justified in forecasting the contents of the agreement.

page 1781

QUESTION

STANDARDIZATION OF RAIL GAUGES

Senator HANNAFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport whether his attention has been directed to a broadcast statement by the Premier of South Australia last Thursday evening to the effect that a crisis had arisen in relation to the standardization of the rail gauge from Port Pirie to Broken Hill. Has he any comment to make on Sir Thomas Playford’s statement, made during the same broadcast, that the continued delay of the Federal Government in arriving at a decision about this work is causing a loss of £10,000 a week to the South Australian railways because of the necessity to carry on with steam locomotion until the uncertainty of the position is removed?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– As it happens, as I passed through Adelaide last Friday I read the statement which was attributed to the Premier of South Australia.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– He will be over here to-morrow.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

-I was about to say that, in view of the announcement by Sir Thomas that he proposes to visit

Canberra to-morrow to see, I understand, the Minister for Shipping and Transport, no further statement at this time, particularly from me, would be appropriate.

page 1782

QUESTION

ROADS

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for National Development any knowledge of a proposal to construct a road from Bourke, in New South Wales, to Camooweal, in Queensland, with finance to be provided by the Commonwealth? Is he aware that the construction of such a road would have the effect of transferring fat cattle produced in the Channel country of Queensland to New South Wales for slaughtering and that the Queensland Government would still be required to meet all the expenditure that it now incurs, through its various departments, in providing and maintaining stock raising facilities in the area? Will the Minister inform me whether any government other than the Queensland Government can authorize the construction of public roads within the boundaries of Queensland?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I have some general knowledge of the proposal. A body known as the Federal Inland Development Organization has made representations to me upon it. If my recollection is correct, those representations were accompanied by a letter from the Premier of Queensland in which he said that he supported the proposal provided Queensland was not called upon to finance it in any way. That is where the matter begins and ends. As yet, the organization concerned has not submitted any definite proposal to the Commonwealth Government. Therefore, the Government has formulated no views upon the matter. Primarily, it would be a matter for the Queensland Government, because the road would cross the boundary of that State.

page 1782

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator MCKELLAR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry able to inform the Senate whether the reported statement that the home consumption price for wheat this year will be raised by 5d. to 15s. 3d. per bushel is correct?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · VICTORIA · LP

– I am not able at the moment to inform the honorable senator whether that statement is correct, but I shall ascertain immedately whether it is and let him know.

page 1782

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH AND STATE FINANCIAL RELATIONS

Senator COURTICE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has his attention been directed to a press statement by a prominent Minister in the Queensland Country Party-Liberal Party Government in which he strongly advocated that Queensland should secede from the Commonwealth because of discrimination by the Menzies Government against Queensland in relation to developmental works? Will the Minister, in order to discourage any such movement for secession, assure the Queensland Government that in future Queensland will receive the same measure of justice as the Federal Government is giving to the other States?

Senator BENN:

– Before the Leader of the Government replies, I wish to ask him a supplementary question. Will he inform me whether that part of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act which reads -

Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established - has been amended since it was agreed to on 9th July, 1900?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I saw the report of the statement made by the Queensland Minister. I thought it was an extravagant statement - quite unwarranted and unsubstantiated by the facts that he produced. This Government has done a great deal to help Queensland and has every intention to do a great deal more in the future. The position that we face is that once a year the representatives of the States and the Commonwealth meet around the conference table, the Commonwealth distributes the available resources in an equitable way, and then the various States come forward with proposals for projects which are beyond the scope of those resources - projects to which the States obviously give a lower priority than is given to the projects which they undertake. The States ask the Commonwealth for funds to enable them to carry out those projects. We have representations of that kind made by the States, but we also have representations by the newspapers that too great a proportion of our resources is being spent on governmental works, lt is said that the taxpayers should not be asked to provide those moneys, and that it would be better if more works were undertaken in the private sector. However, this Government seems to have survived. We have won the last five general elections, and 1 have no doubt we will win the next one. By and large, we are justified in saying that the people of Australia have confidence in the very good Government that they have. i take courage to add the rider that the people of Queensland will have more common sense than to support the extravagant statement that was made by the Queensland Minister.

page 1783

QUESTION

RIVER MURRAY WATERS

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for National Development. Has he seen a report in the Adelaide “ Advertiser “ this morning to the effect that River Murray Commission’s experts have confirmed that the construction of the dam on the River Murray above Renmark - which the South Australian Premier, Sir Thomas Playford, is advocating - is practicable? Will he take an early opportunity to bring the matter before the Federal Cabinet so that unnecessary delay may be avoided?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– Senator Pearson is ahead of me. No doubt he reads the South Australian newspapers early each day. I have not yet had the opportunity to read them to-day. This is a matter of profound importance to South Australia. I should not like to answer a question on it now, not having seen the newspaper report and not having studied the professional reports.

page 1783

QUESTION

STOCK MARKET

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– I have no desire to ask the Leader of the Government who won the last five elections, but I do desire to ask him a few questions.

Senator Scott:

– You know who won the last five elections.

Sena or BROWN. - That is only too true. Has the Minister noted how classes have been formed in the various capital cities to teach people on small incomes how to play the market on the stock exchanges? Is not this basically a form of gambling? Would it not be better for the Government to guide Australians’ gambling instinct in a way that would bring a few million pounds of the public’s money into the Treasury, by the issue of premium bonds, for instance, as is done in Great Britain?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– Senator Brown has no desire to ask me who has won the last five elections. I can assure him that I have every desire to tell him. I have not seen the newspaper report about the formation of classes to teach people how to play the stock market. In my view, there is a good deal of merit in Australian people having an interest in Australian companies, not in a speculative fashion, but in the nature of an investment. There is a great deal to be said for encouraging Australians to take pride in the growth and development of our industrial concerns, in the same way as many of us take pride in our governmental buildings. I think the question about the issuing of premium bonds is too provocative for me to answer offhand.

page 1783

QUESTION

STEEL

Senator SCOTT:

– I direct a question to the Minister for National Development. Is it a fact that, owing to the sound economic policy of the Government, steel consumption in Australia has trebled since 1948? Can the Minister advise me whether the Australian production of steel has been able to satisfy the demand? If it has not, what is the estimated cost of steel imports at the present time? Has the Government made any assessment, since the introduction of the present financial restrictions, of when the position will be remedied, and whether the construction of a steel mill at Kwinana by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited would have the effect of enabling steel production to catch up with the demand?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– Senator Scott asks me to canvass the pros and cons of the steel industry in Australia. I am, not loath to embark upon a dissertation on that issue, but I cannot claim to keep the relevant figures in my memory. Steel consumption in Australia has increased very materially, in company with Australian development.. in my opinion, the steel industry has given one of the most creditable performances in Australian industry in the way in which it has expanded to meet the demand. The present position is that the demand is in excess of the supply of certain types and varieties of steel. There is no doubt that the establishment of a steel industry in Western Australia would be a national advantage. 1 say to Senator Scott, as 1 have said to him previously, “ Good luck to Western Australia in its endeavours to establish such an industry”.

Senator CANT:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister whether a condition of the construction of a steel plant at Kwinana in Western Australia by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited is that the Commonwealth Government spend £35,000,000 on a standard gauge railway line-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! That is not a supplementary question; it is a separate question altogether.

page 1784

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Senator TOOHEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, by advising him that I have details supporting the claim which will be made in my question. Is the Minister aware that Chrysler Australia Limited, South Australia, has been forced to lay off 200 men as a direct result of the economic measures recently introduced by the Government? As the motor body industry is of vital importance to South Australia, will he ask the Treasurer to review the Government’s economic policy, particularly as it relates to sales tax on motor cars?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I have seen a statement which, I think, was attributed to the chairman of the Chrysler company in South Australia, to the effect that 200 employees would be dismissed - I think, although I am not sure - before the end of the year. I was interested in the statement particularly as another motor firm in Melbourne, during the week, had announced that it was dismissing 100 employees.

Senator O’Byrne:

– It was 200.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– No, 100. On the following morning that company was able to announce that the 100 employees whom it had intended to dismiss had been found alternative employment.

Senator Hendrickson:

– But not with that company.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– They had been found alternative employment. My interest in both of those matters led me to inquire into the fluctuations in employment in the motor industry in recent years. Although my investigation is not complete, it is quite apparent that a great increase in employment in that industry has occurred during the last iwo years. I should think that, whatever dismissals may be made from the industry, they will do no more than restore the employment position in the industry to the situation that existed at this time last year. With the prospect of alternative employment being found, I do not for one moment share the honorable senator’s apprehension that the particular measure proposed by the Government will set off a spate of unemployment in South Australia or elsewhere.

Senator KENDALL:
QUEENSLAND

– By way of a supplementary question, I ask the Minister whether he has seen a report by the Queensland secretary of the vehicle-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! That is a separate question, not one that is supplementary to the question asked by Senator Toohey. The honorable senator asked about a specific matter in South Australia. The matter raised by Senator Kendall should form the subject of another question.

page 1784

QUESTION

COMMEMORATIVE POSTAGE STAMPS

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Has his attention been directed to the current United States Post Office stamp commemorating the Polish hero Paderewski? Does not the Minister believe that the issue of commemorative stamps featuring in turn the national heroes of countries to the people of whom Australia has offered refuge from communism, would be a gracious act which would improve the morale and spirit of those people who have settled here and also would be a reminder of Australia’s unceasing opposition to Communist dictation and’ aggression? ls the Minister further aware that the free Ukrainian movement has petitioned the United Nations to declare 1961 the year of Taras Shevchenko, the great Ukrainian poet and champion of freedom who died in 1861? If the idea commends itself to the Government, will the Minister consider the suggestion that a start should be made with Taras Shevchenko, the heroes of other countries being honoured as suitable anniversaries present themselves over a period of years?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– While there may be a good1 deal of merit in Senator Hannan’s proposal, I do not feel equipped to answer the question offhand. I can only tell him that I shall pass it on to the PostmasterGeneral for his consideration.

page 1785

QUESTION

LIBERAL PARTY OF AUSTRALIA

Senator COLE:

– Is the Leader of the Government aware that the Liberal Party recently adopted a new platform, one of the main planks of which is opposition to compulsory political levies in trade unions? Will the Minister say whether it is the intention of the Government to follow that part of the party’s policy and introduce suitable legislation in this Parliament?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! This subject does not come within the scope of a question. It relates to the policy of a political party. I call Senator Spooner, if he wishes to answer it.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I have no objection to answering the question, even though it may not come within the four corners of the Standing Orders. There is no question of the Liberal Party having a new platform. The party’s platform has been in existence for a considerable period and has recently been revised and brought up to date. I think it was made perfectly clear in a recent debate in the Senate that we are opposed to compulsory political levies. It seemed to me that that was made abundantly clear, both in my secondreading speech on the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) and the subsequent debate. What we said - and this, I think, is most important - was that we did not see any virtue in legislating to enforce an arrangement when the responsible people concerned were willing to make it voluntarily.

page 1785

QUESTION

ALUMINIUM

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– The question that I wish to direct to the Minister for National Development refers to the announcement that was made last week concerning the establishment of an aluminium industry in New Zealand. Will the Minister inform me whether the Government has had any negotiations with the New Zealand Government in relation to that project and, if it has, over what period the negotiations have taken place? Do any arrangements exist between the two governments concerning the supply of bauxite to that industry? I should be happy to be informed of the extent to which the proposals regarding this industry were public information in connexion with the New Zealand election last Saturday.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– 1 am not aware of any negotiations between the Australian Government and the New Zealand Government concerning this industry. My understanding of the matter is that the company concerned mads the most detailed inquiries about the relative costs of power, and about other considerations, before it made its decision. I was in touch with the matter and I knew of the investigations that were going on from time to time, but it was a matter for the company itself, and for the New Zealand Government, to decide. Replying to the part of the honorable senator’s question relating to the supply of bauxite, I remind him that the announcement also included a reference to the fact that a plant having a capacity of some 360,000 tons was to be built at Weipa, to convert the bauxite into alumina, so it will not be bauxite that will be shipped to New Zealand but the intermediate product, alumina, which is obtained by treating bauxite chemically. As to the extent to which the proposals regarding the industry were announced prior to the New Zealand election last Saturday, all I can say is that the announcement did noi seem to do the Labour Party in New Zealand much good.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I should like to ask the Minister a supplementary question. Will he inform me whether, to his knowledge, the New Zealand Government has contracted to assist the establishment of an aluminium industry in that country by way of a direct subsidy or by reduced power charges?

Senator SPOONER:

– I have no knowledge about the point raised by Senator Wright, but I have no doubt from my own experience that the negotiations over this matter must have involved a series of arrangements between the company concerned and the New Zealand Government. There must be, you know, detailed arrangements before such a large capital investment can be commenced. 1 do not know the terms of those arrangements, but 1 should be surprised if the New Zealand Government did not do everything it could to attract the industry to that country.

Senator SCOTT:

– 1 also would like to ask the Minister for National Development a supplementary question. What price will the company pay the New Zealand Government for power to produce aluminium? Cannot power bc developed as cheaply in Australia with the use of coal?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! That is not a supplementary question.

page 1786

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN REPRESENTATIVES OVERSEAS

Senator HENDRICKSON:

-! ask the

Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs: Is it true that Australian diplomatic officers overseas enjoy exemption from import and excise duties on goods for use by themselves and their families and exemption from sales tax imposed on locally-made motor cars? Is it true that a foreign diplomat stationed in Australia who wishes to purchase an Australianmade motor car is compelled to pay sales tax? If the answers to those questions are in the affirmative, what is the reason for the difference between the treatment of Australian diplomats abroad and the treatment of foreign diplomats serving in Australia? Would not the imposition of sales tax on cars purchased by diplomats in this country mean a reduction in the sales of Australian-made cars? Would it not be a good advertisement for Australia if foreign diplomats were encouraged to use Australian cars by being allowed to purchase them free of sales tax?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I understand that it is a fairly general practice for diplomats stationed overseas to be able to import into the country in which they are stationed such things as cigarettes and liquor which are for their personal use. 1 am not sure that Australian diplomats stationed abroad are able to purchase cars free of sales tax in the country in which they are stationed, although I understand that foreign diplomats stationed in Australia do pay sales tax on cars purchased here by them. Although I am not certain about this matter, I would have thought that the payment or otherwise of sales lax on motor cars was a reciprocal arrangement, just as the facilities for importing commodities are the result of reciprocal arrangements. 1 will check the point raised by the ho orable senator and advise him in due course.

page 1786

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator BRANSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation, is prompted by the very sad and tragic accident that occurred north of Perth yesterday when a charter aircraft crashed into the sea. Will the Minister inform the Senate whether a minimum height is fixed for the operations of passenger-carrying aircraft, whether they be on a scheduled flight or a charter flight, or is the height at which the aircraft flies left to the discretion of the pilot concerned?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I understand that certain standards are laid down. The honorable senator will appreciate that different standards apply to different types of aircraft. I cannot say off-hand what was the minimum height applying to the type of aircraft to which the honorable senator referred. The honorable senator may take some comfort from the fact that a departmental investigation was set in train as soon after the accident as possible, and is now proceeding.

page 1786

QUESTION

THE SENATE

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to you, Mr. President. You may recall that about thirteen or fourteen months ago I asked you whether you would call together the Standing Orders Committee in order to review the Standing Orders, which I felt were hopelessly out of date, particularly in view of proportional representation. Has that committee yet had an opportunity to meet? If it has, were any decisions made? If so, will you make a report to the Senate, seeing that the matter was raised here, as to what action you believe may be required? While you were absent from the country I asked the Deputy President, Senator Reid, a similar question and I asked him also to look into the matter of supplementary questions. As far as I can see the Standing Orders make no provision-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator is making a statement now rather than asking a question.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I shall try to come to the point, Mr. President. If the Standing Orders Committee has not already been called together, will you call it together to examine the matter of supplementary questions? Also, will you please answer my original question?

The PRESIDENT:

– I shall give the honorable senator a reply on that matter.

page 1787

QUESTION

SALES TAX

Senator KENDALL:

– I am not sure to whom I should direct my question, which arises out of a question asked about the retrenchment of employees in the motor industry. Has the Minister concerned seen a statement made by the secretary of the Queensland branch of the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia that the retrenchment of 64 employees in the motor industry a couple of days ago had nothing to do with the recent increase in sales tax? Will the Minister discuss with his colleague in another place the possibility of making a statement to point out that retrenchments taking place in the motor industry at present are not necessarily the result of the recent increase in sales tax?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I have not seen the statement referred to by the honorable senator. I have no doubt that the situation is as described by Senator Kendall, and I thank him for his reference, because I honestly believe that many of those people who are opposing the Government’s economic measures, particularly the increase in sales tax on motor cars, are at this point of time making every possible, post a winner - or trying to do so.

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask a supplementary question. Where did the report appear of the alleged statement by the secretary of the Vehicle Builders Union, which Senator Kendall has mentioned?

The PRESIDENT:

– That is not a supplementary question. It is not directed to a Minister.

page 1787

QUESTION

COLOMBO PLAN

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Would the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs care to elaborate upon statements recently attributed to him, te the effect that Australian teachers and instructors might be invited to proceed to Asia to assist further in the working of the Colombo Plan? When is the proposal likely to be brought into force? What skills would such people teach? In what Asian countries would they operate?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– Without elaborating at any length on the matter and just answering the particular questions asked by the honorable senator, I say that there is a great field for the training of Asians by sending teachers to Asia to instruct whole classes at a time instead of bringing Asians in great numbers to this country for training. This scheme is in operation now. Australia sends technical people of all kinds to Asian countries to instruct in carpentry and other skills. It is merely a matter of extending the existing practice. The skills taught would be any of those required for the management or maintenance of the industries which the Asian countries themselves, with the minor assistance of the Colombo Plan, will establish. They include not only skill in public administration, but also all sorts of mechanical and managerial skills.

page 1787

QUESTION

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to you, Mr. President. The practice of asking supplementary questions has been adopted only in the last couple of years, having never previously intruded into the business of the Senate. On a couple of occasions to-day you have ruled that a question was not a supplementary question. From what standing order can I ascertain what a supplementary question is and the basis on which you give rulings on this form of question?

The PRESIDENT:

– I remind you, Senator Arnold, that it is not customary to ask questions of the Presiding Officer. If you do ask them, he is not bound to give you an answer.

page 1788

QUESTION

CANBERRA ARCHITECTURE

Senator McCALLUM:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior read a quotation from the book “Australian Ugliness- “, written by the architect Robin Boyd, to the effect that bureaucratic design has practically reduced the Canberra architectural mood to a farce? Will the Minister refer the statement to his colleague’s advisers on architecture?

Senator Sir WALTER COOPER:

– I have not read the statement mentioned, but I shall bring it to the notice of the Minister for the Interior.

page 1788

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Senator ANDERSON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, by saying that about five days ago the Minister for Health stated that the drug androstanolone would be taken off the free list on 1st January because it was being prescribed for the treatment of minor ailments, whereas it was intended for special cancer treatment. Will the Minister ask his colleague to consider allowing this drug to remain on the free list, with the qualification that it be prescribed only for special cancer treatment? It seems to me that to take it off the list because it is being used to treat people who do not need it will deny it to the people who need it most.

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

– As I read the statement of the Minister for Health, the drug is not to be taken off the list but is to be made subject to the restriction that it may be prescribed only for the purpose for which it is intended - namely the- treatment of cancer of the breast. I understand that each application of the drug costs £12 9s. 6d. The Minister has, very rightly, taken steps to ensure that it will not be prescribed for minor ailments when other and far less costly drugs would fill the bill.

page 1788

QUESTION

SALES TAX

Senator McKELLAR:

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been directed to an advertisement in yesterday’s “ Sydney Morning Herald “ in which a certain motor car company intimated that it would absorb the proposed increase in sales tax on one type of vehicle and, in addition, would reduce the selling price of another type?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– No, 1 have not seen the advertisement. 1 shall be interested to have a look at it.

page 1788

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS

Senator HANNAN:

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

  1. Is it a fact that Soviet Russia is refusing to meet its financial obligations in the- United Nations ill respect of the Congo situation?
  2. If so, is the Soviet repudiation likely to involve the Australian taxpayer in additional expenditure?
Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions: -

  1. I am informed that the representative of the Soviet Union told the Administrative and Budgetary Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations on 25th October, 1960, that his Government would not contribute to the costs of the United Nations force in the Congo, but would waive its claim’ for reimbursement for air transport of United Nations troops.
  2. I am not in a position to say at this stage whether or not the Soviet repudiation is likely to involve the Australian taxpayer ‘in additional expenditure. The assembly has not yet decided the method to be adopted for apportioning the costs of the United Nations Congo Force among member governments. If the costs are apportioned in accordance with the scale of contributions for the United Nations regular budget, the amount of the Soviet default will be considerable.. The situation in regard to the financing of the costs of the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East - UNEF - is a parallel case. In the case of UNEF the deficit caused by the failure of the Soviet Union and others to pay their assessed share of the cost has been met temporarily by borrowing from the working capital fund and other funds in the custody of the SecretaryGeneral. The Secretary-General has reported that this expedient is unlikely to be sufficient to meet the full cash requirements of the organization, including the costs of the Congo force for the remainder of 1960 and the early months of 1961 pending the receipt of 1961 assessments, and. has accordingly suggested that he be authorized to borrow from other available sources. Under this arrangement no additional expenditure would be involved for the Australian taxpayer, for the time being at least.

page 1788

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH AND STATE HOUSING AGREEMENT

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the. Minister for National Development, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that, as a result of the recent increase in pensions, the rents of houses let to pensioners in Western Australia under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement have been increased?
  2. Will the Minister advise if such a rise is mandatory under the agreement as allegedly stated by the Chief Secretary in Western Australia and whether the States have any control over the situation?
  3. Is it a fact that the rise in rents subsequent to the pension increase nullifies the intention of such an increase, which was to assist in meeting living costs as at the date of the pension increase?
  4. If adjustments of rents are mandatory under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, will the Minister consider amending the act so that such adjustments do not apply to pensioners?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

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

  1. The Honorable R. Hutchinson, Chief Secretary for Western Australia, stated in the Legislative Assembly of Western Australia on 28th September, 1960, that small increases would be made in rentals of pensioner dwellings let by the Housing Commission in that State.
  2. For houses erected under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, 1945, which contained provisions for rental rebates to be granted to tenants on receipt of low incomes, the rises mentioned would be mandatory. No provision was made for rental rebates in the Housing Agreement of 1956, but I understand three States, including Western Australia, grant rebates of rental according to the formula of the earlier agreement. To the extent that rental rises occurred in 1956 agreement houses, this would be a reflection for State policy in the matter. 3 and 4. I would not agree to seek amendment of the rental rebate provisions of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, 1945, in the way suggested because a person on low income who rents a house to which the rental rebate formula applies, whether he be a pensioner or not, does so under most favorable conditions. Under the Housing Agreement formula a single person whose sole income before the recent pension rise was £4 15s. per week, plus 10s. supplementary allowance if paying rent, would have been required to pay a rental of only 12s. 6d. per week to the Housing Commission, whatever the economic rental of the dwelling he occupied may have been. Under the formula, as a person’s income rises there is a proportionate increase in the rental he would be required to pay; in the case of the 5s. increase in pension allowed in the Budget, the rental payment becomes 13s. 6d. or 1f>- increase per week. I do not see anything unfair in the operation of the formula which protects a person on low income from the burden of a high rental, but at the same time requires that the rental rebate he receives is proportionately abated as his income rises. The end result for the person I have referred to here is that he is required to pay 13s. 6d. per week rental from an income of £5 10s. per week, which includes special supplementary assistance of 10s. per week towards the payment of rent.

page 1789

QUESTION

PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Senator PEARSON:

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

Will the Minister give consideration to the appointment of a royal commission, as suggested by the recent conference of the Australian Primary Producers Union, to inquire into (a) the return on capital investment and personal effort to primary producers, (b) the cost of production in relation to prices and the economic effect on rural costs of the high degree of protection afforded secondary industry and its associated labour, (c) the marketing of produce and the desirability of more orderly selling procedures and/or fixation of prices, and (d) the rural position?

Senator GORTON:
LP

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

The suggestion of the honorable senator that a royal commission be appointed, as desired by the Australian Primary Producers Union, to inquire into a variety of economic problems connected with the primary industries is a matter of policy which only the Government can decide.

page 1789

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator PEARSON:

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

  1. Is it a fact that, because of unusual atmospheric conditions experienced in Adelaide on Sunday, 6th November, some people reported receiving programmes from Channel ABQ instead of from Channel ABS2?
  2. Do these two channels operate on similar frequencies, and is it likely that disturbances of this nature will frequently occur?
  3. Ti so, can different frequencies be allocated to these channels?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The PostmasterGeneral has furnished the following reply: -

  1. It is true that on 6th November reception from station ABS, Adelaide, suffered interference from station ABQ, Brisbane. This’ interference was probably caused by an abnormally intense electrically charged layer high above the earth’s surface.
  2. Stations ABS and ABQ operate in the same frequency channel but the precise frequencies of the two stations have been offset slightly to reduce the effects of the type of interference referred to in (1). It is likely that disturbances of this nature will occur only infrequently, particularly during the summer months.
  3. As the number of television stations, present and proposed, in the Commonwealth is appreciably greater than the number of frequency channels available, it is necessary that several stations share the use of each channel. It is not practicable, therefore, for stations ABQ and ABS to operate on different channels in order to avoid the relatively small periods during which the interference in question is likely to occur.

page 1790

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH MOTOR VEHICLES

Senator WRIGHT:

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

  1. What was the number of motor cars operated by the Department of Supply in Tasmania last year?
  2. What was the cost of their operation during that time in (a) wages, (b) depreciation, and (c) other expenses?
  3. What was the number of passenger miles run by the cars in that period?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for Supply has provided the following answers: -

  1. Nineteen - four of these cars were supplied with driver, balance were driven by officers of hiring departments. 2. (a) £5,357, (b) £1,872, (c) £4,073.
  2. 184,737 miles.

page 1790

QUESTION

MEAT

Senator ANDERSON:

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

  1. Has the Minister seen a statement made by the Chief of Animal Industry in South Australia, Mr. Marshall, to the effect that snap frozen beef, pre-packed in retail cuts for sale in British supermarkets, could be Australia’s answer to Argentine chilled meat, which has a very strong grip upon the British market?
  2. Has consideration been given to embarking upon a pilot export programme of this snap frozen pre-packed beef to test the proposition?
Senator GORTON:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Australian meat exporters have been shipping snap frozen pre-packed beet to the United Kingdom for some time with the object of testing the market for this product There are, however, marketing problems involved which present serious obstacles to the development of the trade. These include the additional costs involved for processing and packing while the satisfactory handling of snap frozen beef requires temperature control from the time of snap freezing to the time of retail sale. As shipments from Australia require considerable handling the transportation problems involved are factors which have complicated the establishment and development of this type of trade.

page 1790

QUESTION

MENTAL HEALTH

Senator HANNAFORD:

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

  1. What is the present state of the £10,000,000 fund set up by the Commonwealth Government in 1955, on the recommendation of the Stoller report, to be made available to the States on a £1 to £2 basis for the provision of capital works associated with the improvement of mental health?
  2. What percentage of the drawings against this fund has been used to provide facilities for the treatment of mentally retarded children?
Senator HENTY:
LP

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

  1. Amounts totalling £5,631,313 have been paid to the States under the States Grants (Mental Institutions) Act. The act authorizes payment of further amounts totalling £4,368,687.
  2. An appreciable proportion of the grants has been used for the provision of facilities in mental hospitals where mentally retarded children are patients. In addition 1 per cent, of the grant has been applied specifically foi the provision of facilities in special treatment centres conducted by the States for the treatment of mentally retarded children.

page 1790

QUESTION

WINE

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. Has the Minister noted the report of the Australian Wine Board for 1959-60, in which it is stated that Canada is Australia’s second best export market for wines and its best for brandy?
  2. Has he noted that Canadian imports of wine and brandy are increasing but that Australia is not sharing in the increase?
  3. Does the Minister intend to lake cognizance of these comments?
  4. if so, will he examine the problem and inform the Senate of any decision made?
Senator GORTON:
LP

– In reply to questions Nos. 1 and 2, I inform the honorable senator that the Minister for Primary Industry has seen the reference to the Canadian market in the 1959-60 annual report of the Australian Wine Board. The Minister has also noted1 the view of the board expressed in the report that the answer to the problem is harder selling and combined efforts by the Wine Board and Australian exporters towards examining the means of promoting sales of our wines in Canada.

In regard to questions Nos. 3 and 4, sales and advertising of alcoholic liquors in

Canada are restricted1 in accordance with the policies of the provincial governments, which operate a monopoly control over liquor sales within their respective provinces. These restrictions inhibit normal sales promotion activities. The recent easing of provincial liquor laws has increased the demand in Canada for table wines. The bulk of Australia’s export trade in wines is in the fortified wines, as is the case also with exports from South Africa and Spain, and we have not been in a position to increase exports of our table wines, for which the Australian domestic demand is very strong.

Over the past decade Canadian wine producers have been offering increasingly strong competition in the field of fortified wines with rapidly increasing production and a considerable improvement in the quality of the domestic product. In all the circumstances, the Austraiian wine trace has perhaps done well even to maintain the present level of sales. The problem is primarily one for the wine industry and the Wine Board, but the Government is an wO;is to assist and does assist to the extent practicable. In this regard, our trade commissioners in Canada are already very active.

page 1791

PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Senator HENTY:
LP

– On 27th October, 1960, Senator Wright asked whether any review of the primary industries had been made by the Tariff Board during the last ten years.

I can now inform the honorable senator that the Tariff Board has not been asked to make a general review of this sector of the economy but has inquired specifically into the protective needs of the following goods: - 1951 - Linseed production. 1954 - Bean seed and ginger. 1957 - Passionfruit. 1958 - Almonds, peanuts and vegetables. 1959 - Flax fibre and wool tops.

In addition, the Tariff Board has the following commodities under reference: -

Bean seeds,

Citrus pulp and juice,

Dried figs,

Maize, and

Oil seeds, nuts and fruits.

These reports are not yet available.

page 1791

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the fifth report of the Printing Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 1791

QUESTION

MINISTER FOR REPATRIATION

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

– by leaver - I repeat the effect of a statement made by the Prime Minister in another place this afternoon. The Minister for Repatriation, Senator Sir Walter Cooper, will resign his portfolio, for personal reasons, as from the end of December, 1960. Sir Walter has been a most understanding and sympathetic Minister for Repatriation, and a most cheerful colleague.

I should like to say a few words myself. 1 think the first thing that all present would like me to say is that Sir Walter carries with him the personal good wishes of every member of the ‘Senate.

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear!

Senator SPOONER:

– I am not quite certain whether the father of the Senate is Senator Brown or Senator Sir Walter Cooper. One of them has been here for a longer period but the other has held his seat more continuously. However, I am quite certain that if Senator Brown were present he would not object to my saying that the Senate has no more respected member than Sir Walter Cooper. His outstanding attribute, in my opinion, is his gentle and courteous manner to everybody with whom he has been associated. Gentleness and courtesy are his characteristics.

I remind the Senate that Sir Walter has held the portfolio of Minister for Repatriation for a longer period than any other Minister in the history of the Commonwealth. The portfolio has always been regarded as a difficult one. I make bold to assert that there has never been an occasion during the years that he has held the portfolio when he has not given the most sympathetic consideration to representations that have been made to him. I do not think that I over-state the position when I say that in the years that Sir Walter has held this portfolio he has had, not only the esteem of the ex-servicemen in this community, but also their affection.

To us on the Government side Sir Walter’s retirement from the Ministry for his own personal reasons means a big personal break. We always knew that we had a cheerful, pleasant and loyal colleague with whom we could discuss the problems that arose from time to time. I conclude by saying to Sir Walter, not only on behalf of his colleagues on the Government side, but on behalf of all of us, that we hope that he will be with us in the Senate for many years to come.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– by leave - Mr. President,. I speak for every member of the Opposition when 1 say that we listened to the announcement of Senator Sir Walter Cooper’s pending retirement with the deepest of regret. Every one of us on this side of the chamber has not only the highest respect but also a very real affection for Sir Walter Cooper. That is due to his extraordinarily high personal qualities. His integrity and dependability are unquestionable. His loyalty to the Government - although sometimes we thought that it was misplaced - and his devotion to duty excited the admiration and furthered the respect of the Opposition for him.

One of Sir Walter’s notable characteristics is that although he is able to say very directly, and in a few words, just what he wants to say, he has perfected the art, which he uses when he wants to do so, of saying a great deal about very little - and with the greatest of courtesy. It is an art which stands a Minister in charge of a bill in very good stead, particularly during the committee stage. He really has acquired the art of getting the maximum result in the minimum of time.

We all regret his resignation. We draw one consolation from it; namely, that we shall have a fuller opportunity to meet him personally in the Parliament and its precincts than we have been able to enjoy up to date. As one who has carried the burden of ministerial office for a period of years, I Snow the tremendous burden that is imposed upon a Minister. I realize that he is on duty at all times - every day of the week, almost every hour of the day and sometimes of the night. I like to think that if Sir Walter must resign, he is leaving his ministerial office while he is looking very fit. I am certain that he needs, and I trust that he will enjoy a very well-earned respite from the arduous duties that he has undertaken.

I concede him one record. He has broken the hoodoo of the suicide portfolio. No other occupant of the office of Minister for Repatriation whom I have met in the Parliament in recent years has survived even in the Parliament after holding that office. But Sir Walter has perfected the art not only of continuing in the portfolio for very many years but also of surviving it. He retires from his office under his own power, not by the ire of the electors. I am delighted that he has that distinction. I cannot concede him the other honour for which Senator Spooner tentatively contended. I understand that by reason of longer continuous service Senator Gordon Brown is the father of the Senate. But in order that Sir Walter may still enjoy the title, I suggest that we might compromise on the matter by calling Senator Gordon Brown the grandfather of the Senate and letting Sir Walter retain the title of father of the Senate.

Mr. President, it is with real personalregret that I learn of Sir Walter’s departure from the Ministry. The blow is softened by the thought that he will be in the Parliament in a less busy capacity. 1 speak for every one of my colleagues on this side of the Senate when I say that we wish him well. Our regret at his departure is attributable in a very minor degree to the- fact that we all like the devil we know very much better than the devil we do not know. His successor, whoever he may be, will have a difficult task in filling the place in the respect and affection of the Opposition that the retiring Minister for Repatriation has. We on this side of the Senate wish him well. We hope that the decision he has made is for his own good, and if it is, on that count alone, we will rejoice with him in it.

Senator REID:
NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– by leave - As a member of the Australian Country Party, of which Sir Walter is a member, I support everything that has been said by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Spooner) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna).. Any person who has been associated with Sir Walter, particularly in his position of Minister for Repatriation, could not help but feel that in that office we have had a man who has devoted the whole of his life to ensuring that every possible help was given to the unfortunate Australian diggers who required help from the Government. I am sure that all ex-servicemen who have been given that help will regret that in future this sympathetic Minister will not be in charge of the Repatriation Department. In making that statement I do not intend any disrespect to the man who will succeed Sir Walter, because whoever takes over the portfolio from Sir Walter could not give more sympathy and attention than Sir Walter has given; nor could he give it with the spirit with which Sir Walter has given it.

I am sure that the returned servicemen’s organizations, representing such a large band of diggers, will regret that Sir Walter has seen fit to relinquish this portfolio. Sir Walter, for his own personal reasons, feels that after having served as Minister in charge of the department for eleven years he has earned a rest. I trust that he will get that rest and enjoy it for many, many years to come. No Minister has deserved a respite from duty more than Sir Walter has.

Although he has retired from the Ministry, it is very satisfactory to know that we will have him in the Senate, and when many of us are perplexed by repatriation problems we will have on the backbenches an expert who will be able to advise us on the devious ways in which we may obtain from the new Minister something more than we have been able to obtain from the present Minister. Sir Walter, we owe you a very sincere debt of gratitude for the service you have given as a Minister, not only to the Parliament but also to ex-servicemen throughout the length and breadth of Australia. I am quite sure that we in the Parliament will never forget that service. I know that the diggers outside the Parliament will never forget it and you will hold their respect while they live.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Queensland

– by leave - Mr. President, I should like to pay my tribute to Sir Walter Cooper who has held office as Minister for Repatriation for so many years. As a fellow Queenslander, I can say that we in Queensland have always admired and respected him tremendously. 1 feel that to-day, when I pay my tribute to him, I speak not only for myself and the men and women in this chamber but also for the men and women who have served this country in war, whether they may be in our cities or in the outback areas of Australia. In this great Commonwealth there are men and women who say, “ Thank you, Sir Walter, for the work you have done in the administration of a very important portfolio “.

In thanking you on their behalf and on behalf of so many people, if I may pay my tribute that way, may 1 say, Sir Walter, that we thank you for your wonderful record of service to this country in peace and in war. We thank you for your unselfishness. We thank you for the standards you have set. We thank you, for you are a man who has walked with kings and queens, but always you have kept the common touch. So, to-day, in paying our tribute to you for the wonderful, service you. have given as Minister for Repatriation, we in this chamber look forward together - and I know Queenslanders particularly do so - to many more years’ service with you in the Senate and the friendship and goodwill which have been such a very important part of the years during which we have worked together.

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

– by leave - Mr. President, I should also like to express my regret at the decision that Sir Walter Cooper has made on this occasion. I have had the privilege of knowing him for a great number of years. He brought to this Parliament a characteristic way of life that gave leadership to the people of Australia. The Government and the people of Australia will suffer a great loss by his departure from the Ministry.

I well recall the time nearly twenty years ago when he and1 1 served on a committee for a number of years and journeyed throughout Australia. On the first occasion on which I made an aircraft flight with Sir Walter, knowing that he had been associated with aircraft in the armed forces, I was re-assured when we flew across the Tasman Sea. I had been so terrified earlier that I did not want to go, but he told me it would be all right.. I had confidence in him that everything would be all right, and I think that we have come to have similar confidence in him over the years.

I regard Sir Walter as the kind of man who refuses to be petty and who could never be guilty of playing party politics. His attitude is that he is in the Parliament to do a job. I am sure that all who have- watched him over the years have been impressed by the bigness of his character. This is the kind of man that we need in the Parliament, Mr. President. When such a man as Sir Walter decides that, after an active life, he should no longer continue to serve as a member of the Government, we have to accept that decision with great regret. Senator Sir Walter Cooper has set an example in the Parliament that ali of us might well strive to emulate. I say to him, “ Sir Walter, you have been a great character in Australia and also in this Parliament. The people of Australia, as well as Australian governments, recognize you as a great Australian.”

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Austraia

– by leave - The Minister for National Development (“Senator Spooner) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) apparently are in some doubt about the family standing of Senator Sir Walter Cooper, and are not sure whether he is the father or the grandfather ot the Senate. Perhaps I may tender my respects to him as the mother of the Senate, although I do not know the relationship that that makes him bear to me, or how we stand in regard to the numerous progeny that have been acquired over the last few years. During the period of almost eighteen years tha: I have known Sir Walter and worked with him I have always found him to be, as other honorable senators have said, a man without bitterness and devoid of malice, a man whose sole interest has been to further the good of those for whom he has worked so long and so unselfishly.

Like Senator Arnold, I too worked w:;h Sir Walter Cooper on the Social Security Committee. We travelled all over Australia together. As a matter of fact, many incidents that occurred during those travels will always have happy memories for me, 1 am sure that the insight that he gained of the misery and suffering which we saw on our visits to various hospitals and other places during that time, has helped him considerably in administering his portfolio. In my own State of Western Australia, Senator Sir Walter Cooper is held in very high esteem. I have come in contact with him on many occasions, and I know from those contacts and also from the experiences of many relatives of mine who have been connected in some way or other with repatriation matters, that his standing with all former members of the forces is very high.

It is rather thrilling, Mr. President, that Sir Walter is alive to hear the statements that are being made about him at this time. On most occasions when such words are being spoken in the Parliament, the person concerned is no longer alive to hear them, having Lft this place without knowing of ih j respect and esteem in which members 01 both houses of the Parliament have net I him. I am pleased, therefore, that Ti.r Walter, who is retiring of his own volition, is hae to learn that we members of the Opposition think very highly of ‘him and w’.s.; .y thank ..im for his courtesy and kindness over the years. I join with other honorable senators in trusting that in his retirement from the Ministry he will find leisure to do all the things that he wants to do. I hope that he will have many happy days before him.

Co nOt agree with Senator Reid thai Sir Walter, in retiring from the Ministry to become an ordinary member of the Senate, will find that he has a great opportunity forest. I think that that is an indictment of the rest of us. I know that Sir Walter is very conscientious. If he does his job as I am sure he will want to do it, he wi’ not have a great deal of rest. I (hope that his retirement from the Ministry will add to his remaining days and that they will b; very happy ones.

Senator Sir WALTER COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– by leave - In the very short statement that I wish to make, I want to thank my colleague” on this side of the chamber and also my friends of the other side for all the kind words they have spoken about my work as Minister for Repatriation and in other walks of life. I hardly know what to say to thank them suitably. I feel that I am not quite as good as some of them have made me out to be. During the eleven years that I have held the portfolio of Minister for Repatriation I have thoroughly enjoyed myself. As honorable senators know, I have always been wrapped up in the welfare of returned servicemen. It has been n pleasure to me to be able to do something for their benefit.

I must say that I have always enjoyed the friendship of other members of the

Ministry. They have helped me very materially in securing benefits for exservicemen, which no Minister could achieve on his own. The Ministry has functioned as a team. The Government members ex-servicemen’s committee has been of very great help to me. I have always had its backing and its goodwill in carying out my work. 1 have no intention of resigning from the Parliament. As honorable senators know, such matters are not always in our own hands. We must leave the necessary decisions to our various organizations. I wish to carry on for the next period, subject to my being re-elected, of course. 1 should like to carry on my work, and as Senator Reid has said, perhaps the experience that I have gained will be helpful when we are dealing with repatriation matters in the future. 1 again thank honorable senators on both sides of the chamber for the many kind words that they have spoken about me this afternoon. I assure them that their statements are appreciated very much indeed.

page 1795

NEW BUSINESS AFTER 10.30 P.M

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

– I move -

That Standing Order No. 68 be suspended until the end of the session, to enable new business to be commenced after 10.30 p.m.

In previous years, at about this time of the year, we have had similar motions to that which I have just proposed. It is a necessary part of the closing days of a sessional period. I make bold to claim that it is a matter of convenience for both sides of the Senate that we should have the facility provided by the adoption of the motion, so that we may introduce bills and deal with them, or take therm to the secondreading stage, or deal otherwise with bills listed on the notice-paper, after half-past ten at night. I do not propose to speak at length, Mr. President. I feel that honorable senators on both sides of the chamber know the arguments that I propose to advance, just as I have a feeling that I already know the arguments that will be used in reply to my proposal. We could make a lot of speeches about it. The adoption of the motion I have proposed is inevitable if we are to finish the business that is before us within a reasonable time.

Mr. Deputy President, there are two matters that I would like to mention particularly. We hope on this occasion to avoid late sittings - to consider bills adequately, but not late at night. I do not make any commitment upon that point, but that is part of the objective, lt is a part of the procedure that is contemplated that we will take bills received from the other place to the second-reading stage on the day they are received and then adjourn the debate until the next day. That is, they will be placed on the business-paper in the ordinary way, unless there is some special circumstance or agreement to the contrary.

In order to provide more time for the Senate to consider its business, the Government proposes that the Senate shall sit on Friday of this week and on Monday of next week. It is proposed that the sittings of the Senate from now till the end of the session shall be as follows: - To-morrow, we will meet at 3 p.m., as usual. On Thursday, we will meet at 11 a.m. On Friday of this week, we will meet at 1 1 a.m.. and rise at 4.45 p.m. On Monday of next week we will meet at 2.15 p.m. On Tuesday we will meet at 3 p.m. On Wednesday, we will meet at 3 p.m. On Thursday, we will meet at 11 a.m., and on Friday. 9th December, we will meet at 11 a.m.

Senator Benn:

– It may not be necessary!

Senator SPOONER:

– The wish may be father to the thought. It is admitted that we have a good deal of work ahead of us. The programme I have outlined provides for nine sitting days, which, I hope, will provide ample time for us to give adequate consideration to the programme that is before us. We may find as our programme proceeds that we will be able to finish before Friday, 9th December. I do not think it will be necessary for the Senate to sit beyond that date but, if it is necessary to do so I am sure that honorable senators on both sides of the chamber will do their duty nobly and sit the following week; it is as yet too early to judge the position. We can only form opinions about how long we will sit from the progress that we make from time to time.

I think that the programme I have put forward is a reasonable one. It is an integral part of that programme that we should be in the position at which we can, by the suspension of the relevant standing order, introduce new business after half -past ten o’clock at night, because we can gain a good deal by placing on the business-paper that night any bills that come to us from the House of Representatives. If we introduce and take to the second-reading stage the bills so received, the measures will be :so much earlier in circulation for members of the Senate to give consideration to them. In that spirit, Mr. Deputy President, I hope that the proposals will be acceptable to the Opposition.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I am sure that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Spooner) chose his words wisely when he said thai he hoped the proposals would be acceptable to the Opposition, because I am certain that he does not expect that they will be acceptable to us. As he said, this is the usual motion that is proposed, ‘Unfortunately, at this time of the year, and it is usual for the Opposition to oppose it.

Senator Hannaford:

– Why do you not break precedent?

Senator McKENNA:

– I propose to do so. I propose to find a new reason for objecting to the motion. In all my experience in this Parliament, I have never known a year when there was such an unbalanced presentation of Government business. Since the beginning of the Budget session, the tempo of the presentation of Government business has been exceedingly slow, and we are now faced, as we approach the end of a very lengthy and continuous sessional period, not only with a vast accumulation of bills but an accumulation of bills of very great moment - of very great importance as well as, in some instances, of very great bulk. I think that when there is a disorderly presentation of bills and business by the Government, stresses and strains are imposed not only upon members <of the House of Representatives and members of the Senate, but also upon the parliamentary draftsmen. How the legal officers survive the enormous pressure that is concentrated on so few of them late in a session, frankly I do not know. Undue strain is imposed on everybody connected with the working of this Parliament - the parliamentary staffs - and by and large it is a bad thing.

The Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) announced a new order in which the business was to be regulated into three divisions. There were to be periods of leave and the bills were put in certain categories. Unfortunately, that new order was not realized.

The Leader of the Government seeks to suspend Standing Order No 68. The purpose of the standing order is to prevent legislation by .exhaustion, to prevent honorable senators from being kept in this chamber until the small hours of the morning - even till breakfast time, as I have experienced. A long sitting imposes - after midnight, at least - a very severe strain on all persons involved. The quality of the work of the Senate deteriorates, and I think it is fair to say that we all become irascible and the prestige of the Senate suffers.

I was happy to heaT the Minister say, when postulating the additional working days, that he hoped to avoid what he termed very late sittings. I think I interpret his remarks correctly when I say that except in special circumstances - to finish a matter - it is not expected that we will have to carry on for more than a brief period after midnight.

I am not pretending that everybody on the Opposition side would not be hoping to have the session end, consistent with their duties; I make no protest about that. For that reason, we do not object to the additional working days, heavy though the work will be. We think that is to the the good.

I welcome the announcement by the Government that after bills have been introduced, the debate on them will be adjourned until the following day. The Minister placed two qualifications upon that announcement by saying that such a course would be followed unless special circumstances arose or the Opposition agreed. I am not concerned with the second qualification, but I am a little concerned with the first one. If a bill is introduced on one day I would hope that the debate will be adjourned to allow a period of sleep. I do not want to prevent the Minister from introducing a bill, perhaps after midnight, but I would object to any debate proceeding until after the Opposition has had an opportunity to study the bill. Perhaps the Minister could indicate that when a bill has been introduced it will not be debated except with the concurrence of the Opposition or until a period of rest or sleep has elapsed. I do not mind a bill being introduced and debated on the one day as long as there is an intervening period so that the Opposition may study the bill. If the Minister is in a position to give an assurance along those lines, a good deal of the strain will be taken out of the situation.

I feel obliged to oppose the motion, not only because it is the traditional practice to do so but also because I believe that the business of the Parliament could have been arranged very much better this year than it was. I need only remind the Senate that on many occasions private senators’ business occupied very long periods. I am thinking of quite interesting and useful discussions on subjects such as wool and the film industry. Those discussions were possible only because of lack of Government business. Those are the things that I have in mind when I point to the very unbalanced presentation of bills in the Parliament. I do not wish to talk any longer on this subject. I adopt, without repeating them, all of the arguments that I have ever advanced on motions similar to the one now before the Senate. I supplement those arguments with the arguments that I have advanced on this occasion. We oppose the motion.

Question put -

That the motion (Senator Spooner’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 30

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1797

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) BILL 1960

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

page 1797

EXPLOSIVES BILL 1960

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 Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill proposes to amend the Explosives Act 1952-57 in order to achieve two objectives. The first is to resolve doubtsthat have been raised on the validity of the act as it is at present worded and the second is to extend the scope of the act to include explosives of “ friendly nations “ which, in the interests of collective security, may at some time have to be brought in to Australia.

The definition of “ Commonwealth explosives “ in the act is worded in such a manner, as, in a legal opinion given to the Australian Port Authorities Association, places the validity of the whole act in question. The proposed amendments will not limit the powers of the Commonwealth under the act but will place itsvalidity beyond doubt.

The trend of international affairs since the end of the last war has developed in Australia a defence policy based on the concept of collective security with active participation in regional security arrangements to which the Commonwealth is a party. Our commitments include responsibilities under the Anzus and Seato treaties and to the United Nations, any of which may at some future date require, in the interests of our national defence, the entry into Australia of explosives, which are the property of, or are in the possession or control of, a friendly nation.

If such an occasion does arise, the explosives concerned will be handled in conformity with the normal State regulations as far as defence needs will permit, but there may well be a position where, as a mattter of urgency or because of some inadequacy in the State facilities, it will be necessary for measures to be taken similar to those which, under the act, are now used for Commonwealth-owned explosives in similar circumstances.

A comparable position exists in the United Kingdom which for some years has provided for the handling and transport of explosives of visiting forces of major Commonwealth countries and of the United States of America on the same basis as those of its own forces. The United Kingdom legislation has recently been extended to include all member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The second objective of the bill is to make similar provision in Australia for the handling and transport of explosives of a “ friendly nation “ in order to minimize as far as possible any delays which would occur if strict adherence to State regulations could not be avoided. Concurrently provision can be made for the safety measures to be observed during the transportation of such explosives to be on the same level as those which now apply under the explosives regulations to Commonwealthowned explosives.

Although at present there is no known or foreseeable requirement for the exercise of this power, it must be realized that in the existing state of international affairs such a need could arise at short notice and it is a wise precaution, therefore, for Australia to be prepared in advance to facilitate the handling and movement in this country of the explosives stores of a nation with whom it is joined in a collective security agreement.

The proposed amendment to section 10 of the principal act will enable the Commonwealth to indemnify port authorities and others whenever explosives of “ friendly nations “ are being handled under the provisions of the act. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1798

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL 1960

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 Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Seamen’s Compensation Act 1911-1959 does not cover Australian seamen in some circumstances when serving in ships engaged on delivery voyages to or from Australia. This fact only became apparent after the disappearance of the new ship “ Ian Crouch “ whilst on a delivery voyage from Hong Kong to Australia. The Government thereupon decided - and I feel sure that honorable senators will, without exception, support its decision - that such seamen should be afforded the benefits provided by the act.

Steps were therefore taken to have the necessary amending legislation prepared, but during the drafting process it was found that problems as to the precise wording necessary to widen the application of the act to the extent desired were aggravated by lack of clarity in the existing provisions of the act which lay down its application. This small bill, therefore, remedies this fault, as well as including seamen on delivery voyages to or from Australia within the scope of the application of the act.

These purposes are being effected by inserting a definition of delivery voyage in section 3, and by repealing section 4 and replacing it with a section -

  1. which clearly expresses the desired application of the act, which, except for delivery voyages, is in fact the application that has been followed in practice, and clearly shows its application in relation to the Territories of the Commonwealth; and
  2. which includes a provision applying the act in relation to the employment of seamen for the purposes of a delivery voyage of a ship, whether British or not, and, if British, whether registered in Australia or not. Such seamen must have been engaged in Australia, whether or not under articles of agreement entered into in Australia, upon terms entitling them to, or to payment in respect ofthe cost of, transport from Australia for the purpose of joining the ship, or transport to Australia after leaving the ship.

Under the bill it is made clear that a personshallbe regarded as a seaman to whomtheactapplies, from the time of his engagement in Australia for a delivery voyage. This is effected by the addition of sub-section (6.) to section 3, which also provides that any employment in pursuance of the engagement before he joins the ship shallberegarded as employment for the purposes of the delivery voyage. Persons travelling to join the ship, or to return to Australia after leaving the ship, being “ seamen “ for the purposes of the act. are covered by the existing provisons of section 5AA,under which travel to or from a seaman’s employment is covered.

The motive behind the bill - to ensure as it docs that Australian seamen engaged in delivery voyages, and their dependants, arc legally entitled to the benefits of the act - is a worthy one, and, asI have indicated. I expect that it will receive the unqualified support of all honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Drury), adjourned.

page 1799

POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL 1960

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Government has decided, on the recommendation of the Defence Committee, to modify the existing concessional postage, telegraph and telephone charges extended to members of the Australian Armed Forces and representatives of approved organizations serving with them.

This bill gives effect to the decision, and in future it is proposed to grant concessional rates of postage only for mail addressed to servicemen stationed in specified areas overseas. For the time being these areas comprise Malaya and Singapore, as well as Royal Australian Navy ships of the Strategic Reserve. The Government proposes to apply the broad principle of 50 per cent. of normal civil rates of postage.

Two statements, indicating the concessional rates applying at present and the rates proposed, have been circulated for the information of honorable senators. The concessions proposed for the servicepersonnel in the areas mentioned still representa agenerous postal concession.

Honorable senators are, of course, aware that special postage, telegraph and telephone charges have been granted for Post Office communications between members of the forces and their families and friends since earlyin the 1939-1945 war. They have not been changed since they were introduced and, consequently, the concessions have increased as ordinary civil changeshave risen since the end ofthe war.The1d. concession rate for a letter ic and from servicemen represented at least a 50 per cent. concession compared with civil rates when introduced, but now the concession is about 80 per cent.

In order to implement the proposed modifications of Post Office charges for communications to and from servicemen, the repeal of the Post and Telegraph Rates (Defence Forces) Act . 1939-40 is necessary. In addition, the Government proposes to repeal section 21 of the Post and Telegraph Act 1901-1950 which contains provisions regarding postage concessions for servicemen which were rendered inoperative by the Post and Telegraph Rates (Defence Forces) Act 1939-1940.

The object of the Post and Telegraph Rates (Defence Forces) Act was to allow members of the forces to exchange mail and telegrams with their friends and relatives at special low rates. Other concessions were applied through the telephone regulations by allowing servicemen to make trunk line calls at 50 per cent, of normal rates, and by administrative arrangement for airmail fees and parcel post charges.

If this bill is agreed to by the Parliament it is proposed that, in accordance with Government policy, the difference in the earnings from the new special rates and. those normally earned will continue to be paid tothe Postmaster-General’s Department. The date proposed for the operation of the new concessional rates is the 1st February, 1961.

I should point out, Mr. President, that the postage concessions extended to our servicemen abroad when communicating with their families and friends in Australia are not affected by this bill. Such concessional rates are, of course, determined by the authorities in the countries concerned. The appropriate authorities in the countries where our troops are serving have been generous in this regard and the practice, generally, is to provide on a reciprocal basis postal concessions for members of the forces of other countries while they are in Australia. The reciprocal arrangement will continue and the Government proposes that postal concessions may be extended at any time within Australia for mail posted to their homelands by members of visiting forces in Australia, upon agreement between the Treasurer, the Minister for Defence and the Postmaster-General.

The special low rate telegraph service, known as the expeditionary force message (E.F.M.), is to remain unchanged. This special service is based on agreements with certain overseas countries. This service allows for a message of three standard phrases, chosen from an approved list, to be sent in numbered code. These messages may be sent currently in both directions between Malaya and Australia.

Section 7 of the Post and Telegraph Rates (Defence Forces) Act provides for the continuation of existing concessions until they are withdrawn by proclamation. Mr. President, the Government considers that it is appropriate for this legislation to be repealed by a bill submitted to the Parliament. Consequently, the bill before the Senate provides for withdrawing existing Post Office concessions for Australian servicemen located in Australia. In future concessional rates, of approximately 50 per cent, of normal civil rates, will be granted for mail addressed to members of the Australian forces in Malaya, Singapore and Her Majesty’s Australian ships on duty with the Strategic Reserve.

I submit, Mr. President, that the proposed concessions to the places concerned are reasonable at this time, and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Benn) adjourned.

page 1800

NATIONAL LIBRARY BILL 1960

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

On 5th May I made a statement to the Senate about the future of the National Library and said that legislation was being prepared on the subject. 1 am now happy to place this bill before the Senate.

Honorable senators will recall the conclusions of the Government to which I referred in my statement in May. The four main conclusions are as follows: - First, there should be in Australia, a parliamentary library and a national library each to be a separate institution; secondly, the Parliamentary Library should be controlled, as it is now, by the presiding officers of Parliament with the advice of a joint committee of members of both Houses; thirdly, the National Library would be controlled by a small council. The council would be given substantial responsibility for the control and development of the National Library, with ministerial responsibility limited, as far as possible, to such matters as the review of annual expenditure and the appointment of members of the council. Fourthly the present division of the library concerned with the records and archives of the Commonwealth Government should become a separate agency of the Government, within an appropriate department, under the direct control of a Minister.

Honorable senators will also recall that the Government reached these conclusions in the light of the report of the Paton committee of inquiry of 1956-57, of which Senator McCallum was a member, and after careful consideration of the report by an inter-departmental committee which worked in close association with the President of the Senate in his capacity as chairman of the Parliamentary Library Committee.

Before I turn to the provisions of the present bill I should like to comment on some of the more important issues involved. There is, first of all, the question of the separation of the two libraries. I believe there will be general agreement about the need for this. The National Library, as we all know, owed its beginnings to the Library of the Commonwealth Parliament, and successive Parliamentary Library Committees have nurtured it over the years. I join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) in paying tribute to the work of the past and present Parliamentary Library Committees. As early as 1923, the Library Committee recognized the distinction between the functions of a parliamentary library and of a national library and the title “ Commonwealth National Library “ was adopted. In 1953 separate financial provision for each library was made, the National Library henceforth being carried on the vote of the Prime Minister’s Department.

The main difference between the Parliamentary Library and National Library is the purpose they serve. The purpose of a parliamentary library is to meet the specialized needs of members of the legislature and I can promise that under the proposed new arrangements honorable senators need fear no falling off in the services available to them; on the contrary one can expect a progressive improvement. For itself, Parliament will have a collection of material designed to meet its own particular requirements, and at the same time it will have a special claim on the wider services available from the new National Library.

The functions and scope of the National Library cannot be defined precisely at this stage, but its purposes are clear. The ideal of a national library is clear enough to us all; it is obviously an expression of pride in nationhood, and its goal, as expressed by the first Joint Library Committee of the

Commonwealth Parliament, is that it shall be “ such a library, indeed,, as shall be worthy of the Australian nation “.

Coming to detail; I should like to mention some of the main functions of the library as they have developed over the years, and the principal services it is providing. I do this in order to illustrate the national role which it is now playing and which it will continue to play with even greater effectiveness in the future when it becomes fully a going concern with the accommodation and facilities it deserves.

The functions of the National Library are set out in the bill in broad detail. I am sure, however, that it will be of interest to honorable senators if I were to outline the present functions of the Library in somewhat greater detail as an indication of the functions and services which the new institution may be expected to develop. The library maintains and is continually developing a national reference collection of recorded material, written, printed or otherwise reproduced. It is developing a comprehensive collection, in original or in copy, of books and other materials, including manuscripts, sound recordings and pictures, which record the life and development of the Australian people, particularly by: Receiving published material lodged under section 40 of the Copyright Act 1912;. gathering, publishing and copying rare or unique records relating, to Australia; compiling and publishing Australian bibliographies and source documents to make these materials more readily available.

The library has established and is maintaining a liaison, on matters affecting libraries, with other countries and the States. This involves co-operation with the important State public libraries which are well known to honorable senators for their own fine collections and services and for the excellent work they have done in cooperation with local authorities in spreading library services to the people in many parts of Australia, including the country areas. It co-operates with other Australian libraries in joint acquisition programmes, co-operative cataloguing, co-operative storage of little-used books, and inter-library use of collections, including the provision and development of an Australian bibliographical centre and a national union catalogue of books held in Australian libraries. lt provides reference services for the Commonwealth Government departments and agencies, including the supply of Australian reference collections for permanent Commonwealth missions abroad. The Government has agreed that an examination should be made as soon as possible into Inc desirability of securing a greater co-ordination of Commonwealth Government library services. Included also in its functions is the maintenance and development of a central library of scientific, educational and cultural films and provisions for their distribution in Australia.

Filially, the library operates the Commonwealth Publications Exchange / and an Australian exchange clearing centra to.- surplus publications and is responsible for public library services to residents of the Ai;s;.;.i:aa Capita! Territory and other Commonwealth territories. From this, i, i –.D/iib’ senators will appreciate not 0.-.1. how distinct are the functions of the National Library from those of the Parlia- mc :;;ry Library, but also the extent of the growth of the National Library which has already taken place.

I also said in my statement in May: “ The first step (to give effect to the conclusions reached) will be to appoint the National Library Council and its chairman on an interim basis “. This has now been done and perhaps 1 may remind the Senate that the members of the National Library Council, as yet constituted on an interim basis, are:- Dr. A. Grenfell Price, notable scholar and a former member of this Parliament, Chairman; two members of Parliament - the President of the Senate, Sir Alister McMullin. who is also Chairman of the Parliamentary Library Committee, and the honorable member for Parkes, Mr. L. C. Haylen; Mr. K. B. Myer, of Melbourne; Dr. H. S. Wyndham, DirectorGeneral of Education in New South Wales and Chairman of the Library Board of New South Wales; Mr. Justice Crisp, of Tasmania, Chairman of the Tasmanian Library Board; Associate Professor Kathleen Fitzpatrick of Melbourne; Professor L. G. Huxley, the new Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University; and Mr. E. J. B. Foxcroft of the Prime Minister’s Department.

The Interim Council has already held its first meeting and will meet again in a few days’ time. The Government has felt that the Library has functions of a kind which make it desirable for its control to be vested in a council of an autonomous character. We accordingly concluded that the Library Council should not be subject to ministerial direction and ministerial responsibility should, so far as possible, be confined to such matters as the appointment and removal of members of the council and the review of the annual estimates of expenditure.

For the Library to operate effectively it will be clearly necessary for it to nave itown proper accommodation. The Gov:r..ment is aware of the difficulties which the lack of a suitable building brings about. It has agreed that the design and planning work for a new National Library building should begin and the Interim Council is now discussing requirements with the National Capital Development Commission. Honorable senators will appreciate the many pressures on the building programme for Canberra. The Go /eminent will, however, proceed as soon as possible with a building for the National Library in Canberra and will do so with a clear appreciation of the present functions of the libra* y and the rate of growth of its collection and services. The planning and designing of a suitable building will necessarily involve a considerable amount of time and concentrated attention

After the most careful examination of the situation, the Government accepted the view of the Paton committee that Government archives should become a separate agency of government under the control of a director within an appropriate department, the Minister for which would1 appoint for his guidance a small committee. Until 1942 the records and archives of the departments and authorities of the Commonwealth Government were wholly under the control of the agencies which created them. Administrative arrangements were then made which brought archives and semicurrent records under the ministerial control of the Prime Minister, advised by a Commonwealth Archives Committee of historians and1 senior officials. The archives themselves were provisionally administered, initially by the Commonwealth National Library and the Australian War Memorial jointly and more recently by the Library alone. During this time systems have been developed, in co-operation with government departments, to bring the archives together and under systematic control.

The government archives are the confidential documents of the Government and should not, we believe, pass out of its direct control. Rights of access are very much a matter for policy decision by the departments and ministers concerned, often involving detailed consultation between the department and the archives organization on the one hand, and overseas and State governments on the other. There is the further point that the administration of archives must go hand in hand with the administration by departments of their records. There is a further physical requirement for separation. The mass of government papers in archives is bulky, needs extensive but not elegant storage, and much of it is not available for public use. All these considerations suggest the wisdom of establishing an organization similar to that in most other countries for the custody of government records.

I turn now to the bill itself. It is concerned solely with the National Library - its establishment, functions and management, and its relations with the executive. I shall take the main provisions of the bill in sequence. The new institution will be known as the “ National Library of Australia “. This is a Paton committee recommendation. The National Library is established as a body corporate, as an expression of its independent status.

Clause 6 sets out the functions of the National Library in the general terms required in legislation. They are more than adequate to cover the various specific functions which we have envisaged as being within the scope of a national library, with the exception of the matter of copyright to which I shall refer later. Part III. of the bill prescribes the appointment of the Council and its method of operation.

A National Librarian will in due course be appointed but for the time being the person who is Parliamentary Librarian shall also be the National Librarian. It was generally felt that the separation of the Parliamentary and the National libraries would require the combination of the two posts of Parliamentary Librarian and

National Librarian for some time after the legal separation, and that the separation process will be facilitated by having the one person occupy the dual position. So far as the staff of the library is concerned the National Librarian is given the normal powers of a permanent head. The staff is to be employed under the Public Service Act.

Consistent with the independent status of the National Library, the council is given power to operate its own trust funds. For the meanwhile, however, the present financial arrangements will be maintained until the council is ready to take over fully. The council has three responsibilities towards the Minister: to submit an annual report on its operations; to furnish him with such other reports on the library as he may ask for; and to submit to him annually particulars of proposed expenditure for. the following financial year.

One final word on the matter of copyright: The Copyright Act 1912 requires every publisher of a book published in the Commonwealth to deliver one copy of it, in the best edition, to the Librarian of the Parliament. This provision, as was made clear by the Minister in charge of the bill when introducing it to the Senate, was for the ultimate benefit of the National Library. It embodied the concept already accepted in the United Kingdom, and widely elsewhere, that the National Library should possess in the national interest the most complete collection possible of the significant material published in the country.

The Paton committee, thought that one copy of every such book should be delivered in future to the National Library. For this an amendment of the Copyright Act is of course necessary; the present bill does not embody this. The reason is that a comprehensive review of the copyright law is under way and it is thought better that the matter be left for a while so as to enable further thought to be given to it. Meanwhile, the material will continue to be deposited in the Library of the Parliament and transferred later to the National Library. There are some complex problems to be considered, and I know that the Council of the National Library in consultation with the Parliamentary Library Committee will be giving early attention to these matters.

In conclusion, I should like again to acknowledge the work of the Parliamentary Library Committees which have since the first years of the Federal Parliament given their devoted care to the development of the Parliamentary and National Library. There remain, of course, many problems ahead, the resolution of which will require the closest co-operation between the National Library Council and the Parliamentary Library Committee. With two members of Parliament on the council, a former member of Parliament as chairman, and the positions of Parliamentary and National Librarians filled for the time being by the one person - an officer of the Parliament who has done much over the years to develop our Library - I have no doubt that these problems will be solved with goodwill and co-operation on all sides.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Tangney) adjourned.

page 1804

DEFENCE FORCES SPECIAL RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL 1960

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 Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to provide special retirement benefits to those “ other rank “ members of the Permanent Military Forces who are compulsorily retired in accordance with the Army re-organization programme. As honorable senators are aware, benefits to retired members of the forces are provided by the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act, but in view of the compulsory termination of the services of these members the. Government has given consideration to the question of providing additional compensation over and above the benefits already provided by that act. To this end the Government appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Sir John

Allison to study this question and here I repeat the tribute paid by the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) to the work of Sir John Allison and his colleagues.

The bill provides that the special benefits shall be paid to those other rank members who are discharged under the reorganization programme over a period of three months, or nine months in the case of members of the Ordnance Corps, and who shall be identified before the commencement of the programme as members to be so discharged.

The bill provides that a member who is discharged after less than six years’ service shall receive, in addition to the refund of contributions payable to him under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act, a gratuity at the rate of £20 for each completed year of his service. This is the rate at which gratuity would have accrued to him if his services had not been compulsorily terminated and he had been permitted to serve until completion of six years’ service. A member who is discharged after six years’ and less than fifteen years’ service is entitled under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act to a refund of his contributions and to a gratuity according to the period of his service. This bill provides that, in addition to that benefit, such a member will receive a special gratuity of one fortnight’s pay for each year of his service.

Special provision has been made for the member discharged with more than fifteen and less than twenty years’ service for pension, and who, under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act, is entitled to a refund of contributions and a gratuity. It could normally be expected that such a member would have served until completion of twenty years’ service to qualify for a pension. This bill provides that such a member will receive a pension in accordance with the actual number of years of service as set out in the first schedule to the bill, and on payment of a special contribution. The bill further provides that if a member does not wish to pay the special contribution he will receive a reduced pension. The contributions for this pension will vary as between individual members, and will require a special calculation to be made in each case. The principle, on which the special contributions to be paid will be calculated by the Commonwealth Actuary, will be that the member will purchase, with this special contribution and the contributions he has paid in the past, the same proportion of the total pension he is now to receive as he would have purchased if he had retired in the normal course of events after twenty years’ service. Reduced pensions, where the member decides not to pay the special contribution, will be based on the same principle.

A member who has completed more than twenty years’ service for pension, and who is permitted to retire before completing his term of engagement, is entitled under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act to a pension in accordance with the number of years of service completed at the date of retirement and on payment of additional contributions. It would be reasonable to expect that, had a member’s services not been compulsorily terminated, he would have served to the completion of his engagement. The bill recognizes this and provides that a member in this class can pay a special contribution to receive pension for the number of years of service he would have completed had he been permitted to serve to completion of his engagement. The bill also provides that in each case where a discharged member is entitled to pension, the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board shall advise him of the full details of his maximum pension entitlement, the amount of the special contribution he has to pay to receive that pension, and the amount of the reduced pension he will receive if he does not pay the special contribution. Each member will thus be informed of his entitlements under the bill and may elect to receive a pension having regard to the amount of special contributions he wishes to pay.

The special pensions provided by this bill for members who have completed fifteen butless than twenty years’ service have made it necessary to modify the provisions of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act to take account of these pensions. The maximum pension of £500 10s. provided by that act to a member who is employed by the Commonwealth is reduced in this bill by the amount shown in the second schedule to the bill for each year by which the member’s service is short of twenty years.

I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Sandford) adjourned.

page 1805

WOOL USE PROMOTION BILL 1960

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 main purpose of the Wool Use Promotion Bill and the other bills that I am about to introduce is to give statutory recognition to the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council in a number of Commonwealth acts relating to wool and meat matters.

The formation of the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council arose from a decision of the Australian Woolgrowers Council and the Graziers Federal Council of Australia in conference in July last to amalgamate as a single organization. The Australian Woolgrowers Council and the Graziers Federal Council of Australia were primary producer organizations established at the federal level to handle all matters connected with the welfare of the sheep and cattle industries respectively. The two bodies had a common secretariat and to a considerable extent common membership.

The Australian Woolgrowers Council and the Graziers Federal Council of Australia receive specific recognition in a number of Commonwealth acts relating to wool and meat matters and it is therefore necessary that the legislation concerned be amended to accord the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council similar statutory recognition in those matters. The bills also provide that the terms of office on statutory boards and committees of members nominated by the Australian Woolgrowers Council and the Graziers Federal Council of Australia shall not be affected by the amalgamation of the two organizations.

In addition to the matters I have outlined, the opportunity has been taken to effect machinery amendments in the Wool Use Promotion Bill and the Wool Research Bill. Clause 4 of the Wool Use Promotion Bill amends the present provisions relating to the banking arrangements of the Australian Wool Bureau in two ways. One of the proposed changes is the substitution of the words “ Reserve Bank of Australia “ for the words “ Commonwealth Bank of Australia “. This action merely reflects the change in name of the central bank and does not effect any substantive change in law, since any reference to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in the present act has already to be read as a reference to the Reserve Bank of Australia, in accordance with section 7 of the Reserve Bank Act 1959.

The second amendment that this clause proposes is to permit the Australian Wool Bureau to maintain an account or to place money on fixed deposit with the Reserve Bank or any bank approved by the Treasurer instead of, as at present, with the Reserve Bank only. This proposed change will bring the banking provisions for the Australian Wool Bureau into line with corresponding provisions in existing legislation relating to other statutory authorities and is designed to make provision for more flexibility in the bureau’s banking arrangements.

The Wool Research Bill - clause 3.- provides for the omission of a sub-section of the Wool Research Act 1957, /which is redundant, since the matters to which it relates are now dealt with by the Wool Realization (Distribution of Profits) Act 1957. The deletion of the sub-section is in accord with the general practice of removing, wherever possible, redundant provisions in legislation. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cant), adjourned.

page 1806

CATTLE AND BEEF RESEARCH BILL (No. 2) 1960

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 matters to be considered in this bill were explained in my second-reading speech on the Wool Use Promotion Bill 1960. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cant) adjourned.

page 1806

MEAT EXPORT CONTROL BILL (No. 2) 1960

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 matters to be considered in this bill were explained in my second-reading speech on Che Wool Use Promotion Bill 1960. 1 commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cant) adjourned.

page 1806

WOOL RESEARCH BILL 1960

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 matters to be considered in this bill were explained in my second-reading speech on the Wool Use Promotion Bill 1960. 1 commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate on motion by Senator Cant) adjourned.

page 1806

WOOL TAX BILL (No. 1) 1960

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 matters to be considered in this bill were explained in my second-reading speech on the Wool Use Promotion Bill 1960. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cant) adjourned.

page 1807

WOOL TAX BILL (No. 2)1960

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 matters to be considered in this bill were explained in my second-reading speech on the Wool Use Promotion Bill 1960.I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cant) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 5.35 to 8 p.m.

page 1807

ALUMINIUM INDUSTRY BILL 1960

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

That leave be given to introduce a bill for an act to approve an agreement relating to the sale of the undertaking carried on by the Australian Aluminium Production Commission at Bell Bay in the State of Tasmania, and for purposes connected therewith.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is for an act which is to approve an agreement for the sale of the aluminium undertaking of the Australian Aluminium Production Commission at Bell Bay, Tasmania and for the expansion of the undertaking when sold. The agreement is scheduled to the bill. The parties to the agreement are - The Commonwealth of Australia, the State of Tasmania, Consolidated Zinc Proprietary Limited, the Australian Aluminium Production Commission, and Aluminium Production Corporation Limited.

The Australian Aluminium Production Commission was constituted by an agreement dated 18th April, 1944 between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Tasmania. That agreement was approved by the Parliaments of the Commonwealth and the State in 1944; it was amended as approved by the Parliaments in 1952. The Commonwealth act is the Aluminium Industry Act 1944-1956.

The commission initially comprised two representatives each of the Commonwealth and the State. Under the 1952 amendment, its constitution became four representatives of the Commonwealth and one of the State. The representatives of the Commonwealth at present are - N. K. S. Brodribb, Esq., C.B.E., chairman, L. R. Benjamin, Esq., C.B.E., vice-chairman, L. J. Pearson, Esq., and J. H. Garrett, Esq. The representative of Tasmania is K. J. Binns, Esq.

The commission was established to undertake the production of aluminium in primary form. Plans for this enterprise were formulated during the war years when the Commonwealth considered that manufacture in Australia of aluminium ingot was advisable as this was a material essential for defence.

The Bell Bay aluminium undertaking of the commission was completed in 1955. It consists primarily of an alumina plant and an aluminium reduction plant. At present, it is capable of producing approximately 12,000 tons of aluminium ingot per annum. Production in 1959-60 was 11,952 tons of aluminium metal.

Consolidated Zinc Proprietary Limited is a wholly owred subsidiary of Consolidated Zinc Corporation Limited, a company predominantly owned in the United Kingdom but listed on the Australian stock exchanges with some 12 per cent. of its share capital held in Australia.

Aluminium Production Corporation Limited is a company incorporated under Tasmanian State law. It has been formed by agreement between Consolidated Zinc Proprietary Limited and the Tasmanian Government. The undertaking will be sold to Aluminium Production Corporation Limited, which is referred to in the agreement as the company. The Tasmanian Government will hold one-third of the shares of the company; the remainder will be held by Consolidated Zinc Proprietary Limited. In due course, however, the Consolidated Zinc holding will be taken over by the new joint association which has been announced between that company and Kaiser Aluminium and Chemical Corporation. in negotiating this sale, both the Commonwealth and the State have been acting with the objective of securing additional finance for expansion of the undertaking to an economic level of production. The capita] funds provided by the two governments for the present plant total £1 1,200,000, of which the Commonwealth has contributed £9,700,000 and the State £1,500,000. The profit of the commission in 395,8-59 was only £158,734 and in 1959-60, £122,753-1.4 per cent, and 1.1 per cent, respectively on the £11,200,000. A substantially larger plant is necessary if satisfactory economies in production are to be achieved.

More importantly from the national viewpoint, Australian demand for aluminium has far outstripped the production at Bell Bay, which is our only aluminium reduction plant. Australian consumption of aluminium is now running at about 38,000 tons per annum and is steadily increasing. Imports of 26,000 tons a year are costing over £6,000,000 in foreign exchange. The discovery in 1955 of very large bauxite deposits at Weipa and Gove in northern Australia, and investigation of other deposits, including those in the south-west of Western Australia, provide the basis for the development of a major aluminium industry. The enlargement of Bell Bay and the establishment now being undertaken of a 360,000 tons per annum alumina plant at Weipa, costing with supporting services £40,000,000, are big steps in this direction. The announcement that Consolidated Zinc-Kaiser are setting up a 120,000 tons per year aluminium reduction plant in New Zealand is further evidence of the energy with which this group promises to develop the industry.

The Government has been firmly of the view that private enterprise should be brought in to provide finance for the expansion of Bell Bay. Earlier it had been agreed with Tasmania that the plant should be expanded to a capacity of 16,000 tons per annum at a cost of some £3,000,000, of which Tasmania was to find the greater part. This work is in its early stages and the State has already advanced £175,000 to the commission towards it. This is in addition to the State’s capital contribution of £1,500,000 referred to earlier.

The Governments of the Commonwealth and Tasmania, as I announced in the Senate on 31st August, 1960, accepted an offer by Consolidated Zinc for sale of the plant to a company to be formed by Consolidated Zinc and Tasmania.

The introduction of Kaiser into the picture is subsequent to this, and the Commonwealth is not dealing with Kaiser. But neither the Commonwealth Government nor, I believe, the Tasmanian Government has any objection to the introduction of the Kaiser group into the arrangements. Complementary legislation, will be placed before the Tasmanian Parliament during its current sittings.

The bill itself is to obtain parliamentary approval to the agreement. It also deals with machinery measures to give legislative effect to some of the provisions of the agreement, for example relating to superannuation of transferred employees and the continuation of the residual functions of the commission. It authorizes payment to Tasmania of moneys received by the Commonwealth on Tasmania’s behalf in payment by the company of the purchase price and interest.

I deal now with the terms of the agreement scheduled to the bill. The rate of completion of the sale will be 3rd January, 1961. The purchase will include all land and other property and assets of the Australian Aluminium Production Commission; but it will not include rights to the bauxite deposits at Marchinbar Island in the Northern Territory, Which stood as a debit of £142,423 in the commission’s accounts. Details of the lana involved are given in the schedule. The company will take over the liabilities of the commission.

The new operators, Aluminium Production Corporation Limited - Apco - undertake to enlarge the plant at Bell Bay from the present annual capacity of 12,000 tons to 28,000 tons. This is expected to cost some £9,000,000 and to take about four years to accomplish. The present programme of expansion from 12,000 tons to 16,000 tons will become part of the new larger plan. The company has declared its objective of later expanding to more than 40,000 tons if and when this is economically practicable.

The new company will take over the agreement with the Swiss firm, Aluminium

Industries Aktien Gesellschaft, for the supply .of technical information in connexion with the current expansion programme at Bell Bay.

The purchase price of £10,980,000 will be payable to the Commonwealth, which will pay to the Tasmanian Government its share, amounting to £1,470,000. Tasmania is to receive ordinary shares in respect of £175,000 which the State has advanced for the current expansion programme to 16,000 tons capacity. Payment will be made by means of a deposit, followed by sixteen annual instalments, as follows: -

The deposit is to be paid on 3rd January, 1961, and the instalments on 31st December of each year, the final one being in 1976.

An important financial aspect of the sale is that the company will pay interest on the balance of the purchase price outstanding at the end of each year, provided that the enterprise is yielding a sufficient profit.

In any year when the net profit of the company exceeds 6i per cent., after tax, on its paid-up share capital, the company will pay interest on the amount still owing to the Commonwealth. The maximum rate payable will be 5 per cent., but will be limited to the excess of the operating surplus, as denned in the agreement, after paying the 6i per cent, return, after tax, on the share .capital. Insofar as this is insufficient to pay the full 5 per cent, to the Commonwealth, the deficiencies will accumulate. In any year when the operating surplus is more than sufficient to meet the company’s 6i per cent., after tax, together with 5 per cent, interest to the Commonwealth, half :the balance is to be paid to the Commonwealth in reduction of the accumulated deficiency of interest. All liability of the company to pay interest terminates, with one minor exception, when the principal is fully paid off.

The calculation of the interest payable under these principles necessarily involves a rather complicated set of definitions and procedures, and these are set out in the Third Schedule. Safeguards are included against various contingencies that might prejudice the Commonwealth’s rights to a fair assessment of the figure out of which its interest is payable. I refer particularly to paragraphs (a) to (e) in the definition of “ gross operating surplus “ and to clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the Third Schedule.

Provisions are made to allow for further expansion of the plant beyond 28,000 tons capacity without disturbing the quantum of the profits -figure on which the Commonwealth’s interest depends. These provisions have added a certain complexity to the interest formula.

I have said that, before interest is payable to the Commonwealth in any year, the company is entitled to 6i per cent, on its share capital after tax. Tax for this purpose includes of course any additional amounts of tax which the company incurs because of the Government’s new taxation proposals affecting the deductibility of interest paid by companies, so far as the company’s borrowings for its 28,000 ton programme are concerned. In the event of changing circumstances rendering inapt the interest formula there is provision for its adaptation to those circumstances by agreement between the company and the Commonwealth.

It is, of course, not possible to forecast precisely the interest that the company will pay, because this will depend on the trading fortunes of the enterprise. In my statement to ‘the Senate on 31st August I said that such estimates as are possible indicate that after expansion to 28,000 tons the company should be in a position to pay the full annual amount of interest, and some arrears of interest would probably also be paid. The proposed change in taxation laws relating to non-deductibility of interest might, as I have indicated, if continued, diminish the company’s liability to pay interest to the Commonwealth.

In view of the relatively unprofitable nature of the existing plant at Bell Bay, we are fortunate to have achieved a sale which makes it possible to recover virtually the whole of the Commonwealth’s original investment of £9,700,000. In view of the good price offered, it was only reasonable that the company should be granted terms which will allow payment to be spread over a period of years. The interest payments to the Commonwealth are dependent upon the fortunes of the company, but the Commonwealth will, in this respect, be in a much better position than it is at present.

It is the common objective of the company and the Government that the aluminium industry in Australia should aim to be competitive with, and have no need of protection from, competing imports. The Government, however, recognizes that the new company should have some form of protection during the first four years while new equipment is being installed to enlarge capacity to 28,000 tons a year. This protection may take the form of a tariff as may be recommended by the Tariff Board, and will cover refinery shapes and aluminium alloys. The protection will be designed to ensure to the company a selling price equivalent to £271 a long ton, in the case of standard grade ingot, delivered at mainland ports. This was the selling price on 1st November, I960, of the commission. The landed cost of imported aluminium ingot was at that date £232 10s. a ton.

The company has undertaken not to seek tariff or other protection after the initial four-year expansion period, unless it reaches a position from factors beyond the control of the company where it cannot earn 61 per cent, after tax, on its issued share capital and does not seem likely to do so, or in other defined abnormal circumstances.

At the present time the Bell Bay plant uses bauxite imported from overseas. The company intends to supply the plant with alumina from Weipa, probably beginning in 1966. To ensure that supplies from Australian sources are available, a collateral contract is to be executed giving the company certain rights to supplies from Weipa. This contract may of course be regarded as unnecessary, as Weipa is under the control of the same group of companies.

The Commission’s assets which go to the company include also certain rights to obtain supplies of bauxite or alumina from Gove in the Northern Territory. It is expected that the Gove mineral lease will shortly be taken over by British Aluminium Company Limited. It will be taken over subject to this obligation.

A very important part of the agreement is the provisions it contains to protect the employment, superannuation, leave and furlough benefits of the employees of the Commission. The agreement provides that all persons who are employed by the commission at the time of the completion of the agreement will be offered employment by the company. This offer by the company is to be made not later than 1st December, 1960. The salaries or wages to be offered must be not less than those paid by the commisison immediately prior to the date of sale. Clauses 24 to 27 inclusive of the agreement deal with superannuation.

The commission has 763 employees, of whom 220 are salaried staff. Of those 220, 136 are already contributors to the superannuation fund and eight are contributors to the provident account. It is expected that before the date of completion approximately 30 more may be admitted as new contributors. The scheme of the superannuation clauses of the agreement is broadly as follows: - The company’s offer of employment to commission employees may be made conditional upon those employees electing for their existing superannuation to be taken over by the company. The company will take over the existing superannuation of transferred employees on the basis that they will get preserved to them the benefits which, at the date of transfer, and at the salary they then enjoyed, they are entitled to expect. For these benefits the company may not require them to pay more than the fortnightly amount of contributions they were making at the date of transfer. The company is to establish a trust fund to secure their rights. This is provided in clause 24.

Section 39 of the Commonwealth Superannuation Act states that a person whose service is terminated because there is no work for him, within ten years of commencing employment, shall be deemed “ discharged “. In this case, he receives as a lump sum only the contributions paid by him. If he has been employed for over ten years he is deemed to be “ retrenched “, and gets also the corresponding Commonwealth contributions. However, in justice to employees of the commission who might reasonably have expected to continue in its employment the Commonwealth benefit is being paid into the fund in respect of all former contributors whether or not they have been ten years with the commission.

Disputes on the operation of clause 24 are to be determined by an ad hoc tribunal. This is provided in clause 25. In relation to any increased salary which transferred employees may get in the future in the company’s employment, the company undertakes to provide them with superannuasion on a basis consistent with the basis on which it is provided for its other employees. This is provided in clause 26. There are two qualifications on this.

The first qualification is that the transferred employee may elect whether or not he wants his prior service with the commission to count in relation to superannuation benefits he will get in relation to increases in salary. If he decides he wants it to count he may be required by the company to contribute to the extra cost involved on a basis which is defined. This is provided in sub-clauses 3 to 6 inclusive of clause 26.

The second qualification is that the company at any time in the future has the right of establishing a superannuation scheme for all its employees notwithstanding that the scheme does not accord with the above quoted provisions of the agreement - that is, especially, does not treat transferred employees on the same basis as new employees - but only on two conditions, namely -

  1. that the Commonwealth is satisfied that the comparative treatment given to the transferred employees is reasonable; and
  2. that each transferred employee is given the right to elect whether he will come under the new scheme.

An industrial agreement was made in 1959 between the Amalgamated Engineering Union and other unions and the commission. The sale agreement obliges the company to continue to observe this industrial agreement as if it were a party to it in place of the commission. The company will grant to transferred employees not covered by the industrial agreement leave or pay in lieu of leave for recreation and sickness to the same extent as these are afforded to other employees of the company. But leave which has accrued through service with the commission will be carried over by the company.

Long service leave, that is, furlough, will be granted by the company to transferred employees in accordance with the Long Service Leave Act of Tasmania, but subject to important qualifications which preserve the accrued rights of transferred employees. The point here is that the rights which employees of the commission enjoyed under the Commonwealth rules are more generous than those they will enjoy under the Tasmanian law. Tasmania undertakes to legislate to protect the interests of the employees under the agreement, as regards the industrial agreement and as regards leave.

Of the provisions of the covering bill 1 wish at this stage to make further specific reference only to those relating to the future of the commission. The intention is that as from the date of completion of the sale the commission’s only functions will be the giving of effect to the agreement and the winding up of its affairs. We expect that within a month after the date of completion, the commission will have been able to do most of what has to be done in this regard. But there will be the possibility for some considerable time that something may emerge from the past business of the commission in respect of which some action needs to be taken in the commission’s name. With this in mind the services of the present commissioners will be terminated as from 1st February, 1961, but the commission will thereafter for an indeterminate period be kept in formal existence in the person of the Secretary to the Department of National Development. Eventually, when it is considered safe to do so, the Aluminium Industry Act will be repealed, the commission will cease to exist, and any residual rights and obligations remaining to it will be vested in the Commonwealth.

I would also like to say something about the relations between Consolidated Zinc and Tasmania in the new company. This, of course, is not in detail the concern of the Commonwealth. In the agreement of sale it is recited that the new company, Apco, has been set up by agreement between Consolidated Zinc and Tasmania. Consolidated Zinc and Tasmania undertake that Apco will be provided with sufficient capital to enable it to carry out its obligations under the agreement; in the case of the State this undertaking is subject to special qualifications in sub-clause 2 of clause 6 with regard to the need for appropriation of funds by the State Parliament. Apart from these provisions we are, under the agreement, essentially dealing with Apco as the purchaser. Consolidated Zinc and. Tasmania, in its purchasing capacity, come very little into the picture in our dealing.

We do, however, understand that the finance that Consolidated Zinc and Tasmania will provide will be provided partly as ordinary share capital and partly as loans raised from! the shareholders, and possibly from other sources. This finance will be provided by Consolidated Zinc and the- Tasmanian Government in the ratio of two to one, subject to the proviso that the Tasmanian Government will, not be under an obligation to find more than £3,000,000 up to the completion, of the 28,000-ton stage. This is subject, as 1 have- already mentioned, to the arrangement that the Consolidated Zinc interest will in due course be taken over jointly by that company and Kaiser Aluminium.

I conclude with a few general observations. The original purpose of the commission - the establishment of the aluminium industry - has been achieved. Like most pioneering ventures, it has not been an easy task. To-day we have a well-run organization producing over 12,000 tons of metal each year, which this bill authorizes the Government to sell. In closing this chapter in the history of the aluminium industry, I express, on behalf of the Government, appreciation of the work of the commission and in particular the part played by Mr. N. K. S. Brodribb, C.B.E.. the chairman.

But conditions now are very different to those which existed when the venture started. The plant is older.. New. techniques are being used in. the industry. We have since found that we have- great natural resources of bauxite. It may well be more: economic to convert bauxite- into alumina on- the site of the large bauxite deposits, rather than in the existing alumina plant at Bell Bay. And, of course, the alumina plant constitutes an appreciable part of the total Bell Bay investment.

It needs to be remembered, therefore, that continuance of the Bell Bay venture as it is at present constituted means facing problems and engaging in activities which are not usually the concern of government and which are better left to private enterprise. Substantial capital investment is needed to enlarge the plant. Competitive conditions are likely to follow the development of the various bauxite fields, which may make it even more difficult for Bell Bay to operate successfully.

The aluminium industry requires vast sums for its development. Its techniques change. Australian bauxite deposits are so large that Australian consumption will be small in relation to the supply available. But costs will not be competitive unless there is large scale conversion of bauxite into alumina. Unless we have large scale conversion of bauxite- into alumina we will not have alumina at a price at which it can be- competitively supplied within Australia or overseas. The first stage in the sound development of our bauxite resources is to find markets for large quantities of alumina.. The announcement that the Weipa plant is- to- have a productive capacity of 360,000 tons instead of 240’,000 tons is therefore significant.

There is need, therefore, for an organization with great capita! resources; an adequate fund of technical knowledge on which to draw; and, perhaps just as importantly, experience in and access to international markets so that the products can be sold. Without such an organization it would- prove difficult indeed to develop our bauxite resources advantageously.

Accordingly,, the Government welcomes the financial backing and expert experience being added to this country’s industrial structure by the combination of Consolidated Zinc and Kaiser in a great venture benefiting both Australia and our sister country, New Zealand. I look forward to great development not only at Bell Bay but also in Queensland. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

.- This bill falls into the class of measures referred to this afternoon by the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) and in relation to which he indicated there might be an occasion when the Opposition would be prepared to proceed with the debate immediately the second-reading speech had been delivered. 1 am proceeding now for the reason, primarily, that this measure has to be passed by another place before the present session ends. I thank the Minister for the opportunity I had over the week-end to look at the agreement for which approval is sought. I was given a preview of the bill and of the second-reading speech of the Minister for National Development just before the sitting was suspended for dinner this evening. I have found those opportunities sufficient for me to be able to proceed with the debate immediately. I hope the majority of honorable senators will have reasonable time before the debate is resumed after to-night to peruse the bill, which is relatively formal, and to consider the agreement.

Because of the Minister’s very precise and concise summary of the bill and the agreement, it is not necessary for me to traverse the ground he has covered. I spoke on this subject when, on 4th May last, on behalf of the Opposition I moved the adjournment of the Senate. We then saw this agreement taking shape. I again spoke on this matter on the 20th and 27th September last, having previously moved that the statement in which the sale was announced be printed. I have refreshed my mind on what I said on those three occasions, and I find that I can confirm all that I then said.

The one good feature of this bill, as the Opposition sees it, is the proposal not only that the production capacity of the aluminium undertaking at Bell Bay, in Tasmania, will be expanded from 12,500 tons to 16,000 tons per annum, but also that there will be imposed on the new company an obligation to extend the plant within, it is thought, about four years to a capacity of 28,000 tons per annum at an additional cost of some £9,000,000. Mr. President, it is of the greatest importance to Tasmania that the industry should be expanded, that the area in which it is situated should develop, and that increased employment opportunities should be provided in that area. I say very deliberately that the Opposition rejoices with everybody else, including all Tasmania, at this aspect of the matter. There can be no doubt about the fact that, in regard to Tasmania’s position alone, this bill confers benefit in that the plant is to be expanded as I have indicated. i want to deal now with the position in Tasmania and the outlook of the Tasmanian Government. Despite the fact that the Tasmanian Government is a party to the agreement - that cannot be contested - and that therefore it may be held to have agreed to the terms of the agreement, I certainly claim that this is not the kind of set-up which the Tasmanian Government would have preferred. It was concerned to get additional money for expansion and it asked the Commonwealth Government to join with it in providing money for that purpose, but it now finds that although it is getting the expansion it has, as a dominating partner, not the Commonwealth, but certain overseas interests - some of which only came out from underneath the hat on the day after this agreement was signed. Tasmania is now a junior partner, holding a one-third interest in a concern that is more than 60 per cent, controlled, not only by private interests, but by private overseas interests. In other words, the undertaking with which Tasmania was initially connected has gone from a 100 per cent. Australian industry to a 60 per cent, overseascontrolled industry. That was never the desire of the Government of Tasmania.

This matter developed from, the 1957-53 report of the Australian Aluminium Production Commission, established by the State and by the Commonwealth. In paragraph 53 of that report the commission directed attention to the fact that the production capacity of the plant was uneconomical from the viewpoint of costs, and it said -

The Commission believes that a substantial increase in the size of the plant would offer the only means of achieving a significant production in cost per ton of production. The matter was taken up immediately with the Commonwealth Government by the Tasmanian Government. Tasmania’s view was made clear in a statement by the Minister for National Development himself, which was handed to the press on 12th September, 1958. For the purpose of establishing the point I am making about the Tasmanian Government’s outlook, I shall take a moment or two to read the first three paragraphs of the statement. The Minister said -

My attention has been drawn to a statement DJ Mr. Reece, Premier of Tasmania, to the effect that his government would “ resist with the utmost vigour “ any proposal by the Commonwealth Government to put the Aluminium Production Commission’s undertaking at Bell Bay in the hands of private enterprise. Mr. Reece speaks as though his government had not been consulted by the Commonwealth Government on this matter but had heard something of its intentions from some other source.

The fact is, however, that earlier this year Mr. Cosgrove and I discussed at some length the future of the Bell Bay plant. We were both, as was the Commission itself, concerned with the problem that the Commission’s costs of production are too high. We had both been informed that if the plant were increased in size the cost of producing the aluminium would be reduced.

In my talks with Mr. Cosgrove it was agreed that we should explore the possibilities of obtaining additional capital-

I ask the Senate to note the words “ additional capital “ - in order to increase the size of the Bell Bay plant and expand its activities. The Commonwealth Government believes that this expansion should be effected with private capital and not with government funds. Mr. Cosgrove agreed with this view and, following our discussions, he wrote me a letter in which he told me that he had raised the matter in the Tasmanian Cabinet. He assured me that his Government would favour the admission of an outside partner into the Bell Bay project.

In that statement by the Minister for National Development there was not the slightest suggestion that the Commonwealth would retire. There wa» not the slightest suggestion that it wanted to sell its interest. The sole subject of discussion between the State and the Commonwealth at that stage was the admission of a new partner - making a triumvirate - for the purpose of joining with Tasmania to provide the additional capital needed to expand the productive capacity of the plant to 16,000 tons. I make that point. There was no thought of the Commonwealth getting out of the undertaking.

We find the tame idea expressed in a press statement made by the Minister for National Development not long afterwards. In November, 1.958, amongst other things, he said -

I supported the Commission’s suggestion that an expansion of this plant should be effected and I expressed the view of the Commonwealth

Government that trie necessary capital should be provided by the introduction of private enterprise into the project.

There the Minister for National Development again foreshadowed only a third partner, with capital for expansion and with know-how. It comes as somewhat of a shock to us at this late stage to see how that attitude changed. There was no suggestion in the statement which I have just quoted of the substitution of control by overseas interests for control by Australian interests.

Difficulty has arisen by reason of the Commonwealth’s refusal in 1958 to join with Tasmania in providing additional money for the expansion of capacity to 16,000 tons. There is no doubt about that, although I think the Minister contested it in the course of a recent debate. I refer the Senate to page 707 of “ Hansard “ of 4th May. Speaking in an adjournment debate, the Minister for National Development said -

When the Tasmanian Government approached us we said, in effect, “ We have a lot of money in this undertaking. We are sympathetic with with your ideas of expansion. There is still much to be found out about the efficient conduct of the plant. If you want to go ahead, we as a Commonwealth are not prepared to put money into it, but we shall stand by and help.”

So it is on a very firm basis that I make the point that right at the outset the Commonwealth, although recognizing the need for the expansion of the plant, was not prepared to put any money into it. Faced with that refusal to find further capital, Tasmania went ahead with preliminary work to ensure the expansion of the capacity of the plant to 16,000 tons. The major partner - a State that suffers a high degree of financial stringency - decided to force on the expansion of the plant with its limited resources.

Senator Wright:

– Just as a matter of interest, what constitutional authority would the Commonwealth have for continuing this industry?

Senator McKENNA:

– I would say that it has the same constitutional power as it had when it went into the project.

Senator Wright:

– The defence power?

Senator McKENNA:

– Defence needs. Aluminium is vital to our defence. The Commonwealth has the same constitutional power in this regard, in my view, as it had to continue a clothing factory from the time of the First World War, and as it had to run a harness factory and a small arms factory. There is a difference in degree between the immediate association with defence of these industries, but when one thinks of the needs of an aircraft industry one must recognize the validity of what was stated in the 1944 act and in the 1952 act - that is, that it was in the interests of defence to establish this industry as an independent Australian industry.

Senator Wright:

– 1 am only looking for enlightenment. What proportion of the production of this enterprise goes to the defence effort?

Senator McKENNA:

– I could not give the honorable senator an accurate assessment. He is interested in the legal and constitutional position. If he will throw his mind back to the Defence Preparations Act, he will recall that about this time in 1952 his own government took complete power to do almost anything. When the Government took such action at that stage - not because of war - the High Court upheld the capital issues regulations that were promulgated at that time.

Senator Wright:

– But they were very special circumstances.

Senator McKENNA:

– There were very special circumstances when we were completely dependent on overseas supplies for aluminium. We still fall a very long way short of meeting our own essential requirements from our own resources. In my view, there is ample constitutional basis for the continued participation of the Commonwealth in this undertaking. Personally, I have no doubt about that view.

Senator Benn:

– Consumption in Australia is much less than it is in the United Kingdom.

Senator McKENNA:

– Per head, yes. The use of aluminium in Australia is developing very greatly.

If Tasmania had not forced a start in that way, with its own money, when the Commonwealth declined to contribute money of its own, we would not yet have begun to expand the plant. We are in the fortunate positron that that expansion has begun. The Commonwealth, of course, put heavy financial pressure on the State in 1952 when the State asked the Commonwealth to find moneys additional to those contemplated in the original agreement of 1944. The new agreement made with Tasmania included clause 3 (a). I shall not read it; I shall mention the effect of it. It provided that if the Commonwealth wanted to sell the whole or a part of the undertaking, and if Tasmania objected, provided the Commonwealth gave Tasmania three months’ notice and paid it out, the Commonwealth could proceed with the sale regardless of Tasmania’s objection.

Senator Wright:

– Is that not a fair indication that the Commonwealth was trying to get out unilaterally then?

Senator McKENNA:

– No. To my mind, it is the clearest indication that the Commonwealth wished to move into the position of being the sole and dominating factor. I think that is clear from the fact that the Commonwealth altered section 9 of the act at the same time. Section 9, which was passed in 1944, provided that there could be no sale except with the consent of both the State and Commonwealth Governments. In 1952, section 9 was altered to provide that only the consent of the Commonwealth Parliament was required. I do not think the provision indicates what the honorable senator who has interjected says it indicates. It was a case of the Commonwealth moving to a position in which it could ultimately do what it is doing now. I do not rely upon my own thought in that matter. The Minister who introduced the 1952 bill was Mr. Beale, and he said very plainly on that occasion that the ultimate intention was to hand the project over to Australian private enterprise when it was developed. I ask the Senate to note the words “ Australian private enterprise “. That was very clearly postulated right from 1952. That leads to my saying to the honorable senator that I think the Government got to that dominating position with that very thought in mind, and that will be found expressed in Mr. Beale’s speech.

I want the Senate to see Tasmania as placed in the position where it just had to do what the Commonwealth wanted. At the most, it might delay the Commonwealth for three months; but what the Commonwealth wanted was what had to be done. Again in 1956 Mr. Beale had something to say about this matter. The Premier of Tasmania rebuked him very severely in the press on 29th March -for ,his suggestion at :that time -.that the industry should be handed over to private enterprise. The Premier pointed out what a disturbing thing it was to the commission’s activities and to all -the people connected with the operation of the plant. So one sees from the beginning the Commonwealth moving into position, getting the legislative power, exercising the financial power, and applying the squeeze to Tasmania. At the time Tasmania asked for more money for expansion in ] 958, the Commonwealth said, “ You will receive no more money from the Commonwealth. You can expand the plant, but you find ohe money and get somebody outside to help you”.

Senator Wright:

– The Commonwealth found the money in 1952, did it not?

Senator McKENNA:

– The Commonwealth found a considerable sum of money. I think it found about £4,500,000 at that time. I do not contest in the slightest degree that the Commonwealth found quite a considerable amount of money. I have taken some time over this matter to demonstrate that Tasmania’s first preference was that the Commonwealth should stay in the project and with it Tasmania should develop this undertaking. Tasmania’s second preference was that a third partner should be admitted to find, with Tasmania, the capital for expansion; but the two governments should have a controlling interest. But Tasmania’s preferences have been thrown out of the picture. The Commonwealth, using the power it took in 1952, negotiated the sale of the whole undertaking and retired from the industry, leaving Tasmania to carry on, on a one-third basis, with private overseas interests. I say that the Government of Tasmania showed very great courage, very much enterprise and very great faith in the future of the undertaking when, going alone, it proceeded with expansion that the Commonwealth would not join in financing.

Senator Spooner:

– Who said Tasmania went alone?

Senator McKENNA:

– I said that in relation to the financial field.

Senator Spooner:

– How much has the expansion cost? -Senator McKENNA.. - I know, as I have said .in this place before, that the Commonwealth agreed ‘that the .commission itself should find up to £1,000,000 out of its own resources.

Senator Spooner:

– Are ;they not the Commonwealth’s moneys?

Senator McKENNA:

– No, they were joint moneys. The Minister has stated that the Government, instead of asking for the return of some of its capital, as it might have done, was prepared to leave it in. If the Minister -wants to make that point, T should like him to ask this question: Out of what was that money to be paid? Where were the profits and where was the cash? I think it is a fact that the money was in solid assets which could not be realized. I think the truth of the matter was .that the commission was authorized to raise an overdraft.

Senator Spooner:

– Dear me! Is not the commission going to find this £1,000,000 in cash?

Senator McKENNA:

– Let the Minister say how much the commission did find!

Senator Spooner:

– It is finding £1,000,000.

Senator McKENNA:

– Has the commission found the money?

Senator Spooner:

– It will do so.

Senator McKENNA:

– The commission is dropping out of existence.

Senator Spooner:

– The commission’s assets will be there.

Senator McKENNA:

– The commission is dropping out of existence. The commission will find nothing. This bill provides that the commission is to drop out. It is providing nothing. The whole of its assets are being taken over and it is not even collecting the proceeds of the sale; the Commonwealth is collecting them.

One sees what has happened, as explained by the Minister to-night, as an exceedingly different position from the one that he described to the press in September, 1958, and again in November, 1958. I feel under an obligation to make known to the Senate the contents of a telegram which I received from the Premier of Tasmania last night, I think it was. I will read it to the Senate.

Senator Spooner:

– Do not get it mixed up with the one on sales tax.

Senator McKENNA:

– No, there is no danger of that. I am glad the Minister can recognize the possible predicament of a Leader of the Opposition who has about 23 bills on his table. 1 would not be surprised ai what I brought into this chamber. But, of course, that is not my fault; the position is caused by the way the Government misarranges its business. I have the right telegram. It is addressed to me at Canberra and it reads* -

Understand from inquiries from National Development to my officers you have expressed misgivings concerning agreement regarding Bell Bay Aluminium Works stop My government satisfied that terms of agreement plus assurances received from company protect Tasmania’s interests quite adequately stop Notwithstanding developments elsewhere Tasmania’s share of industry regarded here as satisfactory level with possibility of over 40,000 tons smelter output annually stop Please contact Binns Under-Treasurer if explanation required.

I accepted that invitation and contacted the Under-Treasurer. Of course, it is completely clear that, in speaking of this bill, the Premier has confined himself only to the effect on Tasmania’s interests. The Tasmanian Government is not immediately concerned with the points that agitate the Opposition. The Premier has carefully refrained from commenting on the Australiawide effect of what the Government is doing generally in the aluminium industry. I shall refer to that matter later. The Premier has not touched on the balance of international payments involved in this situation.

Senator Spooner:

– The honorable senator understands, of course, that we would not know of that telegram.

Senator McKENNA:

– I have never suggested that you would. In the light of what 1 have said, I have felt under an obligation to announce that I had received the telegram from the Premier. I owe it to him to do so. I am not contesting anything with the Government in that respect.

Senator Spooner:

– I should not like the honorable senator to think that we had been sending the Premier any messages.

Senator McKENNA:

– I do not suggest that, nor do I suggest anything against your officer with whom I talked. He had the most complete freedom to discuss with his Minister and the department as much as he liked of his discussion with me. Whatever he cared to take up with the officers in Tasmania was entirely his business and calls for no kind of rebuke from me.

Senator Spooner:

– That is the point I wanted to make.

Senator McKENNA:

– -The Minister may* be quite assured about that. My position! is simply that 1 do not think I could honorably have a telegram of that kind in my hand and not disclose it when I am putting, my view concerning Tasmania’s position.

I repeat that the Premier does not attempt to deal with the matters with which we are” primarily concerned. He is merely saying that, with the expansion, Tasmania will be all right. In effect, he is saying, “ We have an adequate share of the market “. He makes no comment upon the market as a whole, nor upon this Government’s dealing with only one company in the course of the negotiations. He makes no comment on the transfer from Australian to overseas control - the great matters that really concern the Opposition in this place.

Our first important objection to the transaction is that in respect of an industry which, as I have already indicated, is almost vital in time of war as well as in time of peace, there has been a change from 100 per cent. Australian control to control of at least 60 per cent, by overseas interests. As the Minister has indicated, Consolidated Zinc is a wholly owned subsidiary of Consolidated Zinc Corporation Limited of the United Kingdom, in which there is only a 12 per cent. Australian interest. I invite the Minister to consider that when Consolidated Zinc acquires a two-thirds interest in the Tasmanian undertaking, that 12 per cent, interest will become only an 8 per cent. Australian interest in the undertaking.

I should like the Senate to understand that this company, Consolidated Zinc, through Comalco, established in Australia, which it now controls, holds a lease over the world’s largest bauxite deposits - those at Weipa, in Queensland. At Weipa, the company has a lease of 2,270 square miles, a colossal area rich in bauxite. It also holds leases over an additional 1,480 square miles in the Cape York Peninsula. It has a five-year option over the Blair Athol coal deposits, a potential source of power for developing the Weipa deposits.

With the Kaiser Aluminium and Chemical Corporation of the United States of Amer ica, it now is about to embark on a project in New Zealand, which the previous Prime Minister of that country was quoted as saying would be a £160,000,000 project, for the production of aluminium. Others have said that it wil( be a £120,000,000 project, but at all events it will be a vast undertaking.

Senator Henty:

– A difference of £40,000,000 is nothing at election time, you know.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is a very irresponsible statement for a Minister of the Crown to make. I hope that it will not be reflected in his election pledges.

Let me refer to the 1944 and 1952 acts. They both provided for an agreement, confirmed by this Government, that the undertaking at Bell Bay should be and would remain a wholly independent Australian undertaking. The undertaking is neither independent nor Australian any longer. It has a two-thirds overseas element in it. We were told by the Minister on 31st August last that this plant ultimately would be expanded to produce between 40,000 and 50,000 tons. When we look at the agreement we find a reference to 40,000 tons only in paragraph (g) of the recitals. No obligation is cast by the agreement on the new company to expand to 40,000 tons. The obligation contained in clause 19 of the agreement refers to expansion to 28,000 tons. Let us be clear in our minds when we speak about these figures of 40,000 and 50,000 tons. The only expansion assured by the terms of the agreement is that mentioned in clause 19, which refers to expansion to 28,000 tons. As I have indicated, reference to expansion to 40,000 tons is contained only in paragraph (g) of the recitals, which I should like to read to the Senate to show that it is in no way definite. It states -

Whereas - (g) one of the objectives of the Company will be to increase the designed smelting capacity of the plant to 28,000 long tons of aluminium per annum and, if and when it is economically practicable so to do, to a designed smelting capacity in excess of 40,000 long tons of aluminium per annum;

That is purely an objective. It imposes nothing like a binding obligation on the new company about which we have heard to-night.

The second great objection of the Opposition is to the way in which the Government has conducted the negotiations for this sale. I wish to refer very briefly to what I said on 4th May last in this place. I then stated -

We of the Opposition say that if the Government must sell this undertaking, why not sell to Australian interests? Why not canvass that possibility? If that cannot be done - and the Minister for Supply suggested in 1952 that the Government’s ultimate intention was to sell to Australian industry - I put the proposition that tenders should be invited from all over the world if there must be a sale. We of the Opposition do not approve the sale of this undertaking at all, but at this stage I make those points.

That was on 4th May last. There has not been the slightest effort on the part of the Government to see whether Australian buyers were interested. Surely there was a potential field of interest amongst all those concerned with the fabrication of aluminium - the wholesalers and the retailers. Even the mining interests of the country might well have been interested. There has been no approach to world interests in disposing of an asset worth approximately £11,000,000.

I put it that the Government, in this matter of the sale of an asset worth the vast sum of £11,000,000, is not acting for itself. It is a trustee for this nation of that asset. The Minister claims that he got the best price, that he got the top price; but I ask him: How does he know that? How can he know it, when he invited no tenders and received no competitive bids? The fact of the matter is that he did not even make an attempt to get them. There is no question that the Minister dealt with only one company; he said so himself. If he needs reminding of this, I refer him to page 544 of “ Hansard “, of 20th September, when he said this -

We have dealt in no direction other than with this particular company-

That is the real gravamen of the complaint that the Opposition makes. I do not make the slightest suggestion against the integrity of the Minister or of his Government in this matter, but I say that the abandonment of the wise and the universal practice of calling for tenders was both dangerous and wrong.

On the very day that Senator Spooner announced the sale - that is, 31st August -

Melbourne interests telephoned the Premier of the State indicating that they were prepared to buy on the same terms as the sale to Consolidated Zinc - the complete expansion to 28,000 tons within the same lime, and the provision of the necessary know-how. 1 say that Australian interests were prepared to buy, that they made an offer to the Premier of Tasmania in those terms. He, of course, replied, “ The agreement is concluded. I cannot talk to you about the deal “. As I said before, I knew that the Premier had a discussion with a person acting in Melbourne for A.A.I.G., the Swiss company which was most anxious to join with others in going into partnership with the Commonwealth and the State. The fact that it has the know-how is beyond question, because the commission does engage that company as consultant, and the new company has retained it.

How does the Minister know what price the great aluminium companies of the world would have offered in view of the fact that they were never given a chance to make an offer? The fact that they were interested appears now with the emergence of the Kaiser organization the moment the agreement is signed. I repeat, I trust that the Auditor-General will look at this aspect of the matter and comment on it on his next report The Opposition indicates that this is a most irregular procedure in disposing of public assets. I commented upon that before and I asked the Minister in the previous debate in this place what he had to say in explanation of the fact that he had dealt with only one company. I think I asked that question more than once, but to this moment it has met with nothing but a complete, dead silence. I do hope that the dead silence will be broken in the course of this debate.

The third objection we have to the sale is that long terms have been granted for the payment of the money. The total purchase consideration is £11,155,000; and £175,000 of that amount goes to Tasmania in shares, leaving £10,980,000 in cash. The Minister gave the details of the payments. They are to be spread over a period of sixteen long years. I can well understand that Tasmania would appreciate any kind of consideration like that, but I refuse to believe that a company like Consolidated Zinc, with Kaiser of America, and the Chemical Corporation of America behind it, prepared to undertake a £120,000,000 commitment in New Zealand, and to press on with a £34,000,000 project at Weipa, is short ot money and needs sixteen years to pay the balance of £8,500,000 left after the initial deposit of £2,500,000 has been paid. 1 cannot understand that. I cannot understand why powerful companies joined with the aluminium giants of the world - Kaiser of America and the Chemical Corporation of America - want terms over sixteen years to find something like £8,500,000.

Our fourth objection is to the interest provisions that apply. As the Minister indicated, interest at 5 per cent, is to be paid on the amount owing at the beginning of each year. That will run in the first five years to at least £2,000,000 in interest. I calculate it to be £425,000 in the first year; for the second year, £412,500; in the next year, £400,000; in the next year. £387,500; and in the following year. £375,000. Assuming the instalments are paid on time, I estimate that there will be an interest bill of £2,000,000 in the first five years and, of course, the interest bill over the remaining eleven years - I think it would be falling year by year - will also run into millions of pounds. So when we are talking about interest in this transaction, let us realize that vast sums of money are involved.

Senator Wright:

– Has any one made a calculation of what the total amount of interest will be over the period?

Senator McKENNA:

– It has not been confided to me whether any one has made, that calculation, assuming that all payments were made. For the purpose of my argument, the first five years suffice. For one reason, the interest payable in each of those years was easy to work out - it took less time. The figures I have mentioned give the picture of the millions of pounds that are involved in interest in connexion with this transaction.

Let us have a look at the most extraordinary provisons concerning interest. They provide that the company shall nor pay interest at all until it earns a dividend of 6i per cent, after paying tax. Tax would represent 3i per cent. That means, of course, that the company must make 10 per cent, before its obligation to pay any interest arises. With its capital fully subscribed, the company must make £1,000,000 a year before it is under any obligation to pay any interest. I am not suggesting that its full capital may be £10,000,000 in the immediate years, but this illustration portrays the picture of the enormous concession thai is given to this company. The company is charged interest at 5 per cent, but that interest will be deferred until it pays its tax and has 6i per cent. left. In short, the company is entitled to net profit of something like £1,400,000, subject to tax, before it has an obligation to pay any interest at all.

In the light of the fact that expansion is going on - the works are operating at a capacity of only 12,500 tons at the moment - I cannot see this company paying a penny in interest in the first five years. As I have said, in that time a liability of £2,000,000 will have, accrued. What about the arrears, the deficiency, whatever it may run to? The provision is that the company does have to pay it immediately. Let us say that in the next year the company makes 10 per cent, and after paying tax has 6i per cent. left. It then pays its interest for the year. All it has to apply off that deficiency of £2,000,000 is a half of what it has left over and above the 10 per cent, inclusive of tax or interest of some £400,000 for the year. If there is any surplus, half of it comes off the deficiency. What an extraordinarily odd arrangement. How anybody could express his faith that he will ever see paid any portion of the deficiency which undoubtedly will accrue I do not know.

The delightful position is that if at the end of the period there is any deficiency not cleared up the whole thing is forgiven; it is wiped out. So, in short, this idea of 5 per cent, interest on the purchase consideration and sixteen years’ terms means, in my view, the non-payment of interest altogether. I shall be staggered if the Commonwealth, under this agreement, ever sees any interest. I say that it is windowdressing in order to make things look good and that interest payments will never emerge in reality.

Senator Spooner:

– Does the honorable senator mean that he does not think the Commonwealth will receive any interest?

Senator McKENNA:

– I think that there will be very little interest paid. I think that there will be a huge amount of interest unpaid in the first five years while the expansion programme is getting under way and I cannot see the company in subsequent years making good money available to take up the deficiency in the light of what 1 have said. The company has to make something like 10 per cent., which is £1,000,000. The company has to pay interest amounting to about £400,000 and only half of what is left will be available to pick up the deficiency. I would say that the Minister is an optimist if he thinks he will ever pick up very much of the deficiency in those circumstances.

One other aspect of the agreement to which I must refer is the lack of protection against the closing down of this undertaking. There is a provision that if the new company sells the undertaking or a substantial part of it without the consent of the Commonwealth, all the money payable under the agreement falls due immediately and is to be paid immediately.

Senator Wright:

– What is the reference to that?

Senator McKENNA:

– The honorable senator will find that dealt with in clause 34. I am merely asking why there is no protection against the plant being closed down altogether. Why is there not some kind of sanction, such as the sanction thai applies to selling out? Although I do not think it is probable that the company will close down, let us remember that we are dealing with the great aluminium giants of the world. They spend sums of money of the order of £120,000,000 or £160,000,000 and an undertaking in Tasmania that has cost them about £10,000,000 would not be of much consequence if in New Zealand they could get vastly cheaper power and lower operating costs. I point to that defect in the agreement. Once the company took possession it could close down next day and it could take sixteen years to pay off its debt to the Commonwealth. That is a defect in the agreement. When agreements of this kind are drawn they must provide not merely for probabilities; they must provide also for possibilities. The Bell Bay undertaking is of comparative insignificance to the big aluminium interests of the world, having regard to the vast millions in which they deal.

I am indebted to the Minister for making available to me a copy of the memorandum and articles of the new company, about which 1 would like to say a word or two. There are to be six directors of the new company, two of whom will represent Tasmania and four of whom will represent Consolidated Zinc. So, in the directorship, as one might expect, the dominating influence will be in favour of Consolidated Zinc. The shares will be held in the proportion of one-third by Tasmania and twothirds by Consolidated Zinc. Each share will be entitled to a vote. So, in the ordinary meetings of shareholders, Consolidated Zinc will have a completely dominating interest. That means that the new partner in place of the Commonwealth - the overseas interests - will have complete and effective control of the undertaking at Bell Bay.

Senator Wright:

– The entire undertaking will be subject always to the authority of the Tasmanian Parliament.

Senator McKENNA:

– 1 recognize that. I am merely indicating that overseas interests dominating the Bell Bay project have now replaced completely Australian control. That is one of the main points of objection that we have to what has been done.

The Minister was good enough to let me see two agreements that are referred to in the agreement in the schedule to the bill - one with British Aluminium and another with Comalco - providing for the supply in the first case of bauxite or alumina from Gove and in the second case of the same commodities from Weipa. I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to look at those agreements. Each of them provides that from Gove and Weipa the undertaking at Bell Bay will be entitled to obtain 1 50,000 long tons of bauxite or 75,000 tons of alumina per annum, delivered at loading sites of the companies at reasonable commercial rates. There is provision for arbitration in the even of dispute. From each of the companies Tasmania will be able to get either bauxite or alumina that will enable it to make 75,000 tons of aluminium. The two agreements are referred to as assets that the new company is taking over. The new company will get the benefit of those agreements. They are of great significance in a consideration of the position.

I have taken the opportunity to give fairly close study to the provisions in the agreement set out in the schedule to the bill dealing with the employment of staff, their superannuation benefits, long service leave, sick leave and annual leave. Such study as I have been able to address to this matter leaves me nothing about which to complain. My view at this stage would be, as I am advised, to approve of those provisions, and 1 think that very great thought has been given to them.

Senator Wright:

– Conditions of employment were the main complaint that you had about this sale when it was debated earlier.

Senator McKENNA:

– No. My complaint was that although the Minister indicated on 31st August that the employees would be taken over on the same terms and conditions as to pay as they had hitherto enjoyed, he said no such thing about superannuation, furlough, long service leave or sick leave. By the smile on his face I think Senator Wright knows that very well.

Senator Wright:

– 1 thought the ground had been cut from under your feet.

Senator McKENNA:

– Not at all. What I said at the time was quite appropriate to what the Minister had said and I merely say now, without passing final judgment, that I am pleased that the Minister and the Government have addressed their minds to these matters which are so important to the staff. I remind Senator Wright that I was under no obligation to make that statement, but I felt that I might well make it.

I suggest that the true interests of the Commonwealth in this important matter demand that it should have stayed in the industry with Tasmania. If a third partner were required to help in expansion and to provide know-how, the Opposition would not have objected as long as Australia retained a dominating interest in this vital and growing industry. I impress on Senator Wright that that was and still is the main ground of complaint of the Opposition in this place.

Let us look at the startling change that has come over the scene since this matter was first discussed. At that time Comalco was a company registered in Australia. Partners in that company were British Aluminium, which was at that time wholly

British, and Consolidated Zinc, which also was British. Immediately after the Minister announced this sale on 31st August we saw a break between British Aluminium and Consolidated Zinc. In the meantime British Aluminium had been taken over by Reynolds Metals of America, the big American aluminium concern, whose partner is Tube Investments of London. British Aluminium was no longer wholly British; it was very largely an American concern. The moment this sale was announced on 31st August, Consolidated Zinc and British Aluminium divided the booty. The great bauxite deposits of the Commonwealth at Gove were handed over to British Aluminium. That company also took over the water and power rights of the Purari River in New Guinea. Consolidated Zinc took over Weipa and Bell Bay. Now here is a very significant thing. We have heard in this Parliament for months now only of Consolidated Zinc, a company completely British. One finds on looking at the agreement that it is dated 25th November of this year. In the press on the following morning, who came out from under the hat? Kaiser of America and the Chemical Corporation of America. Nobody had ever heard of them in connexion with these deals until the day after the agreement was signed. It is little wonder that the “New York Times “, in commenting upon this deal, had this to say-

Senator Laught:

– On what date?

Senator McKENNA:

– The report appears in the “ Sydney Morning Herald “ of 26th November, under New York date line, 25th November. It reads -

The “ New York Times “ said announcement of the venture constituted the latest phase of a global battle for control of the new markets among the big three American producers, Kaiser, the Aluminium Company of America, and Reynolds Metals Companies.

There they are, in complete possession of the great, rich bauxite areas of Australia.

Senator Wright:

– Is there anything in that agreement to prevent Consolidated Zinc from accepting a take-over bid by any other company, say, British Aluminium?

Senator McKENNA:

– No, not that I know of. After all is said and done, here is a government that professes to be against take-overs and that type of thing, participating in one of the biggest deals of the day, and concerned with taking over not only the aluminium production industry in Tasmania and handing it over to people who in the first instance appeared to be British, but also the bauxite leases. I do not say that the Commonwealth Government gave all the leases, but it gave the Gove deposits, covering a big area of the Northern Territory. It is all tied up, with the booty divided up with the company’s American allies, Reynolds of America and Kaiser of America. One cannot help but have a suspicion that they were in the background all the time.

One has only to look at the timing of things. There was the announcement by the Minister, on 31st August, of the sale. On 20th September, there was the cut-up between Reynolds of America and Consolidated Zinc of Gove and Weipa. On the next occasion they could not wait twenty days. On the very day that the agreement was signed, Kaiser and the Chemical Corporation of America suddenly emerged.

Senator Spooner:

– It would have been worse if they had not come out until after the legislation had gone through the Parliament.

Senator McKENNA:

– I am saying how exceedingly quiet it was kept until the agreement was signed. Look at the position in Australia. In Cape York Peninsula there are 1,480 square miles, and at Weipa just over 2,270 square miles of the greatest bauxite deposits in the world. They are now all held in equal shares by overseas interests, namely, Consolidated Zinc and Kaiser of America. These companies have similar control over the coal deposits that might provide the necessary power in Queensland. They now jointly own a twothirds interest in Bell Bay. One is really disturbed when one sees the type of thing that has gone on. What other company in Australia has very valuable bauxite interests? It is Alcan of Canada, and 75 per cent, of that company is owned outside Canada. Just what its ramifications are, I am not prepared to say, but it is not even wholly Canadian owned; only 25 per cent, of it is Canadian owned. Alcan has the leases immediately adjoining the Weipa leases.

Senator Spooner:

– Do you not think it is a good thing that the driving force in this deal is a company located in Australia which is entirely outside the present aluminium world?

Senator McKENNA:

– It is brought in as part of the aluminium world. The breadth of its vision apears from the fact that it is linking up Weipa with New Zealand. It regards what happens in Tasmania, the subject with which we are dealing at the moment, as of very small consequence. It has its mind on the vast amount of bauxite and alumina which is to leave Australia for New Zealand. It is more concerned with exploiting those bauxite assets than in fabricating aluminium in Australia.

The point that disturbs me is that unless we are careful and unless this Government is prepared to step in, we shall be exporting, as it were, some of the best employment opportunities that we have ever had. That is what must be guarded against.

As I find my time running out, I conclude by saying that we oppose the bill. We think that the transaction is unwise, irregular and un-Australian. We see it as one more display of Government self-sufficiency. The Government thinks that it can weather any criticism and any storm. The bill certainly provides one more reason why this Government should be removed from office.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I wish to speak on this bill. I ask for leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1823

CRIMES BILL 1960

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.

This bill makes a number of amendments to the Crimes Act 1914-1959. As honorable senators know, the principal act was enacted in 1914 in order to make punishable, under federal law, offences relating to the execution of Commonwealth executive and judicial powers under the Constitution.

The amendments proposed by the present bill touch, to a greater or less extent, almost every part of the act. 1 point out, however, that to a much greater extent than has been generally realized, the bill, in order to give convenient effect to a number of miscellaneous and quite small amendments, repeals and re-enacts, subject to only minor change, a number of existing sections of the act. The amount of new law represented by the bill is therefore much less than has been supposed.

The Crimes Act must, from its nature, be something of a mixture of disconnected provisions, and any amending bill that relates to numerous parts of the act must likewise be something of a miscellany, lending itself rather to committee-type discussion than to the exposition of general principle in a second-reading debate. The bill has been under extensive and more or less continuous public discussion since it was first introduced by my colleague, the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick), in another place on 8th September. It has also been a good deal amended in another place. I think it will best serve the purpose of the Senate if I confine myself largely, at present, to some of the matters about which there has been most difference of opinion.

I content myself, therefore, with saying that the clauses of the bill can be grouped into six categories -

  1. amendments to Part II. - Offences against the Government, in particular, treason, treacheryand sabotage;
  2. amendments to Part VII. - espionage and official secrets;
  3. amendments necessary to give theact extra-territorial operation;
  4. amendments dealing with the treatment of offenders;
  5. amendments dealing withcoinage and counterfeits;
  6. miscellaneous technical amendments too numerous to specify.

Much of the bill is therefore purely technical and legal in character, modernizing thelaw as found necessary from time to time in a developing society. But the amendments that have evoked most public discussion - I mean those that deal with offences against the Government generally -spring from the need to re-write Australian law in the light of Australia’s present international status and commitments, deeply involved as this country now is in the work of the United Nations in the “ cold war “ between East and West, and tin the defence particularly of South-East Asia against Communist aggression and subversion. It would be odd indeed if an act which in expression and substance bore the date-stamp 1914 were found apt for the realities of 1960. But in truth it is not.

Let me illustrate this, Mr. President, from clause 24 of the bill, which, first of all, proposes to replace present section 24 of the Crimes Act, dealing with treason, by a new section. Australia already has, and since the first days of colonization has had, a complete law of treason. Each of the States inherited what lawyers call the common law of treason, which is really the Statute of Treasons 135.1, together with its judicial interpretation down the years. Three of the States - New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia - still have that law. The other three - Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania - have codified it in a criminal code, adopted first by Queensland in 1899, on the basis of a British draft code of 1878 and certified by Sir Samuel Griffith to express without change the common law of treason. But the Commonwealth of Australia, at federation, did not inherit the common law as the States had done. In the Crimes Act of 1914 this Parliament adopted, in a form based on the Queensland criminal code, two, but only two, of the common law forms of treason. This bill proposes to extend the federal law of treason so as to make it as complete as that of the States.

Glancing quickly at the forms of treason which section 24 will be extended to proscribe, I draw attention first to the paragraphs creating offences in relation to the person of the Sovereign or the heir apparent. In 1914, the then Sovereign was not King of Australia in any specific individual sense. It is different now. All honorable senators will, I venture to say, think it absurd, the moment the point is mentioned, that these offences in Australia to-day should be offences only against State law, and not offences against the taw of the Commonwealth. The bill rectifies this.

The next paragraph makes it treasonable to levy war against the Commonwealth. lt has been objected, in another place, that this form of words is too wide, and that everything necessary is provided for elsewhere in the bill. The Government cannot accept such a view. I make, first, the same point as the one I have just stated in relation to the protection of the Sovereign. Levying war against the Sovereign in New South Wales is, and always has been, treason. How absurd it is that levying war against the Commonwealth should not be treason by virtue of federal law. The bril fills this gap. But it is said also that subsection (1.) of proposed new section 24aa, which makes it treachery to do any act or thing with intent to overthrow the Constitution of the Commonwealth by revolution or sabotage, or to overthrow by force or violence the established government of the Commonwealth or of a State, sufficiently covers the ground, and makes unnecessary the inclusion of levying war as a form of treason. The broad answer to this objection is that the bill follows closely, though in different words, the present law of England in this regard. Since British justice is occasionally mentioned in this connexion, those words might be taken to heart. Some forms of attempts at violent overthrow of an Australian government might well be grave enough to warrant prosecution as treason, rather than as treachery, for which the maximum penalty is not death but imprisonment for life. But the bill will leave it open, as the law of England and of some of the Australian States does, to prosecute for the lesser offence. On the other hand, there are some recognized forms of levying war that would fall outside the offence of treachery in proposed new section 24aa. I am thinking of the use of organized and armed violence to enforce acceptance of a demand for social or political changes, to coerce by force Her Majesty’s Australian Government and its counsels - an enterprise which, if successful, would be the complete negation and destruction of political democracy, even though established constitutional forms might remain.

Under paragraph (d) of the proposed subsection a person commits treason who “ assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy at war with the Commonwealth”. This phrase is used to replace, and to. be the equivalent of, the traditional phrase in the Statute of Treasons - “ adhering, to the Queen’s enemies, giving them aid. and comfort “. Treacherous intent - the intent, to betray one’s own country - has always been a necessary element in the crime of. treason. This was inherent in the. words “ assists by any means whatever “ which, since 1914, have stood in section 24 of the act. But for mon: abundant, caution there have been added, by. amendment in another place just recently, the words “ with intent to assist “. Let me add that the use of the phrase “ assist an enemy “, as. the equivalent of the words used in the Statute of Treasons, has now had a long history. The phrase is found first in the United Kingdom, draft criminal code, in 1878, and’ has since been adopted in Canada (1892), in. New Zealand (1893), in Queensland (1899), in Western Australia (1902) and in- Tasmania- (1924).

The necessity for intent to betray should really remove any fear that a section like this could be used to stifle legitimate political criticism or opposition, but the explicit provisions of the Bill’ put this, beyond argument. T refer’ to the new section 2’4’f; proposed to Be inserted’ by clause. 2’6’ of the bill, which replaces what now forms sub-section (2-.). of section 24a of the act. Though part of a. section which’ deals only with” sedition, this sub-section, is expressed’ in words of general” application’, and’ opportunity Kas been taken to ensure that if is not limited to sedition’. It has been” re-cast in an acceptable* form” covering the whole of the provisions relating” to’ treason, treachery and sabotage’ as well1. Trie new section makes if abundantly’ cl’ear that no* action taken in good” faith iff the exercise of a citizen’s ordinary rights of political criticism or opposition can be treason, treachery, sabotage or sedition. Broadly speaking, the- actions that may be done in good faith include’ endeavouring to show that the government of” this or another country has adopted’ a mistaken policy, urging the’ rectification of defects’ in government’ ih< this or’ another country, exciting attempts to procure by’ lawful means’ the alteration of- matters established by law in this’ or another’ country; pointing” out matters that tend” to’ produce ill’ will between: classes of’ persons, and - a provision’ new in- the present bill2 - doing’ anything- in’ connexion with an industrial’ dispute or matter.

The. new section, makes clear,, however, that acts carried out for the purpose of assisting an enemy or of prejudicing defence,, under the cloak or veneer of political discussion, or industrial activity,, are not- done in good faith for. the purposes of these provisions.

The suggestion, has been, made that, acts of substantially, religious or humanitarian character should’ be added to the list of specified lawful, acts in section 24f. The Government cannot accept this suggestion, for the simple reason that by no stretch of the. imagination could acts of a substantially’ religious- or. humanitarian, character answer the description oft acts done with treasonable’ or treacherous intent to assist an. enemy, or, for a. purpose intended to be prejudicial to defence, or for a. seditious purpose. Action- done under religious or humanitarian impulses- is quite different from the other- acts, which are specified in the proposed, new section. The latter - whether, political or industrial - are. acts which may bear an ambiguous character according to the purpose for which they are done.. But. religious or humanitarian action, cannot, of” its very nature, be ambiguous^ in- this: sense.

Before leaving the revised section’ 24 dealing’ with treason, Mr. President, I mention the- provisions of paragraph- (d) of section 24s which make1 clear that, for the purposes3 of- the’ offence of treason, assistance must be given- to an- enemy not only, at war with” the- Commonwealth but specified by proclamation to’ be such an. enemy. The existence of a’ state of war is’ a question of fact, to be decided’ by a; jury. In; law, a form: o£ declaration of war is not necessary, and the bill; so, states-, making no change in- this regard. But the requirement that an enemy must- be identified by proclamation, is an- innovation; for the. protection, of the: individual-

Just to complete my remarks on revised section* 24; let me mention paragraph (f) of the first sub-section, and the offence created’ by-‘ sub-section (2.), Manifesting of a treasonable intention by an overt act has always been one” of the common law forms of treason-, and’ still is- in those jurisdictions in which the common law of” treason obtains.. So the bill makes no innovation in this” regard, Similarly,, the bill embodies in- the” proposed sub-section (2.) what is known at common law as the offence of misprision of treason - that is to say, assisting a person who has committed a treason to escape punishment, or failing to pass on to the proper authorities knowledge that a person is about to commit treason. This is another case of making available as federal law provisions that have long been the law in the States and in other parts of the British Commonwealth.

I turn now, Mr. President, to another of the proposed sections creating offences against the Government that has occasioned much discussion - proposed section 24aa, dealing with the offence of treachery. I have already referred to the first part of this offence, namely, that which will be created by paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.), which is directed in the main to penalizing the doing of an act or thing with intent to overthrow the Constitution of the Commonwealth by revolution or sabotage. The Government rejects the criticism that has been directed, in another place, to the fact that the word “ sabotage “, as appearing in this paragraph, is not defined by the paragraph. The use of the word in this context is not new. The same expression already appears in the existing sections 30a and 30c of the act. Etymological dictionaries tell us that it had an industrial derivation - that it originally meant the malicious or wanton destruction of an employer’s property by workmen during a strike. But to-day it is wider, and refers to any malicious or wanton destruction. Because in this context the word bears its ordinary and well-established meaning, no definition here is necessary.

For the purposes of this new section, Mr. President, the destruction of property is only relevant if it is attempted as a means of the violent overthrow of our constitutional form of government. As the Attorney-General said when introducing this bill in another place, what self-respecting State could allow to go unpunished attempts to overthrow the Constitution by revolution or sabotage? To outlaw revolution, sabotage, force or violence as instruments of constitutional change is but to emphasize the rule of law - a condition beyond price, and worthy of every safeguard to ensure its continuance.

Paragraph (b) of sub-section (1.) of section 24aa covers the second class of actions which are to comprise the offence of treachery. I have left until I came to this paragraph the reference to the concept of a Li proclaimed country “. Under section 24 of the act as it was introduced in 1914, the offence of treason was constituted if a person instigated a foreigner to make an armed invasion of any part of the King’s Dominions or if a person assisted by any means any public enemy, which expression at that time would have included any enemy of any part of the British Empire or indeed of any country allied with the British Empire in war. The new provision in paragraph (b) will in part provide a means whereby these matters can be covered, but only after Parliament has had an opportunity to express its view as to whether a particular country, including another part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, should be proclaimed.

When a country has, pursuant to a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, been proclaimed, it will then be an offence within the Commonwealth to levy war against the proclaimed country, to assist by any means, with intent to assist, a proclaimed enemy of that proclaimed country, or to instigate a person to make an armed invasion of that country. Honorable senators will notice that these acts, being the acts set out in paragraph (b) of sub-section (1.) of the proposed section 24aa, will be made offences only if they are committed within the Commonwealth or an external territory. This is in contradistinction to the position under the rest of the act, which is given extraterritorial operation generally, both in the external territories and beyond, by clause 5 of the bill. The competence of this Parliament to give its laws extra-territorial operation in this way was placed beyond doubt by the adoption of the Statute of Westminister. I think that I should point out in this regard that the obligations which will be imposed by the proposed section 24aa will be statutory obligations, not based on any concept of allegiance to the Crown.

The reason for limiting the operation of paragraph (b) of sub-section (1.) to the Commonwealth and the external territories is that it is only desired to prevent Australia and its territories from being used as a base of operations against a proclaimed country. The only offence in relation to a proclaimed country to which this limitation does not apply is that created by paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) of section 24aa - overthrowing by force or violence the established government of a proclaimed country. The Government considers it proper that this particular kind of action, when carried out by an Australian against a friendly government, should be made punishable wherever it is committed.

With regard to the offence of assisting an enemy of a proclaimed country, the proposed provision will ensure that the enemy must itself be proclaimed before it can be an offence to assist that enemy. Moreover, as sub-section (4.) makes clear, it will not be an offence to assist a country merely because it is specified by proclamation to be at war. It must also in fact be at war, and the jury would have to be satisfied both that the country was in fact an enemy of and at war with the proclaimed country, and that it had been specified by proclamation to be such an enemy at war with a proclaimed country.

I referred before, in passing, to the provision that both the proclamation specifying a country to be a proclaimed country, and the proclamation specifying a country to be a proclaimed enemy of a proclaimed country, must be made in pursuance of a resolution of each House of the Parliament passed within the preceding period of 21 days. This provision is contained in proposed sub-section (5.), which will ensure that the step of making either of these proclamations could never be taken by the Government without prior notice to, and approval of, the Parliament. Mr. President, T have endeavoured to explain why the Government is introducing the concept of a proclaimed country into the act, and how the relevant provisions would work. I hope I have made it clear that there is nothing sinister in these provisions, and that they represent a genuine and spontaneous attempt to fill a gap in the law.

I come now to the third kind of offence which will be created by the proposed section 24aa. Sub-section (2.) is designed to meet the very real need presented by a kind of situation with which we are familiar to-day. It is the kind of situation which arises, for example, when our servicemen are sent to take part in the operation of a strategic reserve, or of a United Nations force. Australia may not be at war and the treason provisions may not apply. It is essential however that we give our servicemen the utmost protection that we can. Sub-section (2.) therefore provides, in effect, that where a part of our defence force is on or is proceeding to service outside the Commonwealth and its territories, it will be an offence to assist by any means whatever, with intent to assist, any persons against whom that part of the defence force is or is likely to be opposed and who are specified in a proclamation.

Comment has been made on the use of the words “ is likely to be opposed “ and it has been suggested that these words introduce an undesirable element of vagueness. The words were, of course, necessary to enable us to give the proper protection to our forces at a time when they had not become engaged in operations and the Government has met the criticism by adding the requirement of specification of the persons or class of persons whom it will be an offence to assist.

I want now, Mr. President, to say something about the third of the sections that the bill proposes to deal with offences against the Government, namely, the proposed section 24ab, dealing with the offence of sabotage. The section would make it an offence to carry out an act of sabotage, or to have in a person’s possession an article that is capable of use and which that person intends for use in carrying out an act of sabotage. An act of sabotage is defined by the section as the destruction, damage or impairment, for a purpose intended to be prejudicial to the safety or defence of the Commonwealth, of an article that comes within any of four classes of articles that are set out in paragraphs (a) to (el) of the definition.

One of the aspects of this provision that has been subject to comment has been the terms in which these four classes of articles are denned. It is true that the categories of articles are widely drawn, but it is equally true that the real restriction in the section is to be found in the necessity to prove a purpose intended to be prejudicial to the safety or defence of the Commonwealth. From the nature of the offence, it is the unlawful purpose rather than the instrument of the purpose which must be carefully defined. Another criticism that has been made of the proposed section is that it should be sufficient to make it an offence to destroy or damage the articles in question, and that the word “ impairment “ is both vague and wide. Again it is the purpose which is the main limiting factor and it is clear that many acts short of destruction or damage - acts such as the deliberate removal of an essential part of any machine - could have most serious consequences.

Another point made is that in paragraph (a) of the definition there should not be any reference to articles used by the armed forces of a proclaimed country. I would point out that the paragraph is in this respect restricted to articles used or intended to be used in the Commonwealth and that the limitation which is imported by the reference to use by a proclaimed country is in truth a much more severe one than the limitation which would have been imposed by the suggested alternative, which was a provision referring to articles used or intended to be used by the armed forces of a country that are in the Commonwealth with the consent of the Governor-General. As I have said, the proposed section strikes at destruction, damage or impairment, for a purpose intended to be prejudicial to the safety or defence of the Commonwealth. This gravely pernicious purpose is at once the effective limitation and the positive justification for the provision. It brings me, Mr. Deputy President, to one of the most important matters in this bill, namely, the evidentiary provisions relating to the proof of that purpose.

The new section makes quite clear that the Crown has to prove beyond reasonable doubt not only that an accused person has damaged or destroyed or impaired defence property, to use a broad but convenient expression, but also that his purpose in doing so was intended to be prejudicial to the defence of Australia. This brings me to the much discussed provision of the bill, in proposed section 24ab as well as in proposed sections 78 and 79 to which I shall refer shortly, that it is not necessary to show that the accused person was guilty of a particular act lending to show a purpose intended to be prejudicial, and that notwithstanding that such an act is not proved against him, he may be convicted if, from the circumstances of the case, from his conduct or from his known character as proved, it appears that his purpose was a purpose of the kind in question.

The evidentiary provision in question is not new. I am advised that it has long been recognized in English-speaking countries that it is proper in certain areas of the law to allow purpose to be inferred from the character of the accused. Instances of this are to be found in such laws as the Prevention of Crimes Act 1871 and the Official Secrets Act of Great Britain of 1911, of Canada of 1939, and of New Zealand of 1951, as well as in the Crimes Act of our own country of 1914. It is also to be found in certain police offences legislation of Victoria and Queensland. Nothing could be clearer than that these provisions do no more than enable the inference of purpose to be drawn; they do not enable any inference to be drawn as to the physical act in the doing of which the purpose is said to have been entertained.

Section 78 (2.) is the provision of the existing act to which I refer. Section 78 makes it an offence to do certain acts in the nature of spying for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interest of the Commonwealth, and sub-section (2.) then contains a provision relating to the proof of that purpose. When the Government decided that, in constituting, an offence of sabotage, an essential element in the offence should be a purpose intended to be prejudicial to the safety or defence of the Commonwealth, it decided that it was appropriate and logical that the existing evidentiary provision, which had been found to have been proper in so many places and over such a long period of time, should be made available to the Crown in attempting to prove this same purpose in connexion with the offence of sabotage also. Critics of the use of the evidentiary provision in regard to this serious offence have suggested that the Government cannot properly argue by analogy with reference to similar provisions in legislation dealing with police offences. I cannot see the strength of this argument. The Government feels, and I feel, that there can be no validity in the proposition that it is proper to admit character evidence in order to show the purpose of a suspected vagabond, but wrong - and even, it is suggested, unbearable - to admit it in the case of a suspected saboteur.

In brief. Mr. Deputy President, the Government has not invented this evidentiary provision, lt has adopted and adapted a provision which has existed in so many places for lengthy periods, and in particular which has never created any injustice in Australia. The bill, as it comes to this Senate, however, contains some additional provisions, by way of safeguard. The Government does not claim that these additional requirements alter the existing evidentiary provisions. It says that they make explicit what is implicit in the existing section; namely, that evidence is not made admissible by these provisions unless it is relevant, whether it be evidence of circumstance or of conduct or of character, that is to say, unless it is evidence which would support or tend to support an inference that the requisite purpose was entertained when the physical act charged was done; and that the jury should be expressly told that the evidence may be used by it only in order to show the purpose with which the act was done, and must be disregarded on any other issue. The addition also makes explicit what, I am advised, would certainly be the practice of a court in the absence of an explicit provision, namely, that the evidence so rendered admissible could and should be excluded where the possibility of prejudice to the fair trial of the accused would outweigh its probative value.

Let me say in passing that I am informed it is a common experience in many criminal trials for a jury to have placed before it evidence relevant to one aspect of the case and to be told that it may not use that evidence in deciding some other aspect of the case. Whilst allowing for the frailty of human nature, 1 am told that the experience of those who practise in the criminal courts shows th=; generally speaking this is an exercise which, with the guidance of the presiding judge, juries not only can but do faithfully carry out. Moreover, where there is a risk that the jury will not or may not properly carry out this task, the judge will exclude the evidence because its admission would prejudice the fair trial of the accused.

Before I leave this provision, Mr. Deputy President, let me sum up the position, as I see it, as follows. In the existing act there is a section, section 78, which creates an offence of espionage conducted for a specified prejudicial purpose. That section has for 46 years contained an evidentiary provision. In this bill, there are three proposed sections which contain elements requiring proof of a prejudicial purpose. In each of those three sections the Government has taken the existing evidentiary provision, has not widened it in any way, but has in three respects made explicit the safeguards which, the Government maintains, have always been implicit in the provision and which, in any event, are now written in so clearly that their meaning cannot be in dispute.

I turn now, Mr. Deputy President, to those clauses of the bill, clause 52 and the following clauses, which are intended to amend Part VII. of the act, which is now entitled “ Breach of Official Secrets “ and which, under the bill, will be entitled “ Espionage and Official Secrets “. These provisions of the bill, as has been pointed out elsewhere, are in very truth substantially a re-enactment of the existing provisions, carried out for the purposes of widening the definition and terminology, and otherwise of making the sections more apt to cover conditions as we find them in the world to-day. The definition of “ information “, for instance, is undoubtedly wide. But as I have already explained in connexion with sabotage, the need to prove a purpose prejudicial to defence will automatically have the effect of confining to matters relevant in the field of national defence the description of the articles and things covered by the sections. The extent of the articles and information which may be dealt with to the detriment of this country by paid spies is great; the effective limitation and control is to be found in the requirement, in proposed section 78 and in sub-section (2.) of proposed section 79, that the acts specified in those provisions shall only constitute offences if they can be proved to have been done for a purpose intended to be prejudicial to the safety or defence of the Commonwealth. In addition, of course, the sections will require mens rea to be established to the satisfaction of the jury. In this regard, it is altogether unrealistic to discuss provisions of this kind without taking full account of the robust common sense and the sense of proportion which juries have always shown in criminal trials, and which there is not the slightest reason for doubting that juries will show in dealing with any charges that are brought before them under these sections.

I do not propose to go into any further detail in this speech in regard to the other amendments of Part VII. of the act. I feel that the Senate would not wish me to deal with these matters at this stage and that they can be more properly and adequately dealt with either in my reply to the secondreading debate or at the committee stage. There is, however, one matter of general importance which I think I should mention. This relates to the trial of certain offences on indictment and to the institution of prosecutions. In the first place, I direct the attention of honorable senators to clause 14, which proposes that a new sub-section (4.) be added to section 12a. Section 12a provides that indictable offences against the act - speaking briefly, serious offences normally triable only before a judge and jury - may be tried in a summary way before a court of summary jurisdiction, if the defendant consents to that course.

Sub-section (2.) provides, in effect, that even where the defendant does not consent, the indictable offence may be tried summarily if the offence relates to property worth less than £50, if the prosecution requests a summary trial, and if the court thinks fit to grant that request. Sub-section (3.) is to the effect that where an indictable offence is tried by a court of summary jurisdiction, the court may not impose a punishment greater than imprisonment for one year or a penalty of more than £100, or both. The new sub-section (4.) would provide that the offences of treason, treachery, sabotage and espionage should be punishable only on indictment in every instance, that is to say, that they must go before a jury and cannot be dealt with by a magistrate in a summary trial even with the consent of the accused. The existing act, in section 24e, already contains certain limiting provisions regarding prosecution for sedition.

It has been suggested that clause 14 does not go far enough and that the existing provision in sub-section (2.) of section 12a should be repealed. The Government feels strongly that sub-section (2.) serves a proper and useful purpose and should remain in the act. It is in line with similar provisions in State legislation, and so far as the Government is aware has never been thought to operate in any way unjustly.

It was also suggested that section 13 should be repealed, and replaced by a provision prohibiting the institution of proceedings for offences against the Crimes Act except by the authority of the AttorneyGeneral. Section 13 has been in the act since 1914, and it merely declares what is the common law on the matter of the institution of prosecutions. It provides that unless a contrary intention appears in the law creating an offence, any person - any private citizen, that is - may institute proceedings for an offence against any Commonwealth law, whether for an indictable offence or for an offence punishable on summary conviction. There are exceptions, as for instance in new section 24ac, proposed to be inserted by clause 24 of the present bill. But it is an important general constitutional principle that a private individual may set the criminal law in motion - that the initiative in punishing offenders should not be the exclusive preserve of the State. If a person sets the criminal law in motion maliciously, an action for malicious prosecution will lie against him. The Government does not propose to interfere with the established principle embodied in section 13 of the act. I commend the bill to honorable senators and am sure that it will pass with little adverse discussion.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1830

ALUMINIUM INDUSTRY BILL 1960

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1823).

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- When the debate was interrupted, Mr. Deputy President, we had listened to speeches by the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator McKenna) concerning the proposed sale of the aluminium industry. The agreement which the bill seeks to approve is fairly wide and of considerable complexity, and for that reason it will deserve a little attention at the committee stage. I should have preferred consideration by a special committee, if the circumstances had warranted the appointment of such a committee, because in relation to the aluminium industry we do not want to concentrate our attention solely on Tasmania. As events that have been disclosed during the last two or three days have indicated, the industry covers a wider field than the continent of Australia. It extends to Australasia.

I should be very interested to know the relations and the arrangements that have been established between the companies operating in this industry, our sister Dominion of New Zealand, the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth Government. I wish to know the arrangements that are contemplated in regard to the product of the Weipa bauxite fields in northern Queensland, in relation both to exports to New Zealand and loss of the opportunity to establish a really comprehensive industry in Australia. I am particularly concerned with that aspect of the matter as background for the study of this agreement when, Mr. Deputy President, I am told that one of the inducing factors leading to the projected establishment of this project in New Zealand is the availability of hydro-electric power. I come from a State which is not deficient in that commodity, and I should like to know much more about that particular consideration than we have been told to date. But more importantly than that, I want to get into the minds of Ministers the idea that some of us are interested in the terms of the export of the product from Weipa, and also that employment opportunities are being developed in New Zealand as distinct from Australia. Our interests are not conflicting, but when it comes to matters of that kind, the interests of Australia are primary.

Having said that, Sir, let me recall to the Senate that the aluminium undertaking which it is proposed to sell under the agreement we are discussing, was established in 1944. It arose from ideas that were occurring to governments as far back as 1939, prompted mainly by the defence importance of aluminium.

By a happy coincidence, the government of the day found, as in many other fields of defence activity, the means whereby it could erect its nightly caravans for purposes of defence. It hoped that they would still be there when the day of peace dawned, because it wanted to create a great socialist state of nationalized industry. It hoped to go gaily on as the governing director of those industries, and it euphemistically appealed to the people by saying that the industries concerned were the people’s assets.

The aluminium industry, conceived for defence, with those ulterior purposes, was assisted greatly by the Tasmanian production of hydro-electric power. It also was assisted by several public works that were undertaken in Tasmania. Those efforts, of course, were prompted by the desire to develop Tasmania. But let us go back to 1949. This undertaking was then in an embryonic stage. Its condition was chaotic. Anybody who takes the trouble to remind himself of some sad reading in the reports of the Public Accounts Committee concerning the industry, will see that there is every reason to suspect that not all of the £9,000,000-odd that went from the Commonwealth Treasury was productively spent in the establishment of the industry. There was a good deal of waste and confusion. When Tasmania found that it was not possible to meet the growing commitments of the ordinary partnership arrangement on which the industry was established, and because of the diminishing value of money, arrangements were made for the Commonwealth Government to take a prominent role in the establishment of the industry.

It was due to various considerations - let us say, perhaps, to political courage - that the Minister for Supply of the day said, “Well, we will advance the money and go on willy-nilly developing this industry to the stage of production.” The Leader of the Opposition to-night has read sufficient excerpts from the statement that was made by Mr. Beale, who was the Minister for Supply at that time, to show quite clearly that Australia has never been under the misconception that this Government intended to promote this industry for the purpose of carrying it on in perpetuity as a government enterprise. Such an intention, I hope, is still foreign to the policy of the Liberal Party Government however much its policy might change in other details.

Earlier I asked Senator McKenna, by way of interjection, what proportion of the production of this industry is really used for defence. He did not stake a claim. It is quite obvious that the greater proportion of the out-turn of this industry is absorbed and consumed in the ordinary peace-time requirements of Australian industry..

Then came the year in which the industry made an insignificant profit - the first year in which it came out. of the red - sustained chiefly,, let it be noted1,, by a timely concession from the Hydro-Electric Commission of Tasmania. Last. year,, it made a small profit - certainly nothing like the profit that commercial investment requires. Is it any wonder, then,, that the Minister for National Development would1 be exerting every effort to find a commercial enterprise that would interest itself in taking over this industry for the purpose of expanding it and- continuing it, because that is the proper function of commercial enterprise?

Those who deny this proposition are sadly handicapped, as Senator McKenna felt bound1 expressly to confess to-night, by the fact that the Reece Labour Government in Tasmania, which has a kindred outlook to that of the Opposition in this chamber, was keen to adopt the- proposal. It is one of the privileges of insularity that the people of Tasmania are not so’ befogged with, socialistic shibboleths or saturated with socialistic dogma as to neglect the development of their State-.

Mr. Reece, supported by Mr. Fagan, the Minister for Industrial Development in Tasmania, adopts the attitude- that one of his. predecessors in office, the late. Mr.. A. G. Ogilvie, adopted, when he- established the Australian newsprint industry at Boyer. He did’ not hesitate in the slightest degree to make- a small contribution of government money to a commercial- enterprise which would provide employment opportunities, develop the lovely Derwent. Valley and produce newsprint,, which is forthcoming in such large- quantities from, that industry to-day: Likewise,, the present Tasmanian Labour Government does, not support the nonsense that was spoken by befogged Senator. McKenna; on-, behalf of the Opposition, when, he- deplored the. fact that the government, is selling the- people’s assets. The Reece Labour Government asked’ itself whether, this was an opportunity to- get a few million pounds of capital into the State fbr development; and- found that if was:

Mr. President, having said those’ things in four-square support of the general’ pro- position of the disposal, of this industry to private enterprise, I do find in my cursory scrutiny of the agreement sufficient material to make the commitee stage of this bill interesting. I believe that we are bound here to give to this agreement the same scrutiny that a. person would give if he was in a business concern or in his professional offices. In the first place, I want to know what consideration has been addressed to this matter in the way I shall indicate. There are two orthodox methods known to me by which any vendor would value the assets and whereby a purchaser would appraise the value of an undertaking. First, he would consider what would be the cost of reproducing the undertaking to-day. He would then discount that cost by the appropriate rate of depreciation on the existing undertaking. Personally, I do not think that, that would give me an entirely satisfactory index of the valuation in- this instance.

When I look at the profit-making capacity of this undertaking I find that it would not be a very strong attraction to outside capital as an investment. Therefore, the second method-‘ of valuing the undertaking - perhaps the primary method in a case like this - would apply. Investors in this undertaking would expect a return- of, say, 10 per cent, or 12 per cent, on their capital. They would- apply the appropriate capitalization’ rate to not only the actual profit that the undertaking had earned’, but also- trie profit that it could be reasonably expected- to- earn- in the foreseeable future - say three- years. They would’ then say, “ What is the capital value of the- undertaking on. the ordinary basis; of capitalization’ of profit?-“ Noi information orv either of those matters has been- afforded to the Senate itv. the- Minister’s; seconds-reading speech. I, do believe that this chamber should interest itself to see than some- assessment, has- been made; in that way.

Mr. President, I should like to take a minute or two- to liken- this proposition to another undertaking’ in Tasmania that was commenced’ on a commercial basis’, t refer to the- Hobart Bridge. It- was built with’ a commercial” franchise’ to return revenue, and’ the government acquired it within eighteen months– or two’ years- of the’ commencement of its’ operation. There was no’ thought, of the commercial enterprise selling it to the government at the actual cost of construction, even though the interval between construction and acquisition was so short a period as about two years. The Chief Justice of Tasmania said that the price should not be only the cost of construction, because we live in a changing world and the cost of reproduction alters. He said that the price should be the estimated cost of replacement, less depreciation. So, although the bridge had cost about £300,000 to construct, the amount of compensation paid was of the order of £500,000. Suppose we apply this principle to the aluminium undertaking. Assuming that it cost £9,000,000 to establish the works in 1950 and that cost would be double to-day, we should look at this undertaking as being worth £18,000,000 less depreciation.

Debate interrupted.

page 1833

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMuIlin). - 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 affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 29 November 1960, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1960/19601129_senate_23_s18/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant